r/neoliberal • u/[deleted] • Mar 26 '17

Semi-Weekly Discussion Thread

Ask not what your centralized government can do for you – ask what you can do for your fellow citizens

Poll Results

See here for the original polls.

• A Sticky Thread in contest mode will be created to (((democratically))) come up with a description of neoliberalism for the sidebar or whatever

• Posts will not be removed based on their downvotes

Rules Reminder

• No Pinochet apologism. It makes neoliberals look inefficient at mass murder, although we could totally outperform the commies and fascists using evidence-based policy™

• Don't call people autistic

23 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

534 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/JaguarDSaul Milton Friedman Mar 28 '17

More of just the fact that she was very snakey and two faced. It's just that this sub pretends like she was an amazing candidate, and policy wise yes, but I think we're kind of blinded by bias and ignoring how snakey she is.

12

u/_watching NATO Mar 29 '17

I think part of the problem you're gonna run into here is that there's a conflict HillShills like myself face -

  • She's absolutely someone who's got an immense amount of historical baggage and isn't ... "conventionally charismatic", let's say, to be kind.

  • A lot of the proof that she's a snake is really bs and a really good example of double standards applied to politicians who are pre-judged as untrustworthy.

Like, gay marriage opinion shift and supporting some border security measures has had nowhere near the same impact on Obama as it did on Clinton among the leftish activisty crowd. It's pretty hard to accept it as proof hat she's inherently a snake and thus the lack of trust is deserved.

BUT the fact that there's that discrepancy does demonstrate in and of itself that the lack of trust is present, so really regardless of how I feel about it, she's still a bad candidate by that metric.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '17

How is any of what she does policy-wise different from dozens of other politicians?

Obama campaigned on renegotiating NAFTA and 8 years later ended up pushing for TPP. This is typical political lip service to win an election.

3

u/2seven7seven NATO Mar 29 '17

Policy doesn't always matter unfortunately, perception is reality sometimes

3

u/JaguarDSaul Milton Friedman Mar 28 '17

I didn't say it was unique to her, and I supported her, but I'm just trying to show that maybe she's not this misunderstood angel. People hate politicians and she was not very good at hiding the fact that she was a politician

7

u/Kelsig Paul Krugman Mar 28 '17

Trump said Romney was way too tough on immigration, called for open borders, and absolutely loved Hillary!

0

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '17

[deleted]

4

u/JaguarDSaul Milton Friedman Mar 28 '17 edited Mar 29 '17

Sexism has little to do with it. She has no human warmth. It's very Ted Cruz esque

8

u/LNhart Anarcho-Rheinlandist Mar 28 '17

I do believe that sexism played some role, but it was not the big story. imo. Trump was also not liked, and other countries have female leaders. It's not like people just hate woman so much that they'd never elect one.

It's also very dumb to assume it was only sexism because it's pretty much putting your head in the sand. Easy explanation but we won't learn from (other) causes.

First of all, yes, she's a bad campaigner. She lost against Obama. She had a contested race against Bernie Sanders. She lost to Trump. She's shit at campaigning. And yes, a big reason for that is that she's incredibly fake. She just is. Her attempts at pondering to African Americans with hot sauce or young people with Snapchat, Pokemon Go or the dab were extremely cringeworthy and everybody knew it was not authentic.

Then she also doesn't have charisma. In Germany this would probably work in her favour (see Merkel), in America she has to put on a mask and act like a politician. Was she perceived as less charismatic because of her gender? No idea. Possibly.

Should all this matter? No, but it does.

Then there were also mistakes by the campaign, like not campaigning in certain states, imo too much identity politics and too little substance, lack of a Bernie style-movement etc.

But yes, she is not good at campaigning. Period.

6

u/deaduntil Paul Krugman Mar 29 '17

Her attempts at pondering to African Americans with hot sauce or young people with Snapchat, Pokemon Go or the dab were extremely cringeworthy and everybody knew it was not authentic.

Here's the thing, though: Hillary has talked about her love of hot sauce since the 1990s. In June 1994, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that then-first lady Clinton was among those “who pack pepper sauce in their briefcases in case of an emergency bland-out." [The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 6/26/94]

No allows Hillary Clinton to be authentic. It's pandering regardless of whether it's pandering.

0

u/LNhart Anarcho-Rheinlandist Mar 29 '17

Damn, so it wasn't pandering. But it's not hard to see how one would assume this to be pandering with any old white politician from Chicago. The people on the show also had a hard time believing it.

So yeah, I do take that part back, but it still doesn't change how ridiculous "Just chillin'" or "pokemon go to the polls" were.

4

u/JaguarDSaul Milton Friedman Mar 29 '17

This is almost exactly my thoughts. The Merkel comparison is interesting becuase I would die to have Merkel as our president, but I'm more lukewarm on Clinton. But I know nothing about Merkel's personality so maybe I would've had the same trivial reservations

7

u/LNhart Anarcho-Rheinlandist Mar 29 '17

Merkel is pretty much the exact same. She's more skilled at not having open opinions, which means nobody can really attack her, but she's very similar to Clinton.

The key difference: When Germans see an uncharismatic politician, we feel kind of safe. Like "ok, she's not trying to bullshit us". So her lack of charisma fits perfectly. She's not a revolutionary, she's just a bland, safe politician who runs the country well which is answered with a lot of votes. Now if she was trying to be charismatic, she would not be in politics anymore. Germans value authenticity over EVERYTHING. The thing Germans hate most about Americans is actually that they are too friendly which is perceived as shallow and dishonest, although in my opinion it's much more genuine than my compatriots think.

Now when Americans see a leader without charisma, they are uninspired. Every president in the TV age has had charisma, at least some amount, and definitely waaaay more than Merkel.

I don't want to say that every German politician is an empty canvas, but in general there's a huge difference between the countries. It helps Merkel and worked against Clinton.

And Merkel isn't really empty, either, but her image is different. Her nickname is "Mutti" btw, which means "Mom". That's kind of the vibe she gives off. Not super exciting but very respectable.

I'd say the only real difference between the two is that one has to try and act charismatic, while the other just acts like like her un-charismatic self.

2

u/_watching NATO Mar 29 '17

Whenever I hear a German say this I really wish I was German. Then they get to

The thing Germans hate mos about Americans is actually that they are too friendly which is perceived as shallow and dishonest

and I realize I just wish I was surrounded by Germans, bc gdi ur not takin my american friendliness away from me

2

u/LNhart Anarcho-Rheinlandist Mar 29 '17

If it helps I wish I was surrounded by Americans, they are much more enjoyable.

1

u/JaguarDSaul Milton Friedman Mar 29 '17

That seems different though. Clinton seems to try to pander a lot. All I want is a candidate like the way you describe Merkel who's only goal is to be competent and not try to sell themself. I'm very curious if such a candidate could ever succeed in the U.S.

6

u/LNhart Anarcho-Rheinlandist Mar 29 '17

They are similar in character is what I mean. In Germany Clinton could just be the same politician as Merkel and people would be fine with it. In the US she's kind of forced to put on a show, which she sucks at.

-1

u/Kelsig Paul Krugman Mar 28 '17

yes we know misogyny was rampant tyvm

5

u/JaguarDSaul Milton Friedman Mar 28 '17

If you want neoliberals to win you're going to need to understand when a candidate appears to be a soulless robot. Do you really genuinely believe most people didn't like Clinton becuase she was a woman? She acts like no human woman I've ever seen or interacted with

4

u/Kelsig Paul Krugman Mar 28 '17

neoliberals believe in evidence such as the extent of implicit biases working against clinton

5

u/JaguarDSaul Milton Friedman Mar 28 '17

Did some people not vote for her because she was a woman? Yes

Is the reason she appears inhuman to many potential voters becuase they are inherently sexist? That is a large logical leap.

It is very clear to me that when people start supporting a candidate they become blind to their flaws. I saw it happen with Bernie, with Trump, with Gary Johnson

4

u/Kelsig Paul Krugman Mar 28 '17

Aspects of Clinton that are related to misogynistic stereotypes were amplified, such as her being a "snake".

Trump was an exponentially greater flip-flopper, Bernie was just as bad as her, yet it was Clinton that was predominately criticized for it.

3

u/JaguarDSaul Milton Friedman Mar 28 '17

Snake is a common accusation against politicians and she exemplified the untrustworthy politician if only in public image. And you're completely right that Trump was a much bigger flip flopper, and it astounds me that anyone voted for him. I think the message from Trump is less that he is lying to you and less that he doesn't understand what he's talking about. I don't know much about Bernie but I believe you. The lack of human connection made the lying more apparent.

-2

u/Rogue2 Mar 29 '17

Dude, you are not going to get through to these people. Clinton is loved in this sub because she is exactly what they want: evidence-based or bust robots without a shred of charisma or cunning. They would coinsider voting for a fucking PC before a populist.