Republicans: "We're using simple, concrete ideas and straightforward messaging to sell our policies on a national stage. Then we hammer away at policies we've championed as soon as we're anywhere near a position of authority. While we do alienate large portions of the electorate as a consequence, we also cultivate a fervently loyal base of supporters who dominate a critical set of rural, politically homogeneous states."
Democrats: "We bend over backwards to make things as arcane and confusing as possible, never clearly stating our positions or advocating any one particular common theme. We pander to everyone and please almost no one, then hide behind a veil of technocracy to explain why our bullshit is optimization you plebs can't fathom. This yields us periodic big wave wins when our opposition alienates too many people, but never gets us anywhere close to advancing the stated goals of our most consistent supporters."
Conclusion: "Democrats are Smart. Republicans are Dumb."
Aaron Burr does exactly this throughout the play and is painted by Alexander Hamilton as an opportunist
He's painted as a loser. Can't win Washington's affection during the war. Can't break into one of the bigger rival gangs of Congress during the peace. Can't do populism hard enough - and when you come in second place, you can't even take the Runner-Up VP spot, because Jefferson's cronies are so quick to cheat you out of it.
(who then supports fucking Jefferson because “at least Jefferson has values he stands behind”)
Jefferson and Hamilton have a working relationship, as they're both in the Washington inner-circle. Burr helped build the Tammany Hall political machine on behalf of Jefferson, but never officially "got in the room". Possibly because Burr was still a Northeast finance guy, while all the Jefferson cronies were Planters. Also, possibly, because Burr flirted with Abolitionism in the NY State House. Also, possibly, because he was simply too "bipartisan" - courting friends in both nascent parties - to be palatable to either camp's inner ring.
For all the ways in which the high school history books focus on the Hamilton/Jefferson rivalry - and the play leans heavily into it - the Hamilton/Burr rivalry was at least as pivotal. In many ways, Burr was more Hamilton than Hamilton.
That said, he still did shit, which is more than any modern Democrat can claim. So I'd be loathe to compare Burr (or Hamilton or Jefferson or any of the "Founders") to the collection of polyps currently built up within DC's rectum.
Were the libs also doing this during the Clinton years? I ask because I don't really remember those, and I know for a fact that the "Republicans are dumb-dumbs" mantra was already well-practiced when W. Bush. managed to roll into office.
Party loyalists calling the opposition stupid is a tactic that spans all of political history. Mostly, it involves tilting at strawmen and ignoring the material conditions that make one or another party attractive to a voting base.
The fact that plenty of state and municipal politicians are virtually interchangeable (often even explicitly changing parties as the wind blows) and voter recognition of these names has eroded away with a rise in strict partisan identification only adds to the degree to which politicians can camouflage themselves to be whatever the local plurality is looking for.
Calling the local Republican a moron for failing to favor Pete Buttigieg over Mike Pence belies a lot of what drives that voter to affiliate with the party to begin with and ignores what a politician needs to do to establish a local positive reputation in the voting district.
deleted by creator
Yeah absolutely, these kind of things are just meant for people to jerk off to themselves and feel superior.
Liberals outfascisting the fascists.
Republicans: "We're using simple, concrete ideas and straightforward messaging to sell our policies on a national stage. Then we hammer away at policies we've championed as soon as we're anywhere near a position of authority. While we do alienate large portions of the electorate as a consequence, we also cultivate a fervently loyal base of supporters who dominate a critical set of rural, politically homogeneous states."
Democrats: "We bend over backwards to make things as arcane and confusing as possible, never clearly stating our positions or advocating any one particular common theme. We pander to everyone and please almost no one, then hide behind a veil of technocracy to explain why our bullshit is optimization you plebs can't fathom. This yields us periodic big wave wins when our opposition alienates too many people, but never gets us anywhere close to advancing the stated goals of our most consistent supporters."
Conclusion: "Democrats are Smart. Republicans are Dumb."
deleted by creator
He's painted as a loser. Can't win Washington's affection during the war. Can't break into one of the bigger rival gangs of Congress during the peace. Can't do populism hard enough - and when you come in second place, you can't even take the Runner-Up VP spot, because Jefferson's cronies are so quick to cheat you out of it.
Jefferson and Hamilton have a working relationship, as they're both in the Washington inner-circle. Burr helped build the Tammany Hall political machine on behalf of Jefferson, but never officially "got in the room". Possibly because Burr was still a Northeast finance guy, while all the Jefferson cronies were Planters. Also, possibly, because Burr flirted with Abolitionism in the NY State House. Also, possibly, because he was simply too "bipartisan" - courting friends in both nascent parties - to be palatable to either camp's inner ring.
For all the ways in which the high school history books focus on the Hamilton/Jefferson rivalry - and the play leans heavily into it - the Hamilton/Burr rivalry was at least as pivotal. In many ways, Burr was more Hamilton than Hamilton.
That said, he still did shit, which is more than any modern Democrat can claim. So I'd be loathe to compare Burr (or Hamilton or Jefferson or any of the "Founders") to the collection of polyps currently built up within DC's rectum.
Were the libs also doing this during the Clinton years? I ask because I don't really remember those, and I know for a fact that the "Republicans are dumb-dumbs" mantra was already well-practiced when W. Bush. managed to roll into office.
Party loyalists calling the opposition stupid is a tactic that spans all of political history. Mostly, it involves tilting at strawmen and ignoring the material conditions that make one or another party attractive to a voting base.
The fact that plenty of state and municipal politicians are virtually interchangeable (often even explicitly changing parties as the wind blows) and voter recognition of these names has eroded away with a rise in strict partisan identification only adds to the degree to which politicians can camouflage themselves to be whatever the local plurality is looking for.
Calling the local Republican a moron for failing to favor Pete Buttigieg over Mike Pence belies a lot of what drives that voter to affiliate with the party to begin with and ignores what a politician needs to do to establish a local positive reputation in the voting district.