Zompist Bboard Again

Should non-Americancs for whom it is relevant start unilaterally replacing "AUS/CAN/UK/US Eyes Only" by "AUS/CAN/UK Eyes Only" on the basis that the US is now an enemy of our stout Canadian allies and our feeble Danish allies?

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 1:29 pmThe Democrats taking a real turn left, yes, definitely, that would both be a good thing and possibly (with the caveat that I don't know the average American voter that well ) a winning strategy.

There's the slight inconvenience that that would be seen as SOSHILIZM!!! and "un-American".

^ Yeah...

I (as a Polish person) was genuinely confused when I learned that some 30% of Americans don't even want universal healthcare because apparently that's Communism.

Really? People are to be denied life saving treatments because someone needs to make a profit?

I guess decades of McCarthyism wnd a century of Red Scare propaganda have really done their job.

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 3:09 pmReally? People are to be denied life saving treatments because someone needs to make a profit?

I think the objection of most of that 30% is like my aunt put it: "free for everyone? even the people who abuse the system by not paying taxes?"

{to which I think "yeah, because those people don't pay taxes whether the meds are free or not" }

I guess decades of McCarthyism wnd a century of Red Scare propaganda have really done their job.

I knew abstractly that there were some things we as Americans have that share traits with the communistic system...but I was quite surprised to see how much overlap there was between the two systems. Sadly, the last time I saw the chart, was decades ago.

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 3:09 pmI guess decades of McCarthyism wnd a century of Red Scare propaganda have really done their job.

Unfortunately that's absolutely correct. You can really see this by the shift in attitudes in the post-Cold War generation. It's the only one with more folks expressing a positive view of socialism than a positive view of capitalism (44% vs 40% according to a 2022 Pew Research survey; among those 65 and older, the percentages are 28% and 73%). However it's also striking that this demographic also has the largest percentage expressing a negative view of both systems (27%). So there are a lot of folks who think capitalism has failed to deliver the goods but don't trust socialism to succeed where this failed.

The only winning strategy to me seems to be rebranding European-style democratic socialism as a "third way". Don't know what we'd call it, but somewhere there'd have to be "freedom" in the name because what seems to frighten USAmericans most about "socialism" is the loss of "freedom" it entails--because we'd all rather be "free" to work for starvation wages and actively avoid going to the hospital, I guess.

But, yeah, one of the most lasting legacies of these decades of demonisation seems to be the belief that it is better to let 99 people than starve than risk one person getting something they don't "deserve". It reminds me of that scene in Repo Man where Harry Dean Stanton's character is cursing all the "ordinary people" he sees as "deadbeats". "If there was just some way of figuring out how much they owe!" he complains and when his young protégé Otto points out that they're just poor people trying to get by, he throws him out of the car. When did we, as a society, begin viewing everyone worse off than us the way a repo man views views the debtors he confronts? (And--most bizarrely of all--why do the folks who cling the tightest to this belief describe themselves as "Christians"?)

Ares Land wrote:I'd be wary of left-wing populism. We have that in Europe, and it's definitely part of the problem, not of the solution.

When I say "real populism", I mean basically what FDR and the actual Populist Party did.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27 ... ed_States)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VgeB-GG76U

The redefinition of "populist" to mean "racist/sexist demagogue" is an attempt to discredit it and obscure it by those that oppose its goals of reforming the economic systemic (which includes neoliberals).

Linguoboy wrote:(And--most bizarrely of all--why do the folks who cling the tightest to this belief describe themselves as "Christians"?)

Identities are about tribal belonging, not logical thinking, unfortunately.

jcb wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 9:37 pm

Ares Land wrote:I'd be wary of left-wing populism. We have that in Europe, and it's definitely part of the problem, not of the solution.

When I say "real populism", I mean basically what FDR and the actual Populist Party did.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27 ... ed_States)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VgeB-GG76U

The redefinition of "populist" to mean "racist/sexist demagogue" is an attempt to discredit it and obscure it by those that oppose its goals of reforming the economic systemic (which includes neoliberals).

I thought demagogues - usually charismatic ones - were part of the populism package, if not the definition...that most of them in recent times have been racist and sexist as well, that tars the term with their baggage, but doesn't yet change the word, so far as I'm aware: does FDR still count as a populist, charismatic or otherwise? Teddy Roosevelt? George Washington?

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 8:23 pm (And--most bizarrely of all--why do the folks who cling the tightest to this belief describe themselves as "Christians"?)

Most of them tend to hold the view of "If I have to go through Purgatory and Limbo (whether I believe in those or not), then so do everyone else, no gifts for them while we're in here!"

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 8:23 pm (And--most bizarrely of all--why do the folks who cling the tightest to this belief describe themselves as "Christians"?)

That last part is easily, though probably not satisfyingly, explained: A lot of self-described Christians care first and foremost about the "Jesus as the Savior of Mankind who died for People's sins"-aspect of Christianity, and not at all about the "Jesus as a great moral teacher who taught us all the right values"-aspect of Christianity. So for them, what matters about Jesus are his crucifixion and resurrection, not anything he said before.

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 4:55 am

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 8:23 pm (And--most bizarrely of all--why do the folks who cling the tightest to this belief describe themselves as "Christians"?)

That last part is easily, though probably not satisfyingly, explained: A lot of self-described Christians care first and foremost about the "Jesus as the Savior of Mankind who died for People's sins"-aspect of Christianity, and not at all about the "Jesus as a great moral teacher who taught us all the right values"-aspect of Christianity. So for them, what matters about Jesus are his crucifixion and resurrection, not anything he said before.

Not really, since the people we're talking about are eager as hell to talk about other people's sins. Which is bad theology, but it's been a perennial temptation for Christians in power.

But the number of white Evangelicals has fallen off a cliff. According to PRRI, the size of this group has halved, from 23% of the population in 2006 to 13.4%. (It's 9% for people under 30.)

White Evangelicals are 30% of Republican voters, 4% of Democratic. In 2006 it was 37% and 17% respectively. That is, Evangelicals have become both highly politicized, and highly unattractive. (There is still a majority of Christians in the Democratic Party, but they're mostly Catholics, the Black church, and mainline Protestants.)

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 5:25 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 4:55 am

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 8:23 pm (And--most bizarrely of all--why do the folks who cling the tightest to this belief describe themselves as "Christians"?)

That last part is easily, though probably not satisfyingly, explained: A lot of self-described Christians care first and foremost about the "Jesus as the Savior of Mankind who died for People's sins"-aspect of Christianity, and not at all about the "Jesus as a great moral teacher who taught us all the right values"-aspect of Christianity. So for them, what matters about Jesus are his crucifixion and resurrection, not anything he said before.

Not really, since the people we're talking about are eager as hell to talk about other people's sins. Which is bad theology, but it's been a perennial temptation for Christians in power.

Oh, they do care about sin, but they take their idea of what sins are from other parts of the Bible than the words of Jesus himself.

I seriously think some Christians actually believe this, except unironically:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/utopia

jcb wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 9:37 pm The redefinition of "populist" to mean "racist/sexist demagogue" is an attempt to discredit it and obscure it by those that oppose its goals of reforming the economic systemic (which includes neoliberals).

keenir wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 3:16 am I thought demagogues - usually charismatic ones - were part of the populism package, if not the definition...that most of them in recent times have been racist and sexist as well, that tars the term with their baggage, but doesn't yet change the word, so far as I'm aware: does FDR still count as a populist, charismatic or otherwise? Teddy Roosevelt? George Washington?

I think populism is at heart about 'common people' vs. 'the elite' which does seem reasonable at first glance, but only at first glance.

I didn't know about the Populist Party. What I read through the Wikipedia page doesn't sound so attractive. The "Conspiratorial tendencies" paragraph suggests some of these bought into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories (which is very typical of small-p populism.)

FDR is a lot more admirable as a model. I find it difficult to call him a populist; FDR was as close an American can get to being an aristocrat!

I read recently (but I have yet not found it again, I think it was by Ryan Holiday) that you can better tell the future of events by looking at similar past events, not by following the news.

I therefore looked at summaries of Trump’s (ghostwriter’s) books to compare them to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which Churchill had read, unlike most other British leaders at the time. Of course, I looked at summaries to mimic Trump’s own lack of attention span and to not spend money on a despicable human being, who showed himself as such well before rejoining.

Notably, in Trump’s name was published a book about a Comeback, in which advocates for holding grudges and being paranoid. So the guy surely had the intention to pull a comeback all along, by holding grudges and being paranoid. Also, the only other American president to pull off one, Grover Cleveland, ended up with alienating his own base and an opposition landslide in the following election.
But, despite advocating immigration restrictions, paranoia and vengeance and considering himself doing the work of providence like Hitler, those are not his priorities. Trump’s discourse, while partially similar to Hitler’s in its incoherence with reality, is more internally incoherent than Hitler’s, most notably chronologically. The one strand that comes out the most from Trump’s discourse is his ego, not his hate.
Trump is still egotistical, insane and racist among other awfulness, but he’s more a waverer and an egotist and less of a racist than Hitler.

Then again, this is somewhat impressionistic and may be wrong.

keenir wrote:I thought demagogues - usually charismatic ones - were part of the populism package, if not the definition...that most of them in recent times have been racist and sexist as well, that tars the term with their baggage, but doesn't yet change the word, so far as I'm aware: does FDR still count as a populist, charismatic or otherwise? Teddy Roosevelt? George Washington?

That definition is exactly what enemies of real populism want you to think.

Ares Land wrote:FDR is a lot more admirable as a model. I find it difficult to call him a populist; FDR was as close an American can get to being an aristocrat!

It's not about his personal style, but about his policies, so yes, he is very much a populist.

As for real populists who were charismatic, and even a bit demogogic, there was Huey Long.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long

FDR noticed the popularity of Long, and fearing his demagoguery, tried to "steal Long's thunder" by creating his own popular programs.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_Our ... %20thunder."

Reflecting on why Long was such a demagogue, I think it's because he realized that there was no point in being polite about what he was doing, because the other side (of the rich and powerful) was never polite about what they did. (Note that I say this while we are literally watching in real time the federal government being dismantled by Trump, Musk, and their goons ( https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/03/politics ... index.html ).)

Furthermore, ask Obama how being polite and bipartisan worked out. He picked a Heritage Foundation healthcare policy (later dubbed "Obamacare"), thinking that it would get bipartisan support for being originally conservative, but instead he got 8 years of staunch opposition and being called a socialist despite the fact (heck, Trump recently vowed to repeal it entirely and replace it with concepts of his own plan), and basically 6 years of being a lame duck.

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 10:15 am I read recently (but I have yet not found it again, I think it was by Ryan Holiday) that you can better tell the future of events by looking at similar past events, not by following the news.

I don't know if that works. Thankfully, this isn't the 1930s all over again. Though there are obvious parallels, as in seemingly reasonable people suddenly espousing brutal theories.

I therefore looked at summaries of Trump’s (ghostwriter’s) books to compare them to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which Churchill had read, unlike most other British leaders at the time. Of course, I looked at summaries to mimic Trump’s own lack of attention span and to not spend money on a despicable human being, who showed himself as such well before rejoining.

That's a sensible approach!

Trump is still egotistical, insane and racist among other awfulness, but he’s more a waverer and an egotist and less of a racist than Hitler.

Yeah, I tend to agree with that. Trump is bad enough, but thankfully again, not anything like Hitler.

If anything I'm more worried about Musk's bizarre space-techno-fascism. I really don't know if he'll last long, though.

MacAnDàil wrote:Trump is still egotistical, insane and racist among other awfulness, but he’s more a waverer and an egotist and less of a racist than Hitler.

Trump has more in common with a king than a Führer or a Duce. Trump has a personalized understanding of power. He has no concept of a nation like Hitler or Mussolini did. He sees the state as a tool for him to use to personally enrich himself (Remember the "Muslim ban" that applied only to countries that he didn't have hotels in?). He has no concept of policy or grand strategy. Instead, he thinks that good relations with a country can only be had when he personally has a good relationship with that country's leader.
- https://youtu.be/lI8-9RyP_tg?si=39-2DhZ ... Iw&t=92024

In other news, Trump wasted a bunch of water from some dams in California thinking that it would help put out the fires in Los Angeles.
- https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/ne ... ease-dumb/

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 5:25 amBut the number of white Evangelicals has fallen off a cliff.

Off-topic, but what is the number of white Evangelicals who have fallen off a cliff?

(on second thoughts, maybe not)

jcb wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 10:17 am

keenir wrote:I thought demagogues - usually charismatic ones - were part of the populism package, if not the definition...that most of them in recent times have been racist and sexist as well, that tars the term with their baggage, but doesn't yet change the word, so far as I'm aware: does FDR still count as a populist, charismatic or otherwise? Teddy Roosevelt? George Washington?

That definition is exactly what enemies of real populism want you to think.

Bernie Sanders is an example of a populist who is not at all a demagogue.

It's interesting to see the contrast in narrative where most news sources are saying that it's Trump that caved, but then you got all of rightwing twitter, like Libs of Tiktok, saying it's Mexico and Canada that caved.

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 7:00 pmIt's interesting to see the contrast in narrative where most news sources are saying that it's Trump that caved, but then you got all of rightwing twitter, like Libs of Tiktok, saying it's Mexico and Canada that caved.

once I saw that Canadian Parlimentarian say that they would try to leave Trump a token or a crumb so he didn't leave the table empty-handed, I thought to myself "and when Trump gets any bit of anything, he's going to boast that his way works, and he'll go right back and do it again."

https://youtu.be/4-ZEux2hOzs?si=npdLWWTr1WGcSsiG