United States Politics Thread 47

[Travis B.]

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

In that context I'm okay with efforts to counterbalance things that do not act to simply counter-oppress people simply because they are seen as groups as responsible for said oppression. Examples of things I am okay with include free education and health care and guarantees of being educated and served in the language of one's choice for all people no matter what. These help those who have suffered from systemic discrimination that has resulted in fewer opportunities and like without oppressing anyone else (even though those who have benefited from past and present oppression, e.g. those who benefited from private education and private health care, may claim otherwise).

[Ares Land]

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.

That's also because of the US's strict bipartisanship.
In France there's really a continuum between the right-wing and the far-right. It's probably the same in Germany - I do remember Merz saying things that were kind of borderline and probably meant to attract AFD voters.

I'd say there's some truth to that, but we shouldn't be simplistic about it.

I agree, it's more like a strong correlation than a strict rule.

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.

Though it'd be interesting to check the demographics of, say, Bernie voters! I suspect we'd find quite a few people in your social position.

(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'.)

Leaving aside the question of the merits (or not) of idpol... I don't think you're particularly unusual in this respect. Skepticism of idpol seems pretty widespread, even among the left?

[Raphael]

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.

That's also because of the US's strict bipartisanship.
In France there's really a continuum between the right-wing and the far-right. It's probably the same in Germany - I do remember Merz saying things that were kind of borderline and probably meant to attract AFD voters.

Oh yes. Don't get me started. (Would be off topic for this thread, I guess.)

[jcb]

My impression is they were, in various respects, mostly already outliers long before the 1960s.

That's what I read in The Sum of Us by Heather McGhee. That book discussed how popular socialist programs were in the US before the civil rights movement. Afterwards, America turned into a Marxist caricature of a capitalist dystopia.

rotting bones' summary is not much exaggerated. I've written about the turn from liberalism to plutocracy for years. There are a lot of reasons for it, but electorally it's quite simple: Southern whites shifted from the Democrats to the Republicsns. This turned a half-century of Democratic dominance into our present mixed but Rep-leaning situation. And yes, the reason the Southern Strategy worked is racism.

Why do you think that far-right parties have gotten more popular in Europe? Looking at a map of Germany during the last election ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Germ ... ection.svg ), there's a correlation between what used to be East Germany and voting for the AfD now. Was/Is East Germany more racist than West Germany? Can racism alone explain the difference?

[Raphael]

Looking at a map of Germany during the last election ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Germ ... ection.svg ), there's a correlation between what used to be East Germany and voting for the AfD now. Was/Is East Germany more racist than West Germany? Can racism alone explain the difference?

Responded to this over in the German Politics Thread: https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?p=100566#p100566

[Raphael]

I would like to congratulate Torco on his brilliant political instincts and ability to analyze likely global political developments:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c891gzx7xn4o

[bradrn]

I would like to congratulate Torco on his brilliant political instincts and ability to analyze likely global political developments:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c891gzx7xn4o

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not.

[Raphael]

I would like to congratulate Torco on his brilliant political instincts and ability to analyze likely global political developments:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c891gzx7xn4o

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not.

It very much is. Our dear tankie/fash-adjacent friend was really sure that a Trump victory would make the world safer for tankieism and would never have any seriously bad consequences for Latin America.

[Travis B.]

Continuing a discussion in the German Politics Thread...

Racism* definitely exists in the North, it just takes different forms from racism in the South. Racism in the South is due to slavery in the past, of course, while racism in the North is due in a large part to the Great Migration. In northern cities Black people are often seen as a semi-foreign element which has brought crime and urban decay to them. Conversely, many racist northern Whites don't care if Black people are 'uppity' and indeed may be less prejudiced against 'uppity' Black people than poor Black people. (E.g. a racist northern White may have completely willingly voted for Obama yet still be prejudiced against Blacks in the inner city.)

* specifically towards Black people by White people

I once read somewhere that there was supposedly a saying among Black people in the US that "In the South, they don't care how close you get as long as you don't get too high. In the North, they don't care how high you get as long as you don't get too close." But this is getting off topic for this thread.

I have heard that saying too. It's not quite that simple, though -- here in the North racism is very closely tied to classism, such that racist northern Whites are much more likely to not want Black people by them if those Black people are working or lower class than if they are middle or upper class. (I am using the typical capitalist terms for classes here, not the socialist terms, BTW.) A racist northern White who would recoil if a Black from the inner city decided to move next door would very likely not mind if the Obamas moved next door.

[rotting bones]

It very much is. Our dear tankie/fash-adjacent friend was really sure that a Trump victory would make the world safer for tankieism and would never have any seriously bad consequences for Latin America.

Liberals dogpiled me when I said Trump is a militarist.

[MacAnDàil]

Anyone else attend one of the No Kings protests today? I was genuinely impressed by the size of the one in my area. There must have been hundreds of people there. That is quite impressive given the overwhelming conservatism of Missouri and especially this county.

That seems to imply you participated Good on you and keep up if I have understood correctly.

Do conservatives still like to use that old standard argument of theirs that when people are left-wing or liberal, that's only because those people are still young and immature, and as soon as they've gotten older, they'll politically switch to conservatism? I sure remember them making that point often in the past.

Nowadays, a more common argument is that conservatism is correlated with disgust of filth, which is correlated with intelligence. Leftists are scatterbrained dolts who are jealous of successful conservatives who have managed to eject all the filth from their own lives or something, and that's why they're rich. Personally, I don't entirely follow the argument, so I'm extrapolating a bit.

It's conscientiousness that may link tidiness with success. However, openness to experience indicates intelligence more than any other higher order personality trait.

[MacAnDàil]

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.

The main modification I propose to take into account is that fascists are often into novelty, especially technological novelty. Mussolini and co were into modernism (e.g. Ezra Pound) as well as the Roman Empire. Also check the FN (now RN) was the first French political party with a website. And they're the biggest on TikTok. Also, Eric Zemmour was the first French presidential candidate to declare on Youtube. And that's without mentioning Trump's interest in AI and crypto. And Milei's got his own crypto.

Indeed:

That's what I read in The Sum of Us by Heather McGhee. That book discussed how popular socialist programs were in the US before the civil rights movement. Afterwards, America turned into a Marxist caricature of a capitalist dystopia.

rotting bones' summary is not much exaggerated. I've written about the turn from liberalism to plutocracy for years. There are a lot of reasons for it, but electorally it's quite simple: Southern whites shifted from the Democrats to the Republicsns. This turned a half-century of Democratic dominance into our present mixed but Rep-leaning situation. And yes, the reason the Southern Strategy worked is racism.

Why do you think that far-right parties have gotten more popular in Europe? Looking at a map of Germany during the last election ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Germ ... ection.svg ), there's a correlation between what used to be East Germany and voting for the AfD now. Was/Is East Germany more racist than West Germany? Can racism alone explain the difference?

The rise is far right came in the 2010s. The rise in smartphones also did. Both are linked to increased anxiety. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy082dn7rkqo https://www.jeantwenge.com/igen-book-by-dr-jean-twenge/. Also, smartphones are literally making people dumber as in the Reverse Flynn Effect. https://calnewport.com/on-the-reverse-flynn-effect/

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.

What do you mean by that?

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.

While French politics has gone further right, the Macronists are centre(-right) while the LR are the right. Abortion policy notably divides them in that the centrists put abortion into the constiution with the leftists while the right-wingers would have preferred the status quo. The point still stands because the LR rejected Eric Ciotti's alliance with the RN.

[Ares Land]

The rise is far right came in the 2010s. The rise in smartphones also did. Both are linked to increased anxiety. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy082dn7rkqo https://www.jeantwenge.com/igen-book-by-dr-jean-twenge/. Also, smartphones are literally making people dumber as in the Reverse Flynn Effect. https://calnewport.com/on-the-reverse-flynn-effect/

No, I don't think it's smartphones. The rise of the far right started quite some time before smartphones. Depending on the country you can see signs of it as early as the 80s.

In the US, to give just one example, Ann Coulter was pretty Trump-ish, as early as the late 90s, early 2000s.

[Raphael]

The rise is far right came in the 2010s. The rise in smartphones also did. Both are linked to increased anxiety. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy082dn7rkqo https://www.jeantwenge.com/igen-book-by-dr-jean-twenge/. Also, smartphones are literally making people dumber as in the Reverse Flynn Effect. https://calnewport.com/on-the-reverse-flynn-effect/

No, I don't think it's smartphones. The rise of the far right started quite some time before smartphones. Depending on the country you can see signs of it as early as the 80s.

In the US, to give just one example, Ann Coulter was pretty Trump-ish, as early as the late 90s, early 2000s.

I'm usually very skeptical about "this newfangled technology is ruining everything"-speeches, so I don't like to say this, but MacAnDàil might have a point. Whatever preliminaries there were, the rise of the fascists became a really big global thing in the 2010s.

[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.

What do you mean by that?

The Nazis cared about the well-being of the German people. (They were notoriously picky about whom they considered German.) The Italian fascists cared about the well-being of the Italian people. This can be attributed to the Socialist origins of some of their ideology. What's fascist about Trump is his methods, not his aims.

[Nortaneous]

The rise is far right came in the 2010s. The rise in smartphones also did. Both are linked to increased anxiety. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy082dn7rkqo https://www.jeantwenge.com/igen-book-by-dr-jean-twenge/. Also, smartphones are literally making people dumber as in the Reverse Flynn Effect. https://calnewport.com/on-the-reverse-flynn-effect/

This is just the reactionary view. Expanding the public square doesn't ennoble the public; it cheapens the public square. Talk radio went through a similar cycle: the market discovered that the masses wanted paranoid, corrosive moron-right dreck. Eventually the government stepped in to regulate it, in a less than entirely principled manner which nonetheless has met with historians' applause. Does anyone really mind that the sitting president of the United States extraconstitutionally forced a popular talk radio host off the air? Well, the radio host was Charles Coughlin, who thought Hitler was a swell guy... so the masses must be ruled!

[rotting bones]

Since Trump is the greatest possible President, should the office of Presidency be renamed to Trump?

[rotting bones]

The Nazis cared about the well-being of the German people. (They were notoriously picky about whom they considered German.) The Italian fascists cared about the well-being of the Italian people. This can be attributed to the Socialist origins of some of their ideology. What's fascist about Trump is his methods, not his aims.

Nazism was more favorable towards Germany than Germans. Even in the short term, they were very trigger happy about sacrificing individual Germans for the German People, and the People were by definition united under the great leader. Nazi Germany was basically a more belligerent North Korea without even nominal notions of equality, even for Germans.

It's hard to understand what the Nazis were thinking until you remember they thought they were characters in some kind of Sword and Sorcery novel.

[rotting bones]

Wonks are starting to have doubts about Mamdani winning the election.

[zompist]

Wonks are starting to have doubts about Mamdani winning the election.

Kind of amusing-- checking this, I found two headlines:

CBS: "New poll has Andrew Cuomo closing the gap with Zohran Mamdani"
The Hill: "Mamdani holds wide lead over Cuomo in new poll"

They're both reporting the same poll: 44% Mamdani, 34% Cuomo.