Was on a trip with a group of 10. Heading into the Lourvre for a guided tour. with another couple, I asked if the had really strong political opinions either Dem or Repub. The guy said they were not easily offended, but asked why I asked. I said I wanted to make sure we didn’t unintentionally offend them with some comments about the current administration. He said they tend to be conservative, they like a lot of what Trump is doing, but detest him as a person. I have NO IDEA what he meant by that, and didn’t want to go into it on vacation.
A later day, at lunch, I forget how the conversation stated, but the woman said something like, “The US Constitution is based on God, which you can tell by the number of times God is mentioned in it.”. Rather than debate of educate her (the actual number is - of course- NONE), I simply said, “You and I apparently disagree about that as much as any 2 people could disagree about anything.”
I just don’t understand folk who say we are upposed to engage in conversations with the other side.
We just recently buried an uncle of mine. He want to Yale Divinity school to be a minister, but decided that was insufficiently lucrative so he went to work in advertising. He then decided that didn’t pay enough so he married a woman with a trust fund and never worked another day in his life. He was very “conservative,” he liked Trump because he was focused on keeping brown people out and black people down. He didn’t like jews either.
His daughters had a lot of nice things to say about him at his funeral. I thought he was as despicable a man as ever defiled the earth by walking on it. I didn’t say so of course. There really is no way to bridge that kind of gap.
One of the reasons we’ve arrived at this particular point is because it’s so easy for us to live in our own little bubbles. A lot of MAGAS crowd are surrounded by people with similar beliefs and they tend to consume media feeding them what they want to hear. Engaging with them gives them the wonderful opportunity to hear different viewpoints, often from people they can clearly see don’t hate America or have horns growing out of their head. You’re not going to get them to convert right then and there of course, but exposure to different ideas can make a real difference. That’s why conservatives hate education.
I don’t mean to imply you personally, Dinsdale, have any obligation to engage them in any way other than you see fit. I certainly don’t always engage them either, mainly to maintain my own mental health or because asking them what the hell is wrong with them won’t lead to anything constructive.
That leaves out voting for the Republican Party because that’s the one traditionally considered conservative, or because they are social conservatives (i.e. Christian authoritarians) and can’t stomach voting for “the liberal agenda”.
That may be clear to anyone paying attention, but it’s by no means clear to the majority of the voters.
The lies told about Democrats is that they have abandoned the working class in favor of ivy league elites, they are in favor of a radical social agenda to transform the nature of identity, that they care more about undocumented aliens than citizens, and that they hate white people.
Yeah - I understand. I weighed the options as I saw them, and decided on this tripto NOT address it.
After I said, “We disagree” I checked out of the conversation. But I heard my wife repeat the woman’s words of “Const is based on God,” and the woman said strongly, “Don’t put words in my mouth!” So I decided she was irrational AND dishonest, so discussion would be of little use.
After reading the Const and BoR, I initially thought I wanted to “confront” her with the wrongness of her strongly stated position. But I decided that wasn’t who I wanted to be. Then I wondered if I might “educate” her. But, in the end, I decided I didn’t even care to try that on the trip. Thereafter I DID often tell French folk we interacted with that not all Americans support Trump. Felt that was an appropriate little bit of outreach.
RE: Clinton–note that 2 of his major (hypocritical) accusers indulged in similar behavior–Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich
can you imagine the blowback if a Dem liberal proposed recognizing China or surrendering a lost Vietnam war? His conservative credentials enabled him
but with Obama he had a hostile obstructionist Congress to deal with, so anything he accomplished was a plus
I think contemporary conservatism in the US is about in-groups trying to maintain their status, privilege and safety in a country where out-groups are growing rapidly in number and power.
In-groups: Whites, men, christians, native born Americans, cishet
Out-groups: Everyone else. POC, feminists, secularists, other religions, immigrants, LGBTQ
In-groups like the status, privilege and opportunities that are denied to out-groups, and realize in a more egalitarian society that they would have to compete based strictly on merit without the bonus that comes from being an in-group. Also the in-groups are unconsciously afraid that once they become the minority, that they will be treated the same way that they treat minorities.
If you look at demographic trends in the US, it supports this.
-
Women are becoming more feminist, more educated, more financially independent.
-
The % of Americans who are immigrants is growing as a % of the population
-
The % of the public who are non-white is growing.
-
The % of the public who identify as christian is shrinking. Secularism is the fastest growing belief system.
In the 1970s, around 80% of Americans identified as white christians. The other 20% were POC or whites who were not christian.
Among Gen Z, only about 27% identify as white christians, 73% of Gen Z are POC, non-christians, or both. White christians are a minority group nationwide (around 40%), and are an even smaller minority group among Gen Z.
That’s fundamentally what it comes down to.
I think that’s basically it, but they have to obfuscate with a front of pretend politics. I think this program was on the verge of collapsing, but then Trump, the ultimate moron whisperer, extended its viability for another decade or so.
What’s amazing is that a coalition fundamentally designed to serve white christian men manages to get 45-50% of the vote in each election.
White christian men are only about 25% of voters. Without the help of white women and latinos, who realize being second in gender and second in race in a social hierarchy is better than living in a purely egalitarian system, they wouldn’t be able to get to a plurality of voters.
Indeed, and in the past, they weren’t able to get that many people without selling actual policy, or at least Reagan-esque positivity.
The GOP was a real political party until, say, 1960 but then slid at a moderate pace (1964 with Goldwater in the election to 1993 with GHWB as prez), then at a frighteningly rapid pace (1994 with Gingrich and his Contract with America to 2009 with Dubya as prez), then in a fucking free fall with Trump to what it is now: an amoral fascist organization dedicated only to winning.
Having no need for policy, ethics, etc., gives it a tremendous advantage over the Democrats, who have to, you know, govern. And the GOP with Trump as avatar has become expert at moron-whispering. That’s basically what it does: it tells mean dumb people things that work on mean dumb people. It doesn’t matter if it’s true; it doesn’t matter if it’s right. All that matters is whether the words and actions of the party lead to more power and wealth for party members.
I don’t think the GOP could have done it without Trump, but Trump could not have done it without the many spineless and evil people who decided that winning was preferable to doing the right thing. The good news is that I don’t think Trump can or will be replaced.
Yeah. As I’ve said before, the Republican Party carved a Trump-shaped hole in itself, and Trump stepped into it. They spent decades cultivating a voter base built around the worst aspects of American culture because they wanted to win and didn’t care how, and then Trump goes for a vanity run and ends up President probably without originally even intending it because he’s a super-stimulus for the “deplorables” they Republicans spent decades training up.
Trump could never have done it for himself; he lacks the patience and foresight. And the Republican leadership were looking to bolster their own power, not hand the party over to Trump. But he made his run and here we are.
With each passing day, the 2012 presidential election outcome hurts more and more. A Romney win would have denied Trump the nomination in 2016 and by 2020, the tides of power would naturally have favored the Democratic candidate again. And a Romney presidency would have meant stabilizing the GOP in the Bush-Reagan-relatively-sane-Republican mold, not the craze-MAGA.
Fiscal restraint? Dems are “tax and spend” GOP is “borrow and spend”- which is more restrained?
Bush invaded Iraq- for no good reason. Operation Desert Storm- his dad. Now, sure, the Dems are mostly responsible for Vieit Nam.
No. When they decided to build their base out of the crazies, it was inevitable that the crazies would take over eventually. They were already getting more and more powerful before Trump, since over time they were becoming the party. Trump just catapulted things to their end state by turning it into a personality cult and sidelining the Old Guard in the process.
Well said!
They believe what they are ordered-to believe.
Then, deny that they ever believed anything else.
Loose Leaf History = Loose Leaf brains.
Sorry.
“Brains”.
While I agree with you that the GOP had carved out that perfect hole you aptly described and was ready for the ultimate demogogue and crazy-herder to arrive, I don’t think anyone that we know of could have unified the deplorables like Trump. The trouble for the GOP is that I don’t think anyone else will be able to do so in the future.
The crazy hole will remain in the GOP with no one to fill it, and gaping holes like that are unattractive to the electorate. I think the Republican brand is tainted forever at the national level.