Hillary Clinton Suggests ‘Formal Deprogramming’ For ‘MAGA Extremists’

[SavedByGrace3]

I say go ahead. You want to radicalize the right even further? Do it. Accelerate.

Errr... we are not the ones advocating deprogramming the opposition...

 

[Paidiske]

I don't know that language of "deprogramming" or "reprogramming" is helpful. I have thought that deradicalisation might be something our societies need to look at. The thing is, while I am not an expert in deradicalisation, as I understand it, one of its fundamental principles is about building and strengthening relationships across difference (in effect, building real community), rather than isolating and attempting to control people (such as in camps etc).

 

[RoBo1988]

Mrs Clinton comes from a long line of "we know better than you" bureaucrats. What credentials that afford her the position, I have yet to see.

 

[dzheremi]

I say go ahead. You want to radicalize the right even further? Do it. Accelerate.

Easy for you to say when you live in NZ, as far away as humanly possible from the consequences of egging this on.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Easy for you to say when you live in NZ, as far away as humanly possible from the consequences of egging this on.

Egging it on? Or simply recognizing the consequences of said policies if they were to be implemented? If MAGA conservatism is simply unacceptable politically in the USA, which I am told is a democracy, to the point where said people need to be deprogrammed and re-educated, what would you expect to be the response? Is the right going to harden against a perceived threat or go more soft? You're going to encourage a reaction and unless the will of people like Hilary Clinton is like Iron. That is they simply want to crush their enemies and will use any method at their disposal to do so. Which I wouldn't be surprised if they did mind you.

Going further to the right isn't necessarily a bad thing mind you.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Errr... we are not the ones advocating deprogramming the opposition...

You mean you are not advocating deprogramming of the opposition as someone part of the right/conservative movement, correct?

My comment was about if it were actually tried in a systemic fashion you'd invite a reaction which would necessarily radicalize the MAGA right further. When Hilary speaks like this she is making a clear distinction between her and her enemies. MAGA Conservativism is simply unacceptable and needs to be destroyed and this can be accomplished by 'deprogramming' the opposition. If that becomes the dynamic by which the political system operates in the USA, you'll necessarily move beyond a liberal understanding of the political order to an actual political understanding. Friends vs enemies. MAGA conservatives will necessarily have to respond to their enemies (the establishment Democrats/Republicans) and this will only radicalize them further because what other option do they have? Roll over and submit?

 

[dzheremi]

Egging it on? Or simply recognizing the consequences of said policies if they were to be implemented? If MAGA conservatism is simply unacceptable politically in the USA

MAGA conservatism as an intellectual position is one thing. What I believe many people are trying to prevent is a future of more January 6ths until they get their way and have completely destroyed the foundations of American democracy, like being able to lose at the ballot box even if you obviously don't like it (which no one says you have to in the first place, despite Trump et al.'s protestations that they're being prosecuted for their belief that they won the election, which is not true; you are legally allowed to believe in baseless conspiracy in the USA, and to tell people about it). If we can no longer have peaceful transfers of power because a bunch of people with grievances will show up at the capitol looking to murder public officials for doing their jobs, then obviously the country can't function. Most people, liberal and conservative alike, don't want to wake up one morning in the some kind of Mad Max-style post-apocalypse brought on by the fact that half of the country didn't get their way. Welcome to life, where that will happen pretty much continuously so long as we are a two-party system.

which I am told is a democracy, to the point where said people need to be deprogrammed and re-educated, what would you expect to be the response?

First of all, that's not going to happen. Nobody is really taking this seriously outside of the right-wing outrage factory. Nobody listened to or cared for what Hilary Clinton had to say enough to elect her in 2016 (popular vote notwithstanding, thanks to the Electoral College), and that's when she was the preferred political candidate of the DNC machine. Now she's just private citizen Hillary, so she will not be making policy via these one-off kinds of remarks, since the Clintons do not have any kind of stranglehold over Democratic politics these days, unlike Trump's relationship to what passes for Republican politics today.

Is the right going to harden against a perceived threat or go more soft? You're going to encourage a reaction and unless the will of people like Hilary Clinton is like Iron. That is they simply want to crush their enemies and will use any method at their disposal to do so. Which I wouldn't be surprised if they did mind you.

Of course it wouldn't surprise you. Again, you don't live here, so you don't know the internal dynamics, so this seems like a credible threat to you. I don't blame you for that (how would you know any better? I don't know the first thing about NZ politics, and that's despite having relatives who live there), but I just want to underline the difference at play here: Those who are against the continued legitimization of MAGA extremism have largely come to that position based on what has already happened thanks to the MAGA wing of the GOP (January 6th, the recent paralyzing of the House with the ousting of former speaker McCarthy, etc.), while those who are flipping out about the idea of 'reprogramming' MAGA people are doing so because Hilary Clinton gave her opinion on how things should go. She didn't amass a huge group of Democratic die-hards to gather outside a MAGA meeting place to force those inside to be taken in for 'reprogramming' or anything like that. I can certainly understand how the idea of being 'reprogrammed' wouldn't sit right with MAGA people (as it wouldn't sit right with me or virtually any other American were it coming from their political opponents, obviously, because again, political reprogramming is not something we're supposed to do in the USA), but in the rush to be scared about a not-at-all-happening hypothetical, let's not forget the actually happening reality of political life in the country right now.

It's sort of like the fear on the other political side that Trump was unhinged enough to start a nuclear war with North Korea, because one of the things he and his NK counterpart had in common is a tendency to talk big in an attempt to intimidate political opponents, so there was a question as to how tensions could be reduced with two such strong personalities leading their respective countries. Well, even if that was the fear, and even if it seemed like there was plenty of reason for it, that's still not what actually happened, so it would be weird to use that fear -- again, however justified it may seem -- to make claims about what we need to do to avoid something that already never came to pass. We don't need to entertain that, since that's not reality. Our position as a country would be greatly improved these days if people would stop using their fears about what the other side could hypothetically be up to as a reason to preemptively further harden themselves against their 'enemies' when nothing has actually changed. No MAGA person is actually being taken in for 'reprogramming', no matter what Hillary Clinton would like to see happen. Hillary Clinton is not only not president or running for president, she's not anything else either. She's a lady with a famous name who used to work in government in various capacities. Maybe if she somehow ends up as the DNC choice candidate again (which won't happen; she's not even in the running this time around), then I will share in the alarm, but until then, this really is a tempest in a teapot.

Going further to the right isn't necessarily a bad thing mind you.

Says you. Some of us actually have to live here.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Says you. Some of us actually have to live here.

Why do you think going to the right is a bad thing? Do you like the progressive direction of the current factions? GOP, MAGA and Democrats?

 

[RoBo1988]

political reprogramming is not something we're supposed to do in the USA),

When the political right is in the majority, the media always asks " how will _______reach across the aisle" to appease Democrats?"

When the left is awarded the majority, it's a "mandate" and "Republicans need to get in the back of the bus", " the election's over - I won" "deprogram our opponents" ; none of this " reaching across the aisle" business is ever mentioned.

IMO, Mrs Clinton was sent out, to "poke the bear" in another attempt to get a violent reaction.

 

[dzheremi]

Why do you think going to the right is a bad thing? Do you like the progressive direction of the current factions? GOP, MAGA and Democrats?

No, but I don't think going to the right is the answer. When you're trying to avoid extremism and you've just seen several examples of what going as far right as some people want to go leads to (murder, death threats against government officials, non-functional government, etc.), it makes sense that you wouldn't want to go further right, just like how the violence and instability of that weirdo left-wing "autonomous zone" set up in Seattle a few years back made tons of people (myself included) who may have otherwise had some sympathy for individual causes that the people doing that said they were about (e.g., police accountability) stop and say "Ohhh...well, actually, no, I don't want what these people are offering, even if some of their platform seems like it would be something I would agree with."

That's the trouble with discussions of left and right in the context of our two-party system, especially when the society itself is as polarized as it currently is (which doesn't benefit the average person at all; only the elites, who are at least united in the fact that they should have all of the power and money): Since what we empower by voting for either party are their party platforms, and not everyone will agree with everything in a party's platform (obviously), it leaves those of us who maybe lean to the left/right but are not insane demagogues about it politically homeless. What realistic alternative is there to the Biden & Pelosi show is there for you if you're to the left? What realistic alternative to the Trumpist MAGA Party is there for you if you're to the right of Biden? The answer in both cases is none.

So talking about do we go left or do we go right is pointless in this context, since it's not like there are places to go along the continuum (the continuum itself still exists, just not when it comes to voting). There are two choices, and you just have to either pick one or sit it out.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No, but I don't think going to the right is the answer. When you're trying to avoid extremism and you've just seen several examples of what going as far right as some people want to go leads to (murder, death threats against government officials, non-functional government, etc.), it makes sense that you wouldn't want to go further right, just like how the violence and instability of that weirdo left-wing "autonomous zone" set up in Seattle a few years back made tons of people (myself included) who may have otherwise had some sympathy for individual causes that the people doing that said they were about (e.g., police accountability) stop and say "Ohhh...well, actually, no, I don't want what these people are offering, even if some of their platform seems like it would be something I would agree with."

That's the trouble with discussions of left and right in the context of our two-party system, especially when the society itself is as polarized as it currently is (which doesn't benefit the average person at all; only the elites, who are at least united in the fact that they should have all of the power and money): Since what we empower by voting for either party are their party platforms, and not everyone will agree with everything in a party's platform (obviously), it leaves those of us who maybe lean to the left/right but are not insane demagogues about it politically homeless. What realistic alternative is there to the Biden & Pelosi show is there for you if you're to the left? What realistic alternative to the Trumpist MAGA Party is there for you if you're to the right of Biden? The answer in both cases is none.

So talking about do we go left or do we go right is pointless in this context, since it's not like there are places to go along the continuum (the continuum itself still exists, just not when it comes to voting). There are two choices, and you just have to either pick one or sit it out.

So you prefer the status quo direction of the Establishment GOP and Democrats? The former being mostly concerned with GDP and Neoconservative wars abroad and the latter being mostly concerned with destroying any semblance of traditionalism/Christianity in the USA?

Going further to the right doesn't necessarily mean violence, at least by those who have gone further to the right. It's more likely the system in power and the elites in control will use violence to cement their power against said rivals.

I suppose I just don't understand why you want there to be only two bad choices. Or perhaps you don't want there to be two bad choices but have resigned yourself to the reality. Why should the American right be only trapped within this narrow binary? They should think outside their specific American paradigm, which they kind of are at the moment. MAGA sort of represents that tiredness with the establishment GOP and that's fine. That's how politics ought to operate and political change is slow. I would be quite happy for the American right to move more towards the MAGA side of things and continue moving in that trajectory past MAGA towards something different, especially if they're Christian.

When people like Hillary Clinton, perhaps the most despised figure by American conservatives alive at the moment, you can argue to them to dismiss Hilary's recommendation as unimportant but it is important. She knows what she's doing by saying said things, she's trying to animate her own side as much as she's trying to gauge a reaction by her enemies.

 

[FenderTL5]

So you prefer the status quo direction of the Establishment GOP and Democrats? The former being mostly concerned with GDP and Neoconservative wars abroad and the latter being mostly concerned with destroying any semblance of traditionalism/Christianity in the USA?

Going further to the right doesn't necessarily mean violence, at least by those who have gone further to the right. It's more likely the system in power and the elites in control will use violence to cement their power against said rivals.

I suppose I just don't understand why you want there to be only two bad choices. Or perhaps you don't want there to be two bad choices but have resigned yourself to the reality. Why should the American right be only trapped within this narrow binary? They should think outside their specific American paradigm, which they kind of are at the moment. MAGA sort of represents that tiredness with the establishment GOP and that's fine. That's how politics ought to operate and political change is slow. I would be quite happy for the American right to move more towards the MAGA side of things and continue moving in that trajectory past MAGA towards something different, especially if they're Christian.

I'm curious just how much further to the right you think US policy positions should move?
Are you referring more to social policy or fiscal policy?

The reason I ask; when you look at where things are, further to the right doesn't merely border on extreme, it would be extreme.
Here's the political compass of the 2016 us election.

I chose to include that one because it's less cluttered than the 2020 version.
However here it is:

In matters of fiscal policy, even democrats are neoliberal right in the US.

It's my opinion that the 45~ years of neoliberal policy has been the detrimental force in US policy/practice. ymmv

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'm curious just how much further to the right you think US policy positions should move?
Are you referring more to social policy or fiscal policy?

The reason I ask; when you look at where things are, further to the right doesn't merely border on extreme, it would be extreme.
Here's the political compass of the 2016 us election.
View attachment 337440


I chose to include that one because it's less cluttered than the 2020 version.
However here it is:
View attachment 337441
In matters of fiscal policy, even democrats are neoliberal right in the US.

It's my opinion that the 45~ years of neoliberal policy has been the detrimental force in US policy/practice. ymmv

I think it's funny to put Trump or any of the American Establishment right in that upper right quadrant especially when I can think of political thinkers and writers who are far more authoritarian than Trump ever was. Monarchists for instance or traditionalists (Of which Trump is neither). Trump was actually hamstrung by the American beurocracy. Whoever put that quadrant together is only thinking in terms of establishment GOP the Democrats and not any other right/left leaning thinker/movement.

This is the problem I find with Americans, their political perspective is so narrow and they can't seem to think beyond the establishment or their founding. As Christians especially we should be willing to accept political thoughts and Ideas which go beyond the constitution of the USA and the enlightenment. Neither of which we are bound to. Politics for instance should not be viewed as competition between people within the same system working together, but rather the distinction between friends and enemies.

As for moving further to the right, I think a good policy the Republicans should get on board with is limiting the American Empire abroad. Instead of constantly seeking to expand USA influence everywhere and fight wars for 'democracy,' why not focus on the internal problems of the USA? Why not seek to solve the problems of inflation and illegal immigration? Doesn't seem anyone in power has the stomach to seriously do those things. Since the USA is an Empire it will always find an excuse to go abroad and fight. I think moving to the right would stop that, much to the chagrin of the Neo-conservatives and the left.

 

[FenderTL5]

Whoever put that quadrant together is only thinking in terms of establishment GOP the Democrats and not any other right/left leaning thinker/movement.

Here's the source Political Compass. Methodology is explained.

This is the problem I find with Americans, their political perspective is so narrow and they can't seem to think beyond the establishment or their founding.

agree

As Christians especially we should be willing to accept political thoughts and Ideas which go beyond the constitution of the USA and the enlightenment. Neither of which we are bound to. Politics for instance should not be viewed as competition between people within the same system working together, but rather the distinction between friends and enemies.

agree

As for moving further to the right, I think a good policy the Republicans should get on board with is limiting the American Empire abroad. Instead of constantly seeking to expand USA influence everywhere and fight wars for 'democracy,' why not focus on the internal problems of the USA? Why not seek to solve the problems of inflation and illegal immigration? Doesn't seem anyone in power has the stomach to seriously do those things. Since the USA is an Empire it will always find an excuse to go abroad and fight.

agree.
I would include other issues such as domestic infrastructure, healthcare, labor/wage concerns, retirement/social security.. and dozens more.

I think moving to the right would stop that, much to the chagrin of the Neo-conservatives and the left.

This is where I'm unconvinced. The country has been moving socially left for years but more and more fiscally/politically right for almost 50 years. I don't see improvement in the rightward lurch.. ymmv

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Here's the source Political Compass. Methodology is explained.

agree

agree

agree.
I would include other issues such as domestic infrastructure, healthcare, labor/wage concerns, retirement/social security.. and dozens more.

This is where I'm unconvinced. The country has been moving socially left for years but more and more fiscally/politically right for almost 50 years. I don't see improvement in the rightward lurch.. ymmv

The quadrant explains itself. It's far too narrow for it to mean anything and was clearly put together by a leftist of some variety. Trump and the Republicans are not furthest authoritarian right. Trump, the establishment GOP and MAGA broadly are still far too liberal in that they are bound to some conception of the USA and the constitution.

I also agree, the country is moving to the left socially (and economically). That's why I don't think it would hurt for the Republicans to move further to the right. It would be nice to see an actual political opposition in the USA, instead of the current GOP establishment.

 

[dzheremi]

It's my opinion that the 45~ years of neoliberal policy has been the detrimental force in US policy/practice. ymmv

I very much agree with this, but I find that no one really wants to talk about it, in part because it's not 'sexy' in a newsroom sense like "they're coming to take our children/abortions away!" is (sociocultural issues will always trump basically anything else, because human beings are hardwired to react to perceived dangers and fears), and also because since the neoliberal economic order has been the order of the day for so long, it would probably be very unpopular to suggest getting rid of it and replacing it with something else (and, to be fair, that would also be hard to imagine or propose; I mean...I'm not an economist, and even economists fight over this stuff pretty vociferously!).

 

[Yarddog]

What do you think would happen if they actually attempted this?

Hillary Clinton: MAGA ‘cult members’ need ‘deprogramming’

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton railed against supporters of former President Trump during a new CNN interview, comparing those who still support the former president after the Jan. 6, 20…

thehill.com

Trump is the closest thing to an antichrist that we've seen in generations. People follow him even though is evil is clearly laid out before them. Is the mark of the beast "MAGA", which Trump supporters wear on their foreheads?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Trump is the closest thing to an antichrist that we've seen in generations. People follow him even though is evil is clearly laid out before them. Is the mark of the beast "MAGA", which Trump supporters wear on their foreheads?

So, do you support deprogramming the MAGA people?

 

[Yarddog]

So, do you support deprogramming the MAGA people?

Depends on the method.

 

[YorkieGal]

Does anyone really hold views which are extreme under any party, at the end of any spectrum, apart from the internet and the media telling us this is the case? If we all used our treadmills, went for walks, walked our dogs, did something outside of the TV and internet, we might find we are more connected than we are told we are by politicians and the media. The phrase, I believe, is 'touch grass'. Just a thought.