I agree that they are better off in a lot of ways, John, but there is also a simultaneous counter-revolution that is pushing back very hard against the revolutions of racial, gender, and sexual orientation equality. The campaign and subsequent inauguration of Trump was not a dog whistle but a clarion call to white nationalists. Progressives don’t want to negotiate on rights that activists fought and died for. They’re not in the mood to have a beer summit and hear the pros and cons of modern day slavery in the form of mass incarceration.
If things are better for people even though our policies are more to the liking of conservatives, then I’m not seeing what you think the problem is.
Did you mean the last 4 months instead of the last 40 years? I despise Trump, but I’m not willing to acknowledge at this point that he is making permanent changes to the country.
I agree. The very idea of rolling back civil rights and labor gains is not something I’m willing to negotiate in the name of ‘compromise’ or for any other reason.
I agree. I didn’t want this thread to turn into a climate change debate. My point was a simple one: the general tenor of the thread was “oh, those silly conservatives, they ignore reality and facts, unlike us liberals” and yet, here in this very thread, a liberal poster was making a claim at odds with reality and facts. I pointed it out while it seemed that most people shrugged and wanted to ignore it, probably because it undermined their “oh, those silly conservatives” argument.
Sorry, this post is rushed, I’m running off to dinner with friends, will clarify later if need be.
Three steps forward and two steps back makes for a rotten period of time when those two steps are being taken away. Yeah, we’re ahead of where we were, but…
It’s permanent to the guy who loses his house because he has no health insurance to pay for his chemotheraphy. It’s permanent to the little guy…
Also, I’d say yes, forty years. (Well, 35 or so.) Since the Reagan revolution and the several-times-over-decimation of the American Middle Class. You may not call this “permanent,” but the effects are extremely long-lasting. Home ownership, in particular, is all but denied to far more people than any time in living memory.
Wages have gone up…but housing costs have gone up about four times as much. That’s “permanent” for people who will never be able to own their own homes.
And the next President is going to have one helluva mess to clean up with our treaties and alliances.
You mentioned women, minorities, and gays. I don’t know what you mean by “more to the liking of conservatives”, but if you look at where progress has been made in those areas – who has supported those rights and who has opposed them – ISTM a clear distinction is visible between which side tended to support progressive reforms and which side opposed them. If you add “social services” into the mix, it’s equally clear:
The “New Deal” and social security? Democrats. Medicare? Democrats. The Civil Rights Act? Democrats. The ACA? Democrats. SSM? Liberal justices on the Supreme Court against the conservatives, overturning draconian legislation in Republican states. Women’s rights? Democrats again, most emphatically on abortion issues, but on others, too. The Family and Medical Leave Act enacted policies prepared by the Women’s Law and Public Policy Fellowship and was Bill Clinton’s first signed legislation; the elder President Bush had twice vetoed similar legislation.
Yes things are better today, but who is largely responsible? And moreover, I think it’s clear that Republicans have become more extreme and intransigent in recent decades, culminating in… well, what we have today, which is like a parody skit from SNL.
Were not his observations derived from what liberals actually say?
In the past I have seen several conservatives point at Foreign Policy as a good source with conservative cometary. Here is what a former writer and editor for the Christian Science Monitor and then for The Wall Street Journal, Max Boot, has to say about Trump so far:
Asahi’s words, not mine.
I think what asahi might be experiencing is that economic policies have been more to the liking of conservatives, but certainly not social policies. It was a bit confusing, though, because he (is asahi a he?) was posting about both economic and social (or civil rights) issues. For the purposes of this thread, though, I think the social issues are the ones that are most contentious between the two sides (if we take the narrow view that there are only two sides to the political spectrum). The things that generates the most emotional responses.
Well, let’s see;
“want the whole planet to die, want poor people to die, hate science, and are bigots”
1> “Global warming is a hoax”. Wanting the planet to die is only slight hyperbole about thinking that what we do to the Earth doesn’t matter and there will be no consequences, since a large portion of the Earth WOULD die.
2> Given their hostile attitudes toward the poor and refusal to spend a single dime helping other people, what do you think the end result is? More poor people dying.
3> Seriously, do you want to contest that, especially in light of #1?
4> Not all of them, but a lot of them.
That comes from listening to Conservatives and making judgement calls about the end results of their policies and attitudes.
John: OK, I had not seen asahi’s comment when I posted. In any case, my point stands that while many social issues have greatly improved over the years, the credit goes almost exclusively to Democrats, with Republicans often in the role of obstructionists, especially in recent years. On economic policies the situation may be less clear, but certainly on many aspects of the economy Democrats appear to have done better there, too. Bill Clinton for example left the younger Bush a robust and healthy economy, and by the time Bush and his fellow Republicans were done with it he handed over to Obama the worst recession in living memory.
I was trying to put it into words – I like your words better than mine. You said what I wanted to.
Yes, and that brings me back to something I wanted to write about earlier. I try to be careful about hyperbolic comparisons to Nazi Germany, but there really and truly are some disturbing parallels. The Republicans have gone from George W Bush, to the Tea Party, to Donald Trump. I don’t even care to speculate about who or what comes next. Bush made what was arguably the worst foreign policy blunder in our history. The Tea Party repeatedly held our nation’s credit hostage. And Donald Trump is already now, less than 6 months in office, facing obstruction of justice charges. But the fact is, it actually can get worse. Let’s suppose that in 2020 or 2024, it’s a former 4-star general who leads some sort of populist movement. What if he decides that democratic institutions are unreliable?
Who said anything about “no gun laws”?
Emphasis mine.
What you’re doing is taking what one side has said, and applying the worst-sounding possible spin to it. It would be little different than a religious conservative saying: “Liberals are,* in their own words, *in favor of legal murder of the unborn and nationwide recognition of gay-perversion marriage.” Completely *technically *true - most liberals indeed favor abortion and SSM - but giving it the worst possible sounding spin.
Rampant global warming due to ever rising CO2 levels WILL result in dire consequences for the planet. This is not the worst possible spin, it is the ONLY spin. We ignore this at our peril, and Conservatives have decided this is ‘fake news’ and a hoax.
Pray, tell me how that could be put - accurately - and not be “the worst possible spin”.
I agree. Don’t misunderstand me on that.
But, btw, I don’t think that is inconsistent with what I had posted earlier about SSM. Conservatives didn’t tip the tide on SSM, but you can be a conservative in 2017 while supporting SSM and not be considered some fringe nut. That would not have been true 10 or 15 years ago. Support of SSM is at 40% among Republicans/Republican leaning voters. I’m not claiming that is some great moral victory comparable to where the Democrats stand, but on that issue at least, the two sides are coming together over time rather than pulling apart. That is why I think that might be a model for how to get the two sides less at each others throats.
Perhaps this is a different debate, but I’ve never been willing to ascribe the state of the economy to the policies of the executive branch alone. Some of it is out of his or her hands, and let’s not forget that Congress actually makes the laws. The case might be stronger against GWB, in particular, in that regard because of his reckless actions in Iraq combined with a disregard for deficit spending.
If climate change killed just 1% of the world’s population, that would be more destructive than World War 2. Is not preventing that worth at least trying to replace finite, circa Industrial Revolution era technology that poisons the environment with clean, safe and renewable sources of energy?
Anthoff et al. 2006 use GPW and GLOBE DEM for population and elevation, and estimate 146 million people or about 2% of the world’s population at 1m or lower elevation above high tide.
Using GPW data and unknown topographic estimates, the World Bank estimates that about 6% of the population as of 2000 lived at 5m or less above mean sea level (World Development Indicators | The World Bank).
McGranahan et al (2007) used SRTM and GRUMP to estimate that about 10% of the world’s population is at 10m or less above mean sea level (The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones)
So if sea levels rose just 1 meter, not only would we have serious issues with every port in the world, but @ 150 million or so (2017) would be displaced and have to move elsewhere.
If sea level rose 10 meters (32.8 feet), which is 1/8th of what it would rise if the poles melted, over 700 million people would be displaced. A lot of farmland would be lost too.
Here’s a map of what the SE USA would look like if it rose the full 80 meters.
