Joy Reid: "This a thousand times"

[kpete]

Stop turning candidates into messiahs. They're employees.

Link to tweet

Personality cults on the right and left are responsible for our current situation.
Stop turning candidates into messiahs. They're employees.

Link to tweet

[JHan]

1. Truth.

[YOHABLO]

21. For the people, by the people. Is it gone? Our political system is in shambles.

[Me.]

2. Indeed

[Skittles]

3. I agree with this assessment

remember the swooning fans of (pick your candidate) here on DU? It was sickening.

[BigmanPigman]

4. Part of the problem is the length of time given to campaigning.

How long is it, 18 MONTHS! What a waste of time, money and nothing gets done. And why do they start in in certain states and not others? Other countries give candidates a few weeks. This is one reason it turns into a 3 ring circus or a cult.

[iluvtennis]

38. Agree about length of election. We need to follow European nations where it's a couple of months.

[NobodyHere]

77. How would you propose to get that done?

[ismnotwasm]

5. Yup.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

6. Yep.

[JCanete]

7. I don't see much of that behavior on the left. I see a huge mix of response to Sanders, some of

which call him and Warren sellouts on different levels for their willingness to endorse Clinton and the establishment, many more who are not just in agreement tonally, but who are far more pragmatic. As to cults of personality and feelings, jesus, that's what Clinton ran on. She subsumed whatever specific policy she was advocating in favor of selling an emotion directed at as many people as possible without alienating anybody with specifics or taking any chances with lofty declarations. But yeah, the Sanders campaign, just like the Clinton campaign, had supporters who were drawn to one or the other for the wrong reasons, and in both cases, you can absolutely see some uncritical adoration. That's what happens in our celebrity culture.

The thing about Sanders is that he's a very visible rallying cry to certain liberal ideals. To invoke Sanders name is to suggest a certain range of policies that you are in favor of, as well as a dissatisfaction with the status quo, so it is an effective short-hand. I'm not sure it necessarily makes him a messiah to these people.

[emulatorloo]

54. HRC had tons of specific policy proposals. Trump's the one who ran a cultish "emotions" campaign

HRC said "Stronger Together". Trump said "I Alone Can Fix This"

To claim HRC ran a substance free personality cult campaign has nothing to do with reality.

That was Trump.

[JCanete]

57. It has a whole fucking lot to do with reality. Trump actually had ridiculous specific proposals

and promises intermixed into his grab-bag of bullshit, like a wall, which as preposterous as the idea was, has come absurdly close to being accomplished, and bullshit about bringing jobs back. Clinton did not campaign this way for most of the primary. She came out of the primary with some very strong specific proposals that weren't incremental to the point of uninspiring, but when she would stump, for the most part, they were devoid of these sorts of things. I'm not saying you couldn't find stuff on her website. I'm saying in so much of her campaigning, I rarely caught her talking about specific proposals. The campaign was about trying to inspire around her being a woman and a representative of breaking that glass ceiling and of continuing to open the future to those who had previously been barred from possibilities, etc. Good stuff, but she wasn't stumping on the proposals that would get us there. She was stumping on that feeling.

[emulatorloo]

59. You're projecting Trump's campaign on to HRC. Speeches/debate highlighted policy.

Did you ever actually see an entire HRC speech? I highly doubt it, as MSM didn't show them.

The HRC campaign was about a lot of things, but you've chosen to put blinders on.

Trump's campaign was about a i'm-a-successful-businessman-Cult figure, bluster without substance, lies, and white identity politics.

[JCanete]

78. Don't misunderstand me. Trump's campaign was totally a cult of personality and a lot of

hogwash. Intermixed in there were some specific promises. In all of the debates I saw Clinton in, I wouldn't say she prioritized specific things she intended to do at all, and that goes for the speeches of hers I'd seen, excepting the one following the primary. Of course I might have missed something. Of course there might be other examples, but I found myself consistently frustrated with what seemed like a campaign afraid of running on issues.

[Dennis Donovan]

8. Boy, did I get shit for this a year ago...

[relayerbob]

9. EXACTLY!!!! Thank you!!!!!

[Jakes Progress]

10. or devils.

They just people. On one hand, some view their candidate as a messiah, the savior, and the solon.

Then they view the opponent (another Democrat) as the anti-christ, the devil, the worst person in the world.

It's high school football pep rally time all over again.

[BainsBane]

15. I think you're being uncharitable

To high school prep rallies.

[Trial_By_Fire]

11. There are no personality cults on the left that I am aware of...

Does anyone know who that is referring to?

[BainsBane]

13. .

[Kathy M]

18. .

[Maven]

24. LOL!

[hrmjustin]

26. .

[Squinch]

29. Heh heh.

[dalton99a]

37. Good one

[SethH]

40. the Obama Diary

but something tells me this is not what Reid is talking about...

https://theobamadiary.com/

[NurseJackie]

41. Ha!! :-D

[Progressive dog]

42. That was a good one

Thanks

[Kahuna7]

51. ...

[WIProgressive88]

52. Both 2016 primary candidates (and yes, that includes Hillary, no matter how much her supporters want

to deny it) had supporters who were unable to accept criticism of their candidate. The "personality cult" slur is just being used by centrist-leaning Democrats to try to force the left to "shut up and go along" rather than acknowledge that we have legitimate policy disagreements with their wing of the party.

[emulatorloo]

55. There are no "Centrist Dems" on DU. You are surrounded by left-liberals and progressives

everyone here is mostly on the same page policy wise. Nobody here is telling you to "shut up and go along" because we all believe in the same things. There are differences in strategy maybe but that's about it.

So strawman.

[AlexSFCA]

82. absolutely

but there is such thing as party platform so as a candidate you kinda have to subscribe to all of it as you are being sponsored.

On DU and in general, we keep overanalyzing and overthinking the 2016 election. Hillary was a perfect candidate and she would have won in a landslide in a functioning democracy. 2016 WAS the test of our democracy and it failed. Citizens United. A foreign power (Russia) has decided that trump would win. Trump would have never won without aggressive online takeover by Russia sponsored trolls, Kremlin's wikipedia, Russia sponsored hacking, financing right wing talkig heads, etc.

[VermontKevin]

84. Good one.

[LanternWaste]

86. "One thing about which fish know exactly nothing is water..."

"One thing about which fish know exactly nothing is water..."

[Trial_By_Fire]

87. ...

[mcar]

12. K&R

[BainsBane]

14. I hate it

More than anything.

[L. Coyote]

16. This is so true, except for my candidate.

[Jamaal510]

17. K&R

[smirkymonkey]

20. Hear, hear!

[YOHABLO]

22. Things right now are in such a mess it will take nothing less than a messiah to save us.

[Progressive dog]

43. Then we're done

[hurple]

23. Not Corey Booker

He's an actual Super-hero!

[aikoaiko]

25. Joy needs to reflect on her own hero/heroine worship.

Maybe she implicitly included herself in her agreement, but I doubt it.

[OilemFirchen]

31. Da fuq?

[Raine]

35. Yes, exactly! nt

]

[Progressive dog]

44. Joy isn't a candidate to my knowledge

and certainly she doesn't worship any.

[Raine]

90. Yes, definitely! nt

[hrmjustin]

27. This is a lesson we all need to learn, but some more than others.

[Enoki33]

28. It is something we all need to be reminded of occasionally.

[brer cat]

30. K&R

[ailsagirl]

32. YES

[Stonepounder]

33. I've always said, if I wanted a candidate that I agreed with 100% and who reflected my views

perfectly, it would be obvious that I was that candidate!

I think Obama was one of our greatest Presidents. At least the greatest in my lifetime and there were things he did that I didn't agree with. But I voted for him with pride and gusto. I voted for Hillary with pride and gusto, even though there were places that I didn't agree with her either.

[WinkyDink]

34. I hear ya. But I don't think I'd even agree with myself all the time! Haha!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

36. Exactly.

Which is why I prefer an employee who really works for me as opposed to "works" for me.

[George Eliot]

39. Cults caused the problem? Heck. I thought russians, suppression, emails, rural voters, media...

Now it's cults. I think Dean should let it go. I think Reid should let it go. To me, whiny is hanging on to the past and I don't see or hear too many Sanders people doing that either here or anywhere else. Interesting Chomsky piece currently in AlterNet that might explain some of this constant targeting of progressives.' Anybody on the trail trying to move our country left again has my full support

I thought better of Dean. I was a Kucinich delegate but would have been happy had Dean been the candidate instead of Kerry.

[Progressive dog]

45. There were named Democrats in the tweets refernced in the OP

It was about now, not about Russians or emails.

[George Eliot]

48. Centrist Dems that every other Dem must support?

Too early for that. IMHO MSNBC is the messiah and "group think" its message.

[Progressive dog]

53. They are the people that you call centrist Democrats

and I call exemplars of actual Democrats.
I did notice your gratuitous attack on MSNBC. I can't imagine what you use as a news source.

[George Eliot]

61. Why gratuitist? Several.I listen, read, watch an awful lot. CNN,Cspan,RT,FOX,CBC,DemNow

I used to watch msnbc but they're corporate media and bleed a corporate, establishment message (Comcast) and they cost me more so I dumped them. I listen to mostly progressive radio - the ones that are left. I read NYT, Guardian, AlterNet, local media. I used to be devoted to msnbc but I tend to move around a lot now. I feel more informed.
.

Did you actually read Coopers piece? Where do you get your political information?

Re msnbc. Messiah - that term was used in op so I posted my take on the real messiah for too many liberals.Why gratuitist for me but not for tweets?

[Progressive dog]

66. so you prefer Russian state media

(The Putin Channel) and RW Fox News (part of Murdock's corporate empire) to MSNBC. That explains it.

[George Eliot]

69. RT-Hartmann, Schultz, Papantonio, Hedges Why not? Are they Russians? Fox-different pt of view

I'm no fan of echo chambers. Fox - Wallace and Kurtz(media buzz). Sometimes Gigot on economy but his wall st journal guests are repetitive and predictable. Chris Wallace takes on Republicans harder than anything I've seen from any CNN or MSNBC host. I'll occasionally watch Todd on local TV. Sometimes I miss O'Donnell and Hayes but they lost me in 2016. A lot of us who were for Sanders quit watching. Like Reid, too much bias against our candidate. I look for content over messenger. And parroting Hartmann, I try to get "the big picture." My biggest annoyance is people who call themselves progressive but still live in the echo chamber of the establishment left.

[Progressive dog]

70. That "are they Russians?" is funny

They work for Putin who is a murderous autocrat who used RT as a fake news propaganda network to attack our (and other) democracies.

[George Eliot]

83. So? They take his money. Fine with me as long as I can hear/watch them.

You're welcome to get your info from corporate media.

[Progressive dog]

85. I intend to get my information from corporate media

rather than from a known propaganda outlet run by Putin.

[George Eliot]

88. That's funny. You prefer Hugh Hewitt?

Last edited Wed Aug 9, 2017, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Is it possible you don't know who schultz. Hartmann, papantonio, and hedges are? Or king for that matter? Doesn't seem very progressive.

[Progressive dog]

89. No, it is not possible, perhaps

you don't know that RT News is run by the Russian government. Those people work for RT, which means they are aiding our major adversary. I am not defending Hugh Hewitt but at least he's not being paid by Putin.

[emulatorloo]

56. "MSNBC is the Messiah" is one of the dumbest hyperbolic nonsense I've read on DU

Nobody here believes that. Congrats on breaking DU's hyperbole meter.

[George Eliot]

62. Can media be too influential? Is msnbc corporate media with a corporate message?

Is fox news influential? Not hyperbole - just a different opinion.

[emulatorloo]

64. "can media be too influential?" isn't hyperbole. "MSNBC is the Messiah" is ridiculously hyperbolic

My education was in mass media/communication/popular culture. My perspective on media was shaped by Marx, Gramchi's work on hegemony, et cetera. I'm well aware of how problematic corporate owned ad-supported "news" is.

That being said, yr implication that Fox and MSNBC are the "same" and Maddow = Hannity just doesn't cut it.

[janx]

71. I've studied media as well. Fox and MSNBC are the same on a basic level:

They're out there to sell soap and cars. I would not say that Maddow=Hannity is accurate, but only due to a matter of degree. In their appeal to their respective audiences, the channels are similar.

I remember MSNBC when the Iraq War started, cheerleading "Shock and Awe." It was only when it became profitable to them, when the political tide had turned enough, that they hired people like Maddow and Olbermann. Both people are well qualified and very good at presenting news, but the targeted audience factor remains.

CNN has remained relatively constant, but they have become tabloid in terms of their web presence. Any media source (which is almost every one now) that includes words like BOMBSHELL or EXCLUSIVE (have they used SHOCKER yet?) in daily reporting is suspect, in my opinion. The design that accompanies these terms is predictable. I've been used to seeing these in The National Enquirer or on HLN (tabloid affiliated with CNN), on Drudge, Fox, Breitbart , but please spare me the tabloid shit.

It is the appeal to the lowest common denominator that I cannot stand.

[emulatorloo]

73. Maddow doesn't lie, Hannity lies constantly

Hannity cannot survive a fact check. In the rare event Maddow says something that turns out to be factually incorrect, she corrects it. Hannity doubles down.

Once again I know that corporate owned news is a vehicle for selling advertising. Higher the ratings, the more money they can charge. There are however differences, it is extremely reductive to claim those differences don't exist.

[janx]

76. I know that. I understand that.

But I don't think that my point is reductive at all in the long run.

[George Eliot]

74. No, Maddow ≠ Hannity. That's absurd. That would be hyperbole.

Last edited Sun Aug 6, 2017, 10:56 PM - Edit history (1)

One appeals to the base of the Republican party. The other appeals to the establishment Democrats which may or may not be the base these days. I don't know. Our next elections will tell the story. Just as some Republicans have moved to MSNBC (George Will, Van Sustern), many centrists Democrats may be moving further left and looking for media that aligns with their thinking. As McLuhan wrote, media becomes an extension of the person thus changing them in ways not always realized.

I'll concede the point but with many reservations. Those reservations come from understanding the power of media and from exposure to more than my own echo chamber.

http://www.alternet.org/comments/news-amp-politics/noam-chomsky-united-states-health-system-scandalous#disqus_thread
The prevailing situation reminds us of the words of America's leading twentieth-century social philosopher, John Dewey, much of whose work focused on democracy and its failures and promise. Dewey deplored the domination by "business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents and other means of publicity and propaganda" and recognized that "Power today resides in control of the means of production, exchange, publicity, transportation and communication. Whoever owns them rules the life of the country," even if democratic forms remain. Until those institutions are in the hands of the public, he continued, politics will remain "the shadow cast on society by big business."

This was not a voice from the marginalized far left, but from the mainstream of liberal thought.

From Truthout January reprinted on AlterNet currently - why don't the masses of people who outnumber the governing elite make changes

Also, I forgot to include that awful talk radio guy now on Meet the Press, Hugh Hewitt. OMG!

[MrsCoffee]

47. Kucinich has pretty much gone full right wing anti-Democratic Party.

Dean is still a hero.

[George Eliot]

75. His daughter, Jackie, appears on CNN and Fox. What's his point of view on Fox?

Do you say this because he appears on Fox or because he espouses Republican points of view? I've never seen him on Fox but heard he's there. So, does he represent liberal pt of view or conservative?

[MrsCoffee]

79. All he does is defend Trump on Fox.

It's sickening.

[George Eliot]

80. That's disappointing. Our Dept of Peace candidate defending Trump. Hard to believe. Thanks.

[emulatorloo]

60. Of course, as Kerry had a long left-liberal voting record and Dean was a centrist Dem Governor

[Nitram]

46. They are not messiahs, but they are supposed to be leaders.

[LittleBlue]

49. Agreed

I was a big Bernie supporter, but the idea he was going to ascend the throne and wave the magic lawmaking wand wasn't realistic. He would have been lucky to get half his agenda passed, or any of it really, considering the congressional composition.

This can go for any candidate really. If a candidate can talk about a problem but

1) Can't explain the underlying problem of why it happens
2) Can't explain how to solve it
3) Can't explain how to pass said solution through congress


then it's probably bullshit.

[Cary]

50. Ive.been saying that for years.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

58. Amen

[WinkyDink]

63. NO. Citizen-Representatives are NOT "employees," and the United States Govt is NOT a CORPORATION.

STOP THE INSANITY OF THIS "ANALOGY."

We are led by a PRESIDENT, not a CEO. We are CITIZENS, not SHARE-HOLDERS.

[emulatorloo]

65. There's no "Corporate Analogy" in the OP. Our Reps work for their constituents. There is nothing

controversial in that statement. Public service.

[WinkyDink]

67. We will continue to disagree then about the definition of "employees."

Moreover, politicians do not vote lock-step all the time with their constituents.

[emulatorloo]

72. I'm not your enemy

Hate the "run the US like a corporation" meme as well. I just don't believe the OP was deploying that meme.

Nor did I say our representatives do or should vote in lock-step with their constituents.

[Yates Amatitio]

68. yep agree completely

yep I agree completely...I voted for HRC but I despised the whole "I'm with Her" nonsense...

[George Eliot]

81. Followed tweets and they get pretty interesting esp. referencing Neera Tanden. Some fun exchanges.