Right Wing Non-Savages

undo wrote:How/why does Shep Smith still work at Fox News

I just kind of found this and it's probably the only right-wing criticism I've read of Trump since he was inaugurated and it won't impress anyone here but here it is.

https://thebulwark.com/dear-republicans-is-this-the-idol-to-whom-you-have-sold-your-souls/

I don't know this site, if this represents its consistent opinion or if it's a sudden turn against Trump as they see the writing on the wall. I also realize that "principled conservatism" exerts such a minor pull on the Republican party and American society that such denouncements are practically weightless and won't change a thing, who knows

I doubt this is some kind of a sudden turn. The Bulwark seems to pretty regularly feature articles by a cadre of Never Trump republicans conservatives who I´ve been pretty down with for a while. I feel like one or both of Max Boot and Rick Wilson have written some good stuff for them that is in keeping with this theme, and they´ve been doing that for probably two years.

I was just thinking today about Nazis... like, how long did it take for average Joe Nazi to realize that they were the bad guys? And how soon after that did Holocaust denial provide sweet sweet relief?
I´m putting together PhD applications and I think I want to write a dissertation on the rise of populist movements. I think it would be interesting to plot populist nationalism on the laffer (no way that is how it is spelled, but I think that is what it´s called) curve against Western style liberal democracy. With agenda driven "news," social media echo chambers, and 24/7 gaslighting dominating the day and skewing the general public´s perception of reality… not to mention with a drop in the quality and availability of public education (this is just me making an assumption, not sure if data backs it up)… I honestly wonder if we´re going to be able to keep this noble experiment going. Democracy isn´t dead (I hope) yet, but it seems like it´s in big trouble. And I don´t have a lot of confidence that the US or world in general will be able to somehow get better at raising a responsible electorate.

I think this guy knows what´s up:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/12/ousting-trump-2020-job-one-democrats-forgot-at-lgbtq-forum-column/3947332002/

It is going to be no surprise that I think that is an exceptionally bad take. First of all, it's a Democratic Primary. That means that Democratic candidates are competing against each other to gain the support of Democratic voters in order to become the party's nominee in the General Election. So it isn't just about sticking to their principles, it is also strategic. Talking about issues that Democratic voters care about is how you win the primary. If any of these candidates think they can become the nominee by pandering to "never-Trump" conservatives, they would be doing it.

And his whole thing about pronouns is fucking dumb as hell. He knows better, frankly. We live in a world where dozens of transgender individuals are murdered every year because of their identity. While I don't often do it, the practice of cis-gender people introducing themselves using their pronouns helps to normalize the practice, which makes transgender individuals much more comfortable in social situations. I think that's actually very important. If Tom wants to scoff at that, fine.

And of course, the biggest joke is that he considers the "fringey" stuff to be universal welfare programs like Medicare-for-All, tuition-free public colleges and universities, student debt forgiveness, etc. The reality is that these programs all, obviously, poll extremely well. The only exception is when the right-wing of the country (which unfortunately still exists in both parties) funds polls that deceptively asks Americans how they feel about losing their employer-based private health insurance, which is of course a terrifying reality for anyone today. But when you introduce Bernie or Warren's healthcare programs, they both poll extremely well. Nobody likes the rising premiums and deductibles, which is a reality of the private health insurance market place. Medicare-for-All does away with all of that, which is why it is a popular program.

Tom wants us to think that winning a General Election means we shouldn't stand for anything. Instead, we should make politics a referendum on Donald Trump. Guess what, other countries have tried this and it didn't work. When Berlusconi was Prime Minister, all of the centre-left parties ended up basically abandoning their political agendas to focus their attention on the unique constitutional threat that they felt Berlusconi represented. As a result, he kept winning elections and the centre-left parties kept losing their own political base (that is a simplification of the story and, of course, the politics of the United States and Italy are unique, but I think it is an instructive comparison).

Politics is about contestation. Tom knows that because he already lost his battle within the Republican Party. If he wants to support the Democratic nominee in the Presidential Election, I welcome that. But I don't think we should spend even one second trying to accommodate his out-moded and shitty politics. Guys like Tom didn't abandon the Republic Party because they are too principled and intelligent, they left because their ideas no longer held weight!

Are your thoughts on this article similar?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/beto-orourke-tax-exemptions-religious-groups-churches-lgbtq.html

The way I see it, if you have a slam dunk, why give the assholes ammo to work with to scare the shit out of the boomers and self-described independent apolitical types who make up the electoral majority?

And the, "I role my eyes when everybody feels the need to state their pronouns" is a wrongheaded attitude but I very much think Tom is, again, describing the country´s majority. "Why needlessly alienate all the voters who haven´t made up their mind yet?" is what this article boils down to for me, and I agree with him completely. Most of my family hates Trump and does not want to vote for him, but I know for a fact they´ll be pissed off when they´re told (in leading, bullshit words that obscure while missing the point, I´m sure) that the democratic nominee is going to forgive everybody´s debt and "promote socialism." I think it takes education to understand the nuances of these policies, whereas lots of lobster bucket dipshits have an inherant negative reaction to anything that looks or sounds like "giving the millenials free stuff that I had to work for."

Ned Braden wrote:Most of my family hates Trump and does not want to vote for him, but I know for a fact they´ll be pissed off when they´re told (in leading, bullshit words that obscure while missing the point, I´m sure) that the democratic nominee is going to forgive everybody´s debt and "promote socialism." I think it takes education to understand the nuances of these policies, whereas lots of lobster bucket dipshits have an inherant negative reaction to anything that looks or sounds like "giving the millenials free stuff that I had to work for."

So we probably have pretty similar backgrounds in this way since most of my family are Republican but quite a few of them are repulsed enough by Trump's behaviors and actions to at least consider voting for the Democratic nominee. Again, I just don't think we should make these people a political priority (at least not in the primary) or sideline what are really legitimate political demands to satisfy their aversions and prejudices.

I think the calculus might change in the General Election. But also, I am not actually convinced that a new "red scare" would actually work anymore. It demonstrably will not work for younger generations of voters who did not come of age during the Cold War and whose political frame of reference is not forever distorted by that ideological battle. That is obviously different for the Baby Boomer generation. But even still, social security and Medicare are two of the most popular programs in the country because they benefit everyone. All that is being proposed is an expansion of those basic, core programs and a return to really standard, progressive tax policies. When you frame your political demands in those terms, it is no longer that radical for people (and, in fact, the idea of universal health care and tuition-free public universities actually really isn't that radical at all). Obviously the right wing propaganda machine is going to contort that message into VENahuhZUELaahHAN DEuuahhthTTH CAmmmPSssS or whatever. But you have to trust that you can reach people with your message. Otherwise, we just give up and admit that conservatives have literally forever broken politics in this country and that real social justice is an impossible aim, which I am unwilling to do.

I just really don't understand why we should allow a small minority of conservative voters who might consider voting for a Democratic candidate just this one time to dictate our political agenda. For me, that is basically just admitting defeat. It also posits that actually people's political horizons cannot be broadened, which isn't true. But what if we reversed the question? Wasn't Clinton's victory supposed to be a slam dunk as well? Wasn't her entire strategy to just let Trump punch himself out? After that failed so spectacularly, why should we consider doing the same exact thing again?

As WP says, I think it would be a colossal waste of energy to try to appeal to the one demographic category that is least likely to vote for a Democrat under any circumstances.

The Democrat can win in a landslide without flipping a single Trump vote.  Trump's popular vote victory tally PERCENTAGE was lower than Mitt Romney's 2012 losing total SHARE.   I've been baffled for decades why Democratic candidates focus on vague and phony appeals to NASCAR dads, 'responsible murder weapon owners', and other Real Americans at the expense of diminishing the enthusiasm of the people who actually might want to help them win.  Hemming and hawing about respecting the principles of hypothetical, atavistic values voters would be counterproductive.

I don't know anything about Tom Nichols as an activist before 2016, but Rick Wilson was on the payroll of both Bushes, Dick Cheney, and Rudy Giuliani.  So I hope Elizabeth Warren doesn't follow his advice.

...adding that if the Dem nominee thinks that playing to the mythical center is going to spare them the traditional Socialist Baby Killer tags, well get a load of these guys:

“Hunter always understood that his father would be guided, entirely and unequivocally, by established U.S. policy, regardless of its effects on Hunter’s professional interests. He never anticipated the barrage of false charges against both him and his father by the President of the United States," Biden's lawyer said in a statement.

https://www.axios.com/hunter-biden-chinese-board-trump-ukraine-9142b032-d9e8-479b-b1ee-61f0caeb8341.html

Ted Falconi wrote:Trump's popular vote victory tally was lower than Mitt Romney's 2012 losing total.

I had never seen this fact before and it's kind of blowing my mind. Of course it is also the case that Trump actually lost the popular vote (and by a relatively comfortable margin). But yeah, I totally agree with everything that you are saying.

Ned Braden wrote:I´m putting together PhD applications and I think I want to write a dissertation on the rise of populist movements

Pretty unrelated, but where are you applying? European or American institutions? After a few years of being on the fence about it, I am in the process of doing the same thing right now. I am actually really nervous about it...

WP64 wrote:

Ted Falconi wrote:Trump's popular vote victory tally was lower than Mitt Romney's 2012 losing total.

I had never seen this fact before and it's kind of blowing my mind. Of course it is also the case that Trump actually lost the popular vote (and by a relatively comfortable margin). But yeah, I totally agree with everything that you are saying.

I just checked, and it's actually not true. Lower PERCENTAGE of the popular vote, but about .9% higher number of votes.
I think I had it somewhat backwards with Clinton not quite matching Obama's 2012 total, but losing.
Too bad, it would have been a good factoid.

The news is fake! I think your point still stands though. Democrats are going to win most national elections if they can increase voter turnout, whereas Republicans are literally engaged in actual voter suppression.

Check this out though
Obama 2008 (2012):
Popular vote 69,498,516 (65,915,795)
Percentage 52.9%   (51.1%)

Clinton 2016:
Popular vote 65,853,514
Percentage 48.2%

That's not Democrats flipping to Republicans, that's Democrats not voting at all.

EDIT: OFF TOPIC TANGENT! WRONG THREAD!

You guys are both raising very valid points and really the biggest thing that keeps flipping me back to the "don´t alienate the centrists and apolitical types" is far more of a gut feeling than anything else. Also, I really don´t think Nichols was talking about voters that far on the right and I certainly don´t think he was advocating phony appeals to "real americans."
And that´s the first time I´ve seen that stat too… american electoral politics are fucking weird.

As far as programs, just the US so far. Briefly considered Kings College and Oxford Brookes in England, but am pretty sure I´m keeping my applications stateside (not least of all because from what I´ve Heard it´s a lot less likely to get full funding if you´re an international student).

Looking at the big IR/diplomatic interdisciplinary programs (Johns Hopkins SAIS, Fletcher at Tufts, Princeton Woodrow Wilson School) as well as a bunch of traditional, disciplined poli sci programs (Brown, Harvard, U Chicago, Northwestern, Brandeis, Boston University).
Those are mostly based on the two areas of the country I would most like to live in, but I´m probably going to apply to some others too... Georgetown, American University, and George Washington in DC; UC Chapel Hill and Denver University (got a Little brother relatively close to both of those, and I´ve heard good things about the programs), UC San Diego as a wild card. I´m nervous too. But I´m hoping that if I blast applications out to enough places I´ll get picked up somewhere.

That's a solid list. Also, I am not sure what the rule is about international funding. From the Italians that I have talked to within academia, they have told me that there is actually a bias towards selecting foreigners because having an international student body is good for the college's ranking. That could obviously be bullshit. But anyways, I wouldn't let it discourage you from sending out an application.

Ned Braden wrote:Johns Hopkins SAIS

They have a campus in Bologna and I am working on my application right now. It seems like an interesting program and everyone here speaks very highly of it. My issue is that while I've taken a lot of courses on political economy and theory, I have never actually taken a micro-econ and macro-econ course at university, which is a requirement for the program. I'm going to see if I can just do both of those next semester at the University of Bologna and maybe they'll accept me with the prerequisite that I pass those classes. We shall see! Godspeed, Ned!

WP64 wrote:That's a solid list. Also, I am not sure what the rule is about international funding. From the Italians that I have talked to within academia, they have told me that there is actually a bias towards selecting foreigners because having an international student body is good for the college's ranking. That could obviously be bullshit. But anyways, I wouldn't let it discourage you from sending out an application.

Ned Braden wrote:Johns Hopkins SAIS

They have a campus in Bologna and I am working on my application right now. It seems like an interesting program and everyone here speaks very highly of it. My issue is that while I've taken a lot of courses on political economy and theory, I have never actually taken a micro-econ and macro-econ course at university, which is a requirement for the program. I'm going to see if I can just do both of those next semester at the University of Bologna and maybe they'll accept me with the prerequisite that I pass those classes. We shall see! Godspeed, Ned!    

Damn, that reminds me... My math GRE scores are dogshit and I haven´t done any of that sorta thing in forever. I just enrolled in a grad level statistical analysis course, but also wanted to get signed up for micro economics. I can´t get into my embry riddle university account to do stuff though, since i´m on a garbage internet ship and have no phone service for dual authentication (which is the absolute fucking worst). Maybe this should be in the college forever thread whatever. On the plus side I just drank beers in the Officer´s wardroom and am finally mentally ready to start writing a letter of recommendation for myself from a dude who doesn´t have the time.

I don’t know if this guy is a right winger or not (I assume he is), but THIS is how you fucking do it. So much more effective than Jim Mattis cracking jokes instead of wholeheartedly denouncing. A near universally respected, retired fucking 4 star, I mean god damn. Serious holy shit moment in US civil-military relations. Take is spot fucking on and this is basically all the stuff I believe in:

“It is easy to destroy an organization if you have no appreciation for what makes that organization great. We are not the most powerful nation in the world because of our aircraft carriers, our economy, or our seat at the United Nations Security Council. We are the most powerful nation in the world because we try to be the good guys. We are the most powerful nation in the world because our ideals of universal freedom and equality have been backed up by our belief that we were champions of justice, the protectors of the less fortunate.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opinion/trump-mcraven-syria-military.html#click=https://t.co/PTDxJmyM6P

Ned, read the article that I posted by Dylan Riley in the other thread.

I'm reading it while taking breaks from writing application stuff. Long as hell but interesting so far.

Ned Braden wrote:
“It is easy to destroy an organization if you have no appreciation for what makes that organization great. We are not the most powerful nation in the world because of our aircraft carriers, our economy, or our seat at the United Nations Security Council. We are the most powerful nation in the world because we try to be the good guys. We are the most powerful nation in the world because our ideals of universal freedom and equality have been backed up by our belief that we were champions of justice, the protectors of the less fortunate.”

I'll just go ahead and say that I really despise this infantile, boy scout mentality to American politics. You'd have to be completely ignorant of American (military) involvement over the last seventy years, basically since the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japanese civilians, to actually come to this conclusion. In the years since that atrocity, we have invaded several Arab, Asian, and Latin American countries under the auspice of an ideological war against global Communism. In doing so, we absolutely slaughtered local and native populations who were defending themselves against a foreign occupying force. We have also deposed, primarily through the CIA and other rogue "intelligence gathering institutions," democratically elected governments in Chile, Iran, Iraq, etc.

If you want to defend the institution of the U.S. military, that is fine. But its actual historical record must be analyzed and defended and we can't just fall back on empty platitudes about "good guys" and "justice," because it's just lazy and kind of ridiculous.

ned wrote:something about moral calculus

yeah... you aren't wrong. I fully admit that I'm on some Jebediah Springfield shit, but if I didn't have this belief to cling to I'd probably want to off myself even more than I do. Infantile boyscout mentality defines us at our best... if at all... but it's something I wish we'd aspire to.

This is probably a better, or at least more self-aware, take:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/trump-kurds-nba-china-american-values.html

I think you should be able to function within an institution while also being critical of its role in the world. Obviously, the military is probably an especially difficult case because the training and discipline required to be within the military would probably make it very difficult to extricate yourself from it. But in either case, it isn't a personal attack.