With a week to go before we have a new United States president, I thought this was an interesting article about the far left and Putin.
What an election we had with Putin playing one side and the United States media pretty much united in playing the other. The problem with Americans is how unaware they generally are. Most of us live in bubbles where we listen to our own viewpoint parroted back to us and think we are getting information. How many Americans listen to both viewpoints and decide for themselves? I'd wager to say not many as the other side infuriates them and we tend to avoid what makes us angry-- unless it's being stoked by our own side to get us to do something.
One group of Americans has profited much for the rage on the left over November 8th. They managed to avoid thinking much about why the side they abhorred won. They concentrate instead on feeling wronged. That does suit someone-- but who?
As long as the propagandists can continue to make Americans (on both sides of the partisan divide) not think about what's really at stake, some will profit. Generally speaking that's the hedge fund guys who bet on disruption-- although I read Soros (major hedge fund guy) lost big by betting the stock market would collapse after Trump won. He has enough billions he can afford that.
Stein was something else, as that article pointed out. She stayed in a race that she had no chance of winning, which was certainly her right as was Johnson as the libertarian. But then she comes out and demands a recount-- oh, and by the way would like a few million to be donated to pay for it. She kept her name in the press, got more leftie interviews than she had during the campaign, and hits all the sanctimonious buttons.
The article though implies if she'd dropped out, Hillary would have won. That's not nearly as clear cut as it was with Al Gore and Nader in 2000. There were those who voted for Stein, who never would have voted for Clinton for assorted reasons. They might've gone to the Libertarian or stayed home. Nobody can know for sure what her staying in impacted-- maybe nothing.
So Trump is doing all the things he said he'd do while the left implies he's insane and should be impeached before he even gets in office-- their demand with control of House and Senate in Republican hands. Anything goes as a method of getting rid of someone who is despised-- except, of course, making the case for why your ideas are better. Can't do that. It would take away from the satisfying rage.
The thing is-- only making the case for ideas that matter, for why the left's direction for the country is the right direction, only that will have a chance of dealing with what is coming from the far right. If someone values the direction Obama has taken the country, in terms of globalization, they better be ready to work for it. It's what he said in his farewell address as president (I doubt it'll be the last speech we hear from him in the coming months and years).
The groups who plan to go to DC to disrupt the Inauguration are not going to make the case for the left. Violent disruptions make the case for the right. The women's march the day after the Inauguration has a better chance of making a point-- if it stays peaceful, many attendees, and has strong speakers. That's a big if.
Unfortunately, it is possible that we are at risk of becoming a culture, which moves toward whatever is most exciting. Our entertainment encourages shallow thinking and voting with emotions. Will that impact who we choose for leaders?