|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 26 2020 14:50 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t know what to make of conservatives these days. They fervently support what is essentially a NYC liberal - a leftist trojan horse. The left has won the long game. Sad ! 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.
|
United States40729 Posts
On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 14:00 KwarK wrote:On November 26 2020 13:55 ChristianS wrote:On November 26 2020 13:47 KwarK wrote:On November 26 2020 13:43 Introvert wrote:On November 26 2020 13:38 KwarK wrote:On November 26 2020 13:37 Introvert wrote:On November 26 2020 11:50 KwarK wrote:On November 26 2020 11:33 Introvert wrote: Took a thread break, but just have to express my happiness that Flynn was pardoned. Besides Trump himself, he may have been the first and most wronged individual coming out of the Russian Collusion nonsense. At the very least that injustice will not be allowed to stand. He was literally an agent of a foreign government and advancing their interests over American interests as national security advisor? What reality are you from? He’s guilty of a capital offence. They should have hanged him. And even if that story is 100% accurate that has what to do with the farce of trying to first get him on the Logan Act (good idea, Joe Biden!). They were clearly out to get him from the very start. Another reason I don't want to hear complaints about "peaceful transitions of power." The last one hobbled the current from before he was even sworn in. This is a good day. When you say "even if it's accurate" are you saying that you don't believe Flynn registered himself as a foreign agent after the news broke? Which part of this are you skeptical about? Flynn literally filed paperwork to declare that he was getting paid by Turkey while working as NSA. Do you think he lied on that paperwork? What Flynn did would earn almost anyone else a slap on the wrist. Turkey isn't even the main story here What Flynn did was treasonous. He cancelled a planned US/Kurdish attack on the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa because it would have given a victory to the Kurdish YPG which was contrary to Turkish interests. He literally prevented an attack on ISIS because Turkey asked him to. At a certain point Introvert even you have to stop defending the guy who is on the side of ISIS over the United States. I think we’re kinda glossing over “prosecuting Flynn means Democrats can’t complain about Trump trying to steal an election he lost.” That’s easily the more embarrassing take imo That too. Trump was hobbled by requiring his appointees to obtain security clearances and declare conflicts of interest which are the basic requirements that every appointee should have been able to pass. Insisting that those requirements didn’t give Trump’s foreign agent appointees a fair chance is a weird take. 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. It makes a whole lot more sense when you frame conservatism as a mindless dedication to propping up the status quo and crushing those who seek to change it. Trump is arguably the worst President there has ever been for protecting law and order, his open advocacy for police brutality, his pardons of convicted war criminals and corrupt cops, the end of Justice department investigations into crimes committed by the police, and so forth put him firmly on the side of creating a lawless society. But once you realize “law and order” is a euphemism for “keep the boot on the neck of the downtrodden” it all makes sense. Same with the economy. He doesn’t want free markets, he wants to pick the winners who support him while targeting corporations who don’t. But that’s always what conservative economic policies have been about, in a truly free market the “right people” might not win. Same with religious freedom. Same with tax policy. Same with foreign policy.
Trump just took the mask off. Conservative ideology (as opposed to classical liberal like Adam Smith or Thomas Jefferson) has no ideological core. It coopts whatever ideology it requires to concentrate power within its supporters and maintain the status quo but it doesn’t incorporate them into itself. Trump stopped pretending to have principles and nakedly pursued a conservative agenda, in that way he’s the most honest of the bunch. The rest of them declared their outrage at Trump’s brazenness while supporting him every step of the way.
(I’m distinguishing between libertarianism etc. which are actual ideologies and conservatism here. Not everyone on the right is a conservative. Conservatives have coopted beliefs from a number of different real ideologies because they serve their purpose.)
|
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 15:00 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 14:50 BerserkSword wrote:On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t know what to make of conservatives these days. They fervently support what is essentially a NYC liberal - a leftist trojan horse. The left has won the long game. Sad ! 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.
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
|
United States40729 Posts
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? 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?
|
United States40729 Posts
On November 26 2020 15:49 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 15:00 NewSunshine wrote:On November 26 2020 14:50 BerserkSword wrote:On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t know what to make of conservatives these days. They fervently support what is essentially a NYC liberal - a leftist trojan horse. The left has won the long game. Sad ! 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. 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 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. When the second amendment supporters march it’ll be in support of a bigger government boot to be pressed down on the neck of people much like themselves.
|
On November 26 2020 16:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 15:49 BerserkSword wrote:On November 26 2020 15:00 NewSunshine wrote:On November 26 2020 14:50 BerserkSword wrote:On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t know what to make of conservatives these days. They fervently support what is essentially a NYC liberal - a leftist trojan horse. The left has won the long game. Sad ! 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. 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 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.
Oh believe me I don't have faith. Which is why I said "at least, on the surface."
I am aware of the double think that goes on among many Republicans when it comes to actual policy (claim to be free market but support tariffs, trade wars, subsidies, and bailouts; claim to be small government but support an obscene military presence; claim to be 2a but appeal to "common sense" if a republican violates 2a; etc)
I lost faith a long time ago. Most other libertarians I know have also. I just brought them up because I think they can at least slow things down lol. Those who are trying to further consolidate power at the top cannot do it at will in "one" fell swoop at the moment due to potentially setting off a powder keg (guns, ammo, and domestic food supply are controlled by republicans), unless things are worse than I thought. It needs to be insidious like it always has been.
The Americans I am thinking of have existed though, and still do. The number is just getting smaller and smaller.
|
On November 26 2020 15:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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? 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?
|
United States40729 Posts
On November 26 2020 16:27 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 15:55 KwarK wrote: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? 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? 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? 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.
|
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
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.
|
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.
Ouch... How can you even say "BLM" is even an organization? Does it have a chosen leader? A HQ? A central point do give donations?It isn't one, it is a slogan similar to "me too" and others which has fired up a lot of people to protest. Nobody can "proclaim" BLM as Marxist, so you don't make any sense at all here.
|
Northern Ireland20509 Posts
On November 26 2020 16:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 16:27 ChristianS wrote:On November 26 2020 15:55 KwarK wrote: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? 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? 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? 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. Aye, it takes that identity and confusing pushes towards equality across the board as oppression towards your in-group. You see the usual suspects out over here any time any ode to Irishness and Irish identity is enshrined publicly (like dual English/Irish Gaelic street signs. Rather than see Britishness as a particular identity, this cohort that shares it sees it as the default identity, the way it’s always been and ‘why do Irish nationalists need x?’ They tend to view enfranchisement of as a net loss to their identity, for some reason even though it’s not really impacted whatsoever. (I mean you still have English signage, Union flags and you can still celebrate Christmas as per your example.
It’s quite a curious phenomenon where a quite abstract ‘real American’ identity consisting of disparate elements outweighs all sorts of other considerations, be they clear ideological contradictions or finding commonality with fellow poor people. The preservation of a limited (in this specific case white male privilege) in say, society’s tolerance of a particular kind of exclusionary banter is more important than addressing all sorts of other wider societal problems. Partly I assume because even if life isn’t going to plan, that’s one area they enjoy some kind of limited social power, and may not even realise they wield it, having parsed it as being a neutral default.
Thus you end up with a group who hate educated people even if they’re earning 15k a year and decry them as ‘elites’, but like Trump with a clear track record of having utter contempt for the working man, because he behaves the way ‘real’ Americans should do.
|
On November 26 2020 17:02 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +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 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.
I'm glad someone else picked up on this, I'd also like to hear more on this. It seems like a bold statement to start with without backing it up further.
|
On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 14:00 KwarK wrote:On November 26 2020 13:55 ChristianS wrote:On November 26 2020 13:47 KwarK wrote:On November 26 2020 13:43 Introvert wrote:On November 26 2020 13:38 KwarK wrote:On November 26 2020 13:37 Introvert wrote:On November 26 2020 11:50 KwarK wrote:On November 26 2020 11:33 Introvert wrote: Took a thread break, but just have to express my happiness that Flynn was pardoned. Besides Trump himself, he may have been the first and most wronged individual coming out of the Russian Collusion nonsense. At the very least that injustice will not be allowed to stand. He was literally an agent of a foreign government and advancing their interests over American interests as national security advisor? What reality are you from? He’s guilty of a capital offence. They should have hanged him. And even if that story is 100% accurate that has what to do with the farce of trying to first get him on the Logan Act (good idea, Joe Biden!). They were clearly out to get him from the very start. Another reason I don't want to hear complaints about "peaceful transitions of power." The last one hobbled the current from before he was even sworn in. This is a good day. When you say "even if it's accurate" are you saying that you don't believe Flynn registered himself as a foreign agent after the news broke? Which part of this are you skeptical about? Flynn literally filed paperwork to declare that he was getting paid by Turkey while working as NSA. Do you think he lied on that paperwork? What Flynn did would earn almost anyone else a slap on the wrist. Turkey isn't even the main story here What Flynn did was treasonous. He cancelled a planned US/Kurdish attack on the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa because it would have given a victory to the Kurdish YPG which was contrary to Turkish interests. He literally prevented an attack on ISIS because Turkey asked him to. At a certain point Introvert even you have to stop defending the guy who is on the side of ISIS over the United States. I think we’re kinda glossing over “prosecuting Flynn means Democrats can’t complain about Trump trying to steal an election he lost.” That’s easily the more embarrassing take imo That too. Trump was hobbled by requiring his appointees to obtain security clearances and declare conflicts of interest which are the basic requirements that every appointee should have been able to pass. Insisting that those requirements didn’t give Trump’s foreign agent appointees a fair chance is a weird take. 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.
unfortunately even the "sane" ones like David Frum and Jonah Goldberg were wrong about almost everything back in the 2000s (David Frum even thought gay marriage would destabilize the American family, lmfao). I think Republicans might have to go back 30, maybe even 40, years before their ideology can become salvageable.
|
On November 26 2020 14:50 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t know what to make of conservatives these days. They fervently support what is essentially a NYC liberal - a leftist trojan horse. The left has won the long game. Sad !
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 18:34 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 14:50 BerserkSword wrote:On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t know what to make of conservatives these days. They fervently support what is essentially a NYC liberal - a leftist trojan horse. The left has won the long game. Sad ! Were you actually serious here, or is this some kind of ironic take on a Trump tweet? It is hard to tell. I think its pretty serious and not entirely untrue.
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] Now ofcourse he is not a trojan horse for the left, and I don't think he has a clear defined political position. He supports whatever is best for him and his businesses but prior to his run for President many people would have identified Trump as left, not right.
|
On November 26 2020 18:34 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 14:50 BerserkSword wrote:On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t know what to make of conservatives these days. They fervently support what is essentially a NYC liberal - a leftist trojan horse. The left has won the long game. Sad ! Were you actually serious here, or is this some kind of ironic take on a Trump tweet? It is hard to tell.
I think he's associating Trump with the left because he believes both of them have the primary interest of increasing the scope of government power. It does not seem like a troll to me because he has repeated this point a few times already.
|
On November 26 2020 15:49 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 15:00 NewSunshine wrote:On November 26 2020 14:50 BerserkSword wrote:On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t know what to make of conservatives these days. They fervently support what is essentially a NYC liberal - a leftist trojan horse. The left has won the long game. Sad ! 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. 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 How?
|
On November 26 2020 21:57 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 15:49 BerserkSword wrote:On November 26 2020 15:00 NewSunshine wrote:On November 26 2020 14:50 BerserkSword wrote:On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t know what to make of conservatives these days. They fervently support what is essentially a NYC liberal - a leftist trojan horse. The left has won the long game. Sad ! 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. 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 How? Some 2a'ers belive that bump stocks should be protected by the second amendment because we need automatic weapons for our militias.
|
On November 26 2020 18:34 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 14:50 BerserkSword wrote:On November 26 2020 14:46 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t know what to make of conservatives these days. They fervently support what is essentially a NYC liberal - a leftist trojan horse. The left has won the long game. Sad ! Were you actually serious here, or is this some kind of ironic take on a Trump tweet? It is hard to tell. It seems to me that Berserk is one of the people who are so far to the right (in this case, regarding the "freedom vs goverment" issue) that to them, everyone else looks a raging leftist radical, even other right wingers.
|
|
|
|