Random Thread

[Travis B.]

I do not think many English-speakers actually use the term "ideology" in any fashion these days, whether positive or negative.

[Raphael]

On the political stuff in general, my impression is that you consume a lot of news, react to the items individually, and don't have a coherent ideology.

Frankly, the "no coherent ideology" part of that description strikes me as not that different from you. You don't strike me as a consistent follower of either Marxism, or classical liberalism, or any other detailed political philosophy (other than what you've come up with yourself)

To put it bluntly, a lot of the political observations in this blog entry are extremely simplistic. The above statement is typical: that leftism is a matter of solving problems by "identifying [and] removing the causes of these problems."

I didn't write anywhere that that's the entirety of "leftism". I described it as one leftist idea, and I even indicated that I wasn't entirely sure that it's a leftist idea.

I'd identify as leftist, and this statement, and the following critique, has pretty much nothing do do with how I see politics. It's as if you've noticed that people talk about events in the past, but you don't understand why they bother. Why should "a political decision made by the British Government in 1887" matter?

There's a bunch of reasons we might look at 1887. Without going into particular cases, it might be:
* because some bad law was written at that time, and still has bad effects today
* because the political situation then resembled ours in some way, and the successes/mistakes of that time are worth looking at
* because some situation dates back at least that far, probably showing that the issue is complicated
* because modern positions are often unconsciously echoes or developments of 19th century ideas and looking at the originals clarifies things
* because events of that time created a current injustice
* because some term we take for granted was defined at that time

All perfectly good points. I was mainly reacting to people who bring up past events without making any concrete proposals about what should be done today.

Or take this statement:

I don’t get why opponents of capitalism in the 21st century feel such a strong need to defend 19th century theorists or 20th century dictators.

Who does this? Is this supposed to be true of Bernie Sanders, or Jeremy Corbyn, or Olivier Faure, or Piketty, or Jacobin, or Twitter memes, or what?

It's a repost of something I posted in this thread (on page 72 in the standard 20-posts-per-page view), during a debate in which several people were defending Marx, and at least one person was explicitly defending 20th century dictators. Note that I didn't write anywhere that all, or even most, critics of capitalism do that. The Chapo crowd has apparently published a book that spends a lot of time defending 20th century dictators.

Have you read Marx, or any book-length treatment of him, or a book by any 21st century Marxist?

Admittedly not in much depth; my main sources for Marxist theory are Rius's Marx for Beginners and the chapter on Marx in Sophie's World. Those gave me the impression that Marxist theory is mainly about 6 stages of human history, and 2 classes in the current (4th) stage. Both of which sound very reductionist to me.

Or from other anti-capitalist tendencies, such as Anarchism?

Depends on whether The Dispossessed counts.

Now, obviously no 19th century text should be taken as unquestionable. But without even being a Marxist, I'd say that your dismissal is careless. Are you sure that Marx had only the classes of "dispossessed industrial laborers" and "rich capitalists"? Surely you've heard socialists talking about "bourgeois" and "petty bourgeois" and "lumpenproletariat"?

Until now, I had assumed that the latter two were additions later Marxists made to their theory in order to make it reflect social reality better. And as far as the petty bourgeois is concerned, my impression is that Marxists mainly spent their time railing against them and talking endlessly about how evil they are, apparently in order to punish them for stubbornly continuing to exist when, according to Marxist theory, they should have disappeared. Which, given the size of that group's share of the total population, doesn't strike me as a particularly smart political strategy.

And granted that the middle class is a thing that Marx recognized, are you sure his predictions of inequality are so wrong?

To the extent to which he predicted that there would be inequality, of course he was completely right. His predictions about how exactly that inequality would look like are a different matter. He seems to have predicted that the whole world would end up looking like mid-19th century Manchester - see "Manchester capitalism". I don't have to tell you that this prediction turned out to be wrong, because I learned about that from you:

http://zompist.com/jacobs.html

Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a very careful demonstration of the inequality of wealth as it's risen and fallen over the last two centuries in the US and Europe.

Under Marxist theory, are there supposed to be times of falling inequality during the capitalist stage of history?

But you know enough about the US and Britain, at least, to know that not all socialists are Stalinists.

Now, if I had claimed anywhere that they are...

I don't want you to dismiss this as "oh, he's mad that I got his ideology wrong." I think you got the other ideologies wrong too! Your view of right-wingers is reductionistic too. They're by no means just people who go "capitalism, rah rah rah!"

My impression is that aside from actual Nazis, pretty much everyone on the Right these days has "capitalism, rah rah rah" at least as a part of their ideology, even if it's not the one on which they put the most emphasis.

[zompist]

Admittedly not in much depth; my main sources for Marxist theory are Rius's Marx for Beginners and the chapter on Marx in Sophie's World. Those gave me the impression that Marxist theory is mainly about 6 stages of human history, and 2 classes in the current (4th) stage. Both of which sound very reductionist to me.

Um... Rius wrote his book in 1972. Sophie's World is 1991. The Dispossessed is 1974.

I'm not trying to play gotcha with your "21st century", but, well, these are between 30 and 50 years old. A lot has happened in that time, in the world, in politics, and in the left wing.

I had assumed that [...]

He seems to have predicted that [...]

Under Marxist theory, are there supposed to be times of falling inequality during the capitalist stage of history?

Why don't you find out?

Again, I'm not a Marxist, nor an expert on Marxist theory. But I've read books by Marxists, or which take Marxist critiques seriously.

I'm only focusing on Marx because you had that one section on "21st century anti-capitalists". Marx is probably not the first book to read-- though it might be interesting, and you have the advantage that you can read him in the original language. Personally I think any two or three nonfiction books by Orwell would be a great place to start. (And yes, they're even older, but that's part of the point: democratic socialism has been around for at least that long.)

My impression is that aside from actual Nazis, pretty much everyone on the Right these days has "capitalism, rah rah rah" at least as a part of their ideology, even if it's not the one on which they put the most emphasis.

Wow, no. In fact, quite a bit of the right would consider itself to be absolute enemies of "Wall Street". When you hear a GOP politician talking like that, it's posturing-- but they're taking that posture because they know that their voters for the most part distrust big business.

Some polling results here: https://www.pollingreport.com/business.htm and https://www.fastcompany.com/40495233/am ... rporations

The interesting bits are the questions broken down by party. From the second link: "big majorities of Americans–including 85% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans–“believe companies share too little of their success with employees.”"

Unfortunately, most of the polls ask about "regulation", which skews the answers-- GOP voters tend (though far from unanimously) to hate the idea. Also note that the GOP mostly hated Bush's rescue of the auto industry, even though it saved our major car companies and was ultimately paid back to the treasury.

[Ares Land]

I don’t get why opponents of capitalism in the 21st century feel such a strong need to defend 19th century theorists or 20th century dictators.

Who does this? Is this supposed to be true of Bernie Sanders, or Jeremy Corbyn, or Olivier Faure, or Piketty, or Jacobin, or Twitter memes, or what?

As a matter of fact, le Monde Diplomatique (otherwise a pretty good anti-globalist paper! not too different from Jacobin, in fact) recently run an opinion piece disguised as fact on how West Germany annexed the GDR -- for that matter, that part of the hard left that defines itself as anti-capitalist is still hot about Marx. For that matter, Mélenchon (a solid presidential candidate) has spoken in defense of Maduro, a 21st century dictator...
Ok, that's French politics, but as far as I can see the political spectrum in Germany is quite similar to ours. (I believe Die Linke is non-commmittal on the GDR, at least).
And, for that matter, I remember a fairly heated debate on this very thread...

In short, yes, there's a radical side to the left that is very eager to point out that capitalism suck and that we should get rid of it entirely. Which is fine! I mean, anyone can see that capitalism sucks; you just need to work for a living, or pay rent to see that. The problem is, that same side of the left seems unaware or in denial about that time in the 20th century when people tried to get rid of capitalism and ended up trapped behind a concrete wall -- and I believe that's whom Raphael is referring to.
(I do remember your point that the radical left should be understood in a certain context, especially an American context!)

Now then, my own political views are pretty much aligned with Piketty. I don't believe he's quite an opponent of capitalism, rather, he's in favor of reforming it radically, which in my view isn't quite the same thing. (Which makes me think that I should buy his latest book). Part of the appeal of Piketty is that he has well-thought out proposals on what should be done, he's aware of what would work and what wouldn't, and even aware of the difficulties in implementing his own suggestions.

For that matter, his opinion on Marx is that while it's interesting and insightful, well, science has marched on.

[Raphael]

Again, I'm not a Marxist, nor an expert on Marxist theory. But I've read books by Marxists, or which take Marxist critiques seriously.

I'm only focusing on Marx because you had that one section on "21st century anti-capitalists".

Which, again, was never meant to be about all 21st century anti-capitalists.

Marx is probably not the first book to read-- though it might be interesting, and you have the advantage that you can read him in the original language.

Linguistic sidenote: I generally find it a good deal easier to read 19th century English texts than 19th century German texts, perhaps because, since English is always a foreign language for me anyway, the strangeness of the style somehow seems less jarring than in German.

Personally I think any two or three nonfiction books by Orwell would be a great place to start. (And yes, they're even older, but that's part of the point: democratic socialism has been around for at least that long.)

I've read almost all of Orwell's non-fiction writings, including the domestic diaries about how many eggs his hens laid each day. I've probably re-read some of his writings more often than almost anything else.

Wow, no. In fact, quite a bit of the right would consider itself to be absolute enemies of "Wall Street". When you hear a GOP politician talking like that, it's posturing-- but they're taking that posture because they know that their voters for the most part distrust big business.

True enough - in a morbid way, it is quite impressive how the GOP has, for generations, managed it to effectively wage a successful class war in two directions at the same time: a rhetorical class war against the rich, and a substantial class war against the poor and the middle class. That said, many GOPers don't seem to make the mental connection between capitalism, which they love, and Wall Street or "rich out-of-touch elitists", which they often hate. Their ideal often seems to be a world of small businesspeople trading with each other; they don't get that, as Orwell put it, "the trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them".

[Raphael]

As a matter of fact, le Monde Diplomatique (otherwise a pretty anti-globalist paper! not too different from Jacobin, in fact) recently run an opinion piece disguised as fact on how West Germany annexed the GDR

I should note that that position is shared by some people who have no love for the GDR, e. g. Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk.

(I believe Die Linke is non-commmittal on the GDR, at least).

Some of their leading politicians are unapologetic Stalinists.

[Travis B.]

As a matter of fact, le Monde Diplomatique (otherwise a pretty anti-globalist paper! not too different from Jacobin, in fact) recently run an opinion piece disguised as fact on how West Germany annexed the GDR

I should note that that position is shared by some people who have no love for the GDR, e. g. Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk.

(I believe Die Linke is non-commmittal on the GDR, at least).

Some of their leading politicians are unapologetic Stalinists.

My question is would a democratic socialist GDR have been possible? Even with reunification we have not managed to purge the Stalinists.

[Raphael]

My question is would a democratic socialist GDR have been possible?

If by "democratic", you mean "at least partly taking into account what most people want", then no, because most people at the time clearly didn't want that. In the one democratic general election in the GDR, in March 1990, parties that supported a quick reunification on Western terms were the big winners, and the newly founded groups that had formed the organizing core of the mid-to-late 1989 protests, and whose leaders often did talk about trying to built a more democratic but still independent and socialist GDR, such as Alliance 90 or the Greens, got just a few percentage points each.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_East ... l_election

Generally, among people who weren't supporters of the old system, the very word "socialism" had been completely discredited by all the years the old system called itself that. A lot of people would later regret their support for a quick reunification on Western terms, but that came later.

Even with reunification we have not managed to purge the Stalinists.

What, exactly, do you mean by "purge" in this context?

[Travis B.]

My question is would a democratic socialist GDR have been possible?

If by "democratic", you mean "at least partly taking into account what most people want", then no, because most people at the time clearly didn't want that. In the one democratic general election in the GDR, in March 1990, parties that supported a quick reunification on Western terms were the big winners, and the newly founded groups that had formed the organizing core of the mid-to-late 1989 protests, and whose leaders often did talk about trying to built a more democratic but still independent and socialist GDR, such as Alliance 90 or the Greens, got just a few percentage points each.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_East ... l_election

Generally, among people who weren't supporters of the old system, the very word "socialism" had been completely discredited by all the years the old system called itself that. A lot of people would later regret their support for a quick reunification on Western terms, but that came later.

That is what I thought happened. My question then is how can these people call it an "annexation" when it clearly happened democratically, with substantial support from the population at the time, even if many of these people regretted it later?

Even with reunification we have not managed to purge the Stalinists.

What, exactly, do you mean by "purge" in this context?

Exclude from political discourse, just like how in most countries Neo-nazis have been effectively excluded from having any real influence.

[Raphael]

That is what I thought happened. My question then is how can these people call it an "annexation" when it clearly happened democratically, with substantial support from the population at the time, even if many of these people regretted it later?

Depends on how you define "annexation". From a purely legalistic perspective, it was an annexation - legally, the East became a part of the Federal Republic. More importantly, from the perspective of who had to adapt how much to whom, it was an annexation, too. Economic structures, cultural norms, the way all the small things in everyday life were done, to some extent language - all of these things changed dramatically in the East and little or not at all in the West.

[Travis B.]

That is what I thought happened. My question then is how can these people call it an "annexation" when it clearly happened democratically, with substantial support from the population at the time, even if many of these people regretted it later?

Depends on how you define "annexation". From a purely legalistic perspective, it was an annexation - legally, the East became a part of the Federal Republic. More importantly, from the perspective of who had to adapt how much to whom, it was an annexation, too. Economic structures, cultural norms, the way all the small things in everyday life were done, to some extent language - all of these things changed dramatically in the East and little or not at all in the West.

This is true. The thing, though, is that using the term "annexation" implies illegitimacy in a way that "(re)unification" does not, and when the aforementioned people use this word I presume they are deliberately evoking these connotations.

[Ares Land]

This is true. The thing, though, is that using the term "annexation" implies illegitimacy in a way that "(re)unification" does not, and when the aforementioned people use this word I presume they are deliberately evoking these connotations.

Precisely. Plus the military connection which, in the context of the paper I mentioned, chime in with the vague Germanophobia of the French far-left.

[hwhatting]

Legally, it was not an annexation, but an accession - the 5 Eastern states acceded to the Federal Republic of Germany. Psychologically, as Raphael explained, it felt like an annexation to many Eastern Germans, also because the majority of high-level administrative posts in the East was (and still is) occupied by personnel coming from the West. (NB that for a couple of years in the 2000's both the Federal President and the Chancellor of Germany were Easterners, but that didn't change the fact that a majority of the higher positions in Eastern ministries and similar administrative bodies were and are Westerners by origin).
On purging Stalinists: Depends on how you define them. I doubt that even in the Left party there are many people who have Uncle Joe's portrait hanging on the wall. If you include everybody who thinks that the GDR was not at least better than the Germany we have now, and people who justify things like the wall and want to hide the oppression under the carpet, then there's a substantial number, not only among unreconstructed apparatchiks in the East (the core voters of the Left in the East), but also among radical leftists in the West (the kind of people who during the cold war lionised the Soviet Union while enjoying the comforts of life in a capitalist democracy.) For years, German conservatives tried to exclude the Left from joining governments as long as it doesn't sufficiently distance itself from its GDR inheritance, and they still aren't ready to team up with them, which makes forming a government in Thuringia difficult right now. But the Left, especially in the East, shed a lot if its more extreme positions and shunted the most unreconstructed Socialists out of sight, and now is able to form partnerships at least with the Social Democrats and the Greens.

[Moose-tache]

Wow, no. In fact, quite a bit of the right would consider itself to be absolute enemies of "Wall Street". When you hear a GOP politician talking like that, it's posturing-- but they're taking that posture because they know that their voters for the most part distrust big business.

True enough - in a morbid way, it is quite impressive how the GOP has, for generations, managed it to effectively wage a successful class war in two directions at the same time: a rhetorical class war against the rich, and a substantial class war against the poor and the middle class. That said, many GOPers don't seem to make the mental connection between capitalism, which they love, and Wall Street or "rich out-of-touch elitists", which they often hate. Their ideal often seems to be a world of small businesspeople trading with each other; they don't get that, as Orwell put it, "the trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them".

Agreed. I'm surprised Zompist took issue with the uncritical worship of capitalism on the American right. Plenty of right-wing populists will complain about "globalist economics," and industry bail-outs, and recently free trade. The collapse of manufacturing in the rust belt has provided plenty of votes to anyone who can angrily shout about the evils of outsourcing and corporate greed, etc. But actual Republican policy rarely aligns with all that talk, and the voters don't seem to mind. When it comes to the individual questions of policy the opposition to capitalism among conservative voters is essentially zero. Do conservative voters oppose private ownership of the means of production? Do they support higher taxes for the wealthy, including a higher estate tax? Do they want the government negotiating with pharmaceutical companies over what medicines will be covered by a socialized healthcare system? The answer is clearly no in every case. There was a time when salt-o'-the-Earth Republicans roamed the landscape wearing overalls and talking like a character from a Steinbeck novel. But those days are long gone. The Republican politicians may be posturing, but it's not as if they're promising their constituents something and then secretly doing something they hate. Clearly conservative voters are deeply uncomfortable with any solution to the economic problems Republicans pretend to care about, so by doing nothing to fix the economy, Republicans are giving their voters what they want.

[Raphael]

Some belated comments on Sal's comments. Sorry for the belated response, Sal - it took me a while to think about this.

Some of the thoughts do seem quite disconnected from one another, and you might get more engagement with the later points if you posted them separately from the earlier points, because that's a lot to read through and formulate replies to.

True enough; all I can say is that at least I gave people a fair warning right in the title of the post. I had wondered about how to turn those ideas into a more conventional structured text, and generally come up blank.

Regarding prayer, I was largely thinking of the kind of people, apparently common among some variants of Evangelicals, who really seem to think that God works like a kind of coin-operated vending machine taking prayers instead of coins, and who sometimes even seem to think that the exact wording of prayers matters, so that, if you get the words exactly right according to the right instructions, you'll get a predictable result.

2. Of course multiple people can be responsible for the same thing. Who disagrees?

Not sure. There might people who think that sharing responsibility with someone else automatically implies being less than 100 percent responsible.

As for why people try to address the causes of problems, it's because many problems are ongoing. If you don't address the cause of the problem, it'll continue generating the problem.

Good point.

Of course, you're right - again, who would disagree with you!? - that some problems continue even after the initiating cause has been dealt with, and so require remedial solutions. But if you don't remove the initiating cause, then the remedial solutions will achieve nothing.

I was not so much imagining people actively disagreeing with me, as people simply not getting the idea that problems might continue after their original causes have been removed.

[that said, again I think greater precision would be helpful. When you talk about 'removing' the cause... causes are now usually thought to be events, not objects, so the cause of everything has, as it were, already been removed by time (the main alternative is to say that causes are facts, or fact-like things, which are transcendent, and hence not, as it were, ever 'here' to be removed in the first place). The important distinction is therefore between repeated events, which have repeated consequences - in which case the repeated cause ought to be prevented - and singular events, which, having occurred once, can no longer be prevented, but only remedied.]

Very good point.

(((FWIW, the impression I've always had of you is that you're a moderate conservative, who doesn't like to think of himself that way due to some incidental dislike of the Republican Party)))

Well, I'm more or less left-wing on economic/socioeconomic policy, more or less left-wing on issues relate to people's private lives, I generally think that the Middle Ages sucked and the world would be a much worse place if we had always listened to the conservatives of the day, my strongest political convictions include opposition to free-market economics and opposition to cultural conservatism, and the only time I ever voted for a conservative was in one local election for an acquaintance of various family members. Also, on a purely emotional level, one of my strongest political feelings might well be my intense visceral dislike for the kind of young conservatives who can be recognized in several different countries by their trademark combination of decidedly good clothes and decidedly bad manners.

That said, I probably do have a bit of a small-c conservative strain. I've never been interested in tearing everything down, I've never been unconventional for the sake of being unconventional, I've never felt much of a temptation to join any of the various left-wing or mostly left-wing subcultures, the slightly rebellious streak I had as a teenager has mostly disappeared by now, and now that we live in an age in which jeans and t-shirt are pretty conventional clothes, you'd probably guess I'm politically conservative if you would meet me in the street. Someone who'd know everything about the story of my life might conclude that I'm a psychologically conservative guy who was never rebellious enough to really turn against the moderately left-wing politics he was raised with.

Also, repeating something I already wrote in my ZBB Census post, I might come across as more right-wing than I am on the internet because a) I usually hang out in left-leaning rather than right-leaning places, and b) I'm more likely to say something when I disagree with people than when I agree with them. But the reason why I usually hang out in left-leaning places is that in right-leaning places, I can't take The Stupid for long.

6. Well, it's perhaps a little more nuanced than you give it credit. Sure, everyone has someone to the left of them and someone to the right - but if you find that the only people attacking you from the left are a crazed fringe of half-sane radicals, then you yourself may be too far to the left, whereas if you're often criticised by seemingly moderate people on both sides, you're likely to be somewhere in the centre (whether that's good or bad). Or, of course, extreme in a different dimension.

Fair enough.

The rest here seems like a religious position rather than a political one - the inadequacy of any possible test can only be an article of faith (many tests have not been tested). But it's hard to know what you mean exactly. You adopt the - certainly rather conservative! - position that some people are inferior, but you don't explain why or in what way I'm inferior to you - in what way are you 'great' and I just 'suck'? These are not very precise ethical terms!

I'm mainly thinking of personality and ethics. And, well, I think it's fairly unlikely that there'll be reliable tests for that anytime soon.

[zompist]

Agreed. I'm surprised Zompist took issue with the uncritical worship of capitalism on the American right. Plenty of right-wing populists will complain about "globalist economics," and industry bail-outs, and recently free trade. The collapse of manufacturing in the rust belt has provided plenty of votes to anyone who can angrily shout about the evils of outsourcing and corporate greed, etc. But actual Republican policy rarely aligns with all that talk, and the voters don't seem to mind. When it comes to the individual questions of policy the opposition to capitalism among conservative voters is essentially zero. Do conservative voters oppose private ownership of the means of production? Do they support higher taxes for the wealthy, including a higher estate tax? Do they want the government negotiating with pharmaceutical companies over what medicines will be covered by a socialized healthcare system? The answer is clearly no in every case. There was a time when salt-o'-the-Earth Republicans roamed the landscape wearing overalls and talking like a character from a Steinbeck novel. But those days are long gone. The Republican politicians may be posturing, but it's not as if they're promising their constituents something and then secretly doing something they hate. Clearly conservative voters are deeply uncomfortable with any solution to the economic problems Republicans pretend to care about, so by doing nothing to fix the economy, Republicans are giving their voters what they want.

Depicting "conservative voters" as a monolith who have "zero" unhappiness with Republican governance is a caricature. An entertaining one, surely, but monoliths are not good analysis or good politics.

The easiest way to see this is to reverse everything. Is every Democratic voter a fan of every single action Obama did? Obviously not; you're surely aware of factions in the party and severe criticism of specific actions. Many voters go along with the party only because they think the alternative is far worse.

Very roughly, the GOP follows Nixon's Southern Strategy. The party leadership chiefly wants unregulated hyper capitalism, minimal redistribution, and low taxes: policies that favor big business and the rich. But this policy is highly unpopular, so to actually get into office the party has to downplay its real policy, and play up cultural and religious resentments and white nationalism. And occasionally, to get the lax regulations and low taxes they want, the plutocrats have to put up with policies that go against their interest, like trade wars and restrictions on immigration.

Now, you might expect that the voters would notice and feel cheated. Thus the importance of the right-wing media complex, which relies on misdirection, lies, and an atmosphere of fear. It works amazingly well. So policymakers can (say) push bills which remove insurance for pre-existing coverage, while claiming on Fox News that they, and only they, are preserving it. The "notice and feel cheated" process doesn't work if it's possible to simply prevent people seeing what GOP policy actually is.

As Sal pointed out eons ago, one reason Trump demolished his rivals was that he ran as a populist. Anyone remember his promises to raise taxes on the rich? A lot of the GOP "Against Trump" people (e.g. the National Review) were chiefly worried that he would not be conservative enough. Fortunately for them, if not for the country and the planet, this turned out to be an unfounded worry— he dropped the populism completely. But it's clear that this is due largely to his personal failings. He didn't have the charisma or smarts to reach out to the other side, or the personal conviction to stand up to the Congressional leadership. But his success shows that a populist GOP could do as well or better than a conservative one, under a smarter leader.

Finally— I agree that Republican voters ultimately are responsible for the GOP being able to do what it likes. Morally, they chose a corrupt, stupid, and vicious thug as President, and even their lack of information is their fault: no one is forcing them to watch only Fox News. And if they do have different personal values that are outraged by the GOP's policies, they don't take the opportunity to make that known. Still, I think it's self-delusion if we just assume that Republican voters vote for evil policies because they like evil. Besides, the actual processes by which people are drawn to support evil policies are far more interesting than just declaring that they're evil people.

[Pabappa]

He didn't have the charisma or smarts to reach out to the other side,

I think his approval rating would sink like a rock if he did this. Just look at how conservatives reacted when he was talking about tightening gun regulations or whatever it was ... the modern GOP electorate wants *NO* compromises with liberals. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by the other side.

And if they do have different personal values that are outraged by the GOP's policies, they don't take the opportunity to make that known.

The only criticism of Trump I'm seeing is from the people further right. Conservatives today see the election of Trump as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to purge the GOP of the sellouts like Bush who did as much harm as good for their base. Many fear he may not win reelection, and want Trump to cram in as much as possible into the little time he has left, even if it means breaking long-held American traditions that have traditionally kept the executive branch in check.

Morally, they chose a corrupt, stupid, and vicious thug as President

Using words like this is maybe the single greatest reason why conservatives are no longer interested in compromise with liberals. Can you blame us? And what you're saying is mainstream,.... Im not singling you out .... you can hear the same words, or harsher ones, from any left wing media outlet.

The GOP is not a monolith but I think we all agree on who our enemies are, and that's a very powerful uniting force.

[zompist]

Morally, they chose a corrupt, stupid, and vicious thug as President

Using words like this is maybe the single greatest reason why conservatives are no longer interested in compromise with liberals. Can you blame us? And what you're saying is mainstream,.... Im not singling you out .... you can hear the same words, or harsher ones, from any left wing media outlet.

I like you personally, but... this is the road you folks chose 25 years ago. Y'all spent all that time calling us "traitors" and "fascists" and "libtards". And let me tell you, liberals don't get angry quick, but we're fucking furious now.

Also... did you think that was invective? It's a description. His criminality is well documented. We have two years of his own staff calling him a moron. He's not nice to anyone even on your side.

[Ares Land]

I went to a wonderful Tolkien exhibition today (an adaptation of the exhibition at the Bodleian and Morgan libraries).
I wanted to share a few pictures with you, but that turned out to be impossible. (The Tolkien estate, I suppose, watches jealously, so no photographs allowed, and the rule is enforced).
Still, it was something to see an early manuscrit chart of Qenya declension, or a Goblin alphabet, or Tolkien's own illustrations. Oh, and they got a room where you get to stand under Sauron's eye while listening to a recording of Tolkien reading the Ring inscription in Black Speech (you also get to hear him sing Namarië).


Oh, and the other day, my eldest daughter (she's 5) was making up a fairy language

[Salmoneus]

He didn't have the charisma or smarts to reach out to the other side,

I think his approval rating would sink like a rock if he did this. Just look at how conservatives reacted when he was talking about tightening gun regulations or whatever it was ... the modern GOP electorate wants *NO* compromises with liberals. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by the other side.

I agree that Republican voters mostly don't want 'compromise' with liberals (although, of course, most Republicans supported Trump's ideas to tighten gun regulations - even among Republicans, those arguing against gun restrictions are a minority, and indeed it's probably only a Republican who can get those regulations into law). But that doesn't mean they'd give up their own objectives just because liberals want the same thing. Trump campaigned on policies like tax increases for the rich, massive spending on infrastructure, expanded healthcare provision, better pensions, tougher anti-corruption legislation, and an end to free trade. Those policies were very popular with the Republican base, if not with the Republican leadership or intelligensia. But the thing is, there's also all very popular with a big segment of the Democratic base as well. Now sure, we saw with tarriffs that if Trump wants something, the Democrats will quickly become more opposed to it. But if Trump had actually attempted to enact all that, it would have been very difficult for a lot of Democrats to say no to it, and while I don't think we'd have seen a revolution, I do think we could have seen a very substantial package of populist reforms. [and I suspect he'd be cruising to re-election with no impeachment hearings in sight]