US Politics: Sitting in Judgement

[The Anti-Targ]

9 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think Obama was … not bad.  Better than average. But, my political views are well to the right of the consensus on this forum.

That statement in itself is quite an indictment on the quality of all US presidents if Obama is to be regarded, by someone of a more right-leaning persuasion, as being better than your average president. A superficial look at Obama might conclude that he was a pretty good president, but I tend to agree with @Rippounet's analysis, for progressives he was pretty unimpressive. But there's also an argument that US presidents really can't do much without 60 reliable votes in the senate, which is maybe why Obama could, in some people's eyes, be seen as a better than average president.

[Rorshach]

Seems Trump is getting more explicit about being in Putin's corner - if he could indeed become more expicit.

A bit surprising to see Republicans becoming Russia supporters, but that' where we are. 

[BigFatCoward]

57 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

 

A bit surprising to see Republicans becoming Russia supporters, but that' where we are. 

Lots of racism, homophobia and bigotry to connect them. Its only a surprise because of history.

Ideologically they are pretty identical. Other than the god nonsense. 

[Rorshach]

It's a surprise, I'd say, given that the America First reaction is about building a strong US, which would (logically) entail not building strong opponents. 

This looks more like a gut reaction trying to project strength, which is all about posture and nothing about actual content. Which is spot on for Trump, who is a profoundty weak person desperate to project strength at all and every point. It doesn't make him strong, just like the policy wouldn't make the US strong, but for Trump apperance is all that matters. 

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

It's a surprise, I'd say, given that the America First reaction is about building a strong US, which would (logically) entail not building strong opponents. 

This looks more like a gut reaction trying to project strength, which is all about posture and nothing about actual content. Which is spot on for Trump, who is a profoundty weak person desperate to project strength at all and every point. It doesn't make him strong, just like the policy wouldn't make the US strong, but for Trump apperance is all that matters. 

Russia is the kind of society that Trump wants the US to become.

[Rorshach]

52 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Russia is the kind of society that Trump wants the US to become.

Indeed. Just a surprise that so few of his followers (including those in media / power) don't comment on the fundamental inconsistency in his ideology, which will make the US weaker through creating stronger rivals. 

I'd also guess that this inconsistency would surprise his followers, and it would be something they'd oppose. Though, given they seem to regard him as a prophet, they'd probably write off anyone pointing this out to them. 

For those mentioned in the first paragraph, this makes for an uncomfortable situation in which they make themselves weaker in what seems to be a desperate hope to stay relevant or in a position of relative power. Working hard against themselves, as it is.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, Rorshach said:

Seems Trump is getting more explicit about being in Putin's corner - if he could indeed become more expicit.

Someone has to pay his legal bills. 

Quote

A bit surprising to see Republicans becoming Russia supporters, but that' where we are. 

Reagan must be sitting in Hell asking himself what the actual fuck. 

[Ormond]

15 hours ago, Zorral said:

And I keep forgetting --  Phylum of Alexandria asked where in the Old Testament there was condemnation of slavery ... um the Books of Moses -- um particularly Exodus,* for starters. 

* Though now archaeology, history, Egyptian Studies etc., have found absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the enslavement of the Jews by Egypt and their exodus to Canaan.  Unlike the evidence that many Hebrews lived in the Babylonian Empire.

That was not Phylum of Alexandria, it was me, and again, I do not think there is any condemnation of slavery in general in Exodus or anywhere else in the OT. There is a recognition that it was bad for the Israelites to be slaves, but never any statement that because they hated being slaves that they should never enslave anyone else. Just that they should treat their slaves better -- and if they gouged out a slave's eye they had to give him or her freedom in compensation. But that's not the same thing as a general condemnation of slavery.

[Ormond]

It's been quite a while since I posted one of the right-wing fundraising emails I get here but this one is so outrageous I feel like I should share it. And it's not even directly from Trump, but from the RNSC:

Quote

 

We now have indisputable evidence: Michelle Obama is leading a SHADOW CAMPAIGN to take away your right to vote and disenfranchise MILLIONS of Republican voters across the country.

If the American people don’t have the right to support the candidate of their choosing at

CK,

We have bad news.

Our investigative team recently intercepted a secret message sent by the Democratic Party to far-Left activists across the country, and what we discovered was truly shocking.

The plot to interfere with the 2024 Presidential election and disqualify Donald J. Trump from running is more sophisticated than we could have ever imagined.

See for yourself:

https://image.s12.sfmc-content.com/lib/fe2e11727364047c701278/m/1/fee66e66-5c50-42e2-9add-52f74d377308.png

the ballot box, then there can be no legitimate election. Point blank.

There’s no point in sugarcoating things, CK. If this Marxist scheme succeeds, it’s the end of America as we know it. But we have a plan to fight back.

The Democratic Party needs 50,000 petition signatures to disqualify President Trump. We need 100,000 petition signatures to KEEP HIS NAME on the ballot.

 

Sign the petition to STOP Michelle Obama and her far-Left activists from REMOVING President Trump’s name from the election ballot this November. >>
 

OFFICIAL PETITION

OBJECTIVE: PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
YOUR SIGNATURE: MISSING

SIGN THE PETITION NOW >>

Thank you,

NRSC HQ
 

 

 

[Rippounet]

15 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

So, to be clear, my primary concern is with policy and governance and real tangible change, rather than performance and rhetoric.

Right.
You know, there's no real substance for disagreement here. I merely underlined the dangers of beautiful rhetoric. That's not to say that it can't be a good thing.

15 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The post-liberal left has their own narrative that they rally around, but it's one of almost complete pessimism (in the US at least).

I'm curious as to what you're referring to here.

11 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 A superficial look at Obama might conclude that he was a pretty good president, but I tend to agree with @Rippounet's analysis, for progressives he was pretty unimpressive. But there's also an argument that US presidents really can't do much without 60 reliable votes in the senate, which is maybe why Obama could, in some people's eyes, be seen as a better than average president.

Obama said himself that a few decades back he would have been an Eisenhower Republican.

Nothing wrong with that in itself, but his rhetoric was... misleading.

Edited February 11 by Rippounet

[kissdbyfire]

16 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Obama said himself that a few decades back he would have been an Eisenhower Republican.

Nothing wrong with that in itself, but his rhetoric was... misleading.

I’m always left scratching my head whenever someone says Obama is a lefty and/or progressive politician. Mind you, I do like him for the reasons I cited before: intelligent, articulate, good intentions, etc. I also think he faced a real constraint irt his ability to do certain things as the very first black American president, even if I’m not at all sure he wanted to do these things, whatever they may be. But I can’t see his legacy as anything but that of a moderate centre-right politician. 

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

It's been quite a while since I posted one of the right-wing fundraising emails I get here but this one is so outrageous I feel like I should share it. And it's not even directly from Trump, but from the RNSC:

 

I wonder if they’re afraid that Michelle Obama, despite years of avowed disinterest, would toss her hat into the Presidential ring if Biden were to decide to step down.

[kissdbyfire]

6 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I wonder if they’re afraid that Michelle Obama, despite years of avowed disinterest, would toss her hat into the Presidential ring if Biden were to decide to step down.

Maybe but let’s not leave out some of their favourites, misogyny and racism.

Edited February 11 by kissdbyfire

[Durckad]

8 hours ago, Rorshach said:

Seems Trump is getting more explicit about being in Putin's corner - if he could indeed become more expicit.

A bit surprising to see Republicans becoming Russia supporters, but that' where we are. 

Anecdotally, Russia worship has been 'a thing' amongst Republicans since the Tea Party days. It wasn't as loud and blatant and,well, widespread as it is now, but there was a tacit belief that Russia was 'how things should be' amongst SOME Republicans.

What was the root of it? Evangelicalism. Russia was buddy-buddying up with the Russian Orthodox Church and using that to 'punish' people Evangelicals have long had it out for (namely 'the gays' at the time, but the whole spectrum of LGBTQ+ now). There were other aspects as well, Putin being seen as the strong, powerful, alpha male leader compared to the 'weak' and 'effete' Obama.

I think there are other aspects that build into this, but more of them are just Republicans throwing their personal wish lists into Russia and just... pretending that it's actually true. Like the idea that Russians have a better standard of living and are better off economically than people in the US, which is... just baffling. I actually had a Conservative I used to work with back in the 2012/2013 days say this to me and I do remember hearing some twinklings of this shit amongst Conservative commentators at the time.

So, yeah, bigotry + fanatical Evangelicalism + strong man worship + weirdo Economic beliefs based on rainbows and unicorns = Russia worship.

You can see the same in the right's worship of Bolsanaro and Orban now. All perceived strong men with ties (or at least professed ties) to Christianity.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I'm curious as to what you're referring to here.

Heh. Oh boy. Remember when I had that topic post trying for some internal criticism of the worst of the left, and it devolved into a shit show? Well, part of the whole point of that post was to discuss how hard it was to refer to who exactly I was talking about. Using Richard Rorty's language, he would say "the Social Left," but he doesn't condemn all aspects of the Social Left, so that's not so helpful as a label.

I did write this passage midway through the thread, where I tried to tease out what I was talking about, and you responded to it later. Here is my attempt to explain:

"Before I go any further though, it is important to try to clarify the different levels of the Social Left cultural milieu that I'm talking about.
So, first: the scholarly level. The seminal works of the early critical theorists and post-structuralists are really important stuff to read and consider, and collectively push back against the excesses and shortcomings of the more traditional liberal Enlightenment philosophers. Even in these early works, there is a strong sense of purism and essentialism that can be hard to take, but it's at least understandable from a historical point of view (for instance, the Frankfort scholars after fleeing Nazi Germany). Blaming Adorno for the unchecked essentialism that others took from him later on is like blaming Nirvana for Staind. It's not fair to the originator, but still the connection is there. 
The few works I've read by Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw, and other CRT-related scholars have all been thoughtful, incisive, powerful stuff. But a lot of this stuff is most powerful and useful when it's viewed as a corrective pushback against more sanguine takes on sociology or criminal justice. As a governing paradigm, critical theory is relentlessly bleak; either self defeating or wallowing in defeat. Plus, any academic field full of people who agree with each other and left unchallenged by other peers grow sloppy, decadent, more prone to pseudo-intellectualism. That's not true of someone like Bell, and it's not true of every scholar nowadays, but it has become more true of the field overall, there's more junk out there left unchallenged.
Then there's the broader academic climate: the teachers, the students, and the administration that panders to them. The teachers will cite Foucault and Bell and so on, and some of the more astute students will take in their names and read more and more. But generally what's being impressed upon students of Critical Studies majors is the general paradigm: the moral frameworks, the assumptions, the priorities, and the terminology. This is perhaps where the raw angst of Adorno gets processed into its "Staind" version, especially among the students who respond to the moral content but not the intellectual considerations. And over time, especially with internet, this broader climate gets diffused more into the general social justice climate. Misuse of the original concepts becomes more common, often by people who don't know their origin. Thus pseudo-intellectualism is through the roof among the most zealous people, as is the unchecked certainty. It probably started with a small group of weirdos on Tumblr and then Twitter, but then it spread to influence how a big swath of the left talked about and framed issues.
So is this a Critical Theory problem? In some respects, but it's misleading to castigate CRT or critical theorists.
Is it a social justice problem? Not as a whole. Terms like "SJW" impugn a lot of thoughtful people doing good work, when it's really just a certain subset who fit the stereotype worthy of criticism. 
Is it every effort related to Cultural change? No, as I said, there are some benefits to those attempts. For me, it's the singular focus, and especially when more direct or more substantive factors are de-prioritized that I find problematic. Virtues as vices and all that.
So how do I talk about it? It's still not clear. At least with Woke, there was the move to embrace it in its lamer diet Woke variety, and most people know what you mean when you say it. But I understand that it's flawed, especially when discussing it with people who are more politically engaged on the left. So, it remains challenging."

And you later responded:

"Right. I'd agree that critical theory has a different purpose in a society that has moved as far on the individualistic side of the spectrum as the US.
In France, where socialism was never quite abandoned, it's widely understood that critical theory is an offshoot of leftist thought. Overall though, it doesn't constitute a distinct political movement: the left is still overwhelmingly socialist, and all the intellectual stuff is just a kind of food-for-thought for people who are into it.
Whereas in the US, where socialism is still has become a dirty word, critical theory ends up leading to the development of a separate set of practical applications/measures.
From my perspective, this is peak liberalism, where even a school of thought dedicated to analysing social/cultural structures or phenomena is boiled down to the level of the individual, as if to avoid discussing momentous political change.
In other words, I'm tempted to say the US reception of critical theory is due to the trouble Americans have in truly embracing socialism and revolutionary ideals. Capitalism, the heart of the problem, being associated with "americanism" itself (through the myths of the "American dream" and the "self-made man"), leftist thought is sometimes condemned to derivative/guerilla tactics rather than directly focusing on political power itself. Conversely, as a Frenchman evolving in largely leftist and/or intellectual groups, I have no qualms about asserting that the entire point of leftist thinking is to eventually win political power in order to limit the private property of the means of production (a necessity in current times). In the US, I believe such a grand pronouncement might often be viewed as rather extreme, and not voiced in many places ; in France, it would generally be viewed as trite and common."

So, there is a sizable portion of the Critical Theory informed/adjacent Social Justice Left in the US that rallies around a moral narrative that is hopelessly pessimistic and, well, critical. But never self-critical, and rarely pragmatic. That's why I tried labeling them this time as "post-liberal," because for all the faults or limitations of liberalism, it's what we have to work with. And the extent that I bother complaining about anyone of the left is the extent that they making progress hopeless with their pessimism, their righteous orthodoxy, and an idealism that borders on decadence.

But yes, I agree that there are structural factors at play, and the failures of the US activists to further socialist policies in the 60s and 70s led to a widespread pessimism, and a retreat into cultural purism. The shift to neoliberalism likely made it all the worse. In fact, what you have called "peak-liberalism," Maurice Mitchell has called "neo-liberal" identity:

https://forgeorganizing.org/article/building-resilient-organizations

Edited February 11 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Rorshach]

50 minutes ago, Durckad said:

Anecdotally, Russia worship has been 'a thing' amongst Republicans since the Tea Party days. It wasn't as loud and blatant and,well, widespread as it is now, but there was a tacit belief that Russia was 'how things should be' amongst SOME Republicans.

What was the root of it? Evangelicalism. Russia was buddy-buddying up with the Russian Orthodox Church and using that to 'punish' people Evangelicals have long had it out for (namely 'the gays' at the time, but the whole spectrum of LGBTQ+ now). There were other aspects as well, Putin being seen as the strong, powerful, alpha male leader compared to the 'weak' and 'effete' Obama.

I think there are other aspects that build into this, but more of them are just Republicans throwing their personal wish lists into Russia and just... pretending that it's actually true. Like the idea that Russians have a better standard of living and are better off economically than people in the US, which is... just baffling. I actually had a Conservative I used to work with back in the 2012/2013 days say this to me and I do remember hearing some twinklings of this shit amongst Conservative commentators at the time.

So, yeah, bigotry + fanatical Evangelicalism + strong man worship + weirdo Economic beliefs based on rainbows and unicorns = Russia worship.

You can see the same in the right's worship of Bolsanaro and Orban now. All perceived strong men with ties (or at least professed ties) to Christianity.

All of this sort of ties into one of my biggest problems with capitalism, or more spesifically in this instance, the role media plays.

Used to be media would make attempts to tell the truth, to the best of their abilities. Now, they're to a much greater degree, delivering services and need to compete in a marketplace. So instead of looking for truth, they're selling a product and have to stay relevant to their customers. And therefore they can't tell stories as they know or believe them to be true, because they have an audience to reach.

Internet hasn't helped at all, since greater access means people choose their preferred truth rather than challenging their beliefs.

Mostly a side note, this.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Ormond said:

There is a recognition that it was bad for the Israelites to be slaves, but never any statement that because they hated being slaves that they should never enslave anyone else.

That's a very long way from saying slavery is a positive good, which the colonialists empires did say, and most certainly the North American and British colonialists did say.  They even wrote state constitutions at secession that began with that.

Of course those left out that the positive good -- which at least Patrick Henry recognized -- was for white men, not anybody else.

And surely, Fragile Bird -- you must be jesting.  We even had a long back-and-forth about that Michelle Obama running thing not long ago and how silly to even entertain such and idea was.

Edited February 11 by Zorral

[Rippounet]

Oh, yes.

Our respective positions make a lot of sense with this reminder, and I think I see what you're advocating. I'm not on board, but I wish you luck.

[Zorral]

Traditional / legacy news media is over, financed by the endless supply of advertising revenue.   It was over long ago in local news markets. But now the biggies, whether television, print and digital -- it's all over too, because of lack of advertising.  The only advertising that seems to work is extremist bullshit on xhitter and etc.  Nobody knows what to do.

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

4 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Someone has to pay his legal bills. 

Reagan must be sitting in Hell asking himself what the actual fuck. 

I truly believe the GOP in general has accepted Putins dark money in many cases. One of the flunky Trump sons commented in a interview once how the Trumps get all the finance and cash they could ever need from Russia.

Putin owns the maga movement imo.

Ah here it is, it was idiot Eric-

 

The Hill

https://thehill.com › news › 332270...

Eric Trump in 2014: 'We have all the funding we need out of ...

 

May 7, 2017 — He said, 'Well, we don't rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.' I said, 'Really?' And he