Because I'm not in kindergarten.

The world is a complicated place. Just about every action has both good and bad effects - as does every inaction.

We end up somewhere in between - and complain about those who have not ended up with the same "somewhere in between" policy position that we settled on.

“The (Clinton GE) slogan is ‘Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid,’” said Paul Begala, who is an adviser to the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA.

side and what they would do to American society.

I hope and expect that Bernie, as our nominee, will not ignore the damage that Trump, Cruz or whoever the GOP comes up with would inflict on us (there is a little 'fear' in that, I suppose), though Bernie will have more of a more open and positive (hence 'liberal') message to go with that.

There's zero plans by Clinton to push her "no we can't" policies. She's already told her base that the best anyone under her is incrementalism, which won't motivate anyone.

So they've had to develop a strategy to motivate the left, and that is fear.

You see it parroted here on a daily basis. Whoa is me, the sky is falling, America will be destroyed, etc etc...

If all you have is fear, you won't have my vote. Negative partisanship is a huge depressor of turnout, if that's all you've got.

Offer something or you'll win nothing

unfortunately

Because we're obsessed with pandering to our own emotions.

It's the same reason people sell products with "lifestyle" instead of quality or value.

"This can of coke will make me popular"

Its all due to basic failings in the wiring of humanity. Lol. Well. That's a bit much, but... People in PR know that pushing people's emotional buttons shuts off their logic... It's why people destroy their lives for drugs... We are born to be addicted to out emotions. Even fear. Especially fear probably.

Being an American doesn't make you special. It doesn't guarantee a living wage. It doesn't guarantee vacations. It doesn't even guarantee human rights. The Constitution really is just a piece of paper, no more authoritative or real than the Bible. It's all in our heads.

Everyone has a little globalist and territorialist in them, neither one is inherently better or worse than the other, everyone likes to play to fear, and everyone switches back and forth depending on the issue that they agree or disagree with.

I think most liberals tend towards 'building bridges' and most conservatives tend towards 'building walls', but few of us are 'pure' conservative or liberal in the bridges vs walls debate.

Can't agree there. Too many of our problems today are global in nature - climate change, poverty, war, disease, etc. Many years ago, when transportation and communications were more limited, a country could function as an 'island'. We can't do that anymore.

Surely true but conservatives seem to have little else to offer than fear of 'the OTHER' (gays, minorities, Mexicans, Muslims, Chinese, etc.) Modern liberals, particularly in Europe and Canada but here too, have positive messages of inclusion and power to the 99%.

Agreed. None of us are permanently on one end of the 'bridges vs walls' spectrum. (I'm not as sure that conservatives are not routinely pegged on the 'walls' side of that spectrum, however.) Again I think liberals tend towards a 'bridges' preference but can become a 'walls' person "depending on the issue".

Despite all odds.

Thats HRC's hidden agenda.

The global poor have seen the lion's share of the world's income gains over the past 30 years or so. That may or may not be due to 'globalism' but we should figure it out before we return to a pre-FDR 'territorialist' world of Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover in which only the 1% benefitted in the US and globally.

Progressive countries are much more 'globalist' in outlook and they do not want "the poor everywhere to remain poor at the expense of the wealth everywhere".

Even right wingers need to eat. SMEs are the engine of jobs for society. Globalism helps MNCs at the expense of SMEs. Same with LDC elites, Globalism helps LDCs elites at the expense of the professional class in developed countries - who they frame as "professional protectionists" .

which encapsulates the tradeoffs - Not so good for Democrats in the US to have the rug pulled out from under them on wages!

You have it completely backwards. The tiny sliver of the wealthiest have seen the lions share of income gains.

Your friends agenda- to loot the modest gains of the struggling middle class here and give them to the middle class in other countries to prolong the corruption deserves rejection.

But I have no qualms giving you a rec. Will read when I wake up. That you've got the responses you have, only confirms my interest.