|
On November 06 2018 04:12 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 02:36 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 02:14 iamthedave wrote:On November 06 2018 02:03 Nebuchad wrote:
If anything Peterson serves to me as an illustration for the shortcomings of far right intellectualism (it's what I counter when people talk about cultural marxism in universities, for example). If there was a strong intellectual basis behind the far right positions, people wouldn't latch to these people whose ideas are clearly flawed, in ways that are relatively easy to demonstrate when taking into account that we are talking about university level discourse, just because they can articulate their thoughts better than the average person. I find it discouraging that Ben Shapiro and Peterson are the ones people turn to most reliably. But there'll be plenty out there; the real intellectuals usually don't get their names in the papers. They write scholarly articles that are generally only read by the ones who really follow the field. I... don't think it's true for the far right. It's true for most ideologies from communism to conservatism, even some libertarians, but I really don't think this group of far right scholars writing in the shadow of anonimity actually exists. No, I meant right wing in general. The far right are strongly anti-intellectual because too many educated people are liberals I guess, but the centre to mid right wing are plenty energetic. For someone closer to home there's Peter Hitchens, who's a pretty solidly right wing intellectual.
In the context of Peterson specifically and cultural marxism in general, we're talking a little further than just rightwing. To reach the level where your complaint that you aren't represented enough in academia has any connexion with reality, you need to be a good bit further right than the average conservative, you're going to need some strong reactionary tendencies.
|
The Heterodox Academy has charted how academia has become a political monoculture and the group encourages viewpoint diversity. Statements like the one from University of Chicago have been great to signal good things for intellectual culture within universities. The first step is recognizing the principle of free speech; that you won’t be fired for your political leanings when your job is academic scholarship. You can check out Heterodox Academy and FIRE on their websites with a simple google search.
|
On November 06 2018 05:45 Danglars wrote:
The Heterodox Academy has charted how academia has become a political monoculture and the group encourages viewpoint diversity. Statements like the one from University of Chicago have been great to signal good things for intellectual culture within universities. The first step is recognizing the principle of free speech; that you won’t be fired for your political leanings when your job is academic scholarship. You can check out Heterodox Academy and FIRE on their websites with a simple google search.
It won't bring the result you expect. Unless you want to argue that cultural marxism is a global conspiracy, you have to take into account that in all the other countries, where there is no evil conspiracy against the free speech of university professors, we still barely get any far right ones.
|
On November 06 2018 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 05:45 Danglars wrote:
The Heterodox Academy has charted how academia has become a political monoculture and the group encourages viewpoint diversity. Statements like the one from University of Chicago have been great to signal good things for intellectual culture within universities. The first step is recognizing the principle of free speech; that you won’t be fired for your political leanings when your job is academic scholarship. You can check out Heterodox Academy and FIRE on their websites with a simple google search. It won't bring the result you expect. Unless you want to argue that cultural marxism is a global conspiracy, you have to take into account that in all the other countries, where there is no evil conspiracy against the free speech of university professors, we still barely get any far right ones.
I don’t think you need an organized conspiracy to just see the firing of professors and observe the university statements in the wake of their firing.
I’m more positive lately because of the growing backlash against professors, administrators, and student agitators that persecute left-leaning professors who disagree on politically sensitive topics. The second problem you have is that the definitions for both European and American far right are intensely overbroad. Just the same for your far right parties.
|
On November 06 2018 06:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 05:45 Danglars wrote:
The Heterodox Academy has charted how academia has become a political monoculture and the group encourages viewpoint diversity. Statements like the one from University of Chicago have been great to signal good things for intellectual culture within universities. The first step is recognizing the principle of free speech; that you won’t be fired for your political leanings when your job is academic scholarship. You can check out Heterodox Academy and FIRE on their websites with a simple google search. It won't bring the result you expect. Unless you want to argue that cultural marxism is a global conspiracy, you have to take into account that in all the other countries, where there is no evil conspiracy against the free speech of university professors, we still barely get any far right ones. I don’t think you need an organized conspiracy to just see the firing of professors and observe the university statements in the wake of their firing. I’m more positive lately because of the growing backlash against professors, administrators, and student agitators that persecute left-leaning professors who disagree on politically sensitive topics. The second problem you have is that the definitions for both European and American far right are intensely overbroad. Just the same for your far right parties.
In this case we're talking about mostly the same thing though, populist rightwing ideas with some nationalist influence.
|
On November 06 2018 06:51 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 06:42 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2018 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 05:45 Danglars wrote:
The Heterodox Academy has charted how academia has become a political monoculture and the group encourages viewpoint diversity. Statements like the one from University of Chicago have been great to signal good things for intellectual culture within universities. The first step is recognizing the principle of free speech; that you won’t be fired for your political leanings when your job is academic scholarship. You can check out Heterodox Academy and FIRE on their websites with a simple google search. It won't bring the result you expect. Unless you want to argue that cultural marxism is a global conspiracy, you have to take into account that in all the other countries, where there is no evil conspiracy against the free speech of university professors, we still barely get any far right ones. I don’t think you need an organized conspiracy to just see the firing of professors and observe the university statements in the wake of their firing. I’m more positive lately because of the growing backlash against professors, administrators, and student agitators that persecute left-leaning professors who disagree on politically sensitive topics. The second problem you have is that the definitions for both European and American far right are intensely overbroad. Just the same for your far right parties. In this case we're talking about mostly the same thing though, populist rightwing ideas with some nationalist influence.
The populist branch of right wing has little in common with free traders and limited government type. The same applies to protectionist high-tariff supporters. And the ethnonationalists too. And people in favor of very limited national welfare and healthcare scheme. I don’t think the antisemític portions of the far right will ever have a scholarly contingent worth talking about, nor the Richard Spencers and David Dukes. You’re making the same error that makes some people here bristle at “y’all on the left.” There’s no uniformity here or in Europe.
|
On November 06 2018 07:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 06:51 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 06:42 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2018 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 05:45 Danglars wrote:
The Heterodox Academy has charted how academia has become a political monoculture and the group encourages viewpoint diversity. Statements like the one from University of Chicago have been great to signal good things for intellectual culture within universities. The first step is recognizing the principle of free speech; that you won’t be fired for your political leanings when your job is academic scholarship. You can check out Heterodox Academy and FIRE on their websites with a simple google search. It won't bring the result you expect. Unless you want to argue that cultural marxism is a global conspiracy, you have to take into account that in all the other countries, where there is no evil conspiracy against the free speech of university professors, we still barely get any far right ones. I don’t think you need an organized conspiracy to just see the firing of professors and observe the university statements in the wake of their firing. I’m more positive lately because of the growing backlash against professors, administrators, and student agitators that persecute left-leaning professors who disagree on politically sensitive topics. The second problem you have is that the definitions for both European and American far right are intensely overbroad. Just the same for your far right parties. In this case we're talking about mostly the same thing though, populist rightwing ideas with some nationalist influence. The populist branch of right wing has little in common with free traders and limited government type. The same applies to protectionist high-tariff supporters. And the ethnonationalists too. And people in favor of very limited national welfare and healthcare scheme. I don’t think the antisemític portions of the far right will ever have a scholarly contingent worth talking about, nor the Richard Spencers and David Dukes. You’re making the same error that makes some people here bristle at “y’all on the left.” There’s no uniformity here or in Europe.
They're each supporting/supported Trump though right? That's an important commonality, no?
|
On November 06 2018 07:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 06:51 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 06:42 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2018 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 05:45 Danglars wrote:
The Heterodox Academy has charted how academia has become a political monoculture and the group encourages viewpoint diversity. Statements like the one from University of Chicago have been great to signal good things for intellectual culture within universities. The first step is recognizing the principle of free speech; that you won’t be fired for your political leanings when your job is academic scholarship. You can check out Heterodox Academy and FIRE on their websites with a simple google search. It won't bring the result you expect. Unless you want to argue that cultural marxism is a global conspiracy, you have to take into account that in all the other countries, where there is no evil conspiracy against the free speech of university professors, we still barely get any far right ones. I don’t think you need an organized conspiracy to just see the firing of professors and observe the university statements in the wake of their firing. I’m more positive lately because of the growing backlash against professors, administrators, and student agitators that persecute left-leaning professors who disagree on politically sensitive topics. The second problem you have is that the definitions for both European and American far right are intensely overbroad. Just the same for your far right parties. In this case we're talking about mostly the same thing though, populist rightwing ideas with some nationalist influence. The populist branch of right wing has little in common with free traders and limited government type. The same applies to protectionist high-tariff supporters. And the ethnonationalists too. And people in favor of very limited national welfare and healthcare scheme. I don’t think the antisemític portions of the far right will ever have a scholarly contingent worth talking about, nor the Richard Spencers and David Dukes. You’re making the same error that makes some people here bristle at “y’all on the left.” There’s no uniformity here or in Europe.
Free traders and limited government types are represented in academia, they aren't far right (economically (neo)liberal, I guess you call them "classical liberal" or something?). I don't know what error you think I made, all I said is populist rightwing with nationalist influence, which is more or less the definition of far right in Europe and the types of people that we don't see a ton of in academia all around the western world.
|
On November 06 2018 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 07:00 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2018 06:51 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 06:42 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2018 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 05:45 Danglars wrote:
The Heterodox Academy has charted how academia has become a political monoculture and the group encourages viewpoint diversity. Statements like the one from University of Chicago have been great to signal good things for intellectual culture within universities. The first step is recognizing the principle of free speech; that you won’t be fired for your political leanings when your job is academic scholarship. You can check out Heterodox Academy and FIRE on their websites with a simple google search. It won't bring the result you expect. Unless you want to argue that cultural marxism is a global conspiracy, you have to take into account that in all the other countries, where there is no evil conspiracy against the free speech of university professors, we still barely get any far right ones. I don’t think you need an organized conspiracy to just see the firing of professors and observe the university statements in the wake of their firing. I’m more positive lately because of the growing backlash against professors, administrators, and student agitators that persecute left-leaning professors who disagree on politically sensitive topics. The second problem you have is that the definitions for both European and American far right are intensely overbroad. Just the same for your far right parties. In this case we're talking about mostly the same thing though, populist rightwing ideas with some nationalist influence. The populist branch of right wing has little in common with free traders and limited government type. The same applies to protectionist high-tariff supporters. And the ethnonationalists too. And people in favor of very limited national welfare and healthcare scheme. I don’t think the antisemític portions of the far right will ever have a scholarly contingent worth talking about, nor the Richard Spencers and David Dukes. You’re making the same error that makes some people here bristle at “y’all on the left.” There’s no uniformity here or in Europe. They're each supporting/supported Trump though right? That's an important commonality, no?
Antisemites hate Trump for what he’s doing with Israel. Conservatives split several ways, many staying home, and voting third party, and going virulently anti-Trump.
On November 06 2018 07:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 07:00 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2018 06:51 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 06:42 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2018 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 05:45 Danglars wrote:
The Heterodox Academy has charted how academia has become a political monoculture and the group encourages viewpoint diversity. Statements like the one from University of Chicago have been great to signal good things for intellectual culture within universities. The first step is recognizing the principle of free speech; that you won’t be fired for your political leanings when your job is academic scholarship. You can check out Heterodox Academy and FIRE on their websites with a simple google search. It won't bring the result you expect. Unless you want to argue that cultural marxism is a global conspiracy, you have to take into account that in all the other countries, where there is no evil conspiracy against the free speech of university professors, we still barely get any far right ones. I don’t think you need an organized conspiracy to just see the firing of professors and observe the university statements in the wake of their firing. I’m more positive lately because of the growing backlash against professors, administrators, and student agitators that persecute left-leaning professors who disagree on politically sensitive topics. The second problem you have is that the definitions for both European and American far right are intensely overbroad. Just the same for your far right parties. In this case we're talking about mostly the same thing though, populist rightwing ideas with some nationalist influence. The populist branch of right wing has little in common with free traders and limited government type. The same applies to protectionist high-tariff supporters. And the ethnonationalists too. And people in favor of very limited national welfare and healthcare scheme. I don’t think the antisemític portions of the far right will ever have a scholarly contingent worth talking about, nor the Richard Spencers and David Dukes. You’re making the same error that makes some people here bristle at “y’all on the left.” There’s no uniformity here or in Europe. Free traders and limited government types are represented in academia, they aren't far right (economically (neo)liberal, I guess you call them "classical liberal" or something?). I don't know what error you think I made, all I said is populist rightwing with nationalist influence, which is more or less the definition of far right in Europe and the types of people that we don't see a ton of in academia all around the western world.
They’re regularly described as far right in the presses here. Simultaneously, they’re described as conservatives. So you just don’t have a workable definition of the far right to pick apart their academic representation.
|
On November 06 2018 07:27 Danglars wrote:
They’re regularly described as far right in the presses here. Simultaneously, they’re described as conservatives. So you just don’t have a workable definition of the far right to pick apart their academic representation.
I'm not sure I believe you that they are described as far right in the press in the US. But even if they are, I have a workable definition, it's the one I just used, don't you like it?
|
On November 06 2018 07:35 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 07:27 Danglars wrote:
They’re regularly described as far right in the presses here. Simultaneously, they’re described as conservatives. So you just don’t have a workable definition of the far right to pick apart their academic representation. I'm not sure I believe you that they are described as far right in the press in the US. But even if they are, I have a workable definition, it's the one I just used, don't you like it?
What kind of populism were you expecting to penetrate the academic institutions? Its very anti-elite sentiment precludes it. Left-wing populism has more in common with right wing populism than the far right can be said to be populist and vaguely nationalist. Secondarily, it’s more often used as a pejorative than a descriptor. We just had an election in 2016 where both sides gave fairly populist speeches at most campaign stops.
|
On November 06 2018 07:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2018 07:00 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2018 06:51 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 06:42 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2018 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 05:45 Danglars wrote:
The Heterodox Academy has charted how academia has become a political monoculture and the group encourages viewpoint diversity. Statements like the one from University of Chicago have been great to signal good things for intellectual culture within universities. The first step is recognizing the principle of free speech; that you won’t be fired for your political leanings when your job is academic scholarship. You can check out Heterodox Academy and FIRE on their websites with a simple google search. It won't bring the result you expect. Unless you want to argue that cultural marxism is a global conspiracy, you have to take into account that in all the other countries, where there is no evil conspiracy against the free speech of university professors, we still barely get any far right ones. I don’t think you need an organized conspiracy to just see the firing of professors and observe the university statements in the wake of their firing. I’m more positive lately because of the growing backlash against professors, administrators, and student agitators that persecute left-leaning professors who disagree on politically sensitive topics. The second problem you have is that the definitions for both European and American far right are intensely overbroad. Just the same for your far right parties. In this case we're talking about mostly the same thing though, populist rightwing ideas with some nationalist influence. The populist branch of right wing has little in common with free traders and limited government type. The same applies to protectionist high-tariff supporters. And the ethnonationalists too. And people in favor of very limited national welfare and healthcare scheme. I don’t think the antisemític portions of the far right will ever have a scholarly contingent worth talking about, nor the Richard Spencers and David Dukes. You’re making the same error that makes some people here bristle at “y’all on the left.” There’s no uniformity here or in Europe. They're each supporting/supported Trump though right? That's an important commonality, no? Antisemites hate Trump for what he’s doing with Israel. Conservatives split several ways, many staying home, and voting third party, and going virulently anti-Trump. Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 07:16 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 07:00 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2018 06:51 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 06:42 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2018 06:20 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 05:45 Danglars wrote:
The Heterodox Academy has charted how academia has become a political monoculture and the group encourages viewpoint diversity. Statements like the one from University of Chicago have been great to signal good things for intellectual culture within universities. The first step is recognizing the principle of free speech; that you won’t be fired for your political leanings when your job is academic scholarship. You can check out Heterodox Academy and FIRE on their websites with a simple google search. It won't bring the result you expect. Unless you want to argue that cultural marxism is a global conspiracy, you have to take into account that in all the other countries, where there is no evil conspiracy against the free speech of university professors, we still barely get any far right ones. I don’t think you need an organized conspiracy to just see the firing of professors and observe the university statements in the wake of their firing. I’m more positive lately because of the growing backlash against professors, administrators, and student agitators that persecute left-leaning professors who disagree on politically sensitive topics. The second problem you have is that the definitions for both European and American far right are intensely overbroad. Just the same for your far right parties. In this case we're talking about mostly the same thing though, populist rightwing ideas with some nationalist influence. The populist branch of right wing has little in common with free traders and limited government type. The same applies to protectionist high-tariff supporters. And the ethnonationalists too. And people in favor of very limited national welfare and healthcare scheme. I don’t think the antisemític portions of the far right will ever have a scholarly contingent worth talking about, nor the Richard Spencers and David Dukes. You’re making the same error that makes some people here bristle at “y’all on the left.” There’s no uniformity here or in Europe. Free traders and limited government types are represented in academia, they aren't far right (economically (neo)liberal, I guess you call them "classical liberal" or something?). I don't know what error you think I made, all I said is populist rightwing with nationalist influence, which is more or less the definition of far right in Europe and the types of people that we don't see a ton of in academia all around the western world. They’re regularly described as far right in the presses here. Simultaneously, they’re described as conservatives. So you just don’t have a workable definition of the far right to pick apart their academic representation.
For those that "made a choice that counted", as our 2 party folks like to say, voted Trump. None of those groups broke to the other party.
From my perspective most of academia is pretty centrist (BDS was sanctioned at the most "left" college in my state"), but you can't really expect to be filling the ranks of academia with far right people who disdain pretty much everything about academia.
Becoming a professor doesn't really fit into the worldview of most on the far right or even many conservatives. The views are there and usually going to the business section of a college will immerse yourself in various iterations of right-wing views.
That's just to say the main reason academia leans left is that the right-wing disdains it as an institution outside of STEM. But then rejects the conclusions reached by those same STEM students when it doesn't jive with their world view politically.
|
On November 06 2018 07:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 07:35 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 07:27 Danglars wrote:
They’re regularly described as far right in the presses here. Simultaneously, they’re described as conservatives. So you just don’t have a workable definition of the far right to pick apart their academic representation. I'm not sure I believe you that they are described as far right in the press in the US. But even if they are, I have a workable definition, it's the one I just used, don't you like it? What kind of populism were you expecting to penetrate the academic institutions? Its very anti-elite sentiment precludes it. Left-wing populism has more in common with right wing populism than the far right can be said to be populist and vaguely nationalist. Secondarily, it’s more often used as a pejorative than a descriptor. We just had an election in 2016 where both sides gave fairly populist speeches at most campaign stops.
I wasn't expecting any. I don't think it's a surprising fact that you don't see these people in universities anywhere. The dudes who talk about university bias and cultural marxism are the ones who seem to be expecting that to happen (btw, it's interesting that you don't think anti-elite sentiment can penetrate academic institutions, marxism has anti-elite sentiment and I've been hearing it's all we find in these universities...)
Hillary Clinton is almost the opposite of a populist, come on now. And while you're right that it can be used as a pejorative, I hope you can see that this isn't what I'm doing here.
|
Just voted btw and boy did it suck. Vote for shitty tax raises where the Dems will bait and switch the spending or against, vote for shitty gun control laws or against, now pick between these two candidates who would throw you off a bridge to win their next election. Also fill in the bubbles next to these "elected" judges with no competition.
It's impressive to me as many people bother to vote as they do at this point.
|
On November 06 2018 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just voted btw and boy did it suck. Vote for shitty tax raises where the Dems will bait and switch the spending or against, vote for shitty gun control laws or against, now pick between these two candidates who would throw you off a bridge to win their next election. Also fill in the bubbles next to these "elected" judges with no competition.
It's impressive to me as many people bother to vote as they do at this point.
I'm guessing you're not in the Sarah Smith district? She was one of my favourites from the whole group.
|
On November 06 2018 07:58 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 07:40 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2018 07:35 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 07:27 Danglars wrote:
They’re regularly described as far right in the presses here. Simultaneously, they’re described as conservatives. So you just don’t have a workable definition of the far right to pick apart their academic representation. I'm not sure I believe you that they are described as far right in the press in the US. But even if they are, I have a workable definition, it's the one I just used, don't you like it? What kind of populism were you expecting to penetrate the academic institutions? Its very anti-elite sentiment precludes it. Left-wing populism has more in common with right wing populism than the far right can be said to be populist and vaguely nationalist. Secondarily, it’s more often used as a pejorative than a descriptor. We just had an election in 2016 where both sides gave fairly populist speeches at most campaign stops. I wasn't expecting any. I don't think it's a surprising fact that you don't see these people in universities anywhere. The dudes who talk about university bias and cultural marxism are the ones who seem to be expecting that to happen (btw, it's interesting that you don't think anti-elite sentiment can penetrate academic institutions, marxism has anti-elite sentiment and I've been hearing it's all we find in these universities...) Hillary Clinton is almost the opposite of a populist, come on now. And while you're right that it can be used as a pejorative, I hope you can see that this isn't what I'm doing here.
But you see, it’s more than the far right that talk about the phenomenon you describe. The center right also sees way the hell more identifying with liberal than conservative and those trend lines stretching back decades. Your explanation is that it’s something to do with the intellectual rigor of the arguments and the people espousing them. I say it’s a trendline distributed towards censorship of right-leaning thought and discouragement of that ideology starting back in undergraduate courses. It isn’t surprising given how regularly the modern left likes to label and dismiss rather than discuss (nothing to discuss!). I think the resulting tilt is a little surprising in its size (ratios like 17:1 in certain disciplines), but I can’t say the result is surprising given the unsurprising cause.
See, Clinton gave very populist speeches, just focusing on her own brand of it (grassroots minorities and women rising up against the dominant powers!). To say otherwise is to miss her speeches in the wake of seeing how little convincing she achieved. That’s just one little way your conception of populism and the right wing is faulty.
|
On November 06 2018 08:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just voted btw and boy did it suck. Vote for shitty tax raises where the Dems will bait and switch the spending or against, vote for shitty gun control laws or against, now pick between these two candidates who would throw you off a bridge to win their next election. Also fill in the bubbles next to these "elected" judges with no competition.
It's impressive to me as many people bother to vote as they do at this point. I'm guessing you're not in the Sarah Smith district? She was one of my favourites from the whole group.
I wish, I wrote in the local socialists I could though. 1 Dem got my vote because I've actually had conversations with them and literally no one else in our area even wants the job.
I've fallen into a twilight zone where Clinton was a populist. I also nearly passed out laughing imagining a far right gender studies professor.
|
On November 06 2018 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 08:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just voted btw and boy did it suck. Vote for shitty tax raises where the Dems will bait and switch the spending or against, vote for shitty gun control laws or against, now pick between these two candidates who would throw you off a bridge to win their next election. Also fill in the bubbles next to these "elected" judges with no competition.
It's impressive to me as many people bother to vote as they do at this point. I'm guessing you're not in the Sarah Smith district? She was one of my favourites from the whole group. I wish, I wrote in the local socialists I could though. 1 Dem got my vote because I've actually had conversations with them and literally no one else in our area even wants the job. I've fallen into a twilight zone where Clinton was a populist. I also nearly passed out laughing imagining a far right gender studies professor.
Oh her populist pitch felt fake, like so many things in her campaign. But cmon. Working families and mothers. Stronger together.
“our economy and our country are much better off because American families have basically done whatever it took to make it work. But I think it's fair to say as you look across the country, the deck is still stacked in favor of those already at the top. And there's something wrong with that.”
“There's something wrong when CEOs make 300 times more than the typical worker. There's something wrong when American workers keep getting more productive … but that productivity is not matched in their paychecks. There's something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than nurses or the truckers I saw on I-80 as I was driving here over the last two days.“
“I’m gonna fight for the economic futures of regular people”
“Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times. But the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top”
... ... was the 2015-16 election season really that long ago to forget both of their campaigns? Holy shit.
|
Another explanation for the lack of true conservative intellectuals is that the ground is well-tread at this point. The core elements of classical liberalism were all fleshed out hundreds of years ago, with some principles dating back to Aristotle. Even if you look at a modern classical liberal titan like Rawls, it's very clear that he's working well-within frameworks that have existed for at least a century before he was born. Pushing the boundaries of classical liberalism is fairly difficult. It's far easier for an intellectual to make a name for himself through study and development of ideas down one of the philosophical branches that chucks the traditional liberal framework, such as those founded by Marx or Nietzsche.
|
On November 06 2018 08:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2018 08:04 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2018 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just voted btw and boy did it suck. Vote for shitty tax raises where the Dems will bait and switch the spending or against, vote for shitty gun control laws or against, now pick between these two candidates who would throw you off a bridge to win their next election. Also fill in the bubbles next to these "elected" judges with no competition.
It's impressive to me as many people bother to vote as they do at this point. I'm guessing you're not in the Sarah Smith district? She was one of my favourites from the whole group. I wish, I wrote in the local socialists I could though. 1 Dem got my vote because I've actually had conversations with them and literally no one else in our area even wants the job. I've fallen into a twilight zone where Clinton was a populist. I also nearly passed out laughing imagining a far right gender studies professor. Oh her populist pitch felt fake, like so many things in her campaign. But cmon. Working families and mothers. Stronger together. “our economy and our country are much better off because American families have basically done whatever it took to make it work. But I think it's fair to say as you look across the country, the deck is still stacked in favor of those already at the top. And there's something wrong with that.” “There's something wrong when CEOs make 300 times more than the typical worker. There's something wrong when American workers keep getting more productive … but that productivity is not matched in their paychecks. There's something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than nurses or the truckers I saw on I-80 as I was driving here over the last two days.“ “I’m gonna fight for the economic futures of regular people” “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times. But the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top” ... ... was the 2015-16 election season really that long ago to forget both of their campaigns? Holy shit.
I suppose you were talking about her rhetoric not her policies so I just tuned most of it out, though "working families" is basically interchangeable with "voters" for most politicians of either party so it seems "populist" rhetoric would then encompass most of what all politicians say to try to sell shitty policy. I could probably pull quotes from practically any politician with similar implications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
