It’s still total bullshit
Well, plenty of people do have to separate the two.
Some Germans in WWII may have loved Germany but opposed the Nazis.
Iraqis in 1980-2003 may have loved Iraq but opposed Saddam.
Some North Koreans may love their nation but oppose the Kim regime.
etc. etc.
But - yes - conservatives are generally being totally hyperbolic on that.
I think this is dead on. And I’d like to add that they tend to view some nebulous time in the past as “when things were right”, and as far as I can discern, the time frame for that is sometime before the mid 1960s. That post-war era seems to be idolized as one when things were safe, regulations were minimal, good paying jobs were plentiful, people were moral, etc…
I’d even go so far as to say that a fair number of them (incorrectly) view changes that happened at about that time (LBJ’s Great Society, Clean Air Act, Roe v. Wade, etc…) as precipitating events that led to the economic chaos of the 1970s and 80s, and what they see as the debauchery of society. And anything similar that’s come along since is viewed as compounding the problem. At best, they view those mid-late 1960s/early 1970s judicial and legislative changes as symptoms of the creeping rot in society.
So their goal is to either stem the tide as much as possible, or even turn back the clock if possible. They don’t really see problems with say… women’s rights, as things were “good” back then, and we didn’t need all this BS.
There’s also a fairly confused attitude toward immigrants; they’re all for legal immigrants, but they’re generally against ethnic enclaves and demand that people speak English as soon as humanly possible. Despite the fact that in many parts of the country, there were (and are) things like German newspapers until the mid 20th century that their forebears subscribed to because they never got too comfortable in English, and/or they lived in German enclaves like New Braunfels or Fredericksburg where people spoke German at home until very recently.
There’s also a misguided notion that the US is a “Christian nation”, in the sense of even though we separate church and state legally, that the country was and is based on Christian principles because most of the early immigrants were all Christian. It’s sort of a thinly veiled tyranny of the majority viewpoint- the thinking is that since the country was founded by Christians, and the majority of people are still Christians, that they should get to do whatever they want as a result, even when it means running roughshod over Jews, Muslims and atheists.
You are focusing on the “what”, I am talking about the lizard-brain-level emotional expression that drives the reaction to the “what”. Two separate dynamics.
Given the embrace of Trump by many other self-described conservatives, this seems like a no-true-Scotsman thing. For example, Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz would certainly describe themselves as conservative, and had (have?) their heads so far up Trump’s ass that . A majority of Republican House members tried to vote to throw out election results to keep him in power, and I’m sure they would describe themselves as conservative.
We got it the first couple times. The imaginary lady in the obviously bullshit story was a visiting professor (and probable factory owner).
Noted.
So people really equate the current US government with three of the most brutal, repressive regimes in modern memory? “Hyperbolic” doesn’t even start to describe that idea.
In addition, there is a vast difference between the pay of the very few full tenured professors on faculty, and any of the dozen other categories of “lecturers”, “adjuncts”, “instructors”, “assistant professors”, “associate professors”, etc. This I know from my career implementing academic payroll systems.
So, can we put this whole professor/janitor hijack to rest, please? Pretty please?
For sure some do. There’s a reason some keep touting the “the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants” quote and why after the November election, Trumpers keep posting Patriot movie-memes of Gibson and his colonialists fighting against the Brits at Cowpens.
I was hoping that was only the nutjobs, and that the driver of the truck I saw might have something more sane in mind by drawing such a sharp distinction between their country and their government, and claiming to love one and fear the other.
I would make the point that both items are related. Earlier you pointat that:
Well, the thing is that the current crop of republicans have told us that those will be (and were or almost were) the results of them winning. You are talking as if the fears were not already justified for the liberals or several Democrats. OTOH, the Republicans in federal or state congress’ had and continue to make big lies about how the suppression or denial of those items is good for America.
One important point then is that, among the misinformation out there, an item like the lie about a professor’s salary is one bit added by the misinforming sources to the miasma of misinformation that the right is using to fool many of their viewers or readers.
Concerns? Yes.
Legitimate? Not so much.
I will be unavailable most of the day starting … pretty soon but I want to address this before I go in.
My point is that they are legitimate to them, they really believe these things and really have for long periods of time. I don’t even have to rely upon the speech of others- I once held some of these beliefs, and I once lived in a “slippery slope” world where threats to our ‘traditional’ way of life is under attack! The difference is I was willing to question clergy and hold them accountable for their rhetoric. It was then easy to hold newscasters and private individuals accountable.
It took years, but my entire world view changed. Because I have loved ones who remained in that mind set I am reminded how sincere they are. They are even taught that doubt is a part of the process and if you are living your life to its potential you WILL be attacked by the evil one SATAN! And he use his hellish tricks to create doubt in your mind – but hold true to the faith that is in you because your heart KNOWS and will save you from evil temptation (unsaid part= to be rational and think for yourself instead of letting us think for you).
I say we treat the concerns as legitimate not because they are in reality, but because they are to those we are trying to reason with. I get that it is like trying to reason with someone who believes the Marvel Universe is real (but those of faith sort of do). So you are trying to discuss any agenda item at all and you have to start at: "I know Captain America is very pro 2nd Amendment and he and Thor and Dr. Banner are not going to allow us to suffer… BUT, what if they are busy elsewhere, how do we hold out until they finish their business with (unused villain who hasn’t been featured in a movie yet)? How about if we okay universal background checks for a first step? Everyone seems to think it is a good idea and it is intended as no disrespect to Steve Rogers – it is just an overly cautious step just in case. If The Avengers show up and want us to repeal the background checks we will.
In the post I quoted above, Bear_Nenno spoke of aborting toddlers. That would be murder to anyone who is sane. For many sincere believers that murder rap extends back to conception. That is now an indefensible position to me, but to deny the other side holds it to be literally true and a sacred position is not the best way to find agreement with them. It must be treated as legitimate because it is legitimate to one party in the negotiations.
But they would have to live in a society that tolerated them. It seems you know enough people in this camp to realize they sincerely believe this is a moral failing. Being beholden to the infallible word of God is a high standard that means more than personal views it means being part of something they find reprehensible.
You are correct they will not personally lose anything - - but their perception will be one of failure and sinfulness and eventual rebellion (Roe V Wade is a fund raiser just by typing the words). Acknowledge their view as sincere and state your view as true and it might be possible to find there is something other than mutually exclusive (even though there is not- a partial resolution is better than zero agreement).
In debating the morality of abortion (both with other people and in my own mind) I have thought that it shouldn’t be thought of as a boolean thing (either yes or no) but a spectrum. There are two extremes… One being that even contraception is evil because preventing a life is the same as ending a life (I don’t even think religious zealots go that far, this is a hypothetical), and on the other extreme that killing a child after it is born is within the right of the parents because they should not be forced to be burdened with an unwanted dependent. Just about everyone falls somewhere in between and a person’s political stance is based on where they fall on the spectrum. For example, many say that it is okay until the third trimester but after that point it is immoral. Some say once the child is conceived it is a person and killing it is murder.
When judging how different your political views are on the matter, I find it helpful to remember that there is a spectrum involved, and it’s not really “pro life/pro choice”, that’s a fallacy from an oversimplification.
Factionalism is as rampant among Conservatives as it is among liberals. With the large religious contingent, maybe more so. Total success would result in civil (perhaps relatively civil) war/political strife.
Hope it’s ok if I do some labeled snips in the edit box
You’re getting at an important truth, which is that conservatives actually aren’t much affected by the policies they claim to be so concerned about. “Don’t want an abortion? Don’t get one” has been a bumper sticker for quite a while now.
Are they lying about their fears? Not exactly, I don’t think. I believe their biggest fear is not those hot-button issues, but losing control of those hot button issues. Losing the position of dominance to control other people’s lives, and force others to live as they do. THAT is what they fear.
They understand on a subconscious level that they can’t just come out and say “we should be in control”. That’s too easy to counter. So they spread all sorts of panic stories about the things they want to control, and the people that they compete with for control, to the point that they can’t mentally untangle fear of the thing, from fear of losing control of the thing. The one exception is if you’re a very rich conservative, you might have to content yourself with having enough wealth to last 1000 human lifetimes instead of 10,000 human lifetimes.
Materially, most conservatives would do just fine under a liberal regime, but mentally they’d suffer permanent damage to their sanity and ability to reason. If you doubt this is true, look back how they responded to milquetoast centrist regimes like Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden. If mild liberals had absolute control, they would absolutely go full Jihad and would absolutely never recover mentally. In fact, ISTM this process may have already started under Obama.
I would have phrased this as “conservatism has had a long and proud history of occasionally posing as a coherent and principled political philosophy.”
Conservatism as we know it actually isn’t that old. It came along because better and more enlightened philosophies weren’t suited to provide intellectual cover for moral laundering of the sins of patriarchy, colonialism, and racism.
Occasionally, some conservatives have striven to broaden and enhance that fig leaf, and some other conservatives have at times taken it up and worn it. But I don’t think anyone can credibly say that conservatism was ever anything but a form of anti-intellectualism that uses sophistry and casuistry to pose as an “alternative” intellectual movement.
Visiting professors are paid even less than regular faculty, as a rule. Yeah, no freaking way a visiting professor in a humanities field at a small private Christian college in 2004 was making $400K; probably not even a tenth of that. In 2010, the average full-time four-year college instructor in a humanities discipline earned under $45K.
And working a full-time minimum-wage job even nowadays gets you an annual income of about $15K, not $24K. That number would have been even lower in 2004.
It was a visiting full-time minimum-wage job!