4 ms·

> The more straightforward explanation is that the reactionary movement in America is due to the anti-democratic means American liberals have used to achieve so

> The more straightforward explanation is that the reactionary movement in America is due to the anti-democratic means American liberals have used to achieve social change, which differs markedly from what is the case in other developed countries. For example, Germany and France don’t have as strong of a reactionary anti-abortion movement because they never had anything like Roe that overruled the public opinion on abortion. That's patently false. The majority of the progressive policies you speak of were legislated by actual left win (not liberals) governments that came to power after Ww II. These governments and coalitions did not have absolute majority. In most cases they did not reach 51% representation even, mostly ~20% to ~30%. In all of these countries there were conservative segments that staunchly opposed these policies and represented ~20% of the population. The rest of the population belonged to other parties that aligned more or less with differing sides of the argument. So considering how the popular opinion was more or less evenly split in these countries at the time, by your proposition they all have legislated those measures anti-democratically. But this part of your argument requires special attention: > the reactionary movement in America is due to the anti-democratic means American liberals have used to achieve social change There is no way to democratically win over those who want to live in 200 years ago with the traditions and practices that belong to two thousand years ago, practicing child labor, segregation, treating women as 2nd class beings, denying actual natural reality and trying to enforce their own false belief as the truth. From conservative American states which just recently legalized child labor to delirious kooks who say that the Earth is flat and dying in the process of launching their own homemade rockets to prove or confirm that belief, the American anti-intellectual religious fundamentalists are exactly the same today like how they were back then. If the society of 19th century did not override them and made progress happen, they would successfully have prevented a lot of the social and even technological progress that you take as normal today. They were openly against technology and they wanted to stop or limit its progress. You can see the heritage of that anti-intellectualism in how Mormons live today. If this feels like an unlikely case, note that the religious fundamentalist segments of the society DID succeed in keeping out or limiting scientific and technological progress in most of the Middle East from 18th century until mid 1950s, and that is the reason why those regions have fallen behind the rest of the world this much.

rayiner 4y ago
> That's patently false. The majority of the progressive policies you speak of were legislated They were still legislated, according to the systems those countries have for enacting legislation. Political horse trading among party coalitions is still democratic. That’s just representative democracy versus direct democracy. In the US by contrast, those same decisions were carved in stone by 9 people who by definition were members of the educated elite. > There is no way to democratically win over those who want to live in 200 years ago with the traditions and practices that belong to two thousand years ago Yes, I get that liberals think moral regulation is this distinct sphere that should be carved out from the democratic process and entrusted to committees of Harvard and Yale graduates. I’m simply pointing out that doing this makes the proles mad. Quite predictably so. You don’t need some Bircher conspiracy theory to explain what’s happening. Story time: When my home country became independent and adopted a constitution, some elites had the bright idea to make “secularism” one of the founding pillars of the constitution. Of course a decade or so later the stupid hillbillies made Islam the official religion. To this day my dad is shocked by the “reaction.” But I’m like “what the f—k did you think was going to happen?”
- unity1001 4y ago
  > They were still legislated, according to the systems those countries have for enacting legislation If the US had proportional representation, all of those policies would have been enacted at earlier points through the same mechanic that is in effect in Europe. You seem to think that there is a different kind of distribution of support/opposition to such policies in the US than anywhere else and there is a greater segment of the population that actually opposes these policies. That is not so. > Yes, I get that liberals think moral regulation is this distinct sphere that should be carved out from the democratic process and entrusted to committees of Harvard and Yale graduates Harvard and Yale graduates are among the conservative segments of east coast old money types that keep the reactionary traits of the US society going since early 19th century. If you said MIT, Berkeley, Caltech etc, your shaky proposition about 'liberals' could have been more credible. But as it stands it now contradicts itself by proposing that the conservative types of the old aristocracy who spearheaded the Reaganite movement have legislated progressive legislation against their own voter base. > I’m simply pointing out that doing this makes the proles mad. Quite predictably so. You don’t need some Bircher conspiracy theory to explain what’s happening. The behavior of far-right nationalist and religious fundamentalist groups anywhere on the planet are identical: If there wasn't these 'issues' that you speak of, they would be mad about something else just like how similar groups elsewhere in the world are. > some elites had the bright idea to make “secularism” one of the founding pillars of the constitution I dont know which one is your home country. However even speaking in the context of the US, secularism was and still is one of the fundamental tenets of the Age of Enlightenment that made the modern society, more importantly, the scientific revolution, possible. Before that, religious institutions and the religious elite and power groups were intervening in both politics and science and hampering the scientific progress. Any society that was not able to adopt it before 19th century started, was retarded in development and they either were conquered or made satellites by the countries that did adopt it. Which means that this is an excellent example of how it is necessary for society to prevent such fundamentalism and the fundamentalists that propagate it from sabotaging itself.

rayiner 4y ago

> That's patently false. The majority of the progressive policies you speak of were legislated They were still legislated, according to the systems those countries have for enacting legislation. Political horse trading among party coalitions is still democratic. That’s just representative democracy versus direct democracy. In the US by contrast, those same decisions were carved in stone by 9 people who by definition were members of the educated elite. > There is no way to democratically win over those who want to live in 200 years ago with the traditions and practices that belong to two thousand years ago Yes, I get that liberals think moral regulation is this distinct sphere that should be carved out from the democratic process and entrusted to committees of Harvard and Yale graduates. I’m simply pointing out that doing this makes the proles mad. Quite predictably so. You don’t need some Bircher conspiracy theory to explain what’s happening. Story time: When my home country became independent and adopted a constitution, some elites had the bright idea to make “secularism” one of the founding pillars of the constitution. Of course a decade or so later the stupid hillbillies made Islam the official religion. To this day my dad is shocked by the “reaction.” But I’m like “what the f—k did you think was going to happen?”

unity1001 4y ago
> They were still legislated, according to the systems those countries have for enacting legislation If the US had proportional representation, all of those policies would have been enacted at earlier points through the same mechanic that is in effect in Europe. You seem to think that there is a different kind of distribution of support/opposition to such policies in the US than anywhere else and there is a greater segment of the population that actually opposes these policies. That is not so. > Yes, I get that liberals think moral regulation is this distinct sphere that should be carved out from the democratic process and entrusted to committees of Harvard and Yale graduates Harvard and Yale graduates are among the conservative segments of east coast old money types that keep the reactionary traits of the US society going since early 19th century. If you said MIT, Berkeley, Caltech etc, your shaky proposition about 'liberals' could have been more credible. But as it stands it now contradicts itself by proposing that the conservative types of the old aristocracy who spearheaded the Reaganite movement have legislated progressive legislation against their own voter base. > I’m simply pointing out that doing this makes the proles mad. Quite predictably so. You don’t need some Bircher conspiracy theory to explain what’s happening. The behavior of far-right nationalist and religious fundamentalist groups anywhere on the planet are identical: If there wasn't these 'issues' that you speak of, they would be mad about something else just like how similar groups elsewhere in the world are. > some elites had the bright idea to make “secularism” one of the founding pillars of the constitution I dont know which one is your home country. However even speaking in the context of the US, secularism was and still is one of the fundamental tenets of the Age of Enlightenment that made the modern society, more importantly, the scientific revolution, possible. Before that, religious institutions and the religious elite and power groups were intervening in both politics and science and hampering the scientific progress. Any society that was not able to adopt it before 19th century started, was retarded in development and they either were conquered or made satellites by the countries that did adopt it. Which means that this is an excellent example of how it is necessary for society to prevent such fundamentalism and the fundamentalists that propagate it from sabotaging itself.