Random Politics Thread

[Kephalos]

I'm not against it either, but what I am against is making that a priority over more important factors. I'm against Person A being chosen based on demographics while Person B is more qualified/better suited for the position.

Sure.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I'm also not opposed to making decisions based on diversity. I do think it would be suspect if an institution for, instance, claimed to value gender equality but only men had power; that would suggest hypocrisy on the part of the men. I just get really bothered by lines of thinking (or at least arguments that are being made) that seem to regard as the chief item of importance. I mean do we want Candace Owens on the Supreme Court?

I do think there is a benefit to including other perspectives but I think there are other things I don't hear people talk about that people probably should talk about. It's not that I doubt qualification but I would like to know what people's views are. How do they stand on say, issues of campaign finance?

I just assume they have all the ideal answers to questions like that^ in mind first, and then pick the most qualified of the missing demographic amongst those contenders - it's not like those kinds of answers take second seat, so much as the pool of contenders is limited to those who answer a specific way to begin with. (And by "they", I mean whoever has the power to pick the 'right answers'). I seriously doubt the answers (not to mention, questions) are all that close to what you or I would choose in the first place - my point is that 'they' probably ARE looking at their own preferences that go beyond race/gender, and will choose from that pool. Not the other way around. Eta: If anything, the seating of Thomas and ACB prove this point. /eta

I'm not denying a lot of it is meaningless optics, just like anything else in politics. But the focus on choosing someone who isn't a white man (or more specifically, on choosing whatever is missing) is an optical necessity until it's so much the norm that it isn't a distracting issue.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I just assume they have all the ideal answers to questions like that^ in mind first, and then pick the most qualified of the missing demographic amongst those contenders - it's not like those kinds of answers take second seat, so much as the pool of contenders is limited to those who answer a specific way to begin with. (And by "they", I mean whoever has the power to pick the 'right answers'). I seriously doubt the answers (not to mention, questions) are all that close to what you or I would choose in the first place - my point is that 'they' probably ARE looking at their own preferences that go beyond race/gender, and will choose from that pool. Not the other way around. Eta: If anything, the seating of Thomas and ACB prove this point. /eta

I'm not denying a lot of it is meaningless optics, just like anything else in politics. But the focus on choosing someone who isn't a white man (or more specifically, on choosing whatever is missing) is an optical necessity until it's so much the norm that it isn't a distracting issue.

Yeah. I'm just wish politics were more substantial and less about these optics. I find it incredibly frustrating to watch.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Yeah. I'm just wish politics were more substantial and less about these optics. I find it incredibly frustrating to watch.

I second this.

 

[ceecee]

Oklahoma bill would fire teachers for offending Christian morals by teaching biology

The bill would allow parents to sue teachers for $10,000

www.lgbtqnation.com

New bill would allow parents to watch kids’ classrooms

(The Center Square) – An Iowa representative introduced Tuesday a bill that would allow parents to watch live footage of their children in public school classrooms.

www.clintonherald.com

Book banning in Texas schools: Titles are pulled off library shelves in record numbers

Facing pressure from parents and threats of criminal charges, some districts have ignored policies meant to prevent censorship. Librarians and students are pushing back.

www.nbcnews.com

Naturally, this happened too.

A right-wing pastor held a literal book-burning in Tennessee last night.

The pro-Trump, anti-vax pastor Greg Locke—who, after his recent ban for COVID misinformation, called Twitter “censorship Nazis”—organized and carried out a literal book burning last nig…

lithub.com

But let's keep right on with the both sides bullshit.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

But let's keep right on with the both sides bullshit.

Well it's not like Joe BIden is some great transformational figure. Not sure why it's mandatory for me to defend a guy whose administration is unfolding exactly as I anticipated.

I am sorry, but at the this point I would say that it's impossible for me to not see the national Democratic party (statewise I feel differently about them) as part of the problem with their ineffectualness, regardless of what the motivation for it is. Let's not forget that Clinton's campaign encouraged Trump in the Republican primaries because she thought he'd be easy to beat. I don't think they should walk away blameless especially with all their bullshit during the 2020 primaries.

Yes, the GOP are largely crypto-fascists and have been that for as long as I can remember. But let's not forget that the Democratic party (as a whole, as reflected by the actions of the people at the top of it) seems more eager to work with them than actual progressives. They fight left primary candidates and left movements (at least once they actually have power) harder than they do the Republican party. What does that say about them? To me at says that, if faced with a choice between fascism and a disruption of the status quo towards something that is actually democratic, they'd choose fascism. I don't think they deserve to get off the hook for that.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

If the GOP is truly analogous to the Nazi party, then the Democratic party seems poised to play the role of Paul von Hindenburg.

As a whole Democratic party is content to use progressives as tools to get elected, and then abandon them once they actually manage to obtain party. Consider how they've turned on BLM and "wokeness" once they actually won in 2020. People should understand that there's a chance that people in the Democratic party don't have the same motivation, values, goals, or priorities as as they do and then work from there. There's no reason to take a politician their word if their record shows that they have a history of not being trustworthy. One would think this would be common sense, but lots of people have a hard time grasping this.

Perhaps the reason for that is that they would then have to acknowledge that the system isn't as democratic as they've been led to their believe, and that their voice doesn't matter as much as they've been told it does. I don't see that as the way it has to be buy any means, but we're never going to get there if people don't realize it's a problem in the first place. Joining in with the simping for the Democratic party won't help matters, not will it help prevent the spread of fascism when Democrats in power don't seem to regard stopping it as a priority (or at least not as much of one as preventing "left extremists" from having more of a voice). Why do we hear more from Joe Manchin than Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer? Isn't it part of the Senate Majority Leader's job to keep his caucus under his thumb? Can't the party do things to put pressure on Manchin, like run candidates against him or discipline him in some fashion? I haven't seen those things being tried (if they are, let me know).

Democratic politicians say all the time we need to work with Republicans and be bipartisan, so if the Republicans are fascists, isn't that a problem?

 

[ceecee]

Well it's not like Joe BIden is some great transformational figure. Not sure why it's mandatory for me to defend a guy whose administration is unfolding exactly as I anticipated.

I am sorry, but at the this point I would say that it's impossible for me to not see the national Democratic party (statewise I feel differently about them) as part of the problem with their ineffectualness, regardless of what the motivation for it is. Let's not forget that Clinton's campaign encouraged Trump in the Republican primaries because she thought he'd be easy to beat. I don't think they should walk away blameless especially with all their bullshit during the 2020 primaries.

Yes, the GOP are largely crypto-fascists and have been that for as long as I can remember. But let's not forget that the Democratic party (as a whole, as reflected by the actions of the people at the top of it) seems more eager to work with them than actual progressives. They fight left primary candidates and left movements (at least once they actually have power) harder than they do the Republican party. What does that say about them? To me at says that, if faced with a choice between fascism and a disruption of the status quo towards something that is actually democratic, they'd choose fascism. I don't think they deserve to get off the hook for that.

Oh the Democrats will carry water for every monstrous thing the GOP does, no question. But false balance is a fucking plague that enables exactly that.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Oh the Democrats will carry water for every monstrous thing the GOP does, no question. But false balance is a fucking plague that enables exactly that.

Do you think I'm engaging in false balance or are you thinking of other people, perhaps in meatspace?

 

[ceecee]

Do you think I'm engaging in false balance or are you thinking of other people, perhaps in meatspace?

No no not you - corporate media that never challenges a thing and a public that believes that both sides and their behavior should be tolerated because both sides do it. Makes no sense.

 

[ceecee]

For as much as I like Don's writing, Substack isn't corporate media and people won't read it. Ross Douthat otoh, he isn't a Chapo favorite for nothing.

"At least it's an ethos"

The conservative intellectual project to both sides threats to democracy

donmoynihan.substack.com

 

[Kephalos]

Plus ça change, as they say: Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.

G.O.P. Declares Jan. 6 Attack ‘Legitimate Political Discourse’ (Published 2022)

The Republican National Committee voted to censure Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for participating in the inquiry into the deadly riot at the Capitol.

www.nytimes.com

The Catholicization of the American Right

At the national level, Catholic politicians have emerged as leading figures in the GOP... and evangelical Protestants are flocking to follow their lead. Why?

www.huffpost.com

Vatican's Academy for Life takes on vaccine skeptics, including Catholics

At the General Assembly of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, the message could not have been clearer: Catholics need to get vaccinated for COVID-19 and help make it possible for others to do the same.

www.ncronline.org

https://hal-amu.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02187925/document

 

[Red Herring]

https://www.reuters.com/business/me...nd-access-hospitals-covid-centres-2021-03-31/

So Hungary, with the highest Covid letality in the world, is blocking journalists from entering hospitals or vaccination centers. Surely the low vaccination rate has nothing to do with it. Nothing to see here.

Coincidentally, Orban is still one of Trumps biggest chumps in Europe, as far as I know.

 

[Red Herring]

This forum is astonishingly silent on the situation at the Ukranian border. Any thoughts? I mean, in a worst case scenario it could mean war between the US and Russia and I didn't see anybody discuss it. It's the number one news story in Europe, I'd say.

 

[Virtual ghost]

This forum is astonishingly silent on the situation at the Ukranian border. Any thoughts? I mean, in a worst case scenario it could mean war between the US and Russia and I didn't see anybody discuss it. It's the number one news story in Europe, I'd say.

As you can see Americans are completely in their own internal problems and they don't really care. Plenty of comments around the internet also suggest that. The country is falling apart from within and they think this is more of a priority (and it probably is). Especially since they don't have various benefits like you and me. However the story regarding the Ukraine seems to be pretty simple. Allies will arm the country and if it manages to defend itself in the case of attack that will be great for them. While if they get overrun there will be refugee wave with some sanctions and troubles, but the situation will probably stabilize to new normal in a reasonable amount of time. It seems that no one outside the region will actually go to war over this and just sending supplies is something else entirely.

 

[Totenkindly]

This forum is astonishingly silent on the situation at the Ukranian border. Any thoughts? I mean, in a worst case scenario it could mean war between the US and Russia and I didn't see anybody discuss it. It's the number one news story in Europe, I'd say.

The most i heard about it was a Facebook post that mentioned (as part of a meme) Putin moving his troops to certain borders. I wasn't particularly looking or reading in-depth news, but skimming general news feeds I didnt really see this being covered.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

This forum is astonishingly silent on the situation at the Ukranian border. Any thoughts? I mean, in a worst case scenario it could mean war between the US and Russia and I didn't see anybody discuss it. It's the number one news story in Europe, I'd say.

I think it's honestly something Europe should take care of. I don't see why we have to maintain our dying empire or anything like that when we are obviously incapable of doing anything else. I'm furious that this is the one thing we can still do as a nation. Of course lots of money goes to defense contractors so that's one reason this is a priority.

U.S. defense spending is way too high and it should probably be closer to European levels especially given the geographical position of the US. I think the money could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Red Herring]

I think it's honestly something Europe should take care of. I don't see why we have to maintain our dying empire or anything like that when we are obviously incapable of doing anything else. I'm furious that this is the one thing we can still do as a nation. Of course lots of money goes to defense contractors so that's one reason this is a priority.

U.S. defense spending is way too high and it should probably be closer to European levels especially given the geographical position of the US. I think the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Well, it actually does concern the US in that the United States are a key member of NATO and even though Ukraine isn't a member, the entire conflict is about the role of NATO and how far its sphere of influence goes. And even if you are understandably skeptical towards imperialism, there is a new cold war going on between large spheres of influence. America and Western Europe are in this together and any withdrawel of the West (you and us) means more power to an expansionist autogratic system. This isn't the West agressively pushing closer and closer to the Russian border to sell hamburgers and Coca Cola on the Red Square (even if Putin would like you to think so). Many countries of Eastern Europe have a long list of reasons, centuries of bad experiences, to fear Russian dominance. The annectation of the Krim peninsula has shown what they are capable of.

I am no friend of military solutions, in fact I despise anything military and think diplomacy is preferable by far. However, in this case I think categorical non-interventionism is not only morally dubious and intellectually lazy but strategically short-sighted.

That being said, Germany isn't exactly covering itself in glory in this situation.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Well, it actually does concern the US in that the United States are a key member of NATO and even though Ukraine isn't a member, the entire conflict is about the role of NATO and how far its sphere of influence goes. And even if you are understandably skeptical towards imperialism, there is a new cold war going on between large spheres of influence. America and Western Europe are in this together and any withdrawel of the West (you and us) means more power to an expansionist autogratic system. This isn't the West agressively pushing closer and closer to the Russian border to sell hamburgers and Coca Cola on the Red Square (even if Putin would like you to think so). Many countries of Eastern Europe have a long list of reasons, centuries of bad experiences, to fear Russian dominance. The annectation of the Krim peninsula has shown what they are capable of.

I am no friend of military solutions, in fact I despise anything military and think diplomacy is preferable by far. However, in this case I think categorical non-interventionism is not only morally dubious and intellectually lazy but strategically short-sighted.

That being said, Germany isn't exactly covering itself in glory in this situation.

I think Western Europe should have a larger role in NATO. WWII was a long time ago; European economies have certainly recovered. There is no practical reason why these countries are not taking a greater role in their own defense when they can afford to do so. They were able to colonize most of the world; they can't defend themselves against Russia now?

Russia is also in part reacting to the U.S expanding NATO eastward in the 90s when it was at its weakest. Although Russian imperialism has certainly been a thing for centuries.

People will perhaps accuse me of sounding like Trump here but I've thought the U.S needed to re-examine it's role in the world and invest more at home for quite some time, before Trump ever came on the scene. I'm not going to change that opinion just because of him.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Also, Britain is a bad example, because they are not really representative of Europe as whole and culturally closer to the US than the rest of us. You are not searching very far from home if you go to Britain for "foreign" inspriration.

I am bringing up Britain because I assumed people were referring to it because of what happened with the British national in Texas a few weeks ago.

No. The head of government (prime minister Boris Johnson) is not the head of the Church of England. The head of state (queen Elizabeth II) is. In America that's the same person (president Joe Biden), but in Europe (and many other places around the world) these are two different people. State and government are also not the same thing.

I made a mistake; I confused the two terms. I think there should probably be a separate head of state and head of government in the U.S. Then maybe people wouldn't do this idiotic blind allegiance to the president of their party so much.

To be specific, in the UK the monarch is the "supreme governor" of the C of E, a largely ceremonial role. The spiritual head of the church is the archbishop of Canterbury. And the Church of England is not the same thing as "the Anglican church" because there are several churches all over the anglosphere that all belong to the Anglican communion, the C of E being only one of them.

Fair enough. I was reading about the Eastern Catholic church and it occurred to me that religious organizations can be fairly complicated in their structure.

How do you explain the complaints about cancel culture that can be heard in Europe? The cultural infighting on issues like immigration, tradition and cultural, ethnic and sexual identity? The cultural division on fighting the pandemic? Or climate change? ... topics that shouldn't be politican at all and twenty years or so ago probably wouldn't have been.

What do you think explains Brexit and the landslide win of Boris Johnson? The rise of the Rassemblement National in France? The rise of rightwing populism all over Central and Eastern Europe?

How do you explain that one of the largest complaints of people in Germany that people left, center and right agree on is increasing social division?

You were criticizing a far-left (As someone suspicious of radicals who are socially conservative on a lot of issues, I would conclude that she is far left by my standards as well) politician in Germany for being against wokeness a few weeks ago. Are you asserting that she is right to be against wokeness (which in this case was largely about restricting refugees and immigration)? I've seen people complain about immigration in Europe for a long time; wokeness is just new terminology being attached to it.

I don't think these things would have taken root in these other places if there weren't issues. Many places have a history of either being settlers or colonial powers and racial ideology is something that becomes part of the culture on some level; I would say it sounds naive to me to say that was all in the past until stupid American ideas started messing things up.

I am not saying these things are the fault of the left or of woke-ism. I am saying that there are developments in America, an increasing polarization and radicalization, a more militant approach to social issues, that have reached many other countries. The damage that is taking place in America is also starting to happen elsewhere (though in a milder form).

I would say it's a byproduct of capitalism and capitalism needed to employ a "divide and conquer" approach to social issues in order to maintain its dominance or erode anything preventing it from achieving total dominance. (Capitalism is of course not a magic entity but there are people who are invested in it and the social order under it who certainly seem to benefit from all this division, and I think they would be satisfied with the loss of even de jure democracy as long as they maintained their social position.)

Hence, supporting the norms of a system that just wants to encourage this (partisan news networks also profit, by the way) seems improbable as a solution.

That's just my opinion, though.

@Virtual ghost posted an article on why Germany is supposedly turning away from America (I'd have a lot more to say about that article but unlike other times he didn't ask me for my opinion this time ). Something you'll hear a lot over here - and which is related to that article - is "Wir wollen keine amerikanischen Zustände" ("we do not want an American state of affairs", meaning we do not want nazis to storm the parliamentary building, for people to live in parallel worlds and neighbor to turn against neighbor, for society to become more and more divided and mistrustful of each other).

That's fair. I would support Europe becoming more of an equal partner in NATO, for what that's worth.

You often snear at "conventions and institutions" and seem to deliberately ignore the point that without social trust and social coherence you get social instability. This is not about protecting "the rose garden" as you once mockingly said, but about people actually trusting the democratic process. About people living together as a functional society.

My mom actually did complain about the rose garden thing.

Except, the problem is that social trust and social coherence is being eroded even with the norms and institutions. The norms and institutions aren't assuring and providing this, what they are doing is being used to stall progress and maintain the status quo at the expense of social trust and social coherence.

I also think it is unfair that you criticize the U.S. for say, not spending more on a social safety net, and then criticize me for not supporting the traditions and norms of the U.S. These are the very things that are impediments to things like a social safety net. It is the weakening or absence of the social safety net that is creating the instability.

The point I and a few other foreigners on this forum have been trying to make over and over and which almost never went down well with anybody, left or right is: Your values and your political culture, the things you actually do share, are the main problem. I have had discussions with hard left woke people who were deep believers in American exceptionalism.

American exceptionalism is one of the "norms and traditions" I am criticizing.

In fact, I believe America ought to learn how to do more things from other countries instead of always insisting it's the greatest. This goes against "the norm" in America though, which apparently is something I can't do because it's the only thing protecting us from chaos even though we're already getting that.

You just referred to the freedom riders as an example of the fight for freedom being a good thing whereas an outsider perspective would be that the freedom riders were actually about equality and human dignty and that they simply used the "freedom" label because that is a value you guys can all get behind. It's like selling cars by showing a half-naked young female sitting on the hood. Freedom sells. No, freedom obviously isn't a bad thing per se, but America tends to fetishize and infantilize it. If there is crayon religion there surely also is crayon liberty. And that (correct me if I'm wrong, @Kephalos) is what the quote was likely hinting at.

Weren't you just saying Americans need to place more faith in norms and institutions? Again, this is one of them. I'm all for working with what we have in this case. This is something you have to do within the culture, which the civil rights people were smart enough to know, and something modern day progressives ought to realize instead of conceding it to a bunch of fascists. It kind of shows you just how important it is that even fascists have to do that; but a lot of "socially intelligent" and "pragmatic" liberals don't understand certain aspects of emotional persuasion and would rather just display their moral purity.

As divided as the US might be, there seems to be a large agreement on exceptionalism, individualism and crayon liberty....and on distrust of your fellow citizen as well as distrust of your own state. Add to that mix the treatment of a more than 200 year old constitution as a second bible and you get yourself an explosive mix and a lot of political backlog.

Weren't you just saying that Americans need to have more trust in their norms and institutions? The constitution is probably one of the most foundational of those, and you are suggesting it is being treated with too much reverence?

You also have to keep in mind that the people who blather on about the Constitution don't actually know what's actually in it or what the original intent actually was; it's a lot like how they talk about the Bible. Separation of church and state was in fact the norm in American jurisprudence until the 1950s. There is legal precedent about this dating back to the 19th century, when it was determined that you can't just claim that your religious beliefs exempt you from an obligation to follow the law (in this case it was about Mormons and polygamy).

I would say that we don't actually respect the Constitution that much; one of the things in it is that only Congress can declare war, but the last time that happened was WWII. I think we may have been in a couple wars since then.

Now, whenever a foreigner dares suggest looking at what the other 95% of the human species is doing (who naturally all have their own issues to deal with) you get the response. "That would never fly in America". We suggest you change aspects of your cultural values and you guys (left and right as well as in between) answer "We can't do that because of our cultural values, which are sacred, you see?"

I actually am suggesting we change our cultural values and I'm getting pushback from you about how I should respect American traditions more.