lol, of course Clarence Thomas Seditionist wife forced him to be the only dissent: I believe every word of his accuser of sexual malfeseance then and now even more, disgraceful!
I love you Mona, but inflation is because workers at McDonalds went from $10 to $15 in one year: If you give everybody $10,000, the only thing that happens is bananas go from $1 to $5. If small business owners kept up with wage increases. Then the problem would not have gotten out of hand. This was bound to happen, covid just exposed its immediacy.
You will not get legal immigration back so easy: We ran them out in entire communities because the rural areas where they work have treated them with disdain and disgust, our policies treated them with outright vitriol, and the most desperate of our immigrants had their children snatched. That is just it, we quit treating them as our immigrants, as one of us, like us, of us, and treated every single one as illegal. Entire droves walk out of the small town meat packing plant, pass the bar with all white patrons and neither group talks to the other, cynical ships in the night.
Biden used the word major: So What. Park some NATO troops there and call it a day. Why are we even discussing this? Putin is a dog. Dogs only understand the boot (don't give him the actual boot, make him earn it).
BIDEN'S BIGGEST MISTAKE IS SPEAKING FOR 2 HOURS WITH NO MESSAGE. What are they for? The President of Gafs and Zingers asked a question? A country with half its population not above a 7th grade reading level, and you ask us to think? Tell me what they are Joe! Make it truthful but tell me! They are the Pretenders. Make a cartoon out of these clowns, literally, The G.O.P. is P.O.P. The Party of Pretenders. Pretend Climate Change doesn't exist. Pretend Covid isn't a threat. Pretend Guns don't kill people. Pretend Urban cops aren't undertrained and overworked. Pretend school curriculum isn't outdated. Pretend homelessness is criminal and is from socialist choices, not capitalist greed. Pretend the election was rigged. Pretend there was no Sedition. Pretend there are not White Nationalist in your midst. Pretend you are not Fascist. Pretend you are a millionaire from care and not greed. Pretend we don't need a child tax credit. Pretend the XL pipeline was good idea. Pretend politics doesn't matter. P.O.P.
1) Overcoming determined opposition for opposition's sake is not something that is overcome with skill. I don't care how skillful a politician you are.
2) We have gone from an occasional politics where politicians would sometimes cooperate to legislate necessary or desirable things to a politics where negotiation and compromise do not actually happen in the vast majority of cases. There is no desire for it, there is no real attempt at it. Our institutions and politics do not actually reward it.. especially on the Right.
3) The Right is basically uninterested in change. There is no real upside for a Rightist politician to actually change things. Taking any action other than obstruction will, by and large, be punished during the primary. Gotta win a primary to win the general.
4) Buckley characterized Conservatism as standing in the path of history and yelling STOP. This is, indeed, the essence of conservatism. The only problem is that history does not stop... and as it continues to change (usually to the detriment of the people yelling stop, which is why they were yelling stop ITFP) the resistance becomes more extreme, the anger becomes more extreme, the actions taken become more extreme. Conservatism turns to reaction--we are no longer yelling stop, we are trying to reverse history.
4a) This is why conservatism usually finds itself allied with the less savory things in a nation. This is why American conservatism finds itself mired in racism and sexism, in systematic mistreatment of minorities, of the persecution of the different. In the "good old days" we didn't have any of these problems with women or with those other people--because we made sure that nothing was heard from them and that they had little or no power, no voice, that they got stepped on when they got out of line. Those sentiments are still alive and well.
5) I am hard pressed to find anything good in conservatism--in ANY form of it. I have NEVER identified as conservative and never will. It is often an evil we must put up with.
There is NOTHING uniquely conservative about fiscal probity. It is a general characteristic of the smart and sane. There is nothing inherently conservative about supporting reasonable and strong national defense. It is merely smart and sane.
Are there things from the past that should be "conserved?" If you can come up with a smart and sane reason for it, I am all ears. Because we always did it that way doesn't fall into that category. Because I like it doesn't fall into that category. because it makes ME richer and more powerful also does not fall into that category... but those are usually the reasons put forward... or variations thereof.
I am reminded of that because of the sign I saw on the TV broadcast during the filibuster bit yesterday that said: The US Senate has NEVER been able to end debate on simple majority vote.
Guess what, that ISN'T actually an argument. That is a historical observation (and I am not even sure it is actually accurate--and it doesn't matter). That says nothing other than this is what we did.. It may have been good or bad. It may have worked or not... but those are actual (and different) arguments.
That was the way things worked... and my response is, so what? What kind of policies did it result in? Oh wait, we had an actual Civil War, we had Jim Crow. We had the monstrosities of the Gilded Age, the mistreatment of workers, the use of federal troops to put down labor unrest and crush labor movements. Monopolies. Credit Mobilier. Good times!
If you think the past was a Golden Age you do not know the past... or you are a member of a group that that past privileged.
I believe in the basic principles of America. Reasonable personal freedom, freedom of conscience, Republican government (meaning a form of government that is legitimate, that respects the general will of the people, that they participate in, but that works to avoid the transient desires of the mob).
Kind of late to the party here, but that was one hell of a rant. As in a pretty damned good one.
You know, I've never been a Republican or Democrat. Thought I was a bit more grounded slightly right of center rather than left, but that's shot to hell now. Guess that was because I looked at "conservatism" as what I wanted it to be (a counterbalance against excess, a moderating force against unwise and unuseful change) as opposed to what it really was, or at least what it's turned out to be.
Just as I've never been a R or a D, I never thought of myself as a Conservative (the above notwithstanding), a Liberal or a Progressive either. I suppose the problem is I'm just not all that ideological, beyond believing this country should exist as a republic and should be governed by truly democratically elected representatives of its citizens. Guess you'd better throw in that thing in our founding document about inalienable rights and all men being created equal as well. So, it's always been hard for me to "label" myself beyond simply "American." And there are times these days even that feels a bit off as well, since I find myself wondering if I'm not looking at the meaning of that word through the same rose-colored glasses as those I once viewed "conservatism" through. With all the division and fracturing and the abundance of disrespect and outright hatefulness that Americans hold for and show each other these days, it's sometimes kind of hard to figure what an "American" is, or what being one really is.
I ended up here at the B a little over a year ago because if nothing else, I was - and am - a Never Trumper. Hell, I was that before the term was ever coined. Found myself in what seemed to be some pretty good company, so I'm still here. And what you wrote here is part of why I expect to be staying for a while. I don't agree with absolutely every word, but most of it resonates. And though I know nothing of you personally, I've read a lot of what I've seen you write here in the comments, and you don't strike me as the type who would happily slit my throat (either metaphorically or IRL) simply because I might disagree with you about something. And that helps as I contemplate that meaning of the word American.
Props for what you did here. It obviously took some serious effort.
So we should just give up? I agree, it is mucked up, but the 1st thing we need is to clean the muck out. Then get people in who do know how to compromise and make deals. Of course, I am assuming there are people like that somewhere. I'm not sure. Living in Maryland, I suspect Hogan isn't one of those people. We'll see if he decides to run for Senate. I don't know that he would get my vote.
I think the gist of what I have said in the above piece is that if you are going to give something up, give up being a conservative. Be sane and thoughtful and not tied to something because... the past.
As far as the political situation goes... what, exactly are you going to do? What do you think is going to be effective rather than something that just makes you THINK you are making a difference. Do that thing.
Most of these politicians apparently are NOT listening to a majority of Americans. Neither is the media. They certainly do not vote or behave like they are... because there is nothing in it for them.
It took a long time to get to where we are now. There is no quick fix. I am not sure there IS a fix at all... not without change on a scale that is simply not realistic. Not by doing the same regular things. Not by pretending that politics (as it is now) is normal or acceptable).
Systemic inertia and incentives that reward bad actions are difficult to overcome. How do you clean the muck out? People keep re-electing it... or electing the same thing with a different name and face (but same results).
I honestly have no idea of how to fix things, of what action to take or what is actually possible. I can see what needs to be changed. I can see what is wrong... but I see no realistic path to it.
I vote (and yet I live in MAGA central in rural Nevada, so I never get what I want--what I want won't even bother to run because it has zero chance at getting elected). I donate money to worthwhile charitable causes and to organizations and politicians that I think are doing or trying to do the right things. I talk to people (when it is safe to do so). I do the small things that I can...
In the end, I think it becomes an issue of doing the right thing regardless of the outcome... if only so you can look at yourself in the mirror at the end of the day.
The only way to defeat it, IMHO, is a broad coalition of Americans banding together, regardless of party or political bent to organize as a voting block with a platform of those things you listed. Not a new party, per se, but like Represent Us (which I support and belong to).
The problem is that far too many Americans (as is usual in cases of societal/political collapse) downplay the seriousness and immediacy of the situation. Many of us want to pretend that things are normal (or nearly so, as much as they can be in the midst of a pandemic).
We do this with COVID.
We do this with politics.
We do this with the economy.
The general thought seems to be that if we stick our fingers in our ears and hum really loud, all this crap will take care of itself. That none of this is our fault and that we bear no responsibility for it or for fixing it.
These are the people that vote purely on the basis of identity and of how things are going for them at this moment. These are the people digging the grave of the Republic.
Can it be done? I think it potentially could. Things like the Bulwark are the beginning of that path, but they need wider buy in and higher visibility. Do we have the time to do that? I am not sure we do.
It is perilous to judge the people of the past, but it is necessary to judge the actions of the past and their results.
People are the products of their time and of their culture. To judge them harshly for being those things is not something that we should do--with the understanding that we CAN look at them and say that we should not be doing what they did.
If our goal is to realize the principles that I have called American (and all might not agree on those things, but that is something that can be discussed) we have to look at the past and determine what best served those goals--and build on those things. And determine what doesn't serve those ends and get rid of it.
You HAVE to be willing to get rid of things. Even things that you like or love.
In order to do that, however, we need to have a clear understanding of goals and an actual desire to attain them, even at a personal cost. I think people, as individuals, can do this. I am not so sure a government or a culture at large can do that.
Another difficult is that the past (like the future, as Yoda said) is difficult to see because it is always in motion, always being constructed and reconstructed in the eyes of the present.
There is now a strong argument against term limits for federal judges.
As Don Gates put it in another comment "I can only imagine Trump's rage at the three "disloyal" Justices he appointed to SCOTUS."
If any federally appointed judge handling an issue dear to the heart of the person who appointed him/her knew that (s)he was up for re-election, how many would recuse themselves? Even if (s)he did, would that merely postpone a decision, potentially kicking the can down the road long enough for POTUS to do a work-around on what the issue is? Only if term limits were long enough for sensible judicial work, and coupled with a no-run-again clause could they be effective.
I give no credence to polls. I have lived at the same address and had the same phone number since 1994. Guess how many times I have been polled? Zero. Who are they polling? Is it the same cast of characters? For all these polls that are being done coming up with similar results can beg the question of which database are they using to conduct these polls. If this is supposed to be a cross section of America, it seems to me relying on a few thousand is ludicrous.
I have been polled once. In September 2015 the Quinnipiac Poll called me and asked whom I preferred to be the 2016 Democratic nominee. I told them Joe Biden. Biden would have defeated Trump and spared us the catastrophe.
I give credence to polls within the limits of the polls (and to understand the limits you needs to know the methodology). This is because I actually understand the polls and the math behind them. A properly constructed and verified poll can be quite useful and informative.
A lot of these polls that are constantly touted are garbage-ish. Some few are actually good.
I see The Bulwark's political project as (1) trying to move enough center-right voters to the Democratic coalition that Trumpism fades in viability and (2) trying to use Bulwark writer's more intimate knowledge of center-right voters to advise the Democratic Party on how these voters might be reached. So my preference would be a Peter Wehner type figure who understands religiously-serious people.
I don't think it is stupid to primary Sinema. She doesn't represent most Democrats in Arizona. Emily's List is threatening to revoke their support. She has betrayed the people who voted for her. Let's remember that she even voted not to increase the minimum wage!
I agree. Manchin and Sinema do not represent the same state, nor the same population. In my small group, Republicans don’t like her because she is a Dem. Dems don’t like her because she is a dope. She is trying to play to the wrong middle here.
I could definitely see Sinema switching parties. Except that she would lose a Republican primary badly and she knows that. Name any Arizona Republican since Barry Goldwater who defied the Religious Right and survived. In addition she is openly bisexual which drives the far right even more nuts.
The key is winning in PA and somewhere else so Sinema and Manchin don't matter. It's odd that The Dems still have anti-Black racists like them in the coalition, but they still exist
"This poll would have to be described as bleak, discouraging and TRULY TERRIBLE" says Republican pollster who was probably quite silent when Trump polled 2 points lower than Biden at his one year anniversary. Granted, this is not good, but the hyperbole and handwringing is ridiculous. Obama was just marginally better at one year, yet had no problem with winning a second term 3 years later. Not that I think Biden should run for a second term, but this is not the death sentence both sides act like it is.
I think Biden's prospects are largely dependent on the course of Covid. If Covid fades quickly. inflation likely ticks down, and the good economic news may dominate the headlines. Putin's shenanigans are a big wildcard.
The problem with the Obama comparison is Democrats lost about 60 seats in the 2010 midterm, and the midterm is nigh. Republicans got wiped out in the House in 2018. We really don't want a 2010 style bloodbath in the House.
It is possible that Dems could suffer a Wipeout in the House and yet gain seats in the Senate. Republicans are set to nominate absolute nutjobs in PA and OH and the Democrats have strong candidates with broad appeal in those two states.
This is true, and Biden's low approval will definitely have an impact in the midterms. I am just exasperated by the overwhelming, week by week coverage Might as well get a skywriter to emphasis it so much that it makes an even larger impact than it normally would.
The Supreme Court is in a pretty dismal place, isn't it?
We've got mask-gate (or maybe not), with Gorsuch allegedly refusing to mask up around Sotomayor, a scandal bad enough - and real enough - to merit a non-denial denial followed by an actual denial.
We've got three Trump-appointed justices who seem to go off the reservation every once in awhile, but oddly enough, still stand up to the guy who appointed them (phew).
Then we've got Clarence Thomas, whose conflicts of interest and judicial philosophy are a huge stain on the court unto their own. In my fantasy world where Democrats had a 67-seat majority, he'd be the first I impeach and replace.
Sanders is clearly that stupid to support a primary challenge to Manchin. Wish he wasn’t that obtuse-but, it is what it is. He should be sending flowers to Manchin thanking him for being a Democrat- the only one that could possibly win in WVa. The Republicans must be giddy to have Sanders spouting his nonsense.
There were primary challenges to Manchin in both 2010 and 2018. In 2010 the challenger was the late Ken Hechler, who had won nine elections to the US House of Representatives and four statewide elections as WV Secretary of State. (Manchin was Hechler's successor as SoS.) Hechler got 17% of the primary vote. In 2018 the challenger was Paula Jean Swearengin, who got 30% of the primary vote. Swearengin was the Democratic nominee in the 2020 general election against Shelley Moore Capito, getting only 27% of the general election vote in spite of endorsements from Bernie Sanders, Ed Markey, Nina Turner, Cori Bush, Andrew Yang, and Marianne Williamson.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and wondering why you get the same negative result. Sanders is insane.
Does anyone really take Bernie Sanders' advice about candidates running in primaries? I mean, I have seen him sponsor or recommend candidates that voters have mostly ignored. I mean, he hasn't won a Democratic primary, I don't know why people believe he is so influential.
At least Sanders has won a lot of elections (17, to be exact) in what had been the most Republican state in the US. But he hasn't come up with a way to clone that success with any other leftist. Bernie sounds good and is charismatic -- until people realize that he is a one trick pony and has terrible political instincts that were exposed as fatal in the 2016 New York Primary.
Then there are people like Nina Turner who became the guru of the nutty far left in terms of how to win elections after losing her one bid for statewide office by 24 points to a far right Republican. She still is worshipped by the left even after losing a congressional primary to a candidate who had half as much money. And they blame Israel.
I would like to give you the opportunity to clean up some of your mess from yesterdays podcast (or not).
Will talked about his thoughts that Biden was losing his ability and you seemed to agree and talked about how you didn't really believe the R talking points during the election and now you are wondering. Will, after your "agreement", came back and clarified he did not mean what you were agreeing to and simply meant Biden is losing his communication ability to broadcast his decision making process. You never accepted his second point and seemed to hold on your original "agreement".
I hope you clean this up and stop the disgusting attacks on Biden's "cognitive decline". You are better than this - even if you disagree 100% on policy and his methods, going this route is dangerous and simply wrong.
What we forget is that Biden has always been a lousy public speaker. I see no sign of cognitive decline; I've watched some of his speeches from when he was in his 30s and 40s.
When you are in a state with three electoral votes you can meet a large fraction of the voters and that is where Biden shines as a campaigner. He didn't get to do that at all in 2020.
There's something about being President that - go figure - makes you think the people who disagree with you are just... wrong.
Especially if you owe your presidency to this guy:
*Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., on Sunday asked his colleagues in the Senate who are set to vote on voting rights legislation Tuesday: "Which side are you on?" referencing the iconic union organizing song often sung during the civil rights era....
Clyburn told Raddatz he would support overhauling the Electoral Count Act but thinks voting rights is a more pressing issue given the immediacy of the 2022 midterm elections....
Raddatz pressed. "Senator Dick Durbin said he took it 'a little too far' by comparing current voting restrictions to Jim Crow. Mitch McConnell called Biden 'profoundly unpresidential' for this divisive language. So, was that fierce tone counterproductive?"
Clyburn responded, "Absolutely not. I disagree with both of those statements. I know Dick; I like Dick a whole lot. But let me tell you something, that was what Jim Crow was all about...."
Thirty-four new laws that restrict voting rights have been enacted in 19 states across the country in 2021, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
"These are Jim Crow 2.0. That is one of the strongest points of the president's speech that I agree with," he added....
Where will Biden be if he throws his most loyal, pivotal constituency under the bus? Or should I say, makes them sit at the back of the bus? Even if it's not actually a bus, they're not going to sit at the back, and the whole analogy is objectively absurd and even trivializes what it supposedly evokes?
Is the base really clamoring for "stuff" though? Seems to me they're much more animated by the fights: CRT, demon-rat child eating pedophiles, anti-mask/vaxxers, etc. An R "cooperating" with Democrats gets crushed in primaries by Cletus von Ivermectin..
The base is here for the fights. for the entertainment, for the performance art. The GoP understands this quite well. These people would vote themselves into slavery if they thought it would put one over on the Libs 9and they are working towards that now).
They think that government isn't doing the right thing if it isn't hurting the right people.
I can only imagine Trump's rage at the three "disloyal" Justices he appointed to SCOTUS. There is a perception, based on high-profile cases, that the SCOTUS is hopelessly tainted and politicized by partisan ideology, and no doubt Trump bought into this himself. And, while the court is not entirely apolitical, it's not as bad as the public imagines, as the vast majority of decisions, the ones no one hears about, are unanimous or close to it, and they always have been.
As far as Biden's shock at the general recalcitrance of the GOP when it comes to getting anything done, I know he was Vice President during Obama's two terms, and nothing he's seeing now is worse than it was then. Which makes me wonder, when Obama was having his own issues with the GOP and getting a legislative agenda passed, did Biden secretly think the problem was that Obama was too incompetent to overcome the partisanship? I'm just trying to understand how he can preside over the Senate for 8 years, see how things went with Obama, and see the same stuff now and be surprised. Really, considering the Senate passed the infrastructure bill, Biden is seeing a less recalcitrant GOP than Obama had to deal with.
Hmmm I think Biden's characterization of Republicans is mostly for the disinterested political observer, and not a real reflection of his beliefs. There's a reason they barely bothered to stop and ask Republicans what they wanted out of the American Rescue Plan.
First on the politicization of the Supreme Court: I'm not sure that this decision is evidence that the Court is not that politicized. I have to believe that the Republican appointees, except Thomas, are more in line with the thinking of figures like McConnell that the party would be better off if Trump was gone. I think the decision correct on legal grounds. But the cynic may well note that the right thing aligned with party interest in this case.
Second, I doubt Biden's surprise at the recalcitrance of the GOP is real. I think he's just trying to set up the narrative that he gave the GOP every chance to be a constructive partner in governing and the GOP, at every turn except infrastructure was nothing but obstructionist.
I stand corrected, lol
lol, of course Clarence Thomas Seditionist wife forced him to be the only dissent: I believe every word of his accuser of sexual malfeseance then and now even more, disgraceful!
I love you Mona, but inflation is because workers at McDonalds went from $10 to $15 in one year: If you give everybody $10,000, the only thing that happens is bananas go from $1 to $5. If small business owners kept up with wage increases. Then the problem would not have gotten out of hand. This was bound to happen, covid just exposed its immediacy.
You will not get legal immigration back so easy: We ran them out in entire communities because the rural areas where they work have treated them with disdain and disgust, our policies treated them with outright vitriol, and the most desperate of our immigrants had their children snatched. That is just it, we quit treating them as our immigrants, as one of us, like us, of us, and treated every single one as illegal. Entire droves walk out of the small town meat packing plant, pass the bar with all white patrons and neither group talks to the other, cynical ships in the night.
Biden used the word major: So What. Park some NATO troops there and call it a day. Why are we even discussing this? Putin is a dog. Dogs only understand the boot (don't give him the actual boot, make him earn it).
BIDEN'S BIGGEST MISTAKE IS SPEAKING FOR 2 HOURS WITH NO MESSAGE. What are they for? The President of Gafs and Zingers asked a question? A country with half its population not above a 7th grade reading level, and you ask us to think? Tell me what they are Joe! Make it truthful but tell me! They are the Pretenders. Make a cartoon out of these clowns, literally, The G.O.P. is P.O.P. The Party of Pretenders. Pretend Climate Change doesn't exist. Pretend Covid isn't a threat. Pretend Guns don't kill people. Pretend Urban cops aren't undertrained and overworked. Pretend school curriculum isn't outdated. Pretend homelessness is criminal and is from socialist choices, not capitalist greed. Pretend the election was rigged. Pretend there was no Sedition. Pretend there are not White Nationalist in your midst. Pretend you are not Fascist. Pretend you are a millionaire from care and not greed. Pretend we don't need a child tax credit. Pretend the XL pipeline was good idea. Pretend politics doesn't matter. P.O.P.
Needs another "O" . . . Party of Outrageous Pretenders: P.O.O.P.
1) Overcoming determined opposition for opposition's sake is not something that is overcome with skill. I don't care how skillful a politician you are.
2) We have gone from an occasional politics where politicians would sometimes cooperate to legislate necessary or desirable things to a politics where negotiation and compromise do not actually happen in the vast majority of cases. There is no desire for it, there is no real attempt at it. Our institutions and politics do not actually reward it.. especially on the Right.
3) The Right is basically uninterested in change. There is no real upside for a Rightist politician to actually change things. Taking any action other than obstruction will, by and large, be punished during the primary. Gotta win a primary to win the general.
4) Buckley characterized Conservatism as standing in the path of history and yelling STOP. This is, indeed, the essence of conservatism. The only problem is that history does not stop... and as it continues to change (usually to the detriment of the people yelling stop, which is why they were yelling stop ITFP) the resistance becomes more extreme, the anger becomes more extreme, the actions taken become more extreme. Conservatism turns to reaction--we are no longer yelling stop, we are trying to reverse history.
4a) This is why conservatism usually finds itself allied with the less savory things in a nation. This is why American conservatism finds itself mired in racism and sexism, in systematic mistreatment of minorities, of the persecution of the different. In the "good old days" we didn't have any of these problems with women or with those other people--because we made sure that nothing was heard from them and that they had little or no power, no voice, that they got stepped on when they got out of line. Those sentiments are still alive and well.
5) I am hard pressed to find anything good in conservatism--in ANY form of it. I have NEVER identified as conservative and never will. It is often an evil we must put up with.
There is NOTHING uniquely conservative about fiscal probity. It is a general characteristic of the smart and sane. There is nothing inherently conservative about supporting reasonable and strong national defense. It is merely smart and sane.
Are there things from the past that should be "conserved?" If you can come up with a smart and sane reason for it, I am all ears. Because we always did it that way doesn't fall into that category. Because I like it doesn't fall into that category. because it makes ME richer and more powerful also does not fall into that category... but those are usually the reasons put forward... or variations thereof.
I am reminded of that because of the sign I saw on the TV broadcast during the filibuster bit yesterday that said: The US Senate has NEVER been able to end debate on simple majority vote.
Guess what, that ISN'T actually an argument. That is a historical observation (and I am not even sure it is actually accurate--and it doesn't matter). That says nothing other than this is what we did.. It may have been good or bad. It may have worked or not... but those are actual (and different) arguments.
That was the way things worked... and my response is, so what? What kind of policies did it result in? Oh wait, we had an actual Civil War, we had Jim Crow. We had the monstrosities of the Gilded Age, the mistreatment of workers, the use of federal troops to put down labor unrest and crush labor movements. Monopolies. Credit Mobilier. Good times!
If you think the past was a Golden Age you do not know the past... or you are a member of a group that that past privileged.
I believe in the basic principles of America. Reasonable personal freedom, freedom of conscience, Republican government (meaning a form of government that is legitimate, that respects the general will of the people, that they participate in, but that works to avoid the transient desires of the mob).
NONE of this is inherently conservative.
Sorry for the rant.
Kind of late to the party here, but that was one hell of a rant. As in a pretty damned good one.
You know, I've never been a Republican or Democrat. Thought I was a bit more grounded slightly right of center rather than left, but that's shot to hell now. Guess that was because I looked at "conservatism" as what I wanted it to be (a counterbalance against excess, a moderating force against unwise and unuseful change) as opposed to what it really was, or at least what it's turned out to be.
Just as I've never been a R or a D, I never thought of myself as a Conservative (the above notwithstanding), a Liberal or a Progressive either. I suppose the problem is I'm just not all that ideological, beyond believing this country should exist as a republic and should be governed by truly democratically elected representatives of its citizens. Guess you'd better throw in that thing in our founding document about inalienable rights and all men being created equal as well. So, it's always been hard for me to "label" myself beyond simply "American." And there are times these days even that feels a bit off as well, since I find myself wondering if I'm not looking at the meaning of that word through the same rose-colored glasses as those I once viewed "conservatism" through. With all the division and fracturing and the abundance of disrespect and outright hatefulness that Americans hold for and show each other these days, it's sometimes kind of hard to figure what an "American" is, or what being one really is.
I ended up here at the B a little over a year ago because if nothing else, I was - and am - a Never Trumper. Hell, I was that before the term was ever coined. Found myself in what seemed to be some pretty good company, so I'm still here. And what you wrote here is part of why I expect to be staying for a while. I don't agree with absolutely every word, but most of it resonates. And though I know nothing of you personally, I've read a lot of what I've seen you write here in the comments, and you don't strike me as the type who would happily slit my throat (either metaphorically or IRL) simply because I might disagree with you about something. And that helps as I contemplate that meaning of the word American.
Props for what you did here. It obviously took some serious effort.
Well ranted. Now that you've made your platform clear what are you running for?
Well, if Trump is re-elected in 2024, I will most likely be running for the Canadian border.
You'll probably have a lot of company.
So we should just give up? I agree, it is mucked up, but the 1st thing we need is to clean the muck out. Then get people in who do know how to compromise and make deals. Of course, I am assuming there are people like that somewhere. I'm not sure. Living in Maryland, I suspect Hogan isn't one of those people. We'll see if he decides to run for Senate. I don't know that he would get my vote.
I think the gist of what I have said in the above piece is that if you are going to give something up, give up being a conservative. Be sane and thoughtful and not tied to something because... the past.
As far as the political situation goes... what, exactly are you going to do? What do you think is going to be effective rather than something that just makes you THINK you are making a difference. Do that thing.
Most of these politicians apparently are NOT listening to a majority of Americans. Neither is the media. They certainly do not vote or behave like they are... because there is nothing in it for them.
It took a long time to get to where we are now. There is no quick fix. I am not sure there IS a fix at all... not without change on a scale that is simply not realistic. Not by doing the same regular things. Not by pretending that politics (as it is now) is normal or acceptable).
Systemic inertia and incentives that reward bad actions are difficult to overcome. How do you clean the muck out? People keep re-electing it... or electing the same thing with a different name and face (but same results).
I honestly have no idea of how to fix things, of what action to take or what is actually possible. I can see what needs to be changed. I can see what is wrong... but I see no realistic path to it.
I vote (and yet I live in MAGA central in rural Nevada, so I never get what I want--what I want won't even bother to run because it has zero chance at getting elected). I donate money to worthwhile charitable causes and to organizations and politicians that I think are doing or trying to do the right things. I talk to people (when it is safe to do so). I do the small things that I can...
In the end, I think it becomes an issue of doing the right thing regardless of the outcome... if only so you can look at yourself in the mirror at the end of the day.
The only way to defeat it, IMHO, is a broad coalition of Americans banding together, regardless of party or political bent to organize as a voting block with a platform of those things you listed. Not a new party, per se, but like Represent Us (which I support and belong to).
The problem is that far too many Americans (as is usual in cases of societal/political collapse) downplay the seriousness and immediacy of the situation. Many of us want to pretend that things are normal (or nearly so, as much as they can be in the midst of a pandemic).
We do this with COVID.
We do this with politics.
We do this with the economy.
The general thought seems to be that if we stick our fingers in our ears and hum really loud, all this crap will take care of itself. That none of this is our fault and that we bear no responsibility for it or for fixing it.
These are the people that vote purely on the basis of identity and of how things are going for them at this moment. These are the people digging the grave of the Republic.
Can it be done? I think it potentially could. Things like the Bulwark are the beginning of that path, but they need wider buy in and higher visibility. Do we have the time to do that? I am not sure we do.
It is perilous to judge the people of the past, but it is necessary to judge the actions of the past and their results.
People are the products of their time and of their culture. To judge them harshly for being those things is not something that we should do--with the understanding that we CAN look at them and say that we should not be doing what they did.
If our goal is to realize the principles that I have called American (and all might not agree on those things, but that is something that can be discussed) we have to look at the past and determine what best served those goals--and build on those things. And determine what doesn't serve those ends and get rid of it.
You HAVE to be willing to get rid of things. Even things that you like or love.
In order to do that, however, we need to have a clear understanding of goals and an actual desire to attain them, even at a personal cost. I think people, as individuals, can do this. I am not so sure a government or a culture at large can do that.
Another difficult is that the past (like the future, as Yoda said) is difficult to see because it is always in motion, always being constructed and reconstructed in the eyes of the present.
There is now a strong argument against term limits for federal judges.
As Don Gates put it in another comment "I can only imagine Trump's rage at the three "disloyal" Justices he appointed to SCOTUS."
If any federally appointed judge handling an issue dear to the heart of the person who appointed him/her knew that (s)he was up for re-election, how many would recuse themselves? Even if (s)he did, would that merely postpone a decision, potentially kicking the can down the road long enough for POTUS to do a work-around on what the issue is? Only if term limits were long enough for sensible judicial work, and coupled with a no-run-again clause could they be effective.
I give no credence to polls. I have lived at the same address and had the same phone number since 1994. Guess how many times I have been polled? Zero. Who are they polling? Is it the same cast of characters? For all these polls that are being done coming up with similar results can beg the question of which database are they using to conduct these polls. If this is supposed to be a cross section of America, it seems to me relying on a few thousand is ludicrous.
I have been polled once. In September 2015 the Quinnipiac Poll called me and asked whom I preferred to be the 2016 Democratic nominee. I told them Joe Biden. Biden would have defeated Trump and spared us the catastrophe.
I give credence to polls within the limits of the polls (and to understand the limits you needs to know the methodology). This is because I actually understand the polls and the math behind them. A properly constructed and verified poll can be quite useful and informative.
A lot of these polls that are constantly touted are garbage-ish. Some few are actually good.
I'm happy to hear that Will Saletan will be joining The Bulwark. Congratulations!
Could you look for a non-white center-left person next? I think having a non-white perspective here would be nice.
I see The Bulwark's political project as (1) trying to move enough center-right voters to the Democratic coalition that Trumpism fades in viability and (2) trying to use Bulwark writer's more intimate knowledge of center-right voters to advise the Democratic Party on how these voters might be reached. So my preference would be a Peter Wehner type figure who understands religiously-serious people.
I don't think it is stupid to primary Sinema. She doesn't represent most Democrats in Arizona. Emily's List is threatening to revoke their support. She has betrayed the people who voted for her. Let's remember that she even voted not to increase the minimum wage!
I agree. Manchin and Sinema do not represent the same state, nor the same population. In my small group, Republicans don’t like her because she is a Dem. Dems don’t like her because she is a dope. She is trying to play to the wrong middle here.
I could definitely see Sinema switching parties. Except that she would lose a Republican primary badly and she knows that. Name any Arizona Republican since Barry Goldwater who defied the Religious Right and survived. In addition she is openly bisexual which drives the far right even more nuts.
The key is winning in PA and somewhere else so Sinema and Manchin don't matter. It's odd that The Dems still have anti-Black racists like them in the coalition, but they still exist
So, the GA leg can overturn elections and that's fine with Charlie?
"This poll would have to be described as bleak, discouraging and TRULY TERRIBLE" says Republican pollster who was probably quite silent when Trump polled 2 points lower than Biden at his one year anniversary. Granted, this is not good, but the hyperbole and handwringing is ridiculous. Obama was just marginally better at one year, yet had no problem with winning a second term 3 years later. Not that I think Biden should run for a second term, but this is not the death sentence both sides act like it is.
I think Biden's prospects are largely dependent on the course of Covid. If Covid fades quickly. inflation likely ticks down, and the good economic news may dominate the headlines. Putin's shenanigans are a big wildcard.
Agree. There are so many unprecendented unknowns right now that I just think it is premature to be obsessing about this.
The problem with the Obama comparison is Democrats lost about 60 seats in the 2010 midterm, and the midterm is nigh. Republicans got wiped out in the House in 2018. We really don't want a 2010 style bloodbath in the House.
It is possible that Dems could suffer a Wipeout in the House and yet gain seats in the Senate. Republicans are set to nominate absolute nutjobs in PA and OH and the Democrats have strong candidates with broad appeal in those two states.
And in GA. Let’s hope they don’t take over the Senate with the likes of Oz, Walker, and Mandel.
This is true, and Biden's low approval will definitely have an impact in the midterms. I am just exasperated by the overwhelming, week by week coverage Might as well get a skywriter to emphasis it so much that it makes an even larger impact than it normally would.
The Supreme Court is in a pretty dismal place, isn't it?
We've got mask-gate (or maybe not), with Gorsuch allegedly refusing to mask up around Sotomayor, a scandal bad enough - and real enough - to merit a non-denial denial followed by an actual denial.
We've got three Trump-appointed justices who seem to go off the reservation every once in awhile, but oddly enough, still stand up to the guy who appointed them (phew).
Then we've got Clarence Thomas, whose conflicts of interest and judicial philosophy are a huge stain on the court unto their own. In my fantasy world where Democrats had a 67-seat majority, he'd be the first I impeach and replace.
Sanders is clearly that stupid to support a primary challenge to Manchin. Wish he wasn’t that obtuse-but, it is what it is. He should be sending flowers to Manchin thanking him for being a Democrat- the only one that could possibly win in WVa. The Republicans must be giddy to have Sanders spouting his nonsense.
There were primary challenges to Manchin in both 2010 and 2018. In 2010 the challenger was the late Ken Hechler, who had won nine elections to the US House of Representatives and four statewide elections as WV Secretary of State. (Manchin was Hechler's successor as SoS.) Hechler got 17% of the primary vote. In 2018 the challenger was Paula Jean Swearengin, who got 30% of the primary vote. Swearengin was the Democratic nominee in the 2020 general election against Shelley Moore Capito, getting only 27% of the general election vote in spite of endorsements from Bernie Sanders, Ed Markey, Nina Turner, Cori Bush, Andrew Yang, and Marianne Williamson.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and wondering why you get the same negative result. Sanders is insane.
Does anyone really take Bernie Sanders' advice about candidates running in primaries? I mean, I have seen him sponsor or recommend candidates that voters have mostly ignored. I mean, he hasn't won a Democratic primary, I don't know why people believe he is so influential.
At least Sanders has won a lot of elections (17, to be exact) in what had been the most Republican state in the US. But he hasn't come up with a way to clone that success with any other leftist. Bernie sounds good and is charismatic -- until people realize that he is a one trick pony and has terrible political instincts that were exposed as fatal in the 2016 New York Primary.
Then there are people like Nina Turner who became the guru of the nutty far left in terms of how to win elections after losing her one bid for statewide office by 24 points to a far right Republican. She still is worshipped by the left even after losing a congressional primary to a candidate who had half as much money. And they blame Israel.
St. Bernard can run off into the sunset. I'm so sick of him and his hangers-on. His candidates can't win the elections that matter.
Charlie,
I would like to give you the opportunity to clean up some of your mess from yesterdays podcast (or not).
Will talked about his thoughts that Biden was losing his ability and you seemed to agree and talked about how you didn't really believe the R talking points during the election and now you are wondering. Will, after your "agreement", came back and clarified he did not mean what you were agreeing to and simply meant Biden is losing his communication ability to broadcast his decision making process. You never accepted his second point and seemed to hold on your original "agreement".
I hope you clean this up and stop the disgusting attacks on Biden's "cognitive decline". You are better than this - even if you disagree 100% on policy and his methods, going this route is dangerous and simply wrong.
What we forget is that Biden has always been a lousy public speaker. I see no sign of cognitive decline; I've watched some of his speeches from when he was in his 30s and 40s.
When you are in a state with three electoral votes you can meet a large fraction of the voters and that is where Biden shines as a campaigner. He didn't get to do that at all in 2020.
Just asking questions.
There's something about being President that - go figure - makes you think the people who disagree with you are just... wrong.
Especially if you owe your presidency to this guy:
*Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., on Sunday asked his colleagues in the Senate who are set to vote on voting rights legislation Tuesday: "Which side are you on?" referencing the iconic union organizing song often sung during the civil rights era....
Clyburn told Raddatz he would support overhauling the Electoral Count Act but thinks voting rights is a more pressing issue given the immediacy of the 2022 midterm elections....
Raddatz pressed. "Senator Dick Durbin said he took it 'a little too far' by comparing current voting restrictions to Jim Crow. Mitch McConnell called Biden 'profoundly unpresidential' for this divisive language. So, was that fierce tone counterproductive?"
Clyburn responded, "Absolutely not. I disagree with both of those statements. I know Dick; I like Dick a whole lot. But let me tell you something, that was what Jim Crow was all about...."
Thirty-four new laws that restrict voting rights have been enacted in 19 states across the country in 2021, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
"These are Jim Crow 2.0. That is one of the strongest points of the president's speech that I agree with," he added....
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clyburn-asks-senators-side-voting-rights-legislation/story?id=82284155
Where will Biden be if he throws his most loyal, pivotal constituency under the bus? Or should I say, makes them sit at the back of the bus? Even if it's not actually a bus, they're not going to sit at the back, and the whole analogy is objectively absurd and even trivializes what it supposedly evokes?
"If Biden been more skilled ...."
There are no 'skills' that any human has that will work with a Trumpified GOP. None. After all this time, its delusional to think so.
Here's one thought, though. If he can't win their participation - maybe he could buy it? Bring back earmarks....??
Is the base really clamoring for "stuff" though? Seems to me they're much more animated by the fights: CRT, demon-rat child eating pedophiles, anti-mask/vaxxers, etc. An R "cooperating" with Democrats gets crushed in primaries by Cletus von Ivermectin..
The base is here for the fights. for the entertainment, for the performance art. The GoP understands this quite well. These people would vote themselves into slavery if they thought it would put one over on the Libs 9and they are working towards that now).
They think that government isn't doing the right thing if it isn't hurting the right people.
Fair point. I guess I meant more to secure co-operation of members who are already in the elected body. Horse-trading.
I can only imagine Trump's rage at the three "disloyal" Justices he appointed to SCOTUS. There is a perception, based on high-profile cases, that the SCOTUS is hopelessly tainted and politicized by partisan ideology, and no doubt Trump bought into this himself. And, while the court is not entirely apolitical, it's not as bad as the public imagines, as the vast majority of decisions, the ones no one hears about, are unanimous or close to it, and they always have been.
As far as Biden's shock at the general recalcitrance of the GOP when it comes to getting anything done, I know he was Vice President during Obama's two terms, and nothing he's seeing now is worse than it was then. Which makes me wonder, when Obama was having his own issues with the GOP and getting a legislative agenda passed, did Biden secretly think the problem was that Obama was too incompetent to overcome the partisanship? I'm just trying to understand how he can preside over the Senate for 8 years, see how things went with Obama, and see the same stuff now and be surprised. Really, considering the Senate passed the infrastructure bill, Biden is seeing a less recalcitrant GOP than Obama had to deal with.
Hmmm I think Biden's characterization of Republicans is mostly for the disinterested political observer, and not a real reflection of his beliefs. There's a reason they barely bothered to stop and ask Republicans what they wanted out of the American Rescue Plan.
First on the politicization of the Supreme Court: I'm not sure that this decision is evidence that the Court is not that politicized. I have to believe that the Republican appointees, except Thomas, are more in line with the thinking of figures like McConnell that the party would be better off if Trump was gone. I think the decision correct on legal grounds. But the cynic may well note that the right thing aligned with party interest in this case.
Second, I doubt Biden's surprise at the recalcitrance of the GOP is real. I think he's just trying to set up the narrative that he gave the GOP every chance to be a constructive partner in governing and the GOP, at every turn except infrastructure was nothing but obstructionist.