United States Politics Thread 47

[rotting bones]

Sure but that involves numerous caveats in this case. First, more liberal than Andrew Tate or Nick Fuentes still leaves you extremely right wing. We should hardly cheer if zoomers soften their stance from banning LGBT entirely to merely banning same-sex marriage. Second, old people liberalize because they live in a culture dominated by increasingly liberal people younger than themselves. If young people are no longer liberal, than older people no longer face cultural pressure to liberalize.

History is nonlinear, but I currently expect things to get worse before they get better.

[rotting bones]

Finally half-way back on topic after Rotting Bones got us sidetracked on the wrong senile apes. While the recent No Kings protests are promising, I am quite concerned about the inroads that MAGA has made with young people. Winning over elderly and middle-aged people in the present hardly matters if the demographics of the country are trending toward the right. Has any progress been made on countering all those right wing podcasters?

You should take a look at what the polls actually show for Gen Z: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... neration_Z

[malloc]

You should take a look at what the polls actually show for Gen Z: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... neration_Z

That article indicates many examples of conservative and reactionary politics among zoomers, though, especially along young men and younger zoomers (at least in the US). If you are interested, I could quote all the examples of this in the article.

[rotting bones]

You should take a look at what the polls actually show for Gen Z: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... neration_Z

That article indicates many examples of conservative and reactionary politics among zoomers, though, especially along young men and younger zoomers (at least in the US). If you are interested, I could quote all the examples of this in the article.

I agree there's reason to worry, but I'm concerned that your takeaway is too one-sided. What I see in the article is that Gen Z has some more conservative leanings than their parents, but they are less conservative than their grandparents. In some ways, they are more progressive than any generation before them. E.g. They are much more critical of the police, and they support socialism: https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/dem ... alism.aspx

[Nortaneous]

The discipline of psychology has nothing to do with it. When you're young, you're less likely to have a place in the world that's vulnerable to disruption, you have fewer scars inflicted by history, you don't remember firsthand the problems of the old order that the current order legitimates itself against, you have less stale data in your memory cache ("just walk in and give them your resume!"), and so on. If you want a theoretical framework, it's Pirsig's conflict between the static and the dynamic.

Repeating myself:

I'm pretty unimpressed by the idea that becoming more mature will make me more interested in singing the praises of a man who posts AI videos of himself dropping actual shit on his opponents while wearing a crown.

I don't follow the news cycle, but that's a very juvenile thing to do. I'm assuming this man is a politician? What of the political order he inherited from his predecessor does he want to conserve?

Maybe he's a very young politician, but I doubt it. Juvenility is an image that people can perform regardless of age when they want to overturn a fuddy-duddy old order. My claim is that the young are more likely to want to do that, for boring material reasons - they're less likely to have been bought off! - but it wouldn't be the first time America has had a revolt with a juvenile image that wasn't actually led by the young. (Support for the Vietnam War declined with age!) We also have people so conservative that it's hard to imagine they were ever young - can you imagine a 20-year-old Dick Cheney?

The discipline of psychology has nothing to do with it. When you're young, you're less likely to have a place in the world that's vulnerable to disruption, you have fewer scars inflicted by history, you don't remember firsthand the problems of the old order that the current order legitimates itself against, you have less stale data in your memory cache ("just walk in and give them your resume!"), and so on. If you want a theoretical framework, it's Pirsig's conflict between the static and the dynamic.

In the context of remaining juvenile, you seem to be assuming the lessons you learn from trauma are necessarily justified. That seems obviously false.

Of course it's false. Mature orders can still be wrong!

[Ares Land]

I don't follow the news cycle, but that's a very juvenile thing to do. I'm assuming this man is a politician? What of the political order he inherited from his predecessor does he want to conserve?

That was Trump himself! Whether Trump is really a conservative or not is difficult to settle, but American conservatives do like him, no matter what he does.

[Nortaneous]

I don't follow the news cycle, but that's a very juvenile thing to do. I'm assuming this man is a politician? What of the political order he inherited from his predecessor does he want to conserve?

That was Trump himself! Whether Trump is really a conservative or not is difficult to settle, but American conservatives do like him, no matter what he does.

Do they? David French, who has a very conservative profile (military veteran with a Harvard JD, ex-National Review, some sort of Calvinist) doesn't. Sohrab Ahmari, who has a very different profile (Iranian immigrant who converted from Islam to atheism to existentialism to Trotskyism to Nietzscheanism to integralist Catholicism and writes in favor of rebellion against the established order and rejection of principles widely believed to be foundational to America) does. If he writes for magazines that call themselves conservative, this suggests recent semantic drift - in my generation, we understood conservatism to mean, like, Dick Cheney. Conserving the established order against the rebels, you know?

[Ares Land]

I'd agree that conservativism isn't what it used to be

Trumpism is something else -- I'd suggest 'fascism' as a label.
But I think that most conservatives followed the conservative-to-fascist pipeline; it has to be or Trump wouldn't have the voters he has.

[Raphael]

I don't follow the news cycle, but that's a very juvenile thing to do. I'm assuming this man is a politician? What of the political order he inherited from his predecessor does he want to conserve?

That was Trump himself! Whether Trump is really a conservative or not is difficult to settle, but American conservatives do like him, no matter what he does.

Do they? David French, who has a very conservative profile (military veteran with a Harvard JD, ex-National Review, some sort of Calvinist) doesn't. Sohrab Ahmari, who has a very different profile (Iranian immigrant who converted from Islam to atheism to existentialism to Trotskyism to Nietzscheanism to integralist Catholicism and writes in favor of rebellion against the established order and rejection of principles widely believed to be foundational to America) does. If he writes for magazines that call themselves conservative, this suggests recent semantic drift - in my generation, we understood conservatism to mean, like, Dick Cheney. Conserving the established order against the rebels, you know? Maybe Republicans like him, but a lot of conservatives are Democrats now. It started with Max Boot, didn't it? Great nominative determinism on Max Boot.

Trump, Ahmari, and similar people want to go back to much of the political, social, and economic order of roughly 300 years ago. It's perfectly compatible with conservatism to have a wish to destroy the newfangled innovations of recent times. Within the context of US conservatism, it's only unusual in just how far they want to go back.

"Traditional" US conservatism has, arguably, always been to some extent fraudulent, because it called itself "conservative" while an important part of its ideology/philosophy was hero-worshiping a group of historical figures whose main claim to fame was that they had led a successful uprising against the God-given king under whose rule they had grown up. If Ahmari and people like him have now abandoned that particular part of the US conservative creed, that might be just a move towards greater internal consistency.

Besides, today's MAGAts aren't really that much more fundamentally juvenile than the talk radio dittoheads and Tea Partiers of earlier times whom Travis and me mentioned before. And those groups clearly were conservative.

But perhaps you're right, and no true conservative is into juvenile memes.

[Ketsuban]

It's perfectly compatible with conservatism to have a wish to destroy the newfangled innovations of recent times.

This may be observationally true (and constitute evidence for the ideological slant of American politics that you can be "conservative" while advocating the kind of widespread demolition of political structures that would generate shocked headlines and condemnation if proposed by the left) but I dispute the idea it's true as a matter of definition. Conservatism to me is defined by things like Chesterton's fence—it holds that you don't change something unless you can demonstrate why the conditions which led to it being there no longer exist. This is diametrically opposed to tearing things down purely because they weren't there at some arbitrary point in the past, for the same reason it's opposed to tearing things down purely because they seem to be in the way now.

Trump is a fascist. He was a fascist last year in the light of the things he had said, and he is a fascist now in the light of the things he has done.

[Richard W]

Trump is a fascist. He was a fascist last year in the light of the things he had said, and he is a fascist now in the light of the things he has done.

He lacks the selectively philanthropic motivation of true fascists.

[zompist]

I'd agree that conservativism isn't what it used to be

Trumpism is something else -- I'd suggest 'fascism' as a label.
But I think that most conservatives followed the conservative-to-fascist pipeline; it has to be or Trump wouldn't have the voters he has.

I agree with this. On a poli sci level you can certainly distinguish conservatives and fascists, and decide that (say) Bush II wasn't a fascist and Trump is. Informally and half-seriously, a conservative is someone who hates only what has happened since his childhood; a fascist hates everything that differs from an imagined, glorious antiquity. Republican actions this year are not conservative in any sense.

But when fascists take over a party, conservatives who stay there are pretty obviously complicit. Lindsey Graham was probably once a conservative; he's done his craven best to accommodate the fascists. No one should be fooled by now when Susan Collins expresses "concern" but votes with the GOP anyway.

a lot of conservatives are Democrats now. It started with Max Boot, didn't it?

Nah, it started with John Dean, at least.

If conservatives join with the Dems, good for them. But it kind of renders the term meaningless. "Never Trumpers" have had approximately zero impact.

[Ares Land]

But when fascists take over a party, conservatives who stay there are pretty obviously complicit. Lindsey Graham was probably once a conservative; he's done his craven best to accommodate the fascists. No one should be fooled by now when Susan Collins expresses "concern" but votes with the GOP anyway.

The explanation, I think, is that fascists, or the alt-right (I'm not particular about the label) are careful to give conservatives what they want, or at least not to give them what they don't want. People than adjust their views according to what they do, a very human failing.

I figure conservatives may have started supporting Trump because at least he wasn't a Democrat; once they voted for him of course they find themselves liking him more and more.

I don't know if people really change their political opinions as they age. I suspect our political views are determined by class and are more or less a function of our position in society.

[Raphael]

Just for the record, when I call Trump and his supporters conservatives, I don't do that to deny that they're fascists. I think those are at least overlapping categories these days.

And note that this particular sub-discussion started when I responded to Nort's assertion that people will get more conservative as they get more mature by saying that I don't see how greater maturity will make people more likely to support the likes of Trump.

I suspect our political views are determined by class and are more or less a function of our position in society.

I'd say there's some truth to that, but we shouldn't be simplistic about it. These days, many parts of the working class are a good deal more fascist than some parts of the middle class.

Then again, your position might explain why my own political views are so weird. After all, I'm in a quite weird position in society. As I wrote before, name a social class, and I'll explain why I'm not a member of that class.

[Travis B.]

Just for the record, when I call Trump and his supporters conservatives, I don't do that to deny that they're fascists. I think those are at least overlapping categories these days.

I think the distinction between conservatives and fascists is more blurry here in the US than outside it. Take Germany for instance -- there is a clear distinction between the CDU/CSU, who are conservative, and the AfD, who are fascist. Or take France as an example -- there is a clear contrast between the Macronistes, who are right-wing but not fascist, and the RN, who are fascist.

I suspect our political views are determined by class and are more or less a function of our position in society.

I'd say there's some truth to that, but we shouldn't be simplistic about it. These days, many parts of the working class are a good deal more fascist than some parts of the middle class.

Then again, your position might explain why my own political views are so weird. After all, I'm in a quite weird position in society. As I wrote before, name a social class, and I'll explain why I'm not a member of that class.

In my own case, from my social position as an educated professional from a rather center-left Democrat-voting lower middle class family you would expect me to likewise be a rather center-left Democrat, rather than a libertarian socialist-adjacent democratic socialist who, while consistently voting Democrat, does so for strategic reasons more than anything.

(Some would argue that I am a secret conservative due to my skepticism of idpol, but this is not me getting more "mature" as Nort might allege -- I was skeptical of idpol even as a teenager back when I called myself an anarchist, where I called idpol-obsessed left-of-center people 'liberals'.)

[Raphael]

(Some would argue that I am a secret conservative due to my skepticism of idpol, but this is not me getting more "mature" as Nort might allege -- I was skeptical of idpol even as a teenager back when I called myself an anarchist, where I called idpol-obsessed left-of-center people 'liberals'.)

I have long had very mixed feelings about what you call "idpol". I disagree with a lot of what the people who are into it are saying. But I think they make some good points, too, and I'm extremely skeptical of the people who are generally against what you call "idpol".

That said, people who, like conservatives, effectively reduce everyone to their demographic traits, and only disagree with conservatives about which demographic traits are good and which are bad, have no business accusing anyone else of secret conservatism. And neither do people who think it is very important to always respect the traditions of those communities and societies whom they see as oppressed. Preaching respect for traditions is an inherently conservative thing to do.

[Travis B.]

(Some would argue that I am a secret conservative due to my skepticism of idpol, but this is not me getting more "mature" as Nort might allege -- I was skeptical of idpol even as a teenager back when I called myself an anarchist, where I called idpol-obsessed left-of-center people 'liberals'.)

I have long had very mixed feelings about what you call "idpol". I disagree with a lot of what the people who are into it are saying. But I think they make some good points, too, and I'm extremely skeptical of the people who are generally against what you call "idpol".

That said, people who, like conservatives, effectively reduce everyone to their demographic traits, and only disagree with conservatives about which demographic traits are good and which are bad, have no business accusing anyone else of secret conservatism. And neither do people who think it is very important to always respect the traditions of those communities and societies whom they see as oppressed. Preaching respect for traditions is an inherently conservative thing to do.

My views stem from that I believe in freedom and equality for all -- and not merely inverting the traditional hierarchies -- and I believe that people should be treated as individuals and not as mere members of groups -- and hence that rights belong to individuals as such and not to groups, and that all people should be treated without regard to any groups which they are members of which are not of their deliberate choosing. Yet at the same time I do believe that everyone has a right to their culture, their language, their religion, etc. provided that they do not attempt to force them on others (but I do believe it is okay for them to attempt to raise their children in them).

[Raphael]

My views stem from that I believe in freedom and equality for all -- and not merely inverting the traditional hierarchies -- and I believe that people should be treated as individuals and not as mere members of groups -- and hence that rights belong to individuals as such and not to groups, and that all people should be treated without regard to any groups which they are members of which are not of their deliberate choosing. Yet at the same time I do believe that everyone has a right to their culture, their language, their religion, etc. provided that they do not attempt to force them on others (but I do believe it is okay for them to attempt to raise their children in them).

Mostly agree, but with reservations. One point where I agree with what you call the "idpol" people is that, in real life, society does often treat many people badly because of the groups they belong to, and therefore, it's often a good thing to try to intentionally counterbalance that.

[Travis B.]

My views stem from that I believe in freedom and equality for all -- and not merely inverting the traditional hierarchies -- and I believe that people should be treated as individuals and not as mere members of groups -- and hence that rights belong to individuals as such and not to groups, and that all people should be treated without regard to any groups which they are members of which are not of their deliberate choosing. Yet at the same time I do believe that everyone has a right to their culture, their language, their religion, etc. provided that they do not attempt to force them on others (but I do believe it is okay for them to attempt to raise their children in them).

Mostly agree, but with reservations. One point where I agree with what you call the "idpol" people is that, in real life, society does often treat many people badly because of the groups they belong to, and therefore, it's often a good thing to try to intentionally counterbalance that.

I have mixed feelings about such counterbalancing, as I disagree with broadly targeting a group X because it was/is seen as 'the oppressor' regardless of the roles of the affected members of group X in said past oppression, but at the same time I agree with seeking justice for past crimes where actual victims and perpetrators can be identified and treated as such (e.g. group X took land from group Y in the relatively recent past, such that the perpetrators and/or victims are still alive or have recent descendants still alive today, such that the land stolen can be returned to the members of group Y from which it was taken). The key thing is I believe crimes have perpetrators and victims who can be punished and compensated respectively, and not just broad group(s) treated as guilty regardless of the actual roles of the individual members of said group(s) or whether the members of said group(s) were even alive at the time said crimes were committed.

[Raphael]

I have mixed feelings about such counterbalancing, as I disagree with broadly targeting a group X because it was/is seen as 'the oppressor' regardless of the roles of the affected members of group X in said past oppression, but at the same time I agree with seeking justice for past crimes where actual victims and perpetrators can be identified and treated as such (e.g. group X took land from group Y in the relatively recent past, such that the perpetrators and/or victims are still alive or have recent descendants still alive today, such that the land stolen can be returned to the members of group Y from which it was taken). The key thing is I believe crimes have perpetrators and victims who can be punished and compensated respectively, and not just broad group(s) treated as guilty regardless of the actual roles of the individual members of said group(s) or whether the members of said group(s) were even alive at the time said crimes were committed.

I'm not mainly talking about past crimes, but present systemic discrimination.