US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2858

On November 26 2020 14:50 BerserkSword wrote:


They fervently support what is essentially a NYC liberal - a leftist trojan horse.

The left has won the long game. Sad !

On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:

I don’t know what to make of conservatives these days. Part of me wants them to have a path back because I think conservative ideology has some actual value and depth where Trumpism is just conspiracy theories and personality cult. Concepts like rule of law and due process in particular could have a lot of value for restoring some sanity to our politics.

But hearing actual conservatives talk it’s still nothing but grievance politics. None of them has an answer for how conservatism became so bankrupt its own followers abandoned it for conspiracy theories and personality cult 4 years ago and mostly haven’t looked back. Objectively I think Trump is the least conservative president in my lifetime, but conservatives rarely have criticism for it and never have a sincere argument about how a more conservative approach would actually address any of these modern problems.

The retreat to “Obama did something similar once” is telling, not just because the juxtaposition is rarely favorable, but because it doesn’t even pretend to offer solutions. It’s pure deflection. In this case the outrage is over using state power to obtain or manufacture damaging material about opposition leaders, but about a year ago we learned Trump did exactly that and they didn’t seem especially concerned. As they say, the only ones who believe Republicans’ arguments are Democrats.

Guys like Jonah Goldberg seem to sincerely believe in conservative ideology, recognize how atrocious the last 4 years were by conservative standards, and genuinely want to restore conservative principles to the party. But everybody on the right hates guys like Jonah Goldberg, because they don’t care about conservative principles, they care about their grievances. And Trumpism is so obviously superior if all you really want is payback for all the times you think the other side wronged you. Increasingly I’m not sure how many actual conservatives there are; most self-described conservatives don’t seem to give a shit about Burke or Hayek or Buckley. At some point it’s just a brand people use because the accurate descriptor would be something like “paranoid nationalist” and that doesn’t sound very good.

On November 26 2020 15:00 NewSunshine wrote:

I wish. I mean, like Kwark, I'm not totally sure what reality you occupy if you think Trump is some kind of left-wing wet dream. Progressives see the potential for government and its workers to do good for people in ways that a Capitalist market never will, and Trump basically saw our government as a big stack of hay, as he walked up with a match. That's American "no government is good government" conservatism at its heart.

But again, I wish.

On November 26 2020 15:43 ChristianS wrote:
But at that point doesn’t it just confuse things to use the term “conservative” (once referring to an ideology, i.e. “Edmund Burke was the father if Conservatism”) to refer to raw power-seeking opportunism? At various points people have tried to define an ideological framework of Conservatism; where modern self-described conservatives opportunistically deviate from that, wouldn’t it be easier to call them un-conservative than to define Conservatism as the opportunism itself?

On November 26 2020 15:49 BerserkSword wrote:


First of all, the government will never be able to do good for the people, including workers, the way a free market can. But that's another discussion of course lol

Second of all, calling Trump "conservatism at its heart" is akin to Republicans calling Biden a "socialist" - it just isn't the case. I never said Trump is a leftist wet dream either btw.

Trump is not a "no government" politician. The deficit ballooned under him. Federalism particularly the Executive branch flourished under him. Government intervention in the economy continued under him (and even increased in certain areas).

Central banking, growing federal deficits, tariffs/protectionism, subsidies for certain businesses and sectors, and bailouts are not conservatism at least in the original sense.

Trump violated the 2a with bump stocks with the NRA so fuck them both, not to mention the large ATF crackdown.

Proposing a 500 billion dollar initiative that benefits only one demographic is not "no government" or "conservative"

Just because Trump is not one of the far left nuts that have seeped into our system, doesn't mean he isn't a sign that the left has won. Just because Trump is the lesser poison, doesn't mean he still isn't poison.

Trump, and his gargantuan body of support, are proof that the overton window is shifting left. Even my own party's nominee, to my disgust, had something good to say about the self-proclaimed Marxist organization, BLM - another sign the left is winning the long game.

The only saving grace is that the vast majority of civilian firearms and ammunition resides with those who at least, on the surface, believe in things like the Constitution, free markets, and classical liberalism/libertarianism; and reject government authoritarianism. It will take the oligarchs and their anti-liberty agenda time to overcome this - hopefully it won't be until after I'm dead and gone that those who believe in liberty will be on the fringe. It doesn't matter in the long run as more and more are subverted and end up fervently supporting trojan horses like Trump, who have the more right wing rhetoric but policy wise....gg

On November 26 2020 16:05 KwarK wrote:

It’s not clear that you’ve met many of these constitutionalists you’re putting your faith in. They want their religion to be the state religion, they want their employer to receive state subsidies, they want their candidate to be the only one on the ballot, they want the police to enforce laws on everyone but them, they want taxpayer funded social security, but no handouts, they want a free press consisting of only their preferred network, and so forth.

I doubt the Americans you’re imagining ever existed. The contradiction has always existed in America. The oligarchs don’t need to overcome the noble backbone of America, they already own it.

On November 26 2020 15:55 KwarK wrote:

It probably does make things more confusing but I think the point is still valid. Conservatism isn’t cohesive or coherent, the only solid theme is about power. It’s why the iconic symbols of modern American conservatism are a blue lives matter flag, a punisher skull, and the Gadsden flag. They simultaneously worship police authority, as applied to others, while declaring resistance against the state telling them what to do.

I think reducing it to the core monopolization of power is the only real way to get a grasp on what it’s about because everything else is ephemeral. It’s either for religion or against it, for economic freedom or against it, for a free press or against it, for democracy or against it, for personal freedoms or against it. The hypocrisy is the definition. It’s the only possible definition because nothing else sticks. If it’s not defined as a contradictory patchwork of borrowed ideas opportunistically used to protect the interests of those in power then how could you define it?

On November 26 2020 16:27 ChristianS wrote:

I don’t know, I’ve always favored a flexible approach to definitions (let people define a word how they want for purposes of a particular argument, for instance). But beyond the semantic question, the underlying point is that ideally people would argue for or against political positions on the basis of sincere belief in universalizable principles. Right-wing partisans often appeal to such principles, but in obviously self-serving and insincere fashion. Does that mean they’re hiding their real principles, or that they have none?

There’s a coherent-ish story you can tell, for instance, that conservatives believe abortion is a moral atrocity on the scale of the Holocaust, that making it illegal is a necessary step in ending that atrocity, and that anything they say or do to obtain power is justified by that moral imperative. Supporting or opposing any other position or politician is a purely transactional decision in pursuit of that goal.

I’ve known self-described conservatives who claim pretty much exactly that. But I’m not sure I buy it. If pro-life belief based on sincere pursuit of their Christian faith was really their raison d’etre I have trouble believing their faith would lead them to such a Machiavellian approach, and their other top priorities (e.g. lowering taxes or harming immigrants) would be hard to justify giving so much weight. Abortion is clearly something they reach for when they want to feel moral superiority (e.g. when being challenged for supporting this or that atrocity), but not the rest of the time.

But otherwise what motivates them? It’s plausible enough that McConnell or Cruz or Trump are just wearing whatever skin they think will maximize their power, but what about the millions of supporters? Many of them have none of that power, and no expectation that they ever will. What’s more, they seem to think *they’re* the ones with a boot on their neck, and yet McConnell and Cruz and Trump are who they look to hoping to remove it. Why?

First of all, the government will never be able to do good for the people, including workers, the way a free market can. But that's another discussion of course lol

Even my own party's nominee, to my disgust, had something good to say about the self-proclaimed Marxist organization, BLM - another sign the left is winning the long game.

On November 26 2020 16:59 KwarK wrote:

I disagree. I would speculate that the poorest of Trump supporters believe their taxes are too high and are probably funding welfare for people who don’t need it. They identify as part of an entitled in group, whether or not it’s true. It’s pure identity politics, white Christian males (or a combination of 2) feeling like they deserve more.

While I agree that modern conservatives are obsessed with the idea that they’re victims, in my opinion they don’t believe they’re an underclass, they believe they’re a mistreated over class. Take The War on Christmas. They’re not upset that they can’t celebrate Christmas, they’re upset that Starbucks aren’t using red cups with explicitly Christian references on them. Or the ongoing outrage over the “lying press”, they’re not upset that they can’t report the news, they’re upset that not only them can report the news.

A marginalized group says “we make up 10% of society yet we’re almost never depicted in the media”. A conservative group says “we make up 80% of society, how come we’re not exclusively depicted in the media”.

Their material conditions don’t actually matter because they identify as belonging to an in group. If anything it amplifies the conservatism due to the presumptive entitlement, the worse things are for you the more the world needs to be set right. If you identify as a hard working American then being unemployed just means that someone else stole the job you clearly deserved. If you identify as middle class then earning minimum wage means that someone stole your American dream. And conservstism’s answer in every case is that an out group is to blame and that a bigger boot to stamp on them is the solution.

On November 26 2020 17:02 Salazarz wrote:


Not to take your conversation too far off topic, but I am genuinely curious, what are the reasons for your position on this? Compared to the rest of the developed world, the US has some of the worst (if not genuinely the worst) track records when it comes to things like workers' rights, access to education and healthcare, justice system outcomes, etc. What makes you think that the free market does good for the people when the US has a higher relative poverty rate than such wonderful places like Russia and Mexico, keeps a proportion of its population in prison comparable to that of Stalin's Soviet Union, is the only OECD country that lacks such basic protections like mandatory paid parental leave or universal healthcare, and so on.

Not trying to start an argument on this, I'm just very interested in what is your position based on.

On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:

I don’t know what to make of conservatives these days. Part of me wants them to have a path back because I think conservative ideology has some actual value and depth where Trumpism is just conspiracy theories and personality cult. Concepts like rule of law and due process in particular could have a lot of value for restoring some sanity to our politics.

But hearing actual conservatives talk it’s still nothing but grievance politics. None of them has an answer for how conservatism became so bankrupt its own followers abandoned it for conspiracy theories and personality cult 4 years ago and mostly haven’t looked back. Objectively I think Trump is the least conservative president in my lifetime, but conservatives rarely have criticism for it and never have a sincere argument about how a more conservative approach would actually address any of these modern problems.

The retreat to “Obama did something similar once” is telling, not just because the juxtaposition is rarely favorable, but because it doesn’t even pretend to offer solutions. It’s pure deflection. In this case the outrage is over using state power to obtain or manufacture damaging material about opposition leaders, but about a year ago we learned Trump did exactly that and they didn’t seem especially concerned. As they say, the only ones who believe Republicans’ arguments are Democrats.

Guys like Jonah Goldberg seem to sincerely believe in conservative ideology, recognize how atrocious the last 4 years were by conservative standards, and genuinely want to restore conservative principles to the party. But everybody on the right hates guys like Jonah Goldberg, because they don’t care about conservative principles, they care about their grievances. And Trumpism is so obviously superior if all you really want is payback for all the times you think the other side wronged you. Increasingly I’m not sure how many actual conservatives there are; most self-described conservatives don’t seem to give a shit about Burke or Hayek or Buckley. At some point it’s just a brand people use because the accurate descriptor would be something like “paranoid nationalist” and that doesn’t sound very good.

On November 26 2020 14:50 BerserkSword wrote:


They fervently support what is essentially a NYC liberal - a leftist trojan horse.

The left has won the long game. Sad !

On November 26 2020 18:34 Simberto wrote:


Were you actually serious here, or is this some kind of ironic take on a Trump tweet? It is hard to tell.

In a 2004 interview, Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat", explaining: "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats...But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disaster under the Republicans."[5] In a July 2015 interview, Trump said that he has a broad range of political positions and that "I identify with some things as a Democrat."[4]

On November 26 2020 18:34 Simberto wrote:


Were you actually serious here, or is this some kind of ironic take on a Trump tweet? It is hard to tell.

On November 26 2020 21:57 Gahlo wrote:

How?

On November 26 2020 18:34 Simberto wrote:


Were you actually serious here, or is this some kind of ironic take on a Trump tweet? It is hard to tell.