U.S. Politics: A Request to Address the Cleft on the Left

[Bonnot OG]

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/no-arrests-after-truck-nearly-hits-protesters-in-downtown-phoenix-after-trump-rally-9620659

Wonder if that James Cobo asshole got a call from the cops after this given what he was saying on his FB.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

No, that's an apt comparison. What type of youth do you think ISIS is typically radicalizing? You can draw the same comparison between Christianity and White Supremacy. You can certainly draw it between Christianity and the KKK. Hell, they define themselves as a Christian organization.

 

/And just to clarify, I didn't say you couldn't separate them, you most certainly can. You cannot however completely divest one of the other, as your example notes.  

You can though -- they have nothing to do with their mainstream religious masses that they claim to be sects of.  

Where in these last few threads has someone accidentally typed Christians when they meant the KKK?  Doesn't happen.  So why say Islam when you mean IS IS?

[GAROVORKIN]

24 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

No, that's an apt comparison. What type of youth do you think ISIS is typically radicalizing? You can draw the same comparison between Christianity and White Supremacy. You can certainly draw it between Christianity and the KKK. Hell, they define themselves as a Christian organization.

Isis and Al Qaeda other militant groups   follows the teachings  of Wahhabism  which is the dominate strain of  in Saudi Arabia. That country in the guise of education and cultural exchanges has established schools  in different parts of the world to spread their intolerant. version of Islam. Recently they started blind a religious school in Indonesia .

[Zorral]

WSJ's down with the nazis --

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/business/media/wall-street-journal-editor-admonishes-reporters-over-trump-coverage.html

Wall Street Journal Editor Admonishes Reporters Over Trump Coverage www.nytimes.com In internal emails, Gerard Baker described the draft of an article about the president’s rally in Phoenix as “commentary dressed up as news reporting.”

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

You can though -- they have nothing to do with their mainstream religious masses that they claim to be sects of.  

Where in these last few threads has someone accidentally typed Christians when they meant the KKK?  Doesn't happen.  So why say Islam when you mean IS IS?

In context, Kalbear was discussing the similarities in the methods that ISIS and Nazis use to radicalize youth. Again, what youth group is ISIS typically radicalizing?

 No, you cannot divest the two completely. Not all Muslims are ISIS, obviously, but all members of ISIS are Muslim. Not all Christians are members of the KKK, but all members of the KKK are Christian.

[Martell Spy]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/sassy-trump-is-your-new-favorite-superhero

‘Sassy Trump’ Is Your New Favorite Superhero
Character actor Peter Serafinowicz on the inspiration for his ‘Sassy Trump’ videos, starring as The Tick in the new Amazon series, and infamously voicing Darth Maul.

[Shryke]

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Probably not. Well, for starters, the picture is always more complicated than one would like to paint. Plus, I'm far more knowledgeable about the Republicans.

I have a slightly different narrative, and I'm not sure where to fit the Civil Rights in mine.
The story I have is that starting with Taft-Hartley, the Republicans started attacking the unions, which were originally the main source of financial support for the Democratic Party. And while union membership steadily declined from the 1950s to the 1980s, it plummeted under Reagan. This is one of the factors that eventually forced the Democrats to move away from their usual causes, because they started relying on private corporations for their financing instead.
Plus, the stagflation in the 60s slowly drew politicians away from Keynes (though, ironically, not Reagan, but let's not get into that 'cause @OldGimletEye can talk about this shit way better than I can), which started slowly eroding support for New Deal policies in the Democratic Party around the end of the 1960s.
Anyway, in my narrative, the movement to the right did start around the end of the 1960s, but only reached fruition sometime at the end of the 1980s.
I'm curious to know more about your narrative. What role did the Civil Rights play in the internal movements of the Democratic Party?

The New Deal Coalition that kept the Democrats in power from the 30s through to the 60s collapsed because of, in large part, the Civil Rights movement. The Solid South was over and voters began moving over to the GOP for Goldwater and then the Southern Strategy. And the white blue-collar supporters in the Democratic party abandoned the party for promises of white supremacy and "law and order" (but I repeat myself) from the likes of Nixon and then Reagan. And with that the Democratic party's control of the federal government falls apart.

The New Deal coalition collapses because it's members leave. The movement you see in the Democratic party, especially starting in the 1980s with Reagan's victories and leading in to the New Democrats, is in response to the failure of that coalition. You have the cause and effect backwards basically.

And I mean, when you see Obama's win 9 years ago it's debatable if the demographics were there to pull off that kind of win 8 years earlier, let alone like 20. Shit, even in 2008 Obama felt he had to hedge his bets on the gay rights issue.

 

And it's important to understand that the Democratic Party you are lionizing here was not just strictly leftist and was full of deep fault lines. I mean, it was the party of the Civil Rights movement and of the Solid South. You see the tension that blew the party apart in the 1968 Democratic convention too, between younger anti-war members and older establishment members siding with Johnson (although it is, again, no really that simple there either). And this all happens after the New Deal. All these people were under one umbrella during that period.

 

But the overall point is that when you talk about declines in unions during these periods, when you talk about the Republicans rising to prominence in the post-New-Deal era, you are looking at the shift of a lot of white voters in response to white identity politics. And yeah, they slit their own throats on the issue of worker's rights and social support and all that to do it, but there's nothing new or strange about that.

[all swedes are racist]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

And how has violent responses to ISIS been going in reducing that ISIS recruitment? Seems almost every time the west thinks it's struck a blow against violently radical Islam it just works to recruit more marginal Muslims into radicalism. A

give me a fucking break, and come back with this bullshit when we start bombing trailer parks in south carolina and dropping white phosphorus on subdivisions in indiana 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

give me a fucking break, and come back with this bullshit 

Alright, so yeah, what Anti-Targ described isn't a thing? Many of us here directly attribute the invasion of Iraq to the creation of ISIS, right? Do you not hold the same opinion? In what way is this bullshit?

/And don't bogart that shit, I'm not giving you the whole bar. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Not at all. Kalbear compared the two in terms of how they recruit and radicalize youth. I agree that there are some similarities, but I'm not claiming an equivalency.

Yes, Kalbear's post was relatively clear and unproblematic (at least imo), because he picked one specific aspect, namely youth recruitment. You went a weee bit further however, when you opened that ideology can of worms. That's why I felt your post needed some clarification imo.

45 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Radical Islam then. Islamism. Not sure how you can completely divest Islam from ISIS, but you guys keep jumping through hoops. I give that last routine a 9.7.

Maybe, I can make that point by using some false equivalency/poor wording myself, by calling those neo-nazis in Charlottesvile Radical Republicans. Sure there were presumably a good bunch of GOP voters among those ticki torch bearers, but not every GOP member or voter is a Neo-Nazi. Sure, you want the Republican's to speak up and act against Radical Republicans, but there's still somewhat of a big difference between moderate Republican and Radicalized Republicans. Editorial note, I could have also gone with Christianity instead of Republicans, but since I am probably doing enough religion bashing, I refrained from doing it this time.

30 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

o, that's an apt comparison. What type of youth do you think ISIS is typically radicalizing? You can draw the same comparison between Christianity and White Supremacy. You can certainly draw it between Christianity and the KKK. Hell, they define themselves as a Christian organization.

I see somebody else went there anyway.

Wasn't some older interpretation/reading of the scripture equating the Mark of Cain to black skin? Some other Christian justification. God created man as his counterimage, of course god had fair skin. Yes, fairly old nonsense, however I am fairly sure, that some Christians are not really into the concept, that Jesus probably wasn't that fair skinned, blond (srufer) dude from renaissance paintings, but in all likelihood was probably olive skinned and looked a whole lot more than a Syrian refugee. You really don't have to go that far back in time for the White Santa debate. In addition if you are bored, you can do some old testament reading about the justification of slavery. That's either in Genesis or Leviticus, I think.

[all swedes are racist]

32 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Alright, so yeah, what Anti-Targ described isn't a thing? Many of us here directly attribute the invasion of Iraq to the creation of ISIS, right? Do you not hold the same opinion? In what way is this bullshit?

/And don't bogart that shit, I'm not giving you the whole bar. 

shit ass phone posted before i was done, see edit 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

30 minutes ago, Notone said:

Yes, Kalbear's post was relatively clear and unproblematic (at least imo), because he picked one specific aspect, namely youth recruitment. You went a weee bit further however, when you opened that ideology can of worms. That's why I felt your post needed some clarification imo.

Maybe, I can make that point by using some false equivalency/poor wording myself, by calling those neo-nazis in Charlottesvile Radical Republicans. Sure there were presumably a good bunch of GOP voters among those ticki torch bearers, but not every GOP member or voter is a Neo-Nazi. Sure, you want the Republican's to speak up and act against Radical Republicans, but there's still somewhat of a big difference between moderate Republican and Radicalized Republicans. Editorial note, I could have also gone with Christianity instead of Republicans, but since I am probably doing enough religion bashing, I refrained from doing it this time.

I see somebody else went there anyway.

Wasn't some older interpretation/reading of the scripture equating the Mark of Cain to black skin? Some other Christian justification. God created man as his counterimage, of course god had fair skin. Yes, fairly old nonsense, however I am fairly sure, that some Christians are not really into the concept, that Jesus probably wasn't that fair skinned, blond (srufer) dude from renaissance paintings, but in all likelihood was probably olive skinned and looked a whole lot more than a Syrian refugee. You really don't have to go that far back in time for the White Santa debate. In addition if you are bored, you can do some old testament reading about the justification of slavery. That's either in Genesis or Leviticus, I think.

Yeah, I feel no need to defend Republicans or Christians for some of their connections to Nazism. The Alt-Right itself is a fairly transparent attempt to rebrand White Nationalism as a legitimate wing of the Republican party. That some Republicans seem to be unable to discern this tends to make me think that some of them want to be fooled. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

15 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

shit ass phone posted before i was done, see edit 

Ah, gotcha. 

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/23/2017 at 6:47 PM, Shryke said:

The New Deal Coalition that kept the Democrats in power from the 30s through to the 60s collapsed because of, in large part, the Civil Rights movement. The Solid South was over and voters began moving over to the GOP for Goldwater and then the Southern Strategy. And the white blue-collar supporters in the Democratic party abandoned the party for promises of white supremacy and "law and order" (but I repeat myself) from the likes of Nixon and then Reagan. And with that the Democratic party's control of the federal government falls apart.

The New Deal coalition collapses because it's members leave. The movement you see in the Democratic party, especially starting in the 1980s with Reagan's victories and leading in to the New Democrats, is in response to the failure of that coalition. You have the cause and effect backwards basically.

I agree that the old New Deal coalition basically imploded right around 1968, mostly because of race issues and Vietnam, and that began the ascendancy of conservatism through the 1990s and probably through Dubya and perhaps beyond.

I just want to add a few details.

I’d say in the 1970’s movement conservatives of the Goldwater/Reagan variety really got there shit together and organized very well.  They became very good at exploiting the Democratic implosion. It was around this time put together their intellectual infrastructure by founding things like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. And it’s my impression that movement conservatives were very good at sticking to their guns. I think that whole era is something that a lot of liberals probably want to take a look at. There maybe some useful lessons there.

By the 1990s, Democrats didn’t seem able or interested in fighting the conservative tide and that is why we got the policy of “triangulation”. In 1992 the Democratic Party took out the full employment plank out its platform, something that old time liberal Democrats would have balked at.

But I agree that the implosion happened in 1968 and Democrats, at least the liberal ones, weren’t able to stop the ascendancy of conservatism.

On the social issues, my general thoughts would be: We may have become more socially liberal from the 1960s. But that probably isn’t the right way to think about it. I think in the counter factual scenario where conservatism had not been dominating, then we probably would have become more socially liberal on many issues earlier.

@Rippounet

I want to add this, because there is an intellectual history here that I think most liberals should have at least a passing familiarity with.

Keynesian econ didn’t just fall out of favor with politicians. Starting in the 1970s, it fell out of favor, within academic circles, in large part because of the models put forth by Robert Lucas and his followers. Lucas put forth the so called “Lucas Critique” which attacked the aggregate style models that old Keynesians were using. With a combination of time optimal control math, rational expectations, and walsrasian general equilibrium, Lucas was able to convince in many in the academic community (or at least give them intellectual ammunition) that old Keynesian models were not theoretically well founded (Lucas basically believed there was no difference between micro and macro). Now personally, I think Lucas sent much of macro down the wrong path ( he was enormously influential), my biggest issue being with walrasian general equilibrium (which in my opinion is largely nonsense), but that is neither here nor there at the moment. The point is that he was able to influence a lot of people within academia who in turn often give or shape policy advice.

Also the rational expectations revolution largely promoted by Lucas also was influential in finance theory and is reason many people started to believe that financial markets needed a lot less regulation.

Now a lot of this stuff got reversed during the financial crises, and Keynes made a big comeback among academics, along with the belief that more financial regulation was necessary (because nobody is ready to bet the farm on asset pricing theory based on rational expectations), but it’s useful I think to understand some of the intellectual history here.

And then of course conservatives where very good at marketing so called “Supply Side Economics” (I don’t think most of the RBC guys took supply siders claims very seriously, but were generally favorable to supply siders policy goals.)

Also, people like Robert Bork, convinced a lot of people that the liberal preoccupation with anti-trust laws was overblown. So anti-trust laws enforcement started to take a hit and it’s probably why there is mounting evidence there is significant monopoly power that kills growth and contributes to wealth inequality.

And then of course conservatives were successful in making union busting popular as you stated, which of course never panned out they way conservatives said it would (well if you were rich or a CEO, it probably panned out very well).
 

 

[Bonnot OG]

For the people in here that think these assholes want to just "demonstrate peacefully."

https://www.unicornriot.ninja/2017/data-release-unite-right-planning-chats-demonstrate-violent-intent/

[GAROVORKIN]

I often wonder what if .   If Robert Kennedy has not been assented  1968 and has run against Richard Nixon,  would have he have become president  and extend the democrats reign into the 1970's . And what if in such an alternate Timeline Chappaquiddick doesn't happen, This opens up the possibility of Edward Kennedy running for President if not in the 70's in 1980, Does that Prevent Reagan and the Conservatives? 

[GAROVORKIN]

8 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

For the people in here that think these assholes want to just "demonstrate peacefully."

https://www.unicornriot.ninja/2017/data-release-unite-right-planning-chats-demonstrate-violent-intent/

 

It doesn't sound like it,  does it? 

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Isis and Al Qaeda other militant groups   follows the teachings  of Wahhabism  which is the dominate strain of  in Saudi Arabia. That country in the guise of education and cultural exchanges has established schools  in different parts of the world to spread their intolerant. version of Islam. Recently they started blind a religious school in Indonesia .

This isn't accurate at all. Point of fact, ISIS specifically rejects the major 3 pillars of Wahhabism that are kind of a big deal - namely, Saudi Arabia is THE place for Islam. Point of fact, Saudi Arabians are quite scared of ISIS for that specific reason. They're very similar in extremism otherwise, but it's kind of like saying that Catholicism and Mormonism are the same because they both believe in Christ. 

Al-Qaeda is pretty well founded in that, however. 

[GAROVORKIN]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

This isn't accurate at all. Point of fact, ISIS specifically rejects the major 3 pillars of Wahhabism that are kind of a big deal - namely, Saudi Arabia is THE place for Islam. Point of fact, Saudi Arabians are quite scared of ISIS for that specific reason. They're very similar in extremism otherwise, but it's kind of like saying that Catholicism and Mormonism are the same because they both believe in Christ. 

Al-Qaeda is pretty well founded in that, however. 

On the 3 pillars , that I didn't know. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I agree that the old New Deal coalition basically imploded right around 1968, mostly because of race issues and Vietnam, and that began the ascendancy of conservatism through the 1990s and probably through Dubya and perhaps beyond.

I just want to add a few details.

I’d say in the 1970’s movement conservatives of the Goldwater/Reagan variety really got there shit together and organized very well.  They became very good at exploiting the Democratic implosion. It was around this time put together their intellectual infrastructure by founding things like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. And it’s my impression that movement conservatives were very good at sticking to their guns. I think that whole era is something that a lot of liberals probably want to take a look at. There maybe some useful lessons there.

At the same time though I think it's not really as useful as you think for understanding what is going on. Because as Trump aptly demonstrated, movement conservatives only had a hold on the politicians themselves and not the voters. The voters don't give a shit about it and never have. Trump's entire ascendancy was essentially a demonstration that, no, the "intellectual" conservatives had not managed to use dog-whistles to attract a base they then convinced to accept conservative ideals. The base was always just in it for the white supremacy.

One can perhaps look at their organizing to get their shit together the way, say, the College Republicans have but as an intellectual movement, movement conservatism was an abject failure. It's just always been a thin creamy topping of politicians and think tankers and the like wanking each other off while riding a wave of racial resentment.

 

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

By the 1990s, Democrats didn’t seem able or interested in fighting the conservative tide and that is why we got the policy of “triangulation”. In 1992 the Democratic Party took out the full employment plank out its platform, something that old time liberal Democrats would have balked at.

But I agree that the implosion happened in 1968 and Democrats, at least the liberal ones, weren’t able to stop the ascendancy of conservatism.

On the social issues, my general thoughts would be: We may have become more socially liberal from the 1960s. But that probably isn’t the right way to think about it. I think in the counter factual scenario where conservatism had not been dominating, then we probably would have become more socially liberal on many issues earlier.

The problem with this I think though is the same I had in my last post. I think it still puts the cart before the horse. Conservatism ascended exactly because the voting public wasn't more socially liberal on these issues.

 

There is I think an extent to which conservative views on economics have dominated the way americans have talked about government policy since the rise of conservatism but I don't think it's actually been a change in the way people feel about the issue and where they do seem to it's because race-based politics tend to line up to some degree with the conservative view. (eg - The republican leadership hates the welfare state based on conservative principles, the base only hates the welfare state because it also helps black people and are supportive of the idea otherwise. Hence, the welfare queen argument.) Populist economic rhetoric remains powerful, as Trump demonstrated, and the public has always polled more "liberal" on these issues then is showcased by the political class.