What drives the anti-anti-Trump left?

There's a large contingent of lefty writers and self-styled pundits that spend way more of their energy criticising Trump opponents then Trump himself. We've got a few here at MOL too.

What drives these people? I'm not saying that Dems or anti-Trumpers are above criticism, but these folks seem to focus all of their attention on them, rather than attacking Trump.  e.g. they spend way more time talking about a non-existent coup masterminded by Joe Biden, paid off by hiring his son, than what Trump tried to do with Ukraine.

If they are ostensibly against Trump, don't they see they are working at cross-purposes? Or are they just grifters, seeking a niche for themselves where they can stand out , since criticizing Trump is easy and the obvious thing to do? (Hi Jimmy Dore and Glenn Greenwald)

Whatever it is, I find it infuriating.

They should stop.


drummerboy said:

Or are they just grifters, seeking a niche for themselves where they can stand out , since criticizing Trump is easy and the obvious thing to do? (Hi Jimmy Dore and Glenn Greenwald)

Yes. 


I think it's just Americentrism. Take legitimate criticism of American actions, interpret the entire rest of the world through that lens, and any party advancing a critique of American excesses gets elevated. Whether Putin is or is not a brutal authoritarian is less relevant than the fact that he's an effective counterweight against American imperialism. Whether Assad bombs hospitals and gasses Syrians is less relevant than the fact that he's fighting against an American military presence.

It's a distorted mirror of American exceptionalism. To the degree that it challenges people to question their understanding of America's role in the world, it's healthy and constructive. To the extent that it completely strips agency and context from every country, organization, and cause outside of America, it's destructive and dangerous.


I assume you're talking about guys like Taibbi, Dore, etc.  I think the thing you take objection to is their objectivity.  They see things in a much less tribal way than you do. 

If someone does something wrong, many on the left seem to only care about it if the perpetrator is on the other side of the aisle.  If someone does something right, it will be criticized by many if it the person performing this act is on the other side of the aisle. 

Of course, this tribalism is not limited to the left.  However, this seems to have been amplified first by the election of Obama, who took on an almost Messianic role on the left, and then Trump, who plays the role of Satan in this orthodoxy.   That seems to be the lens many on the left and many in the corporate media seem to see the world through. 

That is why Obama can violate our rights, wreak havoc on societies across the globe, and most see him as a fighter for freedom and peace(he has the nobel for this yeah?).   When Trump second guesses the direction of backing people like Al Queda in Syria, it must be because he has his head up Putins ***.  

The truth tellers will always be criticized because they don't cater to the fashionable prejudices of the masses.  



terp said:

I assume you're talking about guys like Taibbi, Dore, etc.  I think the thing you take objection to is their objectivity.  They see things in a much less tribal way than you do. ...

I had to stop there.  These two see things in a very "tribal" way.  So much so that they make obvious effort to twist things to fit their "tribe's" storyline.  For example, Taibbi decided that the intelligence officer who revealed Trump's behavior with the President of Ukraine shouldn't be called a "whistleblower", and spends a lot of energy saying, "He's no Julian Assange".  It's more important for him and his "tribe" to make that pointless point, instead of focusing on Trump's abuse of his office. 


nohero said:

terp said:

I assume you're talking about guys like Taibbi, Dore, etc.  I think the thing you take objection to is their objectivity.  They see things in a much less tribal way than you do. ...

I had to stop there.  These two see things in a very "tribal" way.  So much so that they make obvious effort to twist things to fit their "tribe's" storyline.  For example, Taibbi decided that the intelligence officer who revealed Trump's behavior with the President of Ukraine shouldn't be called a "whistleblower", and spends a lot of energy saying, "He's no Julian Assange".  It's more important for him and his "tribe" to make that pointless point, instead of focusing on Trump's abuse of his office. 

 Thank you for making the point in my previous post. That could not have worked out any better. 


terp said:

nohero said:

terp said:

I assume you're talking about guys like Taibbi, Dore, etc.  I think the thing you take objection to is their objectivity.  They see things in a much less tribal way than you do. ...

I had to stop there.  These two see things in a very "tribal" way.  So much so that they make obvious effort to twist things to fit their "tribe's" storyline.  For example, Taibbi decided that the intelligence officer who revealed Trump's behavior with the President of Ukraine shouldn't be called a "whistleblower", and spends a lot of energy saying, "He's no Julian Assange".  It's more important for him and his "tribe" to make that pointless point, instead of focusing on Trump's abuse of his office. 

 Thank you for making the point in my previous post. That could not have worked out any better. 

 Actually you're making my point - Trump's current behavior is much more important than revisiting slap fights about the prior administration.


I'd love to see more objectivity. What I generally see is an inverse American exceptionalism, where instead of never criticizing US policy, there's only criticism of US policy. Such a narrow focus in either a positive or negative direction doesn't strike me as especially objective.


terp said:

The truth tellers will always be criticized because they don't cater to the fashionable prejudices of the masses.  

 Also, I'm wary of this kind of reverse snobbery. If these "truth tellers" are heretics, what they seem to be selling is a form of Gnosticism, promising secret knowledge where you  will now be the true elite.

I'll pass. Just because someone is a heretic doesn't mean they're not also a crank.


nohero said:

terp said:

nohero said:

terp said:

I assume you're talking about guys like Taibbi, Dore, etc.  I think the thing you take objection to is their objectivity.  They see things in a much less tribal way than you do. ...

I had to stop there.  These two see things in a very "tribal" way.  So much so that they make obvious effort to twist things to fit their "tribe's" storyline.  For example, Taibbi decided that the intelligence officer who revealed Trump's behavior with the President of Ukraine shouldn't be called a "whistleblower", and spends a lot of energy saying, "He's no Julian Assange".  It's more important for him and his "tribe" to make that pointless point, instead of focusing on Trump's abuse of his office. 

 Thank you for making the point in my previous post. That could not have worked out any better. 

 Actually you're making my point - Trump's current behavior is much more important than revisiting slap fights about the prior administration.

 Thanks again.  This stuff is priceless. 


PVW said:

I'd love to see more objectivity. What I generally see is an inverse American exceptionalism, where instead of never criticizing US policy, there's only criticism of US policy. Such a narrow focus in either a positive or negative direction doesn't strike me as especially objective.

I gotchya.  So, you're for the slave trade in modern Libya?  You appreciate the lawlessness created in Western Iraq that resulted in a pseudo-state controlled by ISIS running around with American weapons.  

You appreciate it when we have CIA backed forces getting in fire fights w/ Pentagon backed forces in Syria.  You understand that sometimes your government needs to back Al Qaeda in fighting a suddenly evil dictator whom we used to send people to as part of our extraordinary rendition policies not very long ago.  

You support aiding the House of Saud in an effort to kill and maim in Yemen.   

You understand that when we run military exercises in eastern Europe right on the Russian border that is all above board, but when in reaction the Russians do the same thing on their side of the border its aggression.  You even understand that sometimes you have to perpetuate coups right on Russian's doorstep and when they take steps to ensure their security, that this is just part of some global domination strategy on the part of the wily Putin.  

I totally get it.  You have to have a really slanted view of the world to take issue with any of this stuff.  


PVW said:

terp said:

The truth tellers will always be criticized because they don't cater to the fashionable prejudices of the masses.  

 Also, I'm wary of this kind of reverse snobbery. If these "truth tellers" are heretics, what they seem to be selling is a form of Gnosticism, promising secret knowledge where you  will now be the true elite.

I'll pass. Just because someone is a heretic doesn't mean they're not also a crank.

 What a load of crap.  It's not secret knowledge.  It's there for anyone who cares to look.  Alas, very few seem to care. 


terp said:

PVW said:

I'd love to see more objectivity. What I generally see is an inverse American exceptionalism, where instead of never criticizing US policy, there's only criticism of US policy. Such a narrow focus in either a positive or negative direction doesn't strike me as especially objective.

I gotchya.  So, you're for the slave trade in modern Libya?  You appreciate the lawlessness created in Western Iraq that resulted in a pseudo-state controlled by ISIS running around with American weapons.  

You appreciate it when we have CIA backed forces getting in fire fights w/ Pentagon backed forces in Syria.  You understand that sometimes your government needs to back Al Qaeda in fighting a suddenly evil dictator whom we used to send people to as part of our extraordinary rendition policies not very long ago.  

You support aiding the House of Saud in an effort to kill and maim in Yemen.   

You understand that when we run military exercises in eastern Europe right on the Russian border that is all above board, but when in reaction the Russians do the same thing on their side of the border its aggression.  You even understand that sometimes you have to perpetuate coups right on Russian's doorstep and when they take steps to ensure their security, that this is just part of some global domination strategy on the part of the wily Putin.  

I totally get it.  You have to have a really slanted view of the world to take issue with any of this stuff.  

 You ascribed all these positions to me based on what, exactly?


Based on your attempt to dismiss those who question the benefits of modern day American Exceptionalism. 


terp said:

Based on your attempt to dismiss those who question the benefits of modern day American Exceptionalism. 

 Seems an awfully subjective approach for someone who claims to value objectivity.


You are always free to explain yourself. 


terp,

the issue is that these writers tend to take the view that America's sins somehow excuse what Trump is doing. It's whataboutism taken to a crazy extreme. There's plenty of time and space to write about America's ills, but doing it within the context of Trump's action  signifies a desire to normalize Trump.

But even that doesn't account for the blatantly intellectually dishonest stuff that comes out of the likes of many of them. They are playing the rubes as much as Trump is, and that's wrong.


drummerboy said:

terp,

the issue is that these writers tend to take the view that America's sins somehow excuse what Trump is doing. It's whataboutism taken to a crazy extreme. There's plenty of time and space to write about America's ills, but doing it within the context of Trump's action  signifies a desire to normalize Trump.

But even that doesn't account for the blatantly intellectually dishonest stuff that comes out of the likes of many of them. They are playing the rubes as much as Trump is, and that's wrong.

How so?  Personally, I think Obama's actual crimes are way worse than Trump's.  Trump has managed to keep us out of new conflicts.  His biggest sin is perpetuating Obama's crimes in Yemen.  For all the talk about how cruel Trump's policies are on immigration(and in some sense rightfully so), they don't hold a candle to what the Obama administration has done.   For all the talk about how Trump might become a dictator or a Hitler(neither of which has yet to materialize), Obama laid the groundwork for the turnkey dictatorship by trampling all over the constitution.   I should note that he did this with the help of these intelligence guys who seem to be actively trying to bury Trump(Brennan, Clapper, etc)


terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp,

the issue is that these writers tend to take the view that America's sins somehow excuse what Trump is doing. It's whataboutism taken to a crazy extreme. There's plenty of time and space to write about America's ills, but doing it within the context of Trump's action  signifies a desire to normalize Trump.

But even that doesn't account for the blatantly intellectually dishonest stuff that comes out of the likes of many of them. They are playing the rubes as much as Trump is, and that's wrong.

How so?  Personally, I think Obama's actual crimes are way worse than Trump's.  Trump has managed to keep us out of new conflicts.  His biggest sin is perpetuating Obama's crimes in Yemen.  For all the talk about how cruel Trump's policies are on immigration(and in some sense rightfully so), they don't hold a candle to what the Obama administration has done.   For all the talk about how Trump might become a dictator or a Hitler(neither of which has yet to materialize), Obama laid the groundwork for the turnkey dictatorship by trampling all over the constitution.   I should note that he did this with the help of these intelligence guys who seem to be actively trying to bury Trump(Brennan, Clapper, etc)

 Thank you for making my point.

Trump is the most disastrous, destructive President in our lifetimes (at the very least) and you talk about Obama's "crimes" and how poor little Trump is being unfairly targeted by the IC.


drummerboy said:

 Thank you for making my point.

Trump is the most disastrous, destructive President in our lifetimes (at the very least) and you talk about Obama's "crimes" and how poor little Trump is being unfairly targeted by the IC.

You are making your case by stating your opinion as fact.  I'm sure you think its a fact because that is part of your orthodoxy.  


drummerboy said:

terp said:

Personally, I think Obama's actual crimes are way worse than Trump's.  Trump has managed to keep us out of new conflicts.  His biggest sin is perpetuating Obama's crimes in Yemen.  For all the talk about how cruel Trump's policies are on immigration(and in some sense rightfully so), they don't hold a candle to what the Obama administration has done.   For all the talk about how Trump might become a dictator or a Hitler(neither of which has yet to materialize), Obama laid the groundwork for the turnkey dictatorship by trampling all over the constitution.   I should note that he did this with the help of these intelligence guys who seem to be actively trying to bury Trump(Brennan, Clapper, etc)

 Thank you for making my point.

Trump is the most disastrous, destructive President in our lifetimes (at the very least) and you talk about Obama's "crimes" and how poor little Trump is being unfairly targeted by the IC.

Just a suggestion, Mr. Drummerboy.  You're not going to get any "Now that I think more about it, you're right" out of this.

Most other readers here understand why you're trying, and agree with you. 


nohero said:

Just a suggestion, Mr. Drummerboy.  You're not going to get any "Now that I think more about it, you're right" out of this.

Most other readers here understand why you're trying, and agree with you. 

 This is hilarious.  I mean, the two of you have said absolutely nothing on this thread.  Every point comes from the perspective that Trump is "the worst president evah!"  Anyone(the heretics) who are not onboard with this, can't have a difference of opinion.  Nah, they are grifters or some sort of Gnostics saying that they have secret information that isn't available to the public. 

It would be much easier if you'd actually take an honest look at what they think.  Ah, but I suppose that would be heresy. 


terp said:

nohero said:

Just a suggestion, Mr. Drummerboy.  You're not going to get any "Now that I think more about it, you're right" out of this.

Most other readers here understand why you're trying, and agree with you. 

 This is hilarious.  I mean, the two of you have said absolutely nothing on this thread.  Every point comes from the perspective that Trump is "the worst president evah!"  Anyone(the heretics) who are not onboard with this, can't have a difference of opinion.  Nah, they are grifters or some sort of Gnostics saying that they have secret information that isn't available to the public. 

It would be much easier if you'd actually take an honest look at what they think.  Ah, but I suppose that would be heresy. 

It has nothing to do with opinions.  You're starting with your own version of the facts, and don't seem interested when someone points out the reality.  So, there's no point in a lot of interaction with you on this.


If you'd like to take issue with the facts or arguments I present, please do.  Honestly, your arguments don't contain any substance to take issue with.  


I do have to say that if one does not see the destructiveness of the Trump Presidency, there's not a lot to talk about.

Dubya was of similar caliber, but between his Nazi-like rallies and his utter incapacity to tell the truth, Trump is destroying the body politic like no one ever has.


Thanks.  The best part is that I genuinely think you're not trying to be hyperbolic.


terp said:

If you'd like to take issue with the facts or arguments I present, please do.  Honestly, your arguments don't contain any substance to take issue with.  

Your argument is that "guys like Gaibbi and Dore" are "truth tellers" and if you don't agree with them you take "offense at their objectivity" and you are "tribal". Did I get that about right?


basil said:

terp said:

If you'd like to take issue with the facts or arguments I present, please do.  Honestly, your arguments don't contain any substance to take issue with.  

Your argument is that "guys like Gaibbi and Dore" are "truth tellers" and if you don't agree with them you take "offense at their objectivity" and you are "tribal". Did I get that about right?

 No


basil said:

terp said:

If you'd like to take issue with the facts or arguments I present, please do.  Honestly, your arguments don't contain any substance to take issue with.  

Your argument is that "guys like Gaibbi and Dore" are "truth tellers" and if you don't agree with them you take "offense at their objectivity" and you are "tribal". Did I get that about right?

 Sounds right to me.


terp said:

basil said:

terp said:

If you'd like to take issue with the facts or arguments I present, please do.  Honestly, your arguments don't contain any substance to take issue with.  

Your argument is that "guys like Gaibbi and Dore" are "truth tellers" and if you don't agree with them you take "offense at their objectivity" and you are "tribal". Did I get that about right?

 No

You really shouldn't argue with stuff you just posted earlier today (1st and last paragraph):

I assume you're talking about guys like Taibbi, Dore, etc. I think the thing you take objection to is their objectivity. They see things in a much less tribal way than you do. 

and:

The truth tellers will always be criticized because they don't cater to the fashionable prejudices of the masses.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.