We are all Slave now.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What you're saying, I think, is that caring about racism is not any part of conservatism, and that conservatives can follow their principles while supporting racists. I'm not sure why you think that's a defense of conservatives or conservatism.

To be fair, this is how FDR passed the New Deal. And the liberal wing of the Democratic Party tut-tutted about anti-lynching legislation being blocked by Southern committee chairs, but weren’t bothered by it enough to do anything that might endanger their agenda.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, you don't. Suppose Trump was going to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court but also strangle Honduran babies on live TV to deter immigration. A conservative doesn't actually "have to" vote for Trump under those circumstances -- she can decide that the Supreme Court is not worth the baby strangling. She can even justify that on conservative principles. So too with the racism.

What you're saying, I think, is that caring about racism is not any part of conservatism, and that conservatives can follow their principles while supporting racists. I'm not sure why you think that's a defense of conservatives or conservatism.

Am i on ignore?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

To be fair, this is how FDR passed the New Deal. And the liberal wing of the Democratic Party tut-tutted about anti-lynching legislation being blocked by Southern committee chairs, but weren’t bothered by it enough to do anything that might endanger their agenda.

It's hard to remain 100% principled and get anything done in politics. Some compromise is inevitable. But what current Republicans have sacrificed anything to oppose racism?

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's hard to remain 100% principled and get anything done in politics. Some compromise is inevitable. But what current Republicans have sacrificed anything to oppose racism?

Jeb Bush, one could argue. Mark Sanford. Many non-elected GOP professionals and opinionistas (sic transit gloria mundi to the Weekly Standard).

And New Deal Dems? Only one I can think of is maybe Henry Wallace. It took border southerners to make effective changes re racists (Harry Truman desegregating the military and LBJ* with the Voting Rights Act etc).

I don’t say this to excuse the GOP or any of its craven office holders who may not be racist but play one on tv. Just that racism is a white and largely nonpartisan disease.

*I know, but it terms of politics, it was considered a border state before 1980 or so.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Jeb Bush, one could argue. Mark Sanford. Many non-elected GOP professionals and opinionistas (sic transit gloria mundi to the Weekly Standard).

And New Deal Dems? Only one I can think of is maybe Henry Wallace. It took border southerners to make effective changes re racists (Harry Truman desegregating the military and LBJ* with the Voting Rights Act etc).

I don’t say this to excuse the GOP or any of its craven office holders who may not be racist but play one on tv. Just that racism is a white and largely nonpartisan disease.

*I know, but it terms of politics, it was considered a border state before 1980 or so.

I met Ty about 10 years ago. He was an earnest person. But lately he has become confused and confusing. I know he went through job changes. Do you think it possible he sold the sock to a Russian bot?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Jeb Bush, one could argue. Mark Sanford. Many non-elected GOP professionals and opinionistas (sic transit gloria mundi to the Weekly Standard).

And New Deal Dems? Only one I can think of is maybe Henry Wallace. It took border southerners to make effective changes re racists (Harry Truman desegregating the military and LBJ* with the Voting Rights Act etc).

I don’t say this to excuse the GOP or any of its craven office holders who may not be racist but play one on tv. Just that racism is a white and largely nonpartisan disease.

*I know, but it terms of politics, it was considered a border state before 1980 or so.

What sacrifice did Bush or Sanford make?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I met Ty about 10 years ago. He was an earnest person. But lately he has become confused and confusing. I know he went through job changes. Do you think it possible he sold the sock to a Russian bot?

I regret going to the Thomas Pynchon Fans For Antitrust Enforcement flash mob -- in retrospect, when I saw the Facebook page I thought it sounded pretty cool, but in retrospect I feel manipulated by the Kremlin.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What sacrifice did Bush or Sanford make?

Jeb didn’t get the nomination and Mark Sanford just lost his seat. But your general point is well-taken.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Jeb didn’t get the nomination and Mark Sanford just lost his seat. But your general point is well-taken.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't believe either was the result of their standing up against racism.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I regret going to the Thomas Pynchon Fans For Antitrust Enforcement flash mob -- in retrospect, when I saw the Facebook page I thought it sounded pretty cool, but in retrospect I feel manipulated by the Kremlin.

Translation: Putin paid me to engage Sebby and make him think picking a candidate was an esoteric exercise. Then when Trump won Pa I got a bonus, no one peed on me BUT I got a pair of dirty panties in the mail.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Many haves like the social status that comes from being a have and want society (preferably) or the government (second-best) to reinforce that status by condemning those who are different. Many people are comfortable with gender roles and want those roles to be prescriptive. As for weed, they associate its use with all sorts of undesirable things and want the kind of people who use it punished, or at the least not accepted equally.

I obviously don't feel this way, but many people do.

Then these haves are more emotional voters than economic voters. They're people interested in social status, unenlightened.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, you don't. Suppose Trump was going to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court but also strangle Honduran babies on live TV to deter immigration. A conservative doesn't actually "have to" vote for Trump under those circumstances -- she can decide that the Supreme Court is not worth the baby strangling. She can even justify that on conservative principles. So too with the racism.

What you're saying, I think, is that caring about racism is not any part of conservatism, and that conservatives can follow their principles while supporting racists. I'm not sure why you think that's a defense of conservatives or conservatism.

Ezra Klein and David French come close to addressing this point. French's article (last link) adds nicely to the discussion. French would say conservatives don't really consider racism, or don't consider it as important as non-conservatives do. He doesn't apologize for them or criticize them for this, nor does Klein offer any judgment. The interview isn't about solutions or blame as much as it is about identifying the differences between conservative and progressive values. Some excellent exchanges within it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjMGq4uzCIc

https://player.fm/series/the-ezra-kl...te-culture-war

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...tical-divides/

ETA: Yes, I am listening to Klein now. Having listened to his bit with Harris, I found myself digging into his podcast. He infuriates me at times, but much more often, even when I find myself disagreeing with him, the quality of debate and subject matter make his podcast well worth my time. He picks great issues and excellent guests and asks a lot of "third rail" questions. Good stuff.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's odd to hear you fret about this slippery slope but not about the one where the GOP is disinterested in doing anything at all about racism, since that's the side of the hill we seem to be sliding down.

I think it's quite fair to say that if you chose to vote for conservatives, you are saying you value other things above addressing racism. This is a different thing than saying if you vote conservative you are racist.

If you vote conservative you are probably also saying you value other things above the environment. This does not make you a polluter. The same can be said for sex issues. If you vote conservative, you value other things above workplace compensation parity. This does not make you a misogynist.

If you vote progressive, you value other things above the interests of nascent life (fertilized eggs through fetuses below the age of viability outside the womb). This does not make you "pro-abortion" (or as pro-lifers might say, in favor of killing the unborn). If you vote progressive, you value other things above our defense budget. This does not make you a pacifist.

You get the point. Using extreme terms (I fully recognize the irony in my writing this) warps the debate in such a way that compromise is impossible. Klein and French touch on this lightly in that interview I cited in an earlier post.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think it's quite fair to say that if you chose to vote for conservatives, you are saying you value other things above addressing racism. This is a different thing than saying if you vote conservative you are racist.

If you vote conservative you are probably also saying you value other things above the environment. This does not make you a polluter. The same can be said for sex issues. If you vote conservative, you value other things above workplace compensation parity. This does not make you a misogynist.

If you vote progressive, you value other things above the interests of nascent life (fertilized eggs through fetuses below the age of viability outside the womb). This does not make you "pro-abortion" (or as pro-lifers might say, in favor of killing the unborn). If you vote progressive, you value other things above our defense budget. This does not make you a pacifist.

You get the point. Using extreme terms (I fully recognize the irony in my writing this) warps the debate in such a way that compromise is impossible. Klein and French touch on this lightly in that interview I cited in an earlier post.

I am on ignore{sad face}

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I am on ignore{sad face}

GGG raised the argument that to vote GOP is a racist act. I disagreed and said one can vote GOP for a number of reasons which are not racist. You stated there are numbers of reasons people vote as they do. I agree with you. Ty brought up the point that the GOP doesn’t seem to care about racism. I agree with that.

Your point is part of the discussion, but you’re not addressing the core issue: If one elevates other issues above racism and based on this he votes GOP, does that make him a racist? Stated otherwise, does a voter have an obligation to vote for a party that places addressing racism at the top of its issues over one that doesn’t address it? And if he does not satisfy that obligation, is he then racist? Answer that, Mr. Ignored.