Woke is just a republican branding exercise. Like radical democrat socialists. Too many republican voters have followed the creation of a new religion called conservatism. Not all conservatives belong and intelligent people who are conservative are disgusted. It signals educated people who think they are better than you forcing acceptance of people of color, gay, trans, on society. Plays on fears. Republicans need to be in the cool group. Woke allows them to clearly show the bad vs the righteous
“The woke now control the Democratic Party, the entire federal government, the news media, academia, big tech, Hollywood, most corporate boardrooms, and now even some of our top military leaders,”
Maybe because I live overseas and don't get the daily bombardment of balderdash, but can anyone provide me with a relatively succinct definition of "woke" or "workism"? Last time I checked my Funk and Wagnalls, "woke" related to being awake, vice asleep, as in "I woke up". If as used by the semi- or completely-fascists spewing it around as an insult, that just tells me we "wokens" (as in people who are awake) are on to their efforts to remove democracy from the USA.
Woke used to mean being aware of social injustices. The right has basically taken over the term and has stripped both those words of any real meaning. "Woke" and "communism" now are essentially just slurs to tar political opponents and their ideas.
Now if you really want to dive down the rabbit hole, both those ideas are connected to the right-wing idea of "cultural Marxism". Which has its origins in the term "cultural bolshevism" an idea that came directly from Nazi thinkers.
It's funny how once you start digging, these right-wing slurs and conspiracy theories almost always trace back to segregationists, racists, or fascists.
Ok, so I've something of a bone to pick with Trump being credited with the First Step Act.
In some technical sense, one could always quibble with crediting the executive with what is actually the work of Congress. All the President actually has to do is not veto it (or explicitly sign it near the end of the Congressional term).
But often times, the legislature is fulfilling one of the President's campaign promises, which generally coincides with their party's platform. The President and his advisors may have proposed a legislative plan and/or draft legislation, and either they or their VP may have lobbied various members of Congress or twisted some arms to get it done. In this case, it's fair to call something like this an accomplishment of the President, or at least their administration.
Yet virtually none of this apples to Trump and the First Step Act. Trump ran on a platform of being "tough on crime" and appointed an AG who immediately set about seeking maximum sentences for federal cases, and attempting to overrule consent decrees negotiated by local police departments to address police misconduct. In fact, it was Trump who needed to be convinced to support the law (for which we can apparently, and surprisingly, thank Jared Kushner), as Sessions opposed it and both he and Barr were resistant to actually implementing it.
While Trump's acquiescence may have been responsible for the bill passing with veto-proof majorities, it easily had enough bipartisan support to make it a no-brainer from a political standpoint. In reality the legislation was a gift to Trump at a moment when his poll numbers were in the crapper and he was badly in need of something that the media would dutifully label "a political win", when all he really did was agree not to veto it.
Oh, but at least Trump did his part of the work to actually implement it, right? Of course not. The heart of the FSA was clemency reform, and the vast majority of clemency petitions under Trump went completely ignored. If you weren't one of his cronies in need of payback for political support or refusing to squeal on him when he was under investigation, or some high profile case being pushed by a celebrity that could be used in a campaign commercial, he wasn't interested.
And if your early release was granted by a judge based on the reformed drug-sentencing guidelines, Trump's DOJ may have been actively appealing your decision. One man had actually gotten a hug from Trump on television while his case was being appealed, only to have the appeal mysteriously dropped shortly thereafter once DOJ realized they might actually end up re-incarcerating one of Trump's political props.
Trump loves claiming credit for the FSA, and his shameless sycophants love giving it to him. The truth is that Republican sponsors of the bill were willing to give it a go once there was no longer a Democrat in office to take credit for it. Trump was the fortunate recipient of McConnell's gamesmanship, and made no good faith effort to actually do what it required of him if it didn't offer him a clear political benefit.
"The truth is that Republican sponsors of the bill were willing to give it a go once there was no longer a Democrat in office to take credit for it."
And you can be sure that if it had passed under a Democratic administration the Republicans would now be bashing all Democrats for being soft on crime and releasing criminals into the streets. As they now are doing to Barnes, Evers, and Kaul over decisions of the parole board.
Exactly. Much like how the American economy is apparently a complete wreck - except in every state where there's a Republican governor running for reelection. They just love having their cake and eating it too.
"Much like how the American economy is apparently a complete wreck - except in every state where there's a Republican governor running for reelection."
It's funny how that works, isn't it? It's almost as if they're just peddling bullshit.
I don't really believe that the man who could not run a profitable casino or who could not increase the wealth left to him to match standard market returns is actually much responsible for anything positive in his administration except to the extent that he did not actively get in the way of something.
He had a nose for the bad, self-serving stuff, I grant you... but most of that was only successful because the GoP let him get away with it.
Thanks for this explanation. It confirms what I thought was probably true: Trump really deserves no credit for The First Step Act---he was just the president who signed it after Congress passed it.
The first line of defense is to beat them electorally. So vote, organize, volunteer for campaigns, get others who agree with you to the polls, etc.
If that fails... Well, then we're sort of fucked... At that point you're looking at something from regional civil disobedience to all out civil war. Neither of which really benefit anyone.
Agree they need to be beaten at the ballot box. But I'm afraid the Dems are failing, at least in the upcoming elections this Nov. I heard a discussion of the weakness of the Dem candidate for the AZ gov - Katie Hobbs - on Tuesday's "Hacks on Tap" (https://www.hacksontap.com/episodes/the-great-pageantry-of-democracy). She won't debate her opponent. She doesn't push back against her false claims. See their back to back appearances on last Sunday's "Face the Nation." It's a close race, but I'm afraid the GOP candidate has the momentum. I blame that on the Dems - poor candidate choice and poor messaging.
These elections are gonna be a nail biter for those of us who see the current GOP as an authoritarian party. I think these election outcomes are key to stopping the authoritarian "disease" in our politics.
If the Totally-Trump-GOP takes both the House and the Senate, and key statewide races like Gov and Secty of State that can overturn elections, I don't know what can be done.
Beating them at the ballot box simple makes things worse. They already believe or want to believe that the electoral system is corrupt--it is why they are losing ITFP (that is their rationale). Beating them like a drum will simply radicalize many of them further.
This is soon going to stop being the USA you refer to. That is a thing of the past. It is either going to be the USA of MAGA or it is going to be a far more repressive version of the old USA run by whoever steps up to stop MAGA. If I was a betting man, I would be betting on MAGA for the win, because there isn't really anyone out there willing to step up to stop them--because they understand that doing so will fundamentally alter what the USA is and they cannot bring themselves to do it.
So they will lose. We will lose. Then you WILL get repression.
The extreme Left would be willing to act--but the problem is that they are more feared and hated than the extreme right. So they lack the ability to do anything because it would simply (high probability) accelerate the rush to Rightist power and repression.
The big question is why these supposedly intelligent, successful people think they have more to fear from such nebulous ideas as "critical race theory" and "wokism" than from the obvious creep of authoritarianism? In fact I'd like to hear them or anyone even explain those concepts. They
are just made up. They are the bright shiny things with which they attempt to distract folks, and keep us from seeing the developing fascism that is infiltrating every aspect of our in this country.
I'm afraid the fascists will win. I don't know what wokism is or what it has to do with anything. It's seems to be one of those nebulous words that actually means nothing but people assume its bad, assume it's the Democrats fault and non thinking people vote against their best interests so as not to be "woke"
I just completed my mail-in ballot - a straight Democratic ticket all the way. Being white, I don't think they'll toss out my ballot, but with all of the shenanigans they have pulled here in Texas, I think we'll come up short.
I'm very old, so the lurch today's GOP has taken towards semi-fascism probably won't impact me to a large degree. But how did so many in my generation go from protesting and ending a war, marching for Civil Rights, and demanding environmental protection - clean air and water - to voting for the very people who will ensure our children, grand-children and great-grandchildren will be stripped of the rights and freedoms we once fought for and won?
I'm of that generation. I have not gone from promoting those matters to voting for GOP authoritarians. I suspect that any of those from our generation who are voting for the authoritarian GOP were NEVER supporters of those matters. In fact, it's because they felt overrun by those of us who claimed the mantle of leadership on those matters, and changed the US, that they support the GOP authoritarians.
As a country, we are going through enormous structural changes. Thomas Friedman, author of "Thank You for Being Late", says those changes are technology, globalization and climate change. IMO, these pro-authoritarian Republican voters are not doing well with these changes and that is what is underneath their political behaviour and beliefs.
The hippies and protesters got headlines, everyone else was just living their lives--and there were a LOT more of those than hippies and protestors. Besides, if you think you have a good chance of having to fight in a war (like Viet Nam), chances are you are more likely to protest.
I'm right there with you - even down to the same state.
Being a Brown, I'll vote in person. Straight Dem. We're in Dallas Co. so it hasn't been too crazy at the polls. I really don't know if the hysteria around aggressive poll watchers is media hair-on-fire hype.
MoosesMom, the news has deflated me on a Democratic victory in this state. How can people see this chest-thumping idiocy and say yes, I'll sign up for more of that? Yet, I'll vote and hope.
We have an electorate that just wants to be entertained by loud clowns. They don't want to think about how some of Biden's policies will benefit them. Hate deafens and intoxicates.
These folks rah-rah-ing for authoritarianism won't like it when it comes for them. Germany showed us that.
Tarrant County here, Jeri. I'm with you - I will never understand the majority in this state wanting more of the crazy and corruption. I think you hit the nail on the head - they would rather be entertained by clowns - until it starts to impact them when it will be too late. Stay strong and well!
You ask: " But how did so many in my generation go from protesting and ending a war, marching for Civil Rights, and demanding environmental protection . . ."
Those were different people. Not everyone in a generation is the same. Most of the ones who protested the war and marched for Civil Rights are still Democrats. People seldom change their political views in adulthood, according to my late mother. She was a noted social scientist and statistician at the Census Bureau, so she knew what she was talking about. Around 1995, she was living in a retirement home in Washington DC, full of New Dealers. She said to me one day, "Do you know where you will be at my age? In a place like this, only surround by . . . Reaganites!" My blood ran cold.
Apparently, not only has the John Birch Society not disappeared, it has metastasized. The Chait piece reminds me of everything I've ever read about the far right from the 1930s on through Robert Welch's heyday.
RE Section 1 - I keep coming back to the simple math on adult development (see Keegan’s work at Harvard). 67 percent of people are followers and 33 percent are leaders but only five percent of leaders mature to become system thinkers, capable of putting the system ahead of tribe and self-interest. Just increasing five percent to ten percent would make a huge difference.
Hah! Long-time system thinker here. I read Peter Senge's "The Fifth Discipline" in grad school in the early 90s. I've never heard these statistics, nor am I aware of Keegan's work, but it fits with my experience.
I worked in Total Quality Management at a Fortune 100 company in the late 80s. I remember this statistic: 20% of our workforce will go along with our efforts and support them. 20% will attempt to foil them, perhaps because a lot of them were going to lose jobs as a result of improving our production processes. The other 60% is waiting to see who wins. They'll go with the winners. They sure don't want to be with the losing side.
For some reason, I was confident in the argument for improving our processes when I first heard it. I thought the argument for improvement would win. I was never a tribalist.
I think there's another group of people who don't get too worked up over Trump: those with the privilege to assume it won't really affect them. It may affect people of color, who are scapegoated and vilified (so what), immigrants (good riddance), LGBTQ folks (well, who cares about them), women who no longer have dominion over their own bodies (sorry, embryos trump), and poor folks who see the social safety net disintegrated away (only getting what they deserve). But I'm safe, so no biggie.
As I have remarked previously, people will go to great lengths to justify/rationalize what is essentially an identity-based vote. They will ignore or downplay anything that calls such a vote into question and seize on even the stupidest thing to justify voting for "their team."
We have seen it time after time over the last few decades, with the actual mechanism becoming more apparent, the justifications (in opposition to the good reasons NOT to vote identity) becoming weaker and weaker.
Even so-called independents (those who deny party identity affiliation) do this, usually centered upon one or two "issues" (like abortion or guns).
These are things that researchers have known for some time but that the larger pundit class seemingly has ignored (I guess because it removes a lot of the tension of the whole horse-race mode of reporting that has become prevalent).
If you understand that people vote largely on the basis of identity (regardless of what they SAY) and you have a good idea of the identity distribution in the population, you can make a pretty good guess on who is going to win (barring how the non-party identity affiliated go on the basis of their particular issue identities).
You can tell that identity is king because people will often vote against their own, objective self-interest on the supposed "kitchen sink" issues that they shout out that are so important to them (but apparently aren't).
I mean, based upon observed historical results, why would you expect the GoP or a GoP controlled government to actually solve any substantive economic problems? Or have any economic agenda besides cutting entitlement programs, cutting taxes, and cutting regulation? And why, on the basis of the evidence, would you think any of those things would actually help the economy in a substantive sense?
A majority of the voting population is fairly locked in--a number of the "independents" that are leaners are also locked in, the one issue voters are locked in. Sure, a black swan event can change the calculus (Dobbs, for example or a war, or a massive social/economic disruption (like maybe a pandemic)--but most times that doesn't happen.
What really skews things in our system is its non-representative nature (unequal weighting of population, state-based results rather than population results, etc).
So, in the end, it is absolutely unsurprising (to me) that people will tolerate absolute shit in order to vote identity--up to and including the destruction of many of our principles and existing institutions. Just like in SW, democracy will die to thunderous applause on the part of many and an accepting silence on the part of even more.
This will not end with this election cycle or the 2024 election cycle even if the "good guys" win... in fact, the more they win, the worse things will get. The more frustrated and angry the other side will get, the more ready to accept violence and a total reconstruction of the system.
IF (and that is a REALLY big if) this situation gets resolved in favor of the "good guys" it will be because the other side is effectively destroyed and outlawed. That means violence. The "good guys" will likely NOT start it--but in order to come out the other side, they WILL have to answer that violence effectively. That means counter violence and a number of other measures that run against their own identity. I find that unlikely.
I fully expect that in the next 20 years we WILL see a MAGAt or MAGAt-like government take power and they WILL attempt to do all the things they say they are going to do. It seems almost inevitable to me.
There will be a lot of regrets after it happens... but then it will be too late... and the only satisfaction that people like me will have is saying, well, we told you so (hopefully from the safety of my retirement in Canada).
If anyone here read Mollie Hemingway's piece in The Federalist a few years ago regarding a summer vacation trip with her children to Disney World, then you will know that--and I say this with ALL Christian love and fellowship-- Ms Hemingway is a wee bit of an idiot. She wrote about how hot and crowded WDW was in June. Evidently, she was unaware that Florida is quite unpleasant in June. Also, it seems did not not realize that many families make the trek to Orlando right after school lets out for the year. Any time I see that woman or catch a glance at anything she has written (I do not make it a habit...I find a firehose colonic a more pleasurable experience), I flash back to that idiotic article. Funnily enough, "conservative" writer David Harsanyi has written a similar WDW family trip piece. Are pundits on the "Right" common-sense deficent? I'm asking for a friend...
Hemingway is simply what passes for an "intellectual" in a party devoid of principle or substance that has actively chased away the educated and the credentialed.
Funny thing is: "Common sense" has been a big theme on the right for a while, joined with the bashing of "experts" in scare quotes -- e.g. "The common sense of the average American is more reliable than the ivory-tower pontifications of 'experts' and bureaucrats."
Sometimes they have a point -- e.g., men by definition cannot get pregnant; only women can.
But most people on the right took a position that defies common sense and normal human experience: They insisted that Donald Trump is immeasurably wiser, better informed, kinder, more honest and honorable and selfless than his regular self-presentation would indicate.
Then they insisted that social distancing does nothing to limit the spread of a highly contagious disease.
Then they insisted that what a huge amount of video documentation and social media records show about January 6 is all a hoax, while the real truth needs to be ferreted out with the special Trumpian key to all understanding.
Really enjoyed the Marshall Project article. Beautiful writing. Thank you
This is the scariest article I have ever read. I don't think I want to live in their version of the United States.
Woke is just a republican branding exercise. Like radical democrat socialists. Too many republican voters have followed the creation of a new religion called conservatism. Not all conservatives belong and intelligent people who are conservative are disgusted. It signals educated people who think they are better than you forcing acceptance of people of color, gay, trans, on society. Plays on fears. Republicans need to be in the cool group. Woke allows them to clearly show the bad vs the righteous
“The woke now control the Democratic Party, the entire federal government, the news media, academia, big tech, Hollywood, most corporate boardrooms, and now even some of our top military leaders,”
Maybe because I live overseas and don't get the daily bombardment of balderdash, but can anyone provide me with a relatively succinct definition of "woke" or "workism"? Last time I checked my Funk and Wagnalls, "woke" related to being awake, vice asleep, as in "I woke up". If as used by the semi- or completely-fascists spewing it around as an insult, that just tells me we "wokens" (as in people who are awake) are on to their efforts to remove democracy from the USA.
Woke was originally a term used mostly by black Americans on platforms like Twitter. Being “woke” meant you were aware of injustice.
Liberals co-opted the term, but really only among the perpetually online crew. In other words: a very small niche group.
From there, GOP operators decided they needed a new word for “political correctness” and the rest is history.
What does woke mean and how does that relate to communism?
Woke used to mean being aware of social injustices. The right has basically taken over the term and has stripped both those words of any real meaning. "Woke" and "communism" now are essentially just slurs to tar political opponents and their ideas.
Now if you really want to dive down the rabbit hole, both those ideas are connected to the right-wing idea of "cultural Marxism". Which has its origins in the term "cultural bolshevism" an idea that came directly from Nazi thinkers.
It's funny how once you start digging, these right-wing slurs and conspiracy theories almost always trace back to segregationists, racists, or fascists.
Last sentence: Well said.
I agree. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
A good reminder of why people go along with the ruler... It's all about the keys.
https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs
Ok, so I've something of a bone to pick with Trump being credited with the First Step Act.
In some technical sense, one could always quibble with crediting the executive with what is actually the work of Congress. All the President actually has to do is not veto it (or explicitly sign it near the end of the Congressional term).
But often times, the legislature is fulfilling one of the President's campaign promises, which generally coincides with their party's platform. The President and his advisors may have proposed a legislative plan and/or draft legislation, and either they or their VP may have lobbied various members of Congress or twisted some arms to get it done. In this case, it's fair to call something like this an accomplishment of the President, or at least their administration.
Yet virtually none of this apples to Trump and the First Step Act. Trump ran on a platform of being "tough on crime" and appointed an AG who immediately set about seeking maximum sentences for federal cases, and attempting to overrule consent decrees negotiated by local police departments to address police misconduct. In fact, it was Trump who needed to be convinced to support the law (for which we can apparently, and surprisingly, thank Jared Kushner), as Sessions opposed it and both he and Barr were resistant to actually implementing it.
While Trump's acquiescence may have been responsible for the bill passing with veto-proof majorities, it easily had enough bipartisan support to make it a no-brainer from a political standpoint. In reality the legislation was a gift to Trump at a moment when his poll numbers were in the crapper and he was badly in need of something that the media would dutifully label "a political win", when all he really did was agree not to veto it.
Oh, but at least Trump did his part of the work to actually implement it, right? Of course not. The heart of the FSA was clemency reform, and the vast majority of clemency petitions under Trump went completely ignored. If you weren't one of his cronies in need of payback for political support or refusing to squeal on him when he was under investigation, or some high profile case being pushed by a celebrity that could be used in a campaign commercial, he wasn't interested.
And if your early release was granted by a judge based on the reformed drug-sentencing guidelines, Trump's DOJ may have been actively appealing your decision. One man had actually gotten a hug from Trump on television while his case was being appealed, only to have the appeal mysteriously dropped shortly thereafter once DOJ realized they might actually end up re-incarcerating one of Trump's political props.
Trump loves claiming credit for the FSA, and his shameless sycophants love giving it to him. The truth is that Republican sponsors of the bill were willing to give it a go once there was no longer a Democrat in office to take credit for it. Trump was the fortunate recipient of McConnell's gamesmanship, and made no good faith effort to actually do what it required of him if it didn't offer him a clear political benefit.
"The truth is that Republican sponsors of the bill were willing to give it a go once there was no longer a Democrat in office to take credit for it."
And you can be sure that if it had passed under a Democratic administration the Republicans would now be bashing all Democrats for being soft on crime and releasing criminals into the streets. As they now are doing to Barnes, Evers, and Kaul over decisions of the parole board.
It's what they do.
Exactly. Much like how the American economy is apparently a complete wreck - except in every state where there's a Republican governor running for reelection. They just love having their cake and eating it too.
"Much like how the American economy is apparently a complete wreck - except in every state where there's a Republican governor running for reelection."
It's funny how that works, isn't it? It's almost as if they're just peddling bullshit.
I don't really believe that the man who could not run a profitable casino or who could not increase the wealth left to him to match standard market returns is actually much responsible for anything positive in his administration except to the extent that he did not actively get in the way of something.
He had a nose for the bad, self-serving stuff, I grant you... but most of that was only successful because the GoP let him get away with it.
Thanks for this explanation. It confirms what I thought was probably true: Trump really deserves no credit for The First Step Act---he was just the president who signed it after Congress passed it.
"Semi-loyalty" is the same thing as ends justifying means. We know where that leads. And there's nothing "semi" about the collaborators' fascism.
Maybe this is too small a question, but what's the ground game for combatting this disease?
The first line of defense is to beat them electorally. So vote, organize, volunteer for campaigns, get others who agree with you to the polls, etc.
If that fails... Well, then we're sort of fucked... At that point you're looking at something from regional civil disobedience to all out civil war. Neither of which really benefit anyone.
Agree they need to be beaten at the ballot box. But I'm afraid the Dems are failing, at least in the upcoming elections this Nov. I heard a discussion of the weakness of the Dem candidate for the AZ gov - Katie Hobbs - on Tuesday's "Hacks on Tap" (https://www.hacksontap.com/episodes/the-great-pageantry-of-democracy). She won't debate her opponent. She doesn't push back against her false claims. See their back to back appearances on last Sunday's "Face the Nation." It's a close race, but I'm afraid the GOP candidate has the momentum. I blame that on the Dems - poor candidate choice and poor messaging.
These elections are gonna be a nail biter for those of us who see the current GOP as an authoritarian party. I think these election outcomes are key to stopping the authoritarian "disease" in our politics.
If the Totally-Trump-GOP takes both the House and the Senate, and key statewide races like Gov and Secty of State that can overturn elections, I don't know what can be done.
The apparent plan is to actually not do much other than talk about it. TBH, I am not sure there is much you can do short of violence and repression.
I disagree, R Mercer. See beating them at the ballot box above. Absent that . . . I see violence. It's the USA. We can't suppress them.
Beating them at the ballot box simple makes things worse. They already believe or want to believe that the electoral system is corrupt--it is why they are losing ITFP (that is their rationale). Beating them like a drum will simply radicalize many of them further.
This is soon going to stop being the USA you refer to. That is a thing of the past. It is either going to be the USA of MAGA or it is going to be a far more repressive version of the old USA run by whoever steps up to stop MAGA. If I was a betting man, I would be betting on MAGA for the win, because there isn't really anyone out there willing to step up to stop them--because they understand that doing so will fundamentally alter what the USA is and they cannot bring themselves to do it.
So they will lose. We will lose. Then you WILL get repression.
The extreme Left would be willing to act--but the problem is that they are more feared and hated than the extreme right. So they lack the ability to do anything because it would simply (high probability) accelerate the rush to Rightist power and repression.
The big question is why these supposedly intelligent, successful people think they have more to fear from such nebulous ideas as "critical race theory" and "wokism" than from the obvious creep of authoritarianism? In fact I'd like to hear them or anyone even explain those concepts. They
are just made up. They are the bright shiny things with which they attempt to distract folks, and keep us from seeing the developing fascism that is infiltrating every aspect of our in this country.
I'm afraid the fascists will win. I don't know what wokism is or what it has to do with anything. It's seems to be one of those nebulous words that actually means nothing but people assume its bad, assume it's the Democrats fault and non thinking people vote against their best interests so as not to be "woke"
They think they'll end up on top
I just completed my mail-in ballot - a straight Democratic ticket all the way. Being white, I don't think they'll toss out my ballot, but with all of the shenanigans they have pulled here in Texas, I think we'll come up short.
I'm very old, so the lurch today's GOP has taken towards semi-fascism probably won't impact me to a large degree. But how did so many in my generation go from protesting and ending a war, marching for Civil Rights, and demanding environmental protection - clean air and water - to voting for the very people who will ensure our children, grand-children and great-grandchildren will be stripped of the rights and freedoms we once fought for and won?
Oh what a sorry thing to see....
I'm of that generation. I have not gone from promoting those matters to voting for GOP authoritarians. I suspect that any of those from our generation who are voting for the authoritarian GOP were NEVER supporters of those matters. In fact, it's because they felt overrun by those of us who claimed the mantle of leadership on those matters, and changed the US, that they support the GOP authoritarians.
As a country, we are going through enormous structural changes. Thomas Friedman, author of "Thank You for Being Late", says those changes are technology, globalization and climate change. IMO, these pro-authoritarian Republican voters are not doing well with these changes and that is what is underneath their political behaviour and beliefs.
The hippies and protesters got headlines, everyone else was just living their lives--and there were a LOT more of those than hippies and protestors. Besides, if you think you have a good chance of having to fight in a war (like Viet Nam), chances are you are more likely to protest.
I'm right there with you - even down to the same state.
Being a Brown, I'll vote in person. Straight Dem. We're in Dallas Co. so it hasn't been too crazy at the polls. I really don't know if the hysteria around aggressive poll watchers is media hair-on-fire hype.
MoosesMom, the news has deflated me on a Democratic victory in this state. How can people see this chest-thumping idiocy and say yes, I'll sign up for more of that? Yet, I'll vote and hope.
We have an electorate that just wants to be entertained by loud clowns. They don't want to think about how some of Biden's policies will benefit them. Hate deafens and intoxicates.
These folks rah-rah-ing for authoritarianism won't like it when it comes for them. Germany showed us that.
Tarrant County here, Jeri. I'm with you - I will never understand the majority in this state wanting more of the crazy and corruption. I think you hit the nail on the head - they would rather be entertained by clowns - until it starts to impact them when it will be too late. Stay strong and well!
Might it be that they themselves are crazy? And would be corrupt if they had the chance?
You ask: " But how did so many in my generation go from protesting and ending a war, marching for Civil Rights, and demanding environmental protection . . ."
Those were different people. Not everyone in a generation is the same. Most of the ones who protested the war and marched for Civil Rights are still Democrats. People seldom change their political views in adulthood, according to my late mother. She was a noted social scientist and statistician at the Census Bureau, so she knew what she was talking about. Around 1995, she was living in a retirement home in Washington DC, full of New Dealers. She said to me one day, "Do you know where you will be at my age? In a place like this, only surround by . . . Reaganites!" My blood ran cold.
Agree, though some of those coming of age in the late 60s early 70s did become conservatives. I don't think it's the vast majority of us.
Apparently, not only has the John Birch Society not disappeared, it has metastasized. The Chait piece reminds me of everything I've ever read about the far right from the 1930s on through Robert Welch's heyday.
RE Section 1 - I keep coming back to the simple math on adult development (see Keegan’s work at Harvard). 67 percent of people are followers and 33 percent are leaders but only five percent of leaders mature to become system thinkers, capable of putting the system ahead of tribe and self-interest. Just increasing five percent to ten percent would make a huge difference.
Hah! Long-time system thinker here. I read Peter Senge's "The Fifth Discipline" in grad school in the early 90s. I've never heard these statistics, nor am I aware of Keegan's work, but it fits with my experience.
I worked in Total Quality Management at a Fortune 100 company in the late 80s. I remember this statistic: 20% of our workforce will go along with our efforts and support them. 20% will attempt to foil them, perhaps because a lot of them were going to lose jobs as a result of improving our production processes. The other 60% is waiting to see who wins. They'll go with the winners. They sure don't want to be with the losing side.
For some reason, I was confident in the argument for improving our processes when I first heard it. I thought the argument for improvement would win. I was never a tribalist.
I think there's another group of people who don't get too worked up over Trump: those with the privilege to assume it won't really affect them. It may affect people of color, who are scapegoated and vilified (so what), immigrants (good riddance), LGBTQ folks (well, who cares about them), women who no longer have dominion over their own bodies (sorry, embryos trump), and poor folks who see the social safety net disintegrated away (only getting what they deserve). But I'm safe, so no biggie.
And it will absolutely affect the working class whites who support Trump. The fact that they don't see this is mystifying to me.
Exactly....they think they are immune. However a reading of history would tell them that no one does better under Fascism.
Hmm . . . they don't read history, do they?
WRT loyalist semi-fascists:
As I have remarked previously, people will go to great lengths to justify/rationalize what is essentially an identity-based vote. They will ignore or downplay anything that calls such a vote into question and seize on even the stupidest thing to justify voting for "their team."
We have seen it time after time over the last few decades, with the actual mechanism becoming more apparent, the justifications (in opposition to the good reasons NOT to vote identity) becoming weaker and weaker.
Even so-called independents (those who deny party identity affiliation) do this, usually centered upon one or two "issues" (like abortion or guns).
These are things that researchers have known for some time but that the larger pundit class seemingly has ignored (I guess because it removes a lot of the tension of the whole horse-race mode of reporting that has become prevalent).
If you understand that people vote largely on the basis of identity (regardless of what they SAY) and you have a good idea of the identity distribution in the population, you can make a pretty good guess on who is going to win (barring how the non-party identity affiliated go on the basis of their particular issue identities).
You can tell that identity is king because people will often vote against their own, objective self-interest on the supposed "kitchen sink" issues that they shout out that are so important to them (but apparently aren't).
I mean, based upon observed historical results, why would you expect the GoP or a GoP controlled government to actually solve any substantive economic problems? Or have any economic agenda besides cutting entitlement programs, cutting taxes, and cutting regulation? And why, on the basis of the evidence, would you think any of those things would actually help the economy in a substantive sense?
A majority of the voting population is fairly locked in--a number of the "independents" that are leaners are also locked in, the one issue voters are locked in. Sure, a black swan event can change the calculus (Dobbs, for example or a war, or a massive social/economic disruption (like maybe a pandemic)--but most times that doesn't happen.
What really skews things in our system is its non-representative nature (unequal weighting of population, state-based results rather than population results, etc).
So, in the end, it is absolutely unsurprising (to me) that people will tolerate absolute shit in order to vote identity--up to and including the destruction of many of our principles and existing institutions. Just like in SW, democracy will die to thunderous applause on the part of many and an accepting silence on the part of even more.
This will not end with this election cycle or the 2024 election cycle even if the "good guys" win... in fact, the more they win, the worse things will get. The more frustrated and angry the other side will get, the more ready to accept violence and a total reconstruction of the system.
IF (and that is a REALLY big if) this situation gets resolved in favor of the "good guys" it will be because the other side is effectively destroyed and outlawed. That means violence. The "good guys" will likely NOT start it--but in order to come out the other side, they WILL have to answer that violence effectively. That means counter violence and a number of other measures that run against their own identity. I find that unlikely.
I fully expect that in the next 20 years we WILL see a MAGAt or MAGAt-like government take power and they WILL attempt to do all the things they say they are going to do. It seems almost inevitable to me.
There will be a lot of regrets after it happens... but then it will be too late... and the only satisfaction that people like me will have is saying, well, we told you so (hopefully from the safety of my retirement in Canada).
If anyone here read Mollie Hemingway's piece in The Federalist a few years ago regarding a summer vacation trip with her children to Disney World, then you will know that--and I say this with ALL Christian love and fellowship-- Ms Hemingway is a wee bit of an idiot. She wrote about how hot and crowded WDW was in June. Evidently, she was unaware that Florida is quite unpleasant in June. Also, it seems did not not realize that many families make the trek to Orlando right after school lets out for the year. Any time I see that woman or catch a glance at anything she has written (I do not make it a habit...I find a firehose colonic a more pleasurable experience), I flash back to that idiotic article. Funnily enough, "conservative" writer David Harsanyi has written a similar WDW family trip piece. Are pundits on the "Right" common-sense deficent? I'm asking for a friend...
The intellectual "Karen"?
Hemingway is simply what passes for an "intellectual" in a party devoid of principle or substance that has actively chased away the educated and the credentialed.
Funny thing is: "Common sense" has been a big theme on the right for a while, joined with the bashing of "experts" in scare quotes -- e.g. "The common sense of the average American is more reliable than the ivory-tower pontifications of 'experts' and bureaucrats."
Sometimes they have a point -- e.g., men by definition cannot get pregnant; only women can.
But most people on the right took a position that defies common sense and normal human experience: They insisted that Donald Trump is immeasurably wiser, better informed, kinder, more honest and honorable and selfless than his regular self-presentation would indicate.
Then they insisted that social distancing does nothing to limit the spread of a highly contagious disease.
Then they insisted that what a huge amount of video documentation and social media records show about January 6 is all a hoax, while the real truth needs to be ferreted out with the special Trumpian key to all understanding.
So yes --where's the common sense?