Maybe when people avoid talking about something politically touchy it is a deep dark conspiracy, like when I avoid touching a hot stove because I am conspiring to avoid pain.
More like when all of us refrain from touching it. Clearly it's a conspiracy. (Probably a pretty widespread one.)
Maybe we should require all partisans to carry a partisan as a marker.
OK, a ten foot polearm is a bit inconvenient, in particular inside buildings (how to get that into an elevator?)
You don't even try to get it into an elevator; that's why God invented staircases. Sure, it's tiring carrying it up and down stairs. But if you want to be a partisan, you should be prepared to suffer for your cause. Even if you are a Congressman or a Supreme Court Justice.
the slush fund was already known, at least to me, before the tax-audit immunity. So, bad as it was with just the slush fund
Not sure I can accept a $1.8 billion slush fund, funded by my tax dollars, as "just a slush fund." At some some point a difference in magnitude becomes a difference in kind.
Just FYI, the Presidents (in my lifetime) I would consider conservatives as I understand the term: Eisenhower, Bush I, Obama. With Nixon and maybe Clinton as close but not really there.
YMMV
I’d be interested to know when wj thinks the switch happened between most conservatives being roughly like him, and now. When last, under which presidency, did you feel wj that people like you were part of the conservative mainstream? And do you think that your views have changed somewhat as a reaction to the changes you have perceived developing in today’s GOP?
I think it was more of a gradual change than a switch. There were glimmers with Barry Goldwater, although he wouldn't be accounted one of their own by today's "conservatives." Well, he was far more libertarian than conservative. Nixon's Southern Strategy took a big step, by bringing southern white racist reactionaries in and labeling them "conservative." Their views weren't, then, the norm, but they were accepted into the fold.
I've been anti-Reagan since he was Governor of California. (Might have something to do with his hostility to the University of California while I was a student there.) As President he seemed more libertarian than conservative or reactionary; less so than Goldwater, but in that mold. And he would be absolutely unacceptable to today's "conservatives" -- not nasty enough. And probably view them with utter contempt, too.
The last time I felt that I was anywhere near the conservative mainstream? Probably the mid-1990s. (Bob Dole was the last Republican Presidential candidate I voted for. Since then, with the exception of Romney, they've seemed more like Dixiecrats.)
I'm sure my views have changed some over the years. (One of my favorite quotes when it comes to politics: "When the known facts change, I change my views accordingly. What do you do?") But I feel like it's more a matter of my views becoming more vehement as some things I care about come under increased threat from the insanities self-proclaimed conservatives.
I think his perception that the true class divide is between people whose income comes from their work, and people whose income comes from there money, is pretty accurate.
I'm inclined to agree. With a couple of caveats.
First, I'd include people whose work involves playing with other people's money (bankers, brokers, etc.) in with the second group. Perhaps phrase it simply as "income from money" rather than just those with "income from their money."
Second, I think a bit of nuance may be required when looking at people who are retired. A lot of us are living on income from money (i.e. our savings, investments, and IRAs), even though we earned that originally from work. Some of those remain in the money-from-work group, and others morph (psychologically and politically) into the money-from-money group -- without actually being perceived as joining the moneyed class.
The problem actual conservatives – people like wj, if I may speak for him – have is that the brand has been taken over by reactionaries and irresponsible greedheads.
Very well put. I'm clear that, at this pount, I'm probably fighting a losing battle in trying to reclaim the brand. But I haven't come up with a better label. If someone has suggestions, I'd definitely be interested.
I suggest that, aside from being reluctant in general to change things, a conservative believes that the distribution of wealth resulting from the operation of the somewhat free market we’ve got is proper and just.
I can't speak for how UK conservatives (or Conservatives, which I understand may be rather different) may understand things. But here is how I would view conservatism regarding the distribution of wealth:
If someone acquires wealth (stipulating legal means), then they are entitled to enjoy that wealth. However, there is a limit -- which I would label "Enough". At some point, you have all of the necessities of life covered, and also (in no rigid order) you have funds set aside for emergencies, you have made reasonable progress (for your age) towards funding your retirement, and you have some number of luxuries. At some point, you reach a pkace where you are limited by the one thing you cannot buy: time. That is, you can't acutally enjoy an addditional luxury without ceasing to have time for one you have already.**
At that point (if not before), you have Enough. There is no financial reason to acquire more wealth. The only "benefit" is to be able to say, to those with no clue what you do or why it matters, "I must be better / more important than you because I am richer / get paid more." To be blunt, it's nothing but a dick measuring contest. Which can be done just as well, for those who care, even if income beyond that is taxed at 100%.
If a country finds it has people who have wealth beyond that, they have a problem. One which needs to be addressed, for the common good. (But also, although they likely won't recognize it, for the good of the wealthy. Otherwise torches and pitchforks, possible not even metaphoric ones, are probably in their future.) Exactly how best to go about that effectively and equitably is an open question. That it should be done is not.
** Stipulating the "enjoy" does not encompass just being happy to own something, even though it is somewhere where you never even see it.
The addendum, signed by Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, says the government is “forever barred” and “precluded” from examining the tax returns of Trump, his family, company and “related companies”.
I’m not sure the “forever” authority exists, but either way … wow. It was bad enough already and now this.
Bad as this is, and it is horrible, I don't think it's the worst part of the "settlement."
The worst part is Trump, via his Attorney General, agreeing to give Trump a billion dollar slush fund, out of our tax dollars, to spend on essentially anything he likes. Primarily rewarding any of his followers who break the law at his behest. But decisions on who gets how much are made entirely by a panel he, as a private individual, appoints.
GftNC, Why do you think they bothered to make up a word (“masculinism”) when "massive insecurity" was available?
There may be a few misogynists coming from somewhere else. But most of the ones I encounter or read about seem to be almost panicy in their insecurity.
solidly middle-class hippy-ish artists. I wouldn’t even go so far as “sufficiently financially secure as to not be especially risk-averse.”
If you can afford to be a "hippy-ish artist" you're plenty financially secure. Otherwise, you'd be washing dishes or whatever else was necessary to stay alive, not takung the risk of spending you time and energy going art.**. The "solidly middle class" is the clue.
** I realize that I'm interpreting "hippy-ish artist" as someone who isn't actually making lots of money by producing great art.
I was interested in nous being struck by the idea that Liberalism is elitist. I have noticed that this has become an increasingly common rhetorical trope of the right
To some extent, this depends on just how you define "elite." Obviously, if you define it as ultra-rich, it's nonsense to claim they are generally liberal, although individuals may be. But if you define it as sufficiently financially secure as to not be especially risk-averse, it's a much better fit.
That's what allows the far right to make such effective use of it: it's got enough plausibility to resonate with the substantial portion of the population which does not have the luxury of taking a chance on change being an improvement. Given how complex economic interactions are, it's challenging for even professional economists to predict what a particular change will have as second order effects. The general public is going to have to take a lot on faith.
The only “real problems” conservatives identify are those that might trim their position in society or their power. It is a philosphy of arrogance.
Riddle me this. I'm a conservative. I think we have a real and serious problem in this country due to the extreme skew in the distribution of wealth. It needs to be fixed. So, how might calling for fixing that be arrogance? I suppose Those People (in this case, the extremely rich) might consider a solution to impact their power and position. But how is this problem, or its solution impacting mine?
One other point. You will find, if you trouble to talk to them, that a lot of middle class and working class people are pretty conservative. I would say that you are sort-of correct that they are concerned that changes might impact their power and position. Specifically that their economic position is fragile, and it wouldn't take much of a change to hurt them badly. That's why the focus on the price of gas or of groceries. I'm not seeing the arrogance involved there.
To hsh's point, I believe that has been true historically as well. See Marx (or Trotsky) on the petit bourgeoisie. Or the griping, amoung liberals today, about the working class voting "against their inrerests." If you realize that, in their view, any change is a threat to their economic survival until proven otherwise, it's clear that being conservative is in their interest as they see them. They may be wrong But taking chances on changes, especially big changes, is a luxury they don't feel they can afford.
There is nothing good to say for the conservatism(s).
Bull .
Just for openers, conservatism is a check on fads with shaky to no basis in the real world. Even a little thought will easily get you a couple of cases where somebody (liberal or otherwise) identified a real problem. Came up with a solution that sounded good. And, when it was tried, found that a) it wasn't implementable, or b) it was going to cost multiples of what was forecast, or c) in practice it either failed to solve the problem or even made it worse, or etc. It's easy to say "Well, hindsight is 20/20 and in retrospect...." But often a little more hesitation would have shown up the problems.
Juso be clear, conservatives can come up with bad solutions too. The difference, as I see it, is that their slow and gradual inclinations reduce the chances of falling all the way off the cliff without having time to stop.
I realize it can be infuriating to have someone pour cold water on your brilliant plan to solve a very real problem. And sometimes those opposing you really are doing so for the worst reasons. But sometimes the concerns that motivate the folks objecting involve real shortcomings in your brilliant plan. Hard as that can be to swallow.
The economies of rural and urban areas are intertwined to an enormous degree. In principle, rural areas could just shift back to subsistence agriculture. Except that agriculture today is highly specialized. You can get corn in Kansas, but if you want lettuce or tomatoes or avacado you mostly have to get it from California. And vis versa.
Also, the refineries which make the fuel for farm equipment are at least on the edges of cities. Pretty much zero farmers today are prepared to do farming without powered machinery. Even if there were horses to work the (no longer available) old fashioned farm equipment. For that matter, the whole transportation system depends on those refineries.
The other detail is money. At this point, money changing hands in the US is almost entirely electronic. And the data centers which process those transactions are in urban areas. Money was invented for a reason. Using barter is possible for an occasional interaction. But for general use? Not viable any more. Especially since you are necessarily dealing with people far away who you have never even met.
We've already (re-)discovered, thanks to the Trump tariffs, how intertwined our economy is with the rest of the world. Internally, it is far more integrated. Unless you are willing to personally die slowly and painfully of starvation, just to make some kind of political or philosophical point, you're stuck. And when push comes to shove, how many people are that fanatical?
Armed urbans launching raids into rural areas? Not as clear.
I'm thinking that a suburban environment is different from both. Drones would be far more effective, for both sides, than in an urban environment. But less so than in a rural area with long sightlines.
Troops on the ground is a fools errand when the people don’t want you there. Especially when what you really want is to bring those people back under your control.
Well, there is the caveat that, because part of Putin's real goal is to eradicate Ukrainian culture, he is OK with a result which merely eliminates all the Ukrainians. It still isn't working out for him. But it does to give him more options than if he wanted to take them over alive and subjugate them.
A couple of partition issues that would have to be addressed:
How many pieces are acceptable in the outcome? For example, Michael's map lumps together the mountain west with the Pacific coast states. Are they different enough to warrant splitting them up? How about Texas and the southern Great Plains? In short, how finely do we need to chop things up?If we can break the nation into regions, could we do the same with individual states? For example, upstate New York might prefer to divorce New York City (and its suburbs). Does that including splitting up individual counties? Do the new regions have to be contiguous? Not just the obvious cases (which region, if any, do Alaska or Hawai'i attach to?). But can you have a bunch of urban islands belong to one region while the surrounding rural area belongs to another? If so, how does that work in practice? If not, what's the philosophical argument for that restriction?
To say that the devil is in the details is putting it mildly. I could see an agreement in principle to split up, followed by years of debate over what regions there will be and who is in which one. Not to mention the other grubby issues. Brexit still has details being fought over, and the UK was part of the EU for barely a generation. Not to mention the EU even now being less integrated than the US is.
Against this backdrop, President Trump wasn’t an aberration; he was an inevitability.
Except that those preachers all felt compelled to at least give lip service to religion and to moral behavior. That's where Trump is an aberation -- he got a cult following without ever making a pretense of believing in their faith or in morality generally. (Although I suppose it could be argued that he embodies the ultimate end of the Prosperity Gospel nonsense.)
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “What’s wrong with liberalism?”
Well, no. Her opponent was the worst person ever. But not, unfortunately, the worst candidate.
Too many people here made the mistake of equating the two.
"
More like when all of us refrain from touching it. Clearly it's a conspiracy. (Probably a pretty widespread one.)
And let me second GftNC, good to hear your voice.
"
You don't even try to get it into an elevator; that's why God invented staircases. Sure, it's tiring carrying it up and down stairs. But if you want to be a partisan, you should be prepared to suffer for your cause. Even if you are a Congressman or a Supreme Court Justice.
On “Open Thread time”
Not sure I can accept a $1.8 billion slush fund, funded by my tax dollars, as "just a slush fund." At some some point a difference in magnitude becomes a difference in kind.
On “What’s wrong with liberalism?”
Just FYI, the Presidents (in my lifetime) I would consider conservatives as I understand the term: Eisenhower, Bush I, Obama. With Nixon and maybe Clinton as close but not really there.
YMMV
"
I think it was more of a gradual change than a switch. There were glimmers with Barry Goldwater, although he wouldn't be accounted one of their own by today's "conservatives." Well, he was far more libertarian than conservative. Nixon's Southern Strategy took a big step, by bringing southern white racist reactionaries in and labeling them "conservative." Their views weren't, then, the norm, but they were accepted into the fold.
I've been anti-Reagan since he was Governor of California. (Might have something to do with his hostility to the University of California while I was a student there.) As President he seemed more libertarian than conservative or reactionary; less so than Goldwater, but in that mold. And he would be absolutely unacceptable to today's "conservatives" -- not nasty enough. And probably view them with utter contempt, too.
The last time I felt that I was anywhere near the conservative mainstream? Probably the mid-1990s. (Bob Dole was the last Republican Presidential candidate I voted for. Since then, with the exception of Romney, they've seemed more like Dixiecrats.)
I'm sure my views have changed some over the years. (One of my favorite quotes when it comes to politics: "When the known facts change, I change my views accordingly. What do you do?") But I feel like it's more a matter of my views becoming more vehement as some things I care about come under increased threat from the insanities self-proclaimed conservatives.
Hope that helps.
"
I'm inclined to agree. With a couple of caveats.
First, I'd include people whose work involves playing with other people's money (bankers, brokers, etc.) in with the second group. Perhaps phrase it simply as "income from money" rather than just those with "income from their money."
Second, I think a bit of nuance may be required when looking at people who are retired. A lot of us are living on income from money (i.e. our savings, investments, and IRAs), even though we earned that originally from work. Some of those remain in the money-from-work group, and others morph (psychologically and politically) into the money-from-money group -- without actually being perceived as joining the moneyed class.
"
Very well put. I'm clear that, at this pount, I'm probably fighting a losing battle in trying to reclaim the brand. But I haven't come up with a better label. If someone has suggestions, I'd definitely be interested.
"
I can't speak for how UK conservatives (or Conservatives, which I understand may be rather different) may understand things. But here is how I would view conservatism regarding the distribution of wealth:
If someone acquires wealth (stipulating legal means), then they are entitled to enjoy that wealth. However, there is a limit -- which I would label "Enough". At some point, you have all of the necessities of life covered, and also (in no rigid order) you have funds set aside for emergencies, you have made reasonable progress (for your age) towards funding your retirement, and you have some number of luxuries. At some point, you reach a pkace where you are limited by the one thing you cannot buy: time. That is, you can't acutally enjoy an addditional luxury without ceasing to have time for one you have already.**
At that point (if not before), you have Enough. There is no financial reason to acquire more wealth. The only "benefit" is to be able to say, to those with no clue what you do or why it matters, "I must be better / more important than you because I am richer / get paid more." To be blunt, it's nothing but a dick measuring contest. Which can be done just as well, for those who care, even if income beyond that is taxed at 100%.
If a country finds it has people who have wealth beyond that, they have a problem. One which needs to be addressed, for the common good. (But also, although they likely won't recognize it, for the good of the wealthy. Otherwise torches and pitchforks, possible not even metaphoric ones, are probably in their future.) Exactly how best to go about that effectively and equitably is an open question. That it should be done is not.
** Stipulating the "enjoy" does not encompass just being happy to own something, even though it is somewhere where you never even see it.
On “Open Thread time”
Bad as this is, and it is horrible, I don't think it's the worst part of the "settlement."
The worst part is Trump, via his Attorney General, agreeing to give Trump a billion dollar slush fund, out of our tax dollars, to spend on essentially anything he likes. Primarily rewarding any of his followers who break the law at his behest. But decisions on who gets how much are made entirely by a panel he, as a private individual, appoints.
On “What’s wrong with liberalism?”
Zing! nous scores! 😁 👍 !
"
GftNC, Why do you think they bothered to make up a word (“masculinism”) when "massive insecurity" was available?
There may be a few misogynists coming from somewhere else. But most of the ones I encounter or read about seem to be almost panicy in their insecurity.
"
Fixed that for you.
But yes, those who believe that are stunded human beings. Also, I would suggest, more than a little willfully ignorant (and/or massively stupid).
"
Yet another liberal bona fide: liberals know what people want and need better than they know themselves.
Compare and contrast.
"
If you can afford to be a "hippy-ish artist" you're plenty financially secure. Otherwise, you'd be washing dishes or whatever else was necessary to stay alive, not takung the risk of spending you time and energy going art.**. The "solidly middle class" is the clue.
** I realize that I'm interpreting "hippy-ish artist" as someone who isn't actually making lots of money by producing great art.
"
To some extent, this depends on just how you define "elite." Obviously, if you define it as ultra-rich, it's nonsense to claim they are generally liberal, although individuals may be. But if you define it as sufficiently financially secure as to not be especially risk-averse, it's a much better fit.
That's what allows the far right to make such effective use of it: it's got enough plausibility to resonate with the substantial portion of the population which does not have the luxury of taking a chance on change being an improvement. Given how complex economic interactions are, it's challenging for even professional economists to predict what a particular change will have as second order effects. The general public is going to have to take a lot on faith.
"
I think we have come to the conclusion long ago that you do not really fit that term anymore
Say rather that the term has been hijacked by reactionaries. But just because you slap a sign on a gerbil** saying "Lioness" doesn't make it one.
EDT. Dare I phrase it that I identify as a conservative? 🤪
** The analogy is to their intellect, not the level of threat they pose.
"
Riddle me this. I'm a conservative. I think we have a real and serious problem in this country due to the extreme skew in the distribution of wealth. It needs to be fixed. So, how might calling for fixing that be arrogance? I suppose Those People (in this case, the extremely rich) might consider a solution to impact their power and position. But how is this problem, or its solution impacting mine?
One other point. You will find, if you trouble to talk to them, that a lot of middle class and working class people are pretty conservative. I would say that you are sort-of correct that they are concerned that changes might impact their power and position. Specifically that their economic position is fragile, and it wouldn't take much of a change to hurt them badly. That's why the focus on the price of gas or of groceries. I'm not seeing the arrogance involved there.
To hsh's point, I believe that has been true historically as well. See Marx (or Trotsky) on the petit bourgeoisie. Or the griping, amoung liberals today, about the working class voting "against their inrerests." If you realize that, in their view, any change is a threat to their economic survival until proven otherwise, it's clear that being conservative is in their interest as they see them. They may be wrong But taking chances on changes, especially big changes, is a luxury they don't feel they can afford.
"
Bull .
Just for openers, conservatism is a check on fads with shaky to no basis in the real world. Even a little thought will easily get you a couple of cases where somebody (liberal or otherwise) identified a real problem. Came up with a solution that sounded good. And, when it was tried, found that a) it wasn't implementable, or b) it was going to cost multiples of what was forecast, or c) in practice it either failed to solve the problem or even made it worse, or etc. It's easy to say "Well, hindsight is 20/20 and in retrospect...." But often a little more hesitation would have shown up the problems.
Juso be clear, conservatives can come up with bad solutions too. The difference, as I see it, is that their slow and gradual inclinations reduce the chances of falling all the way off the cliff without having time to stop.
I realize it can be infuriating to have someone pour cold water on your brilliant plan to solve a very real problem. And sometimes those opposing you really are doing so for the worst reasons. But sometimes the concerns that motivate the folks objecting involve real shortcomings in your brilliant plan. Hard as that can be to swallow.
On “Open Thread time”
The economies of rural and urban areas are intertwined to an enormous degree. In principle, rural areas could just shift back to subsistence agriculture. Except that agriculture today is highly specialized. You can get corn in Kansas, but if you want lettuce or tomatoes or avacado you mostly have to get it from California. And vis versa.
Also, the refineries which make the fuel for farm equipment are at least on the edges of cities. Pretty much zero farmers today are prepared to do farming without powered machinery. Even if there were horses to work the (no longer available) old fashioned farm equipment. For that matter, the whole transportation system depends on those refineries.
The other detail is money. At this point, money changing hands in the US is almost entirely electronic. And the data centers which process those transactions are in urban areas. Money was invented for a reason. Using barter is possible for an occasional interaction. But for general use? Not viable any more. Especially since you are necessarily dealing with people far away who you have never even met.
We've already (re-)discovered, thanks to the Trump tariffs, how intertwined our economy is with the rest of the world. Internally, it is far more integrated. Unless you are willing to personally die slowly and painfully of starvation, just to make some kind of political or philosophical point, you're stuck. And when push comes to shove, how many people are that fanatical?
"
Urban warfare gives a big boost to the defenders.
Armed urbans launching raids into rural areas? Not as clear.
I'm thinking that a suburban environment is different from both. Drones would be far more effective, for both sides, than in an urban environment. But less so than in a rural area with long sightlines.
"
Troops on the ground is a fools errand when the people don’t want you there. Especially when what you really want is to bring those people back under your control.
Well, there is the caveat that, because part of Putin's real goal is to eradicate Ukrainian culture, he is OK with a result which merely eliminates all the Ukrainians. It still isn't working out for him. But it does to give him more options than if he wanted to take them over alive and subjugate them.
"
But considering that we are frequently talking about reactionaries here.... (The kind of folks who think that a battleship is a step forward.)
"
A couple of partition issues that would have to be addressed:
How many pieces are acceptable in the outcome? For example, Michael's map lumps together the mountain west with the Pacific coast states. Are they different enough to warrant splitting them up? How about Texas and the southern Great Plains? In short, how finely do we need to chop things up?If we can break the nation into regions, could we do the same with individual states? For example, upstate New York might prefer to divorce New York City (and its suburbs). Does that including splitting up individual counties? Do the new regions have to be contiguous? Not just the obvious cases (which region, if any, do Alaska or Hawai'i attach to?). But can you have a bunch of urban islands belong to one region while the surrounding rural area belongs to another? If so, how does that work in practice? If not, what's the philosophical argument for that restriction?
To say that the devil is in the details is putting it mildly. I could see an agreement in principle to split up, followed by years of debate over what regions there will be and who is in which one. Not to mention the other grubby issues. Brexit still has details being fought over, and the UK was part of the EU for barely a generation. Not to mention the EU even now being less integrated than the US is.
"
Except that those preachers all felt compelled to at least give lip service to religion and to moral behavior. That's where Trump is an aberation -- he got a cult following without ever making a pretense of believing in their faith or in morality generally. (Although I suppose it could be argued that he embodies the ultimate end of the Prosperity Gospel nonsense.)
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.