To be fair, there are a few different types of visiting faculty. You’re correct that the most common type, the “visiting assistant professor,” typically pays less. (“Visiting” in this case just means it’s a temporary position, not a tenure-track one – they are not actually visiting from anywhere or getting paid by another institution.) But a “visiting professor” without the “assistant” part may actually be someone quite highly paid, either a superstar from one university that another university is trying to poach and is basically offering a one-year trial before either side has to commit, or someone with serious prestige outside of academia (think, say, a former Cabinet secretary taking on some light teaching duties in the political science department at Harvard).
Not that any of this makes the story more plausible, unless the “private Christian college” in question is actually Georgetown, or somewhere of similar prestige!
In asahi’s ideal political world, progressives come up with the ideas and conservatives exist to stop some of the really nutbar shit like free college for all and to put boundaries on the bureaucracies that can, over time, become de facto political cartels.
Free college is a quite solid idea which frankly is a very good one. In the 1970’s, at least in California, the public universities, colleges, and community colleges (2 year) were, essentially, free. And no one that I know of what in any way harmed by it. Quite the contrary.
Not to pick on Temporary_Name (particularly since his larger point about conservative feelings towards white privlege is accurate) but this I think explains a lot of the problem with the conservative mind set (also not saying that Temporary_Name is a conservative). In that it doesn’t matter whether something actually is true or not, but just whether it feels true or sends the right message.
I went to church for 18 years and heard many sermons based on “true” stories that had a moral lesson but with a negligible chance of actually having occurred. Now one can say it didn’t really matter. It was the lesson that mattered not the actual individual circumstance. But many times the lesson was that this sort of thing actually happens. That these things happening demonstrated the existence of god, or the power of prayer or the ability of simply turning Christian to turn someones life around. If the event didn’t actually happen then the message is unsupported.
The problem really comes when this type of thinking breaks out of the pew and on to the street. Does it really matter whether the Democrats actually want to confiscate our guns? What’s important is that that is the sort of thing that they would do. Does it really matter whether or not the election was actually stolen via massive voter fraud? What’s important is that Trump deserves to win.
BTW I did take a look at that Xavier Tweeter guy and one can see the “quality” of his ponderings when I noticed that he was retweeting stupid Trump follower’s tweets, and attracting MAGAt posts too. Very unreliable fellows and one really does wonder why someone would use that as a source.
This sort of thing is what I think Trumpers were/are alluding to when they speak of the Deep State. Problem is, the current U.S. bureaucracy is nowhere near “political cartel” yet, and their definition of Deep State encompassed people who were simply doing their job properly and not allowing Trump to do unconstitutional things.
OP’s original question “what do they have to fear?” Control is and of itself a “thing” that is very important to them and which they’re losing more and more and they fear this loss because in their minds it means total anarchy, mayhem, atheists roaming the streets, dogs and cats living together, etc. Yeah, it’s total bullshit, but so are most of their fears. They totally operate, campaign and use fear as their biggest weapon because deep inside they’re incredibly insecure, scared little rabbits and love to spread fear like a virus. And up to a point, it’s worked very well for them.
Their fear list is long and ancient:
Black people
Mexican people
Irish People
Italian People
Muslims
Arabs
Jews
Communism
Socialism
Atheists
Gays
Lesbians
Women who aren’t obedient to men
Liberals
Democrats
Any laws that give equal rights to everyone
Healthcare
Open borders
Gun control
and on and on… It’s truly an interesting psychological study that someday will be compiled and looked back on as strange, quaint and backward, much the same way we now look back at Monarchies or tribes in the African rain forest. Primitive, self-obsessed and fearful of anything new or different.
Most democracies get by fine without anything like the current US Republican party.
You can have multiple parties, with each being a brake on the others, without the overton window being so far over to the lunatic right.
The US needs more than one party, sure. But the current GOP does not have to be (and in my ideal world, isn’t) one of them.
Agreed - my definition of conservatism doesn’t include fascists, er, republicans; I was referring to actual conservatives (aka moderate or center right).
This thread’s original question was what do conservatives have to fear, to which I would respond by saying, “not much.” I think authentic conservatives, in a universal sense, believe that there are certain behaviors, values, and policies that are time-tested and should be adhered to, but a true conservative can be analytical about it. There’s nothing about conservatism per se that precludes intellectualism; conservative intellectualism just tends to be a lot more skeptical about ‘hope and change’ than progressivism.
Republicans aren’t conservative. Hell, they can’t even keep their own ideology straight, arguing in favor of massive stimulus without raising revenue when they’re in control and arguing against revenue and spending when they’re not. Intellectual conservatives act and think in good faith, and they care about outcomes. In fact, their conservatism is a caution about untested and unproven ‘newness’, but it’s caution and skepticism based on a genuine concern about the outcome. Republicans don’t care about conservative principles; they just want power, and they live in a zero-sum world in which they lose if others have gains. They’re so obsessed with power that they’re willing to destroy a political system to make sure they maintain their grip on it. That’s not conservative; that’s majoritarian, authoritarian, corrupt, autocratic - any number of these kinds of adjectives.
One nit about the majoritarian item, Trump and his Republican Supporters lost the popular vote twice.
BTW, I still remember reading the history about how Nixon refused to contest the close vote against Kennedy in some states, because among other reasons, he acknowledged that the majority of the American people did vote for Kennedy.
So yeah, Trump demonstrated that he was worse than Nixon.
Worse than Nixon, no contest.
It’s funny to me that we name scandals as “-gate”, and yet now Trump easily had half a dozen scandals worse than Watergate.
If the Democratic Party were to suddenly vanish, the GOP would become the most zig-zagged, confused party of all time. They would carom about like a housefly suddenly trapped in a jar.
They’re a political minority, yes, but when I refer to majoritarian, I am referring to their tendency to use majoritarian themes, particularly along ethnic and cultural fault lines. They’re ethno-nationalist, which, as bad as Republicans have been at times since 1858, they’ve not been quite this bad. The Democrats were, at one time (before Truman and before Kennedy and Johnson) more likely to be the majoritarians and the ethno-nationalists, particularly in the South.
There was never any doubt that Trump was worse than Nixon, but more than that, the 1970s version of the Republican party wasn’t anywhere nearly this bad as what exists today. The Republicans wanted power, sure, but they acknowledged that for this system to work, there had to be some rules to this game, and they had to be respected by both parties. It was the Republican party that gradually said “There are no rules,” and that is why they attracted the likes of Trump.
As has been said before, Trump saw weakness in the GOP. He sensed that he could basically say and do anything to get elected, and that as long as he helped them feel more empowered (whatever the hell that means in this context), they would look the other way as he did whatever he pleased.
True, there has always been an ethno-nationalist cultural-majoritarian Know-Nothing-ist political force, and it has migrated political denominations as the environment around it has changed. Before the mid-20th Century the “Democrat” label applied to a kind of populist alignment that included what was really more of a Labor party in the North, and a supremacist party in the South, that shared a nominal goal of “benefitting the common man”… meaning the common white man, in both cases. When the 50s/60s come along and the national leaders begin saying “how about we benefit everyone”, then that breaks up.
For the sake of retaining power, the Republicans welcomed, pandered to and nurtured the Know-Nothings. But after a generation of that, the old Conservatives are somehow surprised to find themselves in this weak position where they could not even say “but this guy is not even a real Republican!” Because by now the only cause is winning for the sake of winning itself.
I wouldn’t say it’s winning for the sake of winning; it’s winning for the sake of power. It’s true that Democrats want power just as they do, but they want it for different reasons; they believe that government power can serve utilitarian causes. Of course, like any political party on earth, some of these people are in it for the money and the sport. But more broadly, I think Democrats are more pluralistic.
It used to be that Republicans wanted control of the government to limit or reverse the impact of laws and regulations. In 2020, Republicans want control of the government to enrich themselves and their friends and to strip power from their opposition. But stripping power away from them will never be enough; they will eventually feel compelled to dominate them. When politics is played as a zero-sum game, there is no such thing as moderation.