3 ms·

> They were still legislated, according to the systems those countries have for enacting legislation If the US had proportional representation, all of those po

> 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
> 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. The U.S. is much more socially conservative than Europe, which has to do with being much more religious than Europe: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/01/with-high-levels-of-prayer-u-s-is-an-outlier-among-wealthy-nations/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/01/with-high-l.... Proportional voting would probably make the U.S. even more conservative. Currently, the Democratic Party is a coalition of more socially liberal whites and more conservative/moderate minorities and immigrants. For example, here is the Democratic mayor of New York City complaining about the 1962 Supreme Court that banned school prayer: https://www.christianpost.com/news/nyc-mayor-says-it-was-a-mistake-to-take-prayer-out-of-schools.html https://www.christianpost.com/news/nyc-mayor-says-it-was-a-m.... A multi-party proportional system would give this segment more independent political power and weaken liberals. > 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. Incorrect. The "east coast old money types" are among the most socially liberal of the subgroups of the U.S., and Harvard and Yale are extremely liberal on social issues. > If you said MIT, Berkeley, Caltech etc, your shaky proposition about 'liberals' could have been more credible. Engineering schools like MIT and CalTech are actually more socially conservative than schools like Harvard and Yale. STEM workers in general are more conservative on average: https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/2246 https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/2246 > 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. There was no legislation, but that's close to what happened. The Reagan GOP was a coalition of often socially liberal big business types, and religious conservatives in the midwest and south. Nixon and Reagan appointed a bunch of libertarian-leaning Supreme Court justices, who's often defected to the liberal side on social issues. Roe was written by a Nixon appointee (and a Harvard grad). Casey was written by a Reagan appointee, joined by another Reagan appointee (and Harvard grad). Obergefell was written by a Reagan appointee and Harvard grad. Now that the Democratic Party is friendly to big business, most of the “old money” types are democrats. 90% of Wall Street donated to Hilary Clinton. > 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. Not so. In my home country of Bangladesh, there hasn't been much of a "reactionary" movement since Islam was reinstated as the official religion in the 1980s. "Reactionaries" are by definition are reacting to change. That’s where the term comes from—reactionary movements rise in response to revolutionary movements. > 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. You're conveniently forgetting the U.S., which was founded by a bunch of religious fundamentalists that quite consciously distanced themselves from the European enlightenment. But became much more successful than continental Europe. Meanwhile, continental Europe has become so culturally decrepit that they have lost the will to perpetuate their society and are being replaced by Muslims. But I'm not debating religion with you. My point is that if went into Bangladesh and legalized same-sex marriage by court order because you think your morality is better than the morality of stupid villagers, you should expect a "reaction." That's basically what liberals have been doing in America for decades. The reaction to that isn't some Bircher conspiracy, it's a natural cause-and-effect.

rayiner 4y ago

> 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. The U.S. is much more socially conservative than Europe, which has to do with being much more religious than Europe: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/01/with-high-levels-of-prayer-u-s-is-an-outlier-among-wealthy-nations/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/01/with-high-l.... Proportional voting would probably make the U.S. even more conservative. Currently, the Democratic Party is a coalition of more socially liberal whites and more conservative/moderate minorities and immigrants. For example, here is the Democratic mayor of New York City complaining about the 1962 Supreme Court that banned school prayer: https://www.christianpost.com/news/nyc-mayor-says-it-was-a-mistake-to-take-prayer-out-of-schools.html https://www.christianpost.com/news/nyc-mayor-says-it-was-a-m.... A multi-party proportional system would give this segment more independent political power and weaken liberals. > 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. Incorrect. The "east coast old money types" are among the most socially liberal of the subgroups of the U.S., and Harvard and Yale are extremely liberal on social issues. > If you said MIT, Berkeley, Caltech etc, your shaky proposition about 'liberals' could have been more credible. Engineering schools like MIT and CalTech are actually more socially conservative than schools like Harvard and Yale. STEM workers in general are more conservative on average: https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/2246 https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/2246 > 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. There was no legislation, but that's close to what happened. The Reagan GOP was a coalition of often socially liberal big business types, and religious conservatives in the midwest and south. Nixon and Reagan appointed a bunch of libertarian-leaning Supreme Court justices, who's often defected to the liberal side on social issues. Roe was written by a Nixon appointee (and a Harvard grad). Casey was written by a Reagan appointee, joined by another Reagan appointee (and Harvard grad). Obergefell was written by a Reagan appointee and Harvard grad. Now that the Democratic Party is friendly to big business, most of the “old money” types are democrats. 90% of Wall Street donated to Hilary Clinton. > 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. Not so. In my home country of Bangladesh, there hasn't been much of a "reactionary" movement since Islam was reinstated as the official religion in the 1980s. "Reactionaries" are by definition are reacting to change. That’s where the term comes from—reactionary movements rise in response to revolutionary movements. > 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. You're conveniently forgetting the U.S., which was founded by a bunch of religious fundamentalists that quite consciously distanced themselves from the European enlightenment. But became much more successful than continental Europe. Meanwhile, continental Europe has become so culturally decrepit that they have lost the will to perpetuate their society and are being replaced by Muslims. But I'm not debating religion with you. My point is that if went into Bangladesh and legalized same-sex marriage by court order because you think your morality is better than the morality of stupid villagers, you should expect a "reaction." That's basically what liberals have been doing in America for decades. The reaction to that isn't some Bircher conspiracy, it's a natural cause-and-effect.