Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[LessinSF]

I referenced this earlier re the next generation having to face freedom of press issues in terms of the government vs. leakers/publishers, now it is becoming about separation of powers. Can the Executive say Fuck Off to Congress because, hey, we're equal? The answer is, yes, under the Constitution, until Congress gets fed up with your bullshit and/or the Supreme Court steps in. Otherwise, yeah, it is a battle of equals and Trump owns half of Congress.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't think so. I think there are people who agree with him on certain issues (or who are happy with certain things he's doing), but I wouldn't call those people followers. They're republics who like republican things but would likely prefer a different republican.

The people who show up for his rallies are something else.

The Trump voter is the most inscrutable of creatures. He's legion, like a biblical demon. There's the rally idiot. There's the opportunist tax voter. There's the shy voter who might be a closeted bigot or a closeted tax voter. There's the "burn it all down" people.

And that's just a few of the main groups. The variations you get using the Punnett Square of known characteristics of Trump voters is endless.

Scientology, on the other hand, is black and white. You're either a fucking moron who believes Dianetics and a creation story that makes Mormonism seem credible, or you're in "it for the filthy lucre," as Johnny Rotten would say.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Cf. Rick Perlstein's The Long Con:

A lot of the right wing "con" you're seeing is people who believe the following flailing in an effort to articulate it:

We don't want to expand or support govt except in ways that help us.

That's a lot of modern "conservatism." It's just selfish. They invent economic and ideological arguments for it, but it always rings hollow.

Progressives follow a similar angle. Here's progressivism:

We want to create a society where everyone gets all the things we believe they need to have personal dignity and a good life. We think people who have a lot should be made to pay for this.

That argument is DOA in any debate. So instead they argue how all of their spending would have multiplier effects that render it self-sustaining. Or they simply expand the concept of entitlement. "Every American is entitled to [insert]."

Sophistry + Advocacy

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A lot of the right wing "con" you're seeing is people who believe the following flailing in an effort to articulate it:

We don't want to expand or support govt except in ways that help us.

That's a lot of modern "conservatism." It's just selfish. They invent economic and ideological arguments for it, but it always rings hollow.

Generally, yes, but they are also congenitally eager to spend government money as long as there's a company that can profit from it. Corporations good, those other people bad. That's it.

Progressives follow a similar angle. Here's progressivism:

We want to create a society where everyone gets all the things we believe they need to have personal dignity and a good life. We think people who have a lot should be made to pay for this.

I know you were trying to make that sound bad, but ya didn't.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Generally, yes, but they are also congenitally eager to spend government money as long as there's a company that can profit from it. Corporations good, those other people bad. That's it.

Oh, absolutely. But I think that derives from the govt being such a large and easy purchaser of what corporations sell. It's also a market of last resort. Private economy isn't buying enough of what you're selling? Well, just lobby the govt to buy it. And set up a bunch of idiotic procurement rules that work as barriers to entry against smaller competition!

I know you were trying to make that sound bad, but ya didn't.

I was trying to make it sound accurate. The devil in the details there is "lot." I have no issue with progressive taxation. I just have a problem with where brackets start progressing most aggressively. The heart surgeon down the street who makes $700k but has $300k in student loans isn't Croesus.

Another "devil" there is who gets to decide what defines personal dignity? Bernie seems to think a free college degree is needed to have dignity. I'm not sure about that. When you get into "social justice," which is really just "economic justice," you find endless advocates with endless definitions of what the govt has a duty to provide to people, or how much it must police commerce to even the playing field for people and winnow inequality. What star chamber gets to decide what's "just"?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A lot of the right wing "con" you're seeing is people who believe the following flailing in an effort to articulate it:

We don't want to expand or support govt except in ways that help us.

That's a lot of modern "conservatism." It's just selfish. They invent economic and ideological arguments for it, but it always rings hollow.

Progressives follow a similar angle. Here's progressivism:

We want to create a society where everyone gets all the things we believe they need to have personal dignity and a good life. We think people who have a lot should be made to pay for this.

That argument is DOA in any debate. So instead they argue how all of their spending would have multiplier effects that render it self-sustaining. Or they simply expand the concept of entitlement. "Every American is entitled to [insert]."

Sophistry + Advocacy

Not sure why you styled this post as a response to Perlstein's article, since you are talking about something else entirely.

[Hank Chinaski]

Just saw The Inventor (Theranos documentary), how is David Boies not disbarred?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not sure why you styled this post as a response to Perlstein's article, since you are talking about something else entirely.

I was replying to the quote, which doesn’t capture the multiple points of the whole article.

The article’s best insight is the “by any means necessary” ethos of modern “conservatism.” I’ve asked right wing family members why they circulate false information. They admit it is because they see preserving the country as they think it should be is more important than truth.

While I think both conservatives and progressives engage in lies about policy and goals dressed up in ideological terms and dubious economic arguments, as I noted, the trafficking in outright fantasy is an almost exclusively right wing “conservative” behavior.

Perlstein never comes right out and says it so bluntly, so I will here: “Lying is the right wing’s gang initiation.”

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was trying to make it sound accurate. The devil in the details there is "lot." I have no issue with progressive taxation. I just have a problem with where brackets start progressing most aggressively. The heart surgeon down the street who makes $700k but has $300k in student loans isn't Croesus.

This person’s annual income is more than twice his debt. His debt is irrelevant and he is, in fact, quite well off.

I mean, literally everything is wrong with how we do higher education and health care, and he should neither have that much debt nor make that much money, but it’s the system we have and he’s a winner within it.

Another "devil" there is who gets to decide what defines personal dignity? Bernie seems to think a free college degree is needed to have dignity. I'm not sure about that. When you get into "social justice," which is really just "economic justice," you find endless advocates with endless definitions of what the govt has a duty to provide to people, or how much it must police commerce to even the playing field for people and winnow inequality. What star chamber gets to decide what's "just"?

Social justice is not at all “just” economic justice (although Bernie might make that claim).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Just saw The Inventor (Theranos documentary), how is David Boies not disbarred?

I haven’t seen the doc and know nothing about the conduct you’re referencing but can answer: he’s famous, rich and powerful.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was replying to the quote, which doesn’t capture the multiple points of the whole article.

The article’s best insight is the “by any means necessary” ethos of modern “conservatism.” I’ve asked right wing family members why they circulate false information. They admit it is because they see preserving the country as they think it should be is more important than truth.

While I think both conservatives and progressives engage in lies about policy and goals dressed up in ideological terms and dubious economic arguments, as I noted, the trafficking in outright fantasy is an almost exclusively right wing “conservative” behavior.

Perlstein never comes right out and says it so bluntly, so I will here: “Lying is the right wing’s gang initiation.”

Related: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-orban/591697/

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I haven’t seen the doc and know nothing about the conduct you’re referencing but can answer: he’s famous, rich and powerful.

So am i, that's no excuse.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Related: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-orban/591697/

The rabbit hole the links in that article took me down is a seriously scary place.

But the article alone is also quite unnerving. Thankfully, they’re a minority, but the “social conservatives” there have moved from demanding the right to be intolerant (which they already have, btw) to demanding a total victory where they are able to “enforce their orthodoxy” on others. (That’s from another Ahmari piece quoted in the article.). That puts one on a continuum with the Inquisition and Al Queda.

I think these “conservatives” watch too much TV and don’t work hard enough on creating conservative institutions which would compete with the “liberal establishment.” There’s no reason conservative academies can’t exist alongside liberal ones. And whatever success these “conservatives” have in enforcing their orthodoxies via govt, it will only come at a monstrous economic cost. Nobody is clamoring to invest in a theocracy.

The “conservative” man has done a fine job developing his own media. He can develop his parallel institutions. He doesn’t need to own the govt and dictate his views to other men. Unless of course he’d comfortably swap the title “conservatism” for “despotism.”

[sebastian_dangerfield]

This can be taken either as a sign she’s doomed or she’s the black swan of this cycle. I disagree with Will on a lot of things, but I’d never call him loose with predictions: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...op_things.html

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Just saw The Inventor (Theranos documentary), how is David Boies not disbarred?

That's an excellent question. I'm going to go with: Because there doesn't seem to be an action that exists that would require the rich and powerful to face any type of consequences.

TM