"... and in doing so driving them further into the arms of the left. This bile may serve a short-term political purpose in rallying the core vote of the Tories and Republicans, but it seems that conservatives have thought little about what will happen as younger generations come of age politically and culturally. Perhaps rightwingers believed that the historic precedent of voters shifting rightwards with age would automatically assert itself, however much the young remained locked out of the prosperity their parents had enjoyed. What’s intriguing is how rightwing politicians and commentators alike have doubled down on poisonous invectives that alienate young people. Perhaps this is evidence of a fatalism: they know their fate is sealed, so nothing is to be gained from restraint."
Writes Owen Jones in "The right thrives on bullying 'snowflakes.' But who will vote for it when they grow old?" (The Guardian).
८७ टिप्पण्या:
Many if those young progressive voters grow up and what they value begins to shift once they begin to have families and accumulate assets.
The following paragraph reflects the attitude by plenty last week in this very comments section.
"As a case in point, last week a British rightwing shock jock announced that she’d choose the life of professional misogynist Andrew Tate “over the life of a half-educated, autistic, doom-mongering eco-cultist” Greta Thunberg. Her use of autistic as an insult was indicative of an increasingly vicious rightwing culture"
The position of the right is mostly try to persuade. The left is the one with the poison "don't listen to those people."
The whole business model of the right wing news is to report what the left is saying. The whole business model of the left is to report that the right is racist.
More “trend” stuff invented at the word processor by a writer who did no real work.
Another fake.
Nature favors function. Nature favors the efficient use of resources. Nature demands reproduction to continue. These principles have variously been called the Protestant Work Ethic, the Japanese Model, Progressivism, and now.............Conservative??????
Hmmm. Just look at functional needs. Ignore labels.
Doom follows from a focus on hobbies over the bread-and-butter of core employment skills. Doom follows from spending on luxuries that produce nothing (e.g., Bitcoin, inflated real estate, bars, eating out). Doom follows from ending your own culture by turning a blind eye to the passive-aggressive transgender domination of females. Feminism? How quaint.
"Here are some widely held beliefs and what science says now – so you can start making informed health decisions this year." Which will very likely turn out to have been quite wrong - next year! As the article itself acknowledges, good studies are hard to do on these things.
Probably these issues will be settled when we all have nanobats in our bloodstream, watching in real time what happens from various causes.
rehajm said..
once they begin to have families and accumulate assets.
which explains Why the powers that be are doing Everything they can, to:
a) make sure those kids don't have kids
b) male sure those kids Stay poor
The Thing Is; the powers that be aren't right wingers.. They're Lefties
"If you are 20 and you are not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and still a liberal, you have no brain."
Various version with socialist, etc., instead of liberal, but all equally true. Life experiences change most people's politics as they mature mentally.
Well, "The Guardian" so...
Progressives are always right and they never lie.
FAFO.
The notion that the current generation will be less well off than their parents is a favourite of progressives. I remember being bombarded with it when I graduated from university in 1982. However, the data didn’t support the claim then and it doesn’t appear to now either, For example,
.
“The main takeaways:
Millennials are roughly equal in wealth per capita to Baby Boomers and Gen X at the same age.
Gen X is currently much wealthier than Boomers were at the same age: about $100,000 per capita or 18% greater
Wealth has declined significantly in 2022, but the hasn’t affected Millennials very much since they have very little wealth in the stock market (real estate is by far their largest wealth category)“
Source: https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2022/12/21/the-wealth-of-generations-latest-update/
Added thought: Do generations move “right” as they get older? People certainly do get more enamoured of authority and less tolerant of dissent and that can be read as “right”. But, with millennials, the most notable thing about the generation is that so many of them are deeply wedded to a paternalistic society and rule by wise experts that they don’t seem to be moving right because they are already there.
Again- a view from The Guardian who think that young people who think like young people do (liberal to progressive) never mature in their thinking and grow out of it. Sure, I know that some never do. Some....like our wonderful blog host here, move toward the center, but never quite cross over to the right. Many others move fast and far away from the Left and find themselves in the conservative camp when they get into middle age. That said, some of the young will have families. And many of those with children and jobs and reaching the age of 40 or so, will begin to look at life a bit differently. Also- anyone not living in New York, London, or San Francisco will begin to look at life differently when they get a few years in.
The author is a left wing activist who is approaching the age of 40. He's a smart guy, had all the proper education, and was raised and schooled to be a firm lefty. His worldview is fixed, but the worldview of those around him are not. He'll see the change in some of his peers in a couple of years or so.
They got the doom loop all wrong. It's actually:
Strong generations create good times
Good times create weak generations
Weak generations create hard times
Hard times create strong generations
As usual they can't see but a generation in front of their face. Nothing is free. The bill will always be paid. The young are on the hook, regardless of how far the can is kicked down the road.
The whole article seemed like a string of invectives about “right wingers” and was boring. We get it, Owen, you hate people who don’t agree with you. One sentence sums up the article.
We can always keep printing the money progressives need, until they come around, I suppose.
Conservatism after all is not a choice. Just ask a progressive how we can “save the planet”?
“ increasingly embrace progressive social values such as anti-racism and LGBTQ+ rights”
What other values do progressives have? Why was CAGW left out?
Middle-aged progressive activists are always shoving their woke shit on kids and pretending the kids like it. No. They have learned to parrot your shit to get through 13 grades of government indoctrination. They grow disappointed when the real world doesn’t provide a warm fuzzy welcome to their carefully crafted bubble.
It's The Guardian
When the "snowflakes" reach 40 to 50 years old, and the country in run by liberal indoctrinated Millennials and Generation Z, maybe they will figure out how screwed they got in their youth by the selfishness of liberal adults they once admired.
I'm not sure they will ever see the light. The education establishment has done a fantastic job polluting these young people politically.
I think it would be more accurate to put it that the right resists efforts to use snowflakery as a manipulative tool against itself.
From the article:
"What’s intriguing is how rightwing politicians and commentators alike have doubled down on poisonous invectives that alienate young people. Perhaps this is evidence of a fatalism: they know their fate is sealed, so nothing is to be gained from restraint."
More confession by projection. Poisonous invective? Here ya go:
"F*** Trump."
"Free-dumb."
"Anti-vaccers caused the deaths to climb and perpetuated the lockdowns."
"Fascists" (as applied to anyone who dares depart from the Narrative.)
"TERFs"
The list goes on...
Hopeless. The Left has only one frame: the Right is wrong, especially when the Right points out how the Left is wrong.
Such framing is paranoid. And it’s paranoid of me to point it out.
This idea that there’s a well defined left and a right is so passé.
It’s insulting.
What they miss here is that the snowflakes have bullied into silence a far larger number of young people who are either politically to their right or who just want to live a life not obsessed with politics. They are the dogs that haven't barked. Will they?
The author of the piece got a lot of swirlies when he was a teen. Probably deserved them.
""And so the British and US right have apparently condemned themselves to a political doom loop: savaging the progressive values of younger generations...""
It is almost as if they have been saying the same stupid thing for the last hundred years.
The more people learn about life the more they realize that "progressive" values are just stupid and that their teachers lied to them.
The underlying issue here is that on average the bottom 10% in every field end up being teachers of the next generation and it takes the next generation a few years to realize they have more talent and intelligence than their teachers did.
Teachers tend to be progressive because progressivism appeals to low IQ and mediocre individuals.
When I was a young man my progressive values included ending discrimination against people on the basis of their skin color and ending discrimination against women with the ability to do a job solely on the grounds that they were women.
Today’s progressive values include discrimination against whites and Asians on the basis of their skin color, because whites are evil and Asians work too hard. Another progressive value is insisting that if a woman merely a job, but can’t actually do the job — engineering without mathematics, for instance -/ she should nevertheless get the job. So what if a bridge falls down (like the pedestrian bridge at Florida International University, designed by a woman-owned firm)?!? A third is that rape in a girl’s locker room or girl’s rest room is okay as long as the rapist claims to identify as a female.
Picking on snowflakes my ass! Fighting assholes is more like it.
The left has always relied on the foolishness of the young. They are its only hope.
Re: rehajm:
Many if those young progressive voters grow up and what they value begins to shift once they begin to have families and accumulate assets.
I think you have hit the nail on the head there. Conservatism is not a natural or inevitable consequence of aging. The drift to the Right is instead driven by other factors that are merely correlated with aging. Millenials have significantly lower rates of family formation than prior generations, and are now aging out of the window for family formation, so it's not surprising that their voting hasn't trended the same way as prior generations.
Wacky progressive cultural posturing is, I think, more of an epiphenomenon than a cause here. Although I suppose it's possible to dream up causal mechanisms. This sort of thing will burn itself out in a generation or two though, so it doesn't much matter either way, in the long term.
There was quite a lot of right wing invective against the Baby Boomers and their ideas back in the 1960s and continuing for some time thereafter. Yet in 2016, according to Pew, Baby Boomers voted for Trump by 50%-46% and again in 2020 by 51%-48%. Change over time may or may bot be inevitable, but it always remains possible.
"Ah, Mr. Jones? Yeah, the Students for a Democratic Society called. They're demanding royalties on your most recent column. Apparently it's a blatant ripoff of one of their 1960s newsletters that explained how conservatives were doomed, since they'd all die off in forty years."
What’s intriguing is how rightwing politicians and commentators alike have doubled down on poisonous invectives that alienate young people.
Because "racist," "homophobe," "Nazi," "white supremacist," "bigot," "brownshirt," "whatever denier," "toxic male," "breeder," "insurrectionist," - these are an open hand of friendship aimed at bringing voters into your camp.
Sigh.
Curious, would this be the generation/s they're referring to?
Sure.
Everything is hunky dory wit da youngins'.
Mark;
Shock Jock = Elected Representatives.
Stupid is, as stupid does.
Oh bullsh*t.
"Many if those young progressive voters grow up and what they value begins to shift once they begin to have families and accumulate assets."
Some will, yes; others will not. I was raised in a Republican household and I registered as a Republican when I came of age. I voted for Gerald Ford in 1976 and for Reagan in 1980. However, my worldview had begun shifting leftward as I looked at the world with my own eyes rather than through the beliefs I had been raised with. I switched my party affiliation to "Democrat" and I voted for Democrats for the White house in 1984, 1988, and 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected for his first term. However, I had misgivings about him even at the time and voted for him reluctantly. By 1996, I could not stomach voting for him again, and I voted for the Green Party candidate, as I have done in every Presidential election since. The Democrats in general have moved farther right (never really having been very far left of center) in the ensuing years, and so have the Republicans.
As I have got older, I have not seen and do not now see any information that causes me to question my change in worldview...to the contrary, in fact.
The Right and Left are always talking past each other
The debate is Federalism. The Right is losing the debate of federalism (because 100% of DC denizens want MORE federal power and less State Power)
I want all the get good medical care. The federal govt getting involved, only raises the price of medical care.. not lower.
I want the best education of the young...Every Federal involvement raise prices and reduces performance.
SCOTUS shouted from the house tops. They are going to return governing to the People. Freezing out Government. That caused the people, en masse to run for their fainting couches. Why the hysteria from the people, when power was just returned to them.
What you claim is my indifference, is only my desire to adhere to the constitution.
Oh Noes! The Walls Are Closing in on Republicans!!!
"This bile"
Like, personal freedom, low taxes, controlled borders, less debt, strong defense, intact two-parent families, competitive market economy, no corporate welfare, following actual science, protecting minors against mutilation, actual equality for actual women, anti-"anti-racism"? That kind of bile?
This is a test, right? To guess how long ago (or how many times) the Grauniad ran this article? I'm going to say that they have been gradually rewriting the same article for...48 years?
Did I win? Is there a prize?
Every publication requires periodic submissions by their writer contributors and, lets face it, most of the time its just too difficult to come up with anything new or of the moment. So its "Recycle Time!"
Its no more complicated than that.
Owen Jones is not a reliable analyst. Somehow, the glory of victimhood has penetrated the left and taken it over. Are “snowflakes” bullied? Perhaps, but everyone is bullied, and disagreement is not bullying. Grinding out and silencing others is bullying. Take a look at Jordan Peterson’s latest message from his professional association. Mandatory social media training with “progress reports! That is bullying.
trump backs McCarthy kiss of death the flamethrower Jordan no chance in hell) and freedom group (election result deniers) ripping it up just like Bannon wanted (the guy going to jail) doubt the right-wing congressional circus will continue today as McCarthy cannot lose again. Gen Z and the Millennials will send this group the way of the Whigs as they continue the non-governing format and cursed by the last losing guy who said he may take his ball and go home (3rd party intimation) and burn what's left down if he doesn't get the nomination and the trumpers will have no choice but to vote for the loser again and, you got it, lose again. Embarrassment to this great county. Noon session today? No congressional representatives in the 118th (insurgents checking out this scenario, nobody home but Dems) what a great start to the non-governing party as Sleepy Joe and Moscow Mitch go on the road with the bi partisan infrastructure show touting 2 years of "getting shit done "What a model of the 2 parties for the people to watch. Guaranteed no more talking points on immigration, crime, inflation ,etc from the freedom group just Hunters laptop. George Santos may be the guy if he doesn't go to jail first. Sad THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT says Pete Townsend.
Robert Cook: Psst. Your binoculars are backwards. Imagine that in a stage whisper. And as a side note no one has been impressed by the hand washing routine ( opting Green) since Pontus Pilate.
personal freedom, low taxes, controlled borders, less debt, strong defense, intact two-parent families, competitive market economy, no corporate welfare, following actual science, protecting minors against mutilation, actual equality for actual women, anti-"anti-racism"
Sebastian, thanks for this list. While not exhaustive, it's instructive - or so it seems to me. Naturally it's put forth in positive form, the way I, on the right, would think of these principles.
Robert Cook, I am curious as to how you would similarly list the left-leaning principles that undergird your world view, since you say that your own life and experiences have not caused you to abandon it. My shot at that might be something like this (it'll be long-winded, because I'm trying fairly to describe in positive terms a bunch of principles with which I take issue when stated another way):
* Legally enforced equity in support of opportunity
* A commitment to redressing historical wrongs against groups that are non-European, non-male, and non-heterosexual
* Absence of (or perhaps social opprobrium leading to less and less) orthodox criticism for lifeways that are heterodox
* Community involvement to raise awareness about and improve outcomes for members of the aforementioned disadvantaged groups
* Legal and institutional support for and even privileging of historically underpublicized views and speakers, with the intent of broadening the American perspective
* A welcoming immigration policy that recognizes the perilous (by food scarcity, lack of job or educational opportunity, political and religious oppression, etc.) conditions in which so much of the world's population lives and America's ability to relieve that peril
* An environmental strategy that leverages the best currently available science to maintain or improve conditions for life - not just human or American life, but all life - on Earth
* A political strategy that doesn't place the US at the center of the universe
* Recognition that even the supposedly objective disciplines contain subtle bias, and so those people or ideas against which that bias is raised should take priority over traditional views, at least for the time being until balance is restored or really objective truth can be perceived
* Recognition that traditional religions enforce illiberal strictures on behavior and should be reconsidered as positive social forces in that light
* Recognition that individuals' perception of themselves is unique to each person and so traditional categories can and, for some, should be disregarded
What do you think? Where have I gone wrong? I'm truly trying to consider the left-leaning world view fairly and not reduce it to the risible bumper stickers like "Love is love" and "War is bad for children and other living things."
Much depends on whether Gen Whatevers remain in the same economic position they are in now -- crummy jobs, much debt, no houses, no pensions, no investments, worries about the future -- or whether they become settled and prosperous as they age. Petty things like what somebody called you 30 years ago don't matter, no more than the military draft 50 years ago matters to Boomers now. Economics matters.
I don't approve of the snowflake taunt. It seems like "punching down." Everybody is sensitive about something, and there are ways of telling people that they are wrong without insulting them (of course the culture is such that telling people they are wrong will be equated with insulting them).
Also, don't people who are responsive to what's going on around them see indications all the time that their worldview is incomplete, and that there is another side the story? One may still be right in one's conclusions, but if one doesn't see counterindications maybe one needs to look harder.
Re: Robert Cook:
As I have got older, I have not seen and do not now see any information that causes me to question my change in worldview...to the contrary, in fact.
The plural of anecdote isn't data, as they say. It's well attested that married people tend to vote Republican and unmarried people tend to vote Democrat -- not 100%, but a substantial margin. See, e.g. CNN exit polls for 2022.
Much of the difference actually comes from unmarried women. Married men and women both tend to vot Republican by solid double digit margins, and unmarried men vote Republican by a narrower single digit margin. But unmarried women counterbalance the entire rest of the electorate by voting Democrat by over 35 points, more than a 2:1 ratio.
An alternative headline for this article:
"Dear conservatives, you know they know you hate them, right?"
It's the daily experience of this comments section. Constant, absolute hatred, contempt, and disgust for young people (and people on the left more broadly).
"But it's actually the left that hates us!" you may reply. I mean, sure, it's mutual. Doesn't make it strategic.
Which dumbass Republican's idea was it to decide that the worst, laziest, most privileged person in America is a Starbucks barista (aka low wage fast food service industry worker)? Just as an example. Here's Ted Cruz:
“If you are that slacker barista who wasted seven years in college studying completely useless things, now has loans and can't get a job, Joe Biden just gave you 20 grand. Like, holy cow! 20 grand. You know, maybe you weren't gonna vote in November, and suddenly you just got 20 grand....And you know, if you can get off the bong for a minute and head down to the voting station... or just send in your mail-in ballot that the Democrats have helpfully sent you, it could drive up turnout, particularly among young people.”
A rewrite to help you understand:
"If you are that slacker Chick-fil-A worker who went to college but can't find a better job, you get free money... If you put down that 24 pack of Coors Light for a second and go vote, we could have a disaster on our hands."
You guys are assholes. As a party and political movement. Responding that other people are also assholes doesn't make you less of an asshole.
A lot of whistling past the graveyard here.
Everything posted assumes that the system will chug along more or less as it has for the last 40-60-100 years (take your pick) without radical changes, and that more or less normal processes of generational change will prevail for good or ill.
"There is perhaps no better example of the disconnect between the ruling elites than last month’s utterance from the clown who runs the GOP in the Senate, Mitch McConnell. He said of America sending another $45 billion to Ukraine…. “Providing assistance for Ukrainians to defeat the Russians is the number one priority for the United States right now, according to most Republicans.” That may be the biggest lie in American politics since Bill Clinton told the American people, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/01/how_is_the_uniparty_destroying_america_let_me_count_the_ways.html
Look in the mirror Daniel12. You sound like you are 12.
I can hear echo upon echo upon echo is this guy's echo chamber.
"Where have I gone wrong?"
I think you gave it a good shot! Well done. To me, you went wrong in the choice of topics, some of which are high on the twitter/"triggers conservatives" list, but not high on the actual progressive list. If I were following Sebastian's model, I'd go with:
Bodily autonomy, the right to privacy and equality in the eyes of the state/private sector in how you live your life (including as a kid), form a family, and raise your kids, higher taxes on the wealthiest, much stronger social safety net, gun control, commitment to face up to and address systematic inequalities by race, gender etc, criminal justice reform, less spending on the military, more international alliances, strong public education focused on critical thinking, equal access to college/vocational ed.
Worth keeping in mind, though, that left and right in America are political coalitions -- big tents that encompass a range of sometimes contrasting perspectives, and that periodically go through radical change (including recently!).
"Robert Cook: Psst. Your binoculars are backwards. Imagine that in a stage whisper. And as a side note no one has been impressed by the hand washing routine ( opting Green) since Pontus Pilate."
Uh...that's Pontius Pilate, bub. And me? I like to have clean hands. But then, my momma brought me up right!
But unmarried women counterbalance the entire rest of the electorate by voting Democrat by over 35 points, more than a 2:1 ratio.
Because they rely on the government to be their provider and protector, rather than a husband, so they support the party of big and powerful government.
It's hard to convince people that government is the enemy and a problem when the government has been sending them checks every month of their life.
Blogger Daniel12 said...
An alternative headline for this article:
"Dear conservatives, you know they know you hate them, right?"
It's the daily experience of this comments section. Constant, absolute hatred, contempt, and disgust for young people (and people on the left more broadly).
"But it's actually the left that hates us!" you may reply. I mean, sure, it's mutual. Doesn't make it strategic.
Which dumbass Republican's idea was it to decide that the worst, laziest, most privileged person in America is a Starbucks barista (aka low wage fast food service industry worker)? Just as an example. Here's Ted Cruz:
A nice example of the left wing haters' club.
Some of us raised kids who took accounting, or engineering in college and those kids are not working as baristas with there grad school student loans hanging over them.
Daniel12: other people being assholes does not justify you being an asshole.
Wendybar: yeah but you're an asshole.
The left is authoritarian. The right is libertarian. The far-left is totalitarian. The far-right is anarchist. The left-right nexus is leftist.
The American left makes its home in the democratic/dictatorial duality, a Twilight faith, and liberal ideology that endorse diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism, class-based bigotry), advocates for political congruence ("="), shares/shifts responsibility through progressive prices ("inflation") forced by single/central/monopolistic solutions (e.g. Obamacares, Bidencares), conceived and birthed most wars of the 20th and 21st centuries, and all three world wars (I, II, Springs), dwells in class-disordered religions that deny individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, and normalizes color blocs, color quotas, and affirmative act... discrimination. Levine clinics. Sanger chambers. Biden mandates. Planned parenthood. Planned parent/hood. DIE doctrine... take a knee, beg, good girl. Keep women affordable, available, and taxable, and the "burden" of evidence aborted, cannibalized, sequestered in darkness.
Libertarian is independent. Liberal is divergent. Progressive is monotonic. Conservative is moderating. Principles matter.
unmarried women counterbalance the entire rest of the electorate by voting Democrat
In a democratic/dictatorial duality, they vote/dictate for redistributive change through progressive prices does offer short-term relief, which can be extended through native abortion, gender conflation, immigration reform, cargo cult religions, wars without borders/coups without cause, and labor and environmental arbitrage (e.g. Green deals).
they rely on the government to be their provider and protector, rather than...
Sexually liberal Incels.
celibacy (n.)
1660s, "state of being unmarried, voluntary abstention from marriage," formed in English from abstract noun suffix -cy + Latin caelibatus "state of being unmarried," from caelebs "unmarried," a word of uncertain origin. Perhaps it is from PIE *kaiwelo- "alone" + lib(h)s- "living." De Vaan suggests as an alternative PIE *kehi-lo- "whole," which would relate it to health (q.v.): "[I]f this developed to 'unboundness, celibacy', it may explain the meaning 'unmarried' of caelebs-."
Originally and through the 19c. celibacy was opposed to marriage, and celibacy, except as a religious vow, often was frowned upon as leading to (or being an excuse for) sexual indulgence and debauchery among bachelors.
Men, women, and "our Posterity" are from Earth. Feminists are from Venus. Masculinists are from Mars. Social progressives are from Uranus. With a democratic/dictatorial hand to bully them. #WarOfTheWorlds
Jamie,
That's a lot to digest, as to I do not define my views for myself in such concrete detail. I can agree in general terms with some of what you have listed, though I don't understand exactly what you mean specifically in some cases and thus cannot say I can agree with some of those points, especially when you use terms such as "legally enforced," "privileging,""take priority over," and any intimation that any points of view should be suppressed in favor of other, "more correct" views.
Your last two points are completely opaque to me:
"* Recognition that traditional religions enforce illiberal strictures on behavior and should be reconsidered as positive social forces in that light"
What does this mean?
"* Recognition that individuals' perception of themselves is unique to each person and so traditional categories can and, for some, should be disregarded"
What does this mean in practice?
Here's a kicker: I have always opposed so-called "Hate Crimes" or "Hate Speech" laws. They punish points of view. If I punch you in the face and break your jaw in the commission of a robbery I may receive a lesser sentence at trial than if I punched you in the face and broke your jaw simply because I objected to your race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. The offense is in the physical violence enacted upon another, not in the intention behind it. In other words, I do not agree with laws that violate our Constitutionally guaranteed rights just because they are intended to "correct" or prohibit or punish hateful ideas. Is that a conservative view or a liberal view? I don't know. I remember leftist journalist (and jazz critic) Nat Hentoff write about this long ago, and he, also, objected to "hate crimes" laws. Criminalizing hateful ideas or opinions will surely lead to criminalization of ideas or opinions that simply offend those in power.
So, again, I can agree in general terms with some of your listed points, but I can't say I agree exactly or in full with any of them, insofar as do not know how you mean them, or how they would be implemented into law and practice.
"The left is authoritarian."
By definition? Sez who?
The right is libertarian."
Meaning?
"The far-left is totalitarian."
It can be. It can also be anarchist.
"The far-right is anarchist."
I suppose it can be, though it would more likely be authoritarian, even fascist.
"The left-right nexus is leftist."
What is a "left-right" nexus?
Robert Cook: Yes, you pounced upon a typo, and of course the reply and while Pilate's hands may be clean, everyone here knows that you know the point of the story isn't the cleanliness of Pilate's hands.
All snarkiness aside, I'd like to know what you consider the left and the right. You are always assuring us there is no leftness in American politics. So what are the principles you adhere to and would like to see implemented. Acting as a contrarian without offering specifics is not very informative. I'm reminded of the Groucho Marx number in Duck Soup (?) in which the refrain is "I'm against it." Hanging out here as the token contrarian apparently affords you considerable satisfaction and amusement, but I ask for the third time, what is it you are for?
Seriously.
“Added thought: Do generations move “right” as they get older? People certainly do get more enamoured of authority and less tolerant of dissent and that can be read as “right”. But, with millennials, the most notable thing about the generation is that so many of them are deeply wedded to a paternalistic society and rule by wise experts that they don’t seem to be moving right because they are already there.”
I think that what is really happening right now is that there has been a major party shift going both ways, with the less educationally credentialed moving right, and the more credentialed moving left. The less credentialed respect common sense, while the more highly credentialed respect expertise. Or at least claimed and leftist vouched expertise. To those valuing common sense, the ideas of Defund the Police; No Bail; Reparations; flexible sexual identities; grooming schoolaged kids for transsexualism; CAGW/Climate Change; wide open, uncontrolled, immigration; $Trillions$ in addition debt, etc, defy common sense. Most of the stronger conservatives I know any more work with their hands. They believe in common sense, and most of what the left purports to believe is just the opposite. That, I think is why Hispanics, but even Black males, appear to be moving to the right, while those with elite educations are moving to the left.
Something else - the Dem party leadership is aging rapidly. Former Speaker Pelosi is, I believe, and Octogenarian. FJB just turned 80. Harry Reid used to do Sunday afternoon family get togethers with my partner’s parents (yes, she and her 4 siblings played with his five kids). You look at who really has power in the Dem party, they are mostly all old (or very rich). That’s because everyone waits their turn, advancing, over the decades in seniority. No wonder they don’t have any new ideas that actually work. Yes, the Republicans have their geriatric time servers too, but young Turks can and do, get power, on occasion, in that party. Note the problems they are having electing a Speaker.
Something else to note - the Dem party is the party of corruption. They buy the votes of single women, esp those with kids, then stuff ballots to steal elections. Then, they raid the Treasury to pay off their families and cronies. While Dem voting Gen X and Millenials buy the Party line about why we are involved in the war between Russia and Ukraine, the ones on the right I talk to believe it is a result of the bribes paid by the Ukrainians to the Biden family (and question every move made to the PRC by the government for the same reason). They know that they, and their children, are going to be the ones paying for that war, as well as all the graft that the Dems are shoveling to their major constituencies and cronies. The Dems of those generations naïvely believe that they won’t, but instead, believe that they will be cut in on the deal, when it is their turn.
I wrote a long comment but it hasn't posted so I'll try this again.
Robert Cook: Okay, you pounced upon a typo, but all of here know that you know the point of the story isn't the cleanliness of Pilate's hands.
That being said, I'm genuinely curious as to what you consider "left wing." You are constantly asserting that there is not a left wing party in the USA, but you never seem to give forth what you consider to be left wing.
Being a resident contrarian on this blog's comments section must afford you considerable amusement and satisfaction, but to a large extent your performance here remind me of the Groucho Mark number in Duck Soup (I think) which has the refrain or choris "I.m against it." That's the vibe I get from you. It's consistent, but it's not informative.
So, seriously, how would you characterize left wing, what are the left wing policies you would like to see implemented?
I wrote a long comment but it hasn't posted so I'll try this again.
Robert Cook: Okay, you pounced upon a typo, but all of here know that you know the point of the story isn't the cleanliness of Pilate's hands.
That being said, I'm genuinely curious as to what you consider "left wing." You are constantly asserting that there is not a left wing party in the USA, but you never seem to give forth what you consider to be left wing.
Being a resident contrarian on this blog's comments section must afford you considerable amusement and satisfaction, but to a large extent your performance here remind me of the Groucho Mark number in Duck Soup (I think) which has the refrain or choris "I.m against it." That's the vibe I get from you. It's consistent, but it's not informative.
So, seriously, how would you characterize left wing, what are the left wing policies you would like to see implemented?
I'm not a member of any political party (and will never be), but I feel that when they are evenly matched and fighting each other to a trench-warfare stalemate is when normal people get to have the most freedom. So, free advice to the Republicans: STOP LUMPING IN GEN Z WITH THE MILLENNIALS. They are NOTHING alike. Millennials are self-righteous, entitled, and condescending to anyone who might disagree with them (as a whole; many individuals are excellent people). They are sure they have the answers and NEVER consider Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Gen Z is cynical, distrustful of all authority claims, and has absolutely NO belief in current institutions or powers: 100% of my Gen Z students think that the FBI, CDC, CIA lie by default, even when they don't "need" to. T
Also, the OLDEST members of Gen Z graduated from college in May 2022. Unless you have members of Gen Z in your family, or you teach at a high school or college, YOU DON'T KNOW THEM! They are NOT the entitled, annoying "snowflakes" at your job, so stop being so intellectually lazy and saying "indoctrinated Millennials and Gen Z."
But then again, if Republicans didn't collectively act like morons, no one would recognize them as being Republicans.
You guys are assholes.
Here's a fucking mirror, boy.
Take a good, long look into it.
Daniel 12 -
Except that left-wing Democrats generally support the people that Cruz describes, whereas right-wing Republicans don't favor the folks in your "rewrite".
You guys are assholes. As a party and political movement. Responding that other people are also assholes doesn't make you less of an asshole
More "wisdom" from Daniel the 12 year old. This is actually the political position of Democrats. Nothing about Economics, nothing about national defense, nothing about fair elections. Just poo flinging.
"All snarkiness aside, I'd like to know what you consider the left and the right. You are always assuring us there is no leftness in American politics. So what are the principles you adhere to and would like to see implemented."
Commitment by Congress to say "FUCK YOU!" to the yearly budget increases requested by the War Department, and to slash their budget to the bone, I mean, by up to 75% or more, either all at once or staggered over three or four years at most. (Right now, Congress--including the Dems--gives the War Pimps higher budget increases than are requested.) This would require the closing of all or most US military bases around the world. NO WARS or military actions without express declaration of war by Congress. Prosecutions of anyone from the President down who order or commit war crimes, including torture. Re-allocation of funds cut from the War Department to various services or infrastructure projects intended to directly benefit the citizenry. Higher tax rates on wealthier citizens. Term limits on Supreme Court justices. Actual criminal prosecutions for corporate crimes. Criminal prosecutions of corporate polluters, with CEOs subject to prison sentences. Actual prosecutions at the local, state, and federal level of all law-enforcement departments (or officers) who engage in criminal behavior. Banning of civil asset forfeitures at all levels of law enforcement. Serious investigations of all police-involved assaults upon or shootings of citizens, particularly shootings that result in fatalities. Licensing of all who want to buy and operate guns: classes, tests, and licenses, just as is required of citizens who wish to drive automobiles. Government dealing with pharmaceuticals manufacturers to place ceilings on life-improving or life-saving drugs to truly affordable amounts. The banning of lobbyists in Washington and the prohibition of any campaign donations of any kind by corporate entities. The criminal prohibition of insider trading on the stock market by members of Congress, and prosecution of those who violate this prohibition. Increase of minimum wage to 20% to start, increasing yearly to keep in line with increasing costs of living. Ultimately, free higher education. Universal tax-funded health care for all Americans.
There's surely more, but these are my thoughts that come immediately to mind.
By 1996, I could not stomach voting for (Clinton) again, and I voted for the Green Party candidate, as I have done in every Presidential election since.
So, you've tossed your vote in the trash for 25+ years? Good to know.
Jones's assumption and the demand predicated on that assumption are arrogant and deeply offensive. Basically "I already know the course of social and political history, I already know whose views will prevail, you need to stop criticizing young people because they're going to grow up pissed off because you dared criticize them". It's a demand for middle and older generations to shut up and surrender right now in the face of what they think is stupid and insane.
No. Why should they? Why tell *anyone* to shut up and surrender now because we know their views and values are going to become extinct? Why would any spineless dolt comply with such a demand?
Better not oppose Nazis or Bolsheviks because that will just tick them off.
So many things wrong in that article. Trump did not call Mexicans criminals and there was not a Muslim ban. And the anti-racist period was the 60s with baby boomers, MLK Jr., and the Civil Rights acts.
And my 30ish children are doing much better than me at that age despite less education and work ethics. As I compared to my father as well-he was much more deserving than me.
"So, you've tossed your vote in the trash for 25+ years? Good to know."
Nope! I would have tossed my vote in the trash if I had voted for either major party candidates over this period, as my vote would have ratified all the crimes and abuses committed by the victors. A vote is not just a bet on the winner, but an expression of one's principles and priorities.
Let me be more specific. I'm not just calling you all names. That would indeed be juvenile. I am saying that it is a core part of the party and movement that you drip contempt for a very long list of Americans -- regular people (as individuals and as classes) who everyone from national Republican leadership to right-wing media voices to the people on this board are regular, total, direct, deliberate assholes to as part of their political strategy. This list includes:
Unmarried women
Teachers
Librarians
People living in cities
Recipients of some kinds of government support (but not other kinds)
Poor non-white people
LGBTQ people
People who work at Starbucks
Women who would consider getting abortions
People who majored in non-STEM subjects in college
47% of Americans who are "takers"
Young people advocating for issues you don't like
Many more
That's point 1.
Point 2 is that they all know what you think about them. Since you say it all the time.
We have some battles around this on the left, between the assholes (Hilary and her deplorables) and the patronizers (Obama and his clingers). I think, on this front at least, we chose well with Biden, who is neither.
Sadly, there's no meaningful battle about this on the right. If there's one thing you all have in common, it's a love for owning the libs.
Sorry to do the back-and-forth thing, all. The following is to try to clarify a couple of points for Robert Cook in our discussion of hiding principles of the left.
Your last two points are completely opaque to me:
"* Recognition that traditional religions enforce illiberal strictures on behavior and should be reconsidered as positive social forces in that light"
What does this mean?
"* Recognition that individuals' perception of themselves is unique to each person and so traditional categories can and, for some, should be disregarded"
What does this mean in practice?
The first was my attempt to get at the rejection of traditional religion by (white) people of the Left.
The second was my attempt to get at the high position in the (perceived) Left hierarchy (that is, the scale that determines who can be criticized and for what) occupied by LGBTQ+ people.
I was trying to put all these principles in as neutral or positive terms as I could, even though there is an alternative formulation of each that I believe more accurately reflects the results of these principles when put into practice. I admit to having used some critical theory-speak like "privilege" used as a verb, and for this I beg forgiveness!
Mao was progressive. Hitler was progressive. Stalin was progressive. Lincoln was progressive. FDR was progressive. Mandela was progressive. Sanger was progressive. Levine is progressive. Biden is progressive. Class-disordered religions are invariably progressive. #PrinciplesMatter
"All snarkiness aside, I'd like to know what you consider the left and the right. You are always assuring us there is no leftness in American politics. So what are the principles you adhere to and would like to see implemented."
No more single/central/monopolistic solutions (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacares) that force progressive prices. No more shared responsibility through redistributive change schemes. No more religions (e.g. ethics) under euphemistic labels. No more mandates to appease the cargo cult with forward-looking collateral damage. No more [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform in lieu of emigration reform. No more social justice anywhere which is injustice everywhere. No more "peace keeping" without borders, no more Springs. No more labor and environmental arbitrage (e.g. Green deals). No more Diversity (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism), Inequity, Exclusion (DIE). No more vote buying through debt amnesties, diversity businesses, etc. No more political congruence ("=") which is an exclusion scheme. No more civil rights violations in Whitmer-style events, especially as cover-ups to planned parent/hood, etc. No more human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes, of course.
Principles in The Declaration, The Constitution (less the overturned Twilight Amendment), based on diversity of individuals, minority of one, and limited social liberalism and authoritarian progress.
I certainly agree with the proposition that people move right as they get older (as Temujin noted earlier). I had a different experience that moved me firmly right when I was 18. I was a freshman in Revell College, University of California, San Diego. I was in the first freshman class of that college. Two years, 6 quarters, of Humanities was required. The head of the Humanities Department was Herbert Marcuse (look him up, he's well known). I was center right. But I couldn't possibly write essays that were in agreement with the far left POV being taught. My TAs graded me with some Ds and mostly Fs. I failed to be indoctrinated or even mouth their BS! I sure as s--- voted for Reagan for Governor in the next election.
And after flunking out of UCSD, I was drafted by the Army for service in Viet Nam.
18-29 broke hard left in the last election surprising the right. They have grown up indoctrinated with leftist garbage, but are redeemable with a good message, something McCarthy ignored.
I was personally a political agnostic, but trending Left, opposing Vietnam, but Joining the Navy after being drafted.
Carter gave me the negative lesson
Reagan gave me the positive message
A straight commission job finished my conversion
There is no zeal like the zeal of a convert
Robert Cook, it seems that you have a problem with the World Police thing. It surprises me that you don't feel you have more common ground with "isolationist" Republicans. It also surprises me that such people still exist, given what we've seen happen when the lone classically liberal superpower of the world bows out.
I wish this thread weren't stale; I'd love to address each of your principles and see where we go from there, but our host continues to move us forward, ever forward! So suffice it to say I'm grateful for your and Daniel12's willingness to engage in this thread and I still think both of you are wrong about how your principles are enacted and the results of them when they are.
Conservatism, as I've said frequently here, is a commitment to that which has been demonstrated to work. American conservatism is based on that which works and comports with our founding documents, which were written by people who knew firsthand what it was like to try to live and thrive under an absolute ruler and his cronies - and they were generally among the privileged classes at the time! Progressivism, everywhere, seems to me to be an exercise in hope over experience, and one that always results in effectively the absolute rule of individuals or groups and their cronies, but one that has taken over the commanding heights of our society, to my dismay.
Jamie,
I am not a doctrinaire leftist; I don't have a carefully worked out politics which guides my thinking. You've thought this out far more explicitly than I have. This is why can only say I agree in general terms with some of the points you listed, but I cannot give an explicit answer to any particular point absent a description of specific application of that point in the real world.
"The first was my attempt to get at the rejection of traditional religion by (white) people of the Left."
Why do you assume rejection of traditional (or any) religion is a feature of "(white) people of the left?" There are people across the political (and non-political) spectrum who do not believe in "traditional" (or any) religion. As an atheist, I am one. But I recognized and accepted that I did not believe in a god well before I left behind my family-inculcated Republican leanings. There are also, I'm sure, leftists who do accept "traditional religion." Look at the Berrigan brothers, for example, both Catholic priests. (In essence, Jesus' teachings would be identified today as more "left" than "right," if one were compelled to attach his teachings to any political postion.)
"The second was my attempt to get at the high position in the (perceived) Left hierarchy (that is, the scale that determines who can be criticized and for what) occupied by LGBTQ+ people."
I don't know; I'm not attached to anyone in any "Left hierarchy," (assuming there is one). In my view, no one is exempt from criticism. Many of the pronouncements and behavior of left extremists (whether LGBTQ+ or otherwise) that strike me as silly, immature, intolerant, and/or untenable. (As is true of any group of people who identify along similar belief systems. Just look at the Democrats and the Republicans!)
It's as if all of the bullying started as a reaction to snowflakes and not, in fact, a reaction to the initial bullying the snowflakes were doing.
"Robert Cook, it seems that you have a problem with the World Police thing. It surprises me that you don't feel you have more common ground with 'isolationist' Republicans. It also surprises me that such people still exist, given what we've seen happen when the lone classically liberal superpower of the world bows out."
Look at all the death, destruction, and misery we've created when the "lone classically liberal superpower" has not bowed out. We are not agents of liberty in the world; we are, as Major General Smedley Butler came to realize (and stated) after decades in the US military, "gangsters for capitalism," imposing violence on others for plunder, profit and aggrandizement of power, for ourselves and for the moneyed interests. As Gen. Butler put it:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer; a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
While the US can occasionally be an agent for improving circumstances in the world, especially when working with other nations in cooperative, rather than coercive partnerships, we remain essentially the same racketeers today.
"Conservatism, as I've said frequently here, is a commitment to that which has been demonstrated to work."
Work... for whom?
You're saying that conservatives are agnostic about what "it" is and are instead only interested in whether it "works"?
And how do new things get proven to work?
I think your line is a boilerplate aphorism that conservatives throw around. (Not dissimilar to n.n.'s suggestion above that the right, a coalition with conservative Christians at the very center, is libertarian.) It's pure mythos. Because conservatives are not supportive of everything that works, pursue things ideologically regardless of whether they work (cutting taxes, making abortion illegal, etc. etc. etc.), and are fine with things that "work" even if they don't work for many millions (employer-based private health insurance, for one - still waiting on that Republican legislation...), the aphorism just lets conservatives put an appealing spin their preferred ideological platform.
So, the thread's not so stale after all!
I think your line is a boilerplate aphorism that conservatives throw around.
...
It's pure mythos. Because conservatives are not supportive of everything that works, pursue things ideologically regardless of whether they work (cutting taxes, making abortion illegal, etc. etc. etc.), and are fine with things that "work" even if they don't work for many millions (employer-based private health insurance, for one - still waiting on that Republican legislation...), the aphorism just lets conservatives put an appealing spin their preferred ideological platform.
This is a fair cop! Not every conservative is committed to every part of conservatism, just as not every progressive is committed to every part of protection, as Robert Cook notes above. Some people have hills to die on that have not been demonstrated to work. I personally am mostly anti-abortion, far more so than when I was a young woman with less access to contraception and more risk of conception, but my conservative stance is to fall back on federalism and let the States work it out. I recognize that I'm fortunate to live in a time in which taking this stance doesn't condemn a whole lot of girls and women to unwanted pregnancy because travel is so relatively easy - but (conservatively) I also recognize the huge downside of the sexual revolution that caused girls and young women to believe that they had to put out or lose the guy, because someone else surely would, and I wish we could return to a time in which women knew their bodies and fertility were, at base, of great value to them and to men, not just as available as a bag of chips.
Furthermore - "that which works" is always going to be a relative term. I agree that employer-funded health insurance, an invention to get around Democrat wage freezes after WWII, is not ideal. But the "uninsured" problem is a limited one, not requiring universal solutions like Obamacare to fix. Yet Democrats couldn't stomach anything but big steps along the road to universal health care at huge cost. Why not, instead, address the problem of the uninsured directly?
Republicans should have done this, you could say. Yeah. They should have, and my recollection is that they tried. But our system is such that Obamacare won the day, to the detriment of the taxpayers and the benefit of insurers. (I don't have a problem with corporations benefiting from selling a needed commodity. But the jury is out on this one, ISTM.)
I'm speaking in specifics, but my point is general: the prescriptions and proscriptions of the Left tend to result in less individual freedom, more taxation of everyone (because the definition of "rich" tends to get defined down and down as the need increases), less tolerance, more stringent social and eventually legal rules concerning self-expression (see Canada), less creativity (creativity seems to flourish when it has something - like conservatism - to push against - take a look at Soviet "art"), less innovation, more ossification...
You pick the subject, the place, the time. Humanity flourishes when progressivism is a rebellious understory in a mostly conservative society - it's just common sense; preserve what works, push against its edges to try to move in different directions. The pushing that works will prevail, without government or social intervention. (Talk to Black conservatives about Black progress before and after the Great Society.) Find a place or time in which progressivism has proven to be the best thing for the people living under it.
Jamie, I understand that you hold conservative positions coupled with a fundamental belief that progressivism leads to ruin. We could have a debate about all the points you raise, which I certainly disagree with. We could even meet up in tonight's cafe to have that discussion. I'll provide you a long list of subjects, times and places where progressivism works and, as as a bonus, where conservativism has flopped at epic levels.
For now, though, I'd like to just point to one thing you say:
"it's just common sense"
No, it's not. It's your opinion, it's ideology, it's politics, and it's the subject of intense and legitimate disagreement across the commons. "I'm just for common sense solutions" said every politician ever. Don't buy your own spin.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा