4 ms·

> but there is no path to success for conservative ideology on this issue (either through votes or economics). This is perhaps why there has been a big motivat

by danans 3y ago

> but there is no path to success for conservative ideology on this issue (either through votes or economics). This is perhaps why there has been a big motivation for conservative politicians to use (or look the other way from) anti-democratic means to maintain power. Even more than the claimed small-government ideology, there is such an incredibly strong allegiance with the fossil fuel extraction industries [1] that artificially propping those industries is worth the subversion of democracy. There are models of this elsewhere in the world, after all. 1. Liberals once had that too, but lost the fossil fuel geography after the 60s. Manchin is the last of his kind.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
“Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy." ― David Frum Liberals ("neolibs") fucked up bad by taking the working class for granted and letting globalization erode them [1] [2] [3], very similar to what is happening with conservative fossil fuel electorate today. Maybe things have gotten bad enough for that cohort to be catered to again [4], maybe things need to get worse first. [1] https://kof.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/kof-bulletin/kof-bulletin/2020/03/globalisation-middle-class.html https://kof.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/kof-bulletin/kof-bull... [2] https://www.npr.org/2017/07/05/535626109/the-end-of-loyalty-and-the-decline-of-good-jobs-in-america https://www.npr.org/2017/07/05/535626109/the-end-of-loyalty-... [3] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/09/459087477/the-tipping-point-most-americans-no-longer-are-middle-class https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/09/459087477... [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCyZHB7NdPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCyZHB7NdPE
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Conservatism has always been opposed to democracy from the moment “conservative” and “liberal” as political labels were created. At most, they might abandon pretending to support it as cover while working to chip away at the edges when that pretense stops working for them, but that’s not a loss for democracy.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    > Conservatism has always been opposed to democracy Conservatism distilled to its essence can probably be summarized as Chesterton's fence: to not make rash moves changing the status quo without fully understanding both the reason the status quo is the way it is, and the nth-degree aftereffects of the change. So I grant you, in the beginning of democracy, almost by definition conservatism was against it, when the status quo was a feudal monarchy or whatever; but there's been a few hundred intervening years, and I don't think it's fair to make the argument that "conservatism" is still, and will always be, opposed to "democracy".
    - danans 3y ago
      > I don't think it's fair to make the argument that "conservatism" is still, and will always be, opposed to "democracy". I think they are talking about Conservatism in the US specifically, not in general. In the US, Conservatism has been quite active in limiting the voting power of several demographics [1][2], a distinctly anti democratic pattern of behavior. It's a unique situation reflecting our own troubled racial history and the large ideological gulf between the older and younger generations. I wouldn't call that anti-democratic conduct small-c conservative at all, but it's very big-C Conservative in the US. 1. https://apnews.com/article/alabama-redistricting-voting-rights-act-7e7d8ca2fac4063f91311bd363515304 https://apnews.com/article/alabama-redistricting-voting-righ... 2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/20/cleta-mitchell-voting-college-students/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/20/cleta-mitch...
      - gottorf 3y ago
        I wish I had the time to delve a bit deeper into those case of voting restrictions, because they're both more interesting than the surface level reported by the media (which is approximately that "GOP only wants landowning white males to vote"); but I have a busy week, so I'll have to settle for a few short counter-points, even though I appreciate your reasoned discourse and would like to continue in more depth. I really do! First, on the Allen v. Milligan case, it's illustrative to imagine instead what would be the appropriate number of majority-black districts? The state is 68.9% white and 26.8% black[0] and has seven congressional districts. 26.8% of seven is 1.876, so one (which is what it is currently) is too few and two is actually too many. If all districts reflected the state's demographics as a whole equally, none would be majority-black. Besides, I think it imprudent to assume that people vote on racial lines; as the majority opinion notes, "The Court’s opinion does not diminish or disregard the concern that [section 2 of the Voting Rights Act] may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the States", and that "racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters". Both the majority and the dissents are worth reading, as usual. On the second point of campus voting, I think there is reasonable room to argue on what the voting age should be. Prior to the 26th Amendment in 1971, the voting age was 21; which meant that for most of the country's history, young first-time voters already had many years of work experience under their belts and were further on their way to "adulthood". Nowadays, someone at the first-time voting age of 18 is less likely than ever to have worked[1]. Besides, if limiting suffrage is anti-democratic, then is expanding suffrage necessarily pro-democratic? There have been attempts at lowering the voting age to 16[2]; would it be considered anti-democratic to oppose such an action? And even states that are perennially unfriendly to big-C Conservatism based on voting record[3], like New York and New Jersey, were among states that made voting more difficult[4] recently. All this to say: we should continue to have rational debates on the best way to ensure the ongoing health of the nation (that is, politics), and we would all be served better if one side was not depicted as acting against ("anti democratic pattern of behavior") that health, at least not without critical examination. [0]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/AL https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/AL [1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300012 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300012 [2]: https://meng.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/meng-reintroduces-legislation-to-lower-the-voting-age-in-america-to-16-0 https://meng.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/meng-rein... [3]: https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ranking-the-states-demographically-from-most-republican-friendly-to-most-democratic-friendly/ https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ranking-t... [4]: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/VOTING-RESTRICTIONS/znvnbdjbkvl/index.html https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/VOTING-RESTRIC...
- danans 3y ago
  I get what Frum is saying, but he is getting quite a bit of mileage by overly conflating "conservative" and "Republican". I think the people he is referring to are the Conservative Nationalists, who have struck a tacit deal with the fossil fuel extraction industries (someone let me know if there is a pro-renewables Conservative Nationalist of any significance out there). From a small-c conservative point of view, renewables make imminent sense because of the low cost and the fact that they literally conserve resources. This fits very much with the conservative tendency to save and not spend frivolously. Observing this contradiction really demonstrates to me how much big-C Conservatism in the US is really more about institutionally prolonging and cementing the long term viability of fossil fuels. Everything else seems in service to that goal.
- bandyaboot 3y ago
  > Liberals ("neolibs") fucked up bad by taking the working class for granted and letting globalization erode them I can't help but take note of the dichotomy that exists in current US politics. The implication seems to be that Liberals took on a policy stance that was electorally unfavorable and could jeopardize their ability to win elections. And yet: “Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Democratic Party. You should. Liberals will always be with us. If liberals become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon liberalism. The will reject democracy." ― nobody
- yamazakiwi 3y ago
  There are tons of working class liberals. I'm tired of people implying working class people are all conservatives. These people are always framing arguments equating the working class to everyone with staunch conservative political views.
  - danans 3y ago
    > There are tons of working class liberals You are correct, but with the rise of nationalism as an appealing ideology, there are fewer white working class liberals (AKA blue collar) than there were in the past. These people were decisive in the 2016 election, and were a big reason that swing states had close elections in 2020. Many of them have abandoned universalist progressive economic ideas because of the loss of economic security they experienced with globalization. Also, unlike the capitalist and professional classes, the nationalists are often OK with strong safety nets, as long as these benefits are limited to their tribe. They are really neither conservative or liberal. There are other political dimensions involved.
    - yamazakiwi 3y ago
      > there are fewer white working class liberals (AKA blue collar) than there were in the past. This could be because of increased migration into the US and a billion other reasons that have nothing to do with nationalism. >Also, unlike the capitalist and professional classes, the nationalists are often OK with strong safety nets, as long as these benefits are limited to their tribe. They are really neither conservative or liberal. There are other political dimensions involved. Agreed
      - danans 3y ago
        > This could be because of increased migration into the US and a billion other reasons that have nothing to do with nationalism. As voting numbers go, migration only comes into play if you interpret "fewer white working class liberals" proportionally, but I meant it in an absolute sense: that blue collar white Americans have shifted Conservative independently. There is pretty good evidence of the nexus of race and occupational class in recent voting patterns [1][2]. This coupled with the fact that this population overwhelmingly supported economically liberal candidates in the past indicates a major shift, balanced partly in the other direction by the shift of the white professional class toward liberal voting tendencies. If the argument is that migration into the US (which is mostly non-white [3]) is encouraging the white working class less liberal, then that is pretty well describing nationalism. 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-28/how-occupational-class-influences-u-s-voting-patterns https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-28/how-occup... 2. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examinati... 3. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/20/facts-on-u-s-immigrants/#fb-key-charts-origins https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/20/facts-on-u-s...

by danans 3y ago

toomuchtodo 3y ago

“Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy." ― David Frum Liberals ("neolibs") fucked up bad by taking the working class for granted and letting globalization erode them [1] [2] [3], very similar to what is happening with conservative fossil fuel electorate today. Maybe things have gotten bad enough for that cohort to be catered to again [4], maybe things need to get worse first. [1] https://kof.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/kof-bulletin/kof-bulletin/2020/03/globalisation-middle-class.html https://kof.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/kof-bulletin/kof-bull... [2] https://www.npr.org/2017/07/05/535626109/the-end-of-loyalty-and-the-decline-of-good-jobs-in-america https://www.npr.org/2017/07/05/535626109/the-end-of-loyalty-... [3] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/09/459087477/the-tipping-point-most-americans-no-longer-are-middle-class https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/09/459087477... [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCyZHB7NdPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCyZHB7NdPE

dragonwriter 3y ago
Conservatism has always been opposed to democracy from the moment “conservative” and “liberal” as political labels were created. At most, they might abandon pretending to support it as cover while working to chip away at the edges when that pretense stops working for them, but that’s not a loss for democracy.
- gottorf 3y ago
  > Conservatism has always been opposed to democracy Conservatism distilled to its essence can probably be summarized as Chesterton's fence: to not make rash moves changing the status quo without fully understanding both the reason the status quo is the way it is, and the nth-degree aftereffects of the change. So I grant you, in the beginning of democracy, almost by definition conservatism was against it, when the status quo was a feudal monarchy or whatever; but there's been a few hundred intervening years, and I don't think it's fair to make the argument that "conservatism" is still, and will always be, opposed to "democracy".
  - danans 3y ago
    > I don't think it's fair to make the argument that "conservatism" is still, and will always be, opposed to "democracy". I think they are talking about Conservatism in the US specifically, not in general. In the US, Conservatism has been quite active in limiting the voting power of several demographics [1][2], a distinctly anti democratic pattern of behavior. It's a unique situation reflecting our own troubled racial history and the large ideological gulf between the older and younger generations. I wouldn't call that anti-democratic conduct small-c conservative at all, but it's very big-C Conservative in the US. 1. https://apnews.com/article/alabama-redistricting-voting-rights-act-7e7d8ca2fac4063f91311bd363515304 https://apnews.com/article/alabama-redistricting-voting-righ... 2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/20/cleta-mitchell-voting-college-students/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/20/cleta-mitch...
    - gottorf 3y ago
      I wish I had the time to delve a bit deeper into those case of voting restrictions, because they're both more interesting than the surface level reported by the media (which is approximately that "GOP only wants landowning white males to vote"); but I have a busy week, so I'll have to settle for a few short counter-points, even though I appreciate your reasoned discourse and would like to continue in more depth. I really do! First, on the Allen v. Milligan case, it's illustrative to imagine instead what would be the appropriate number of majority-black districts? The state is 68.9% white and 26.8% black[0] and has seven congressional districts. 26.8% of seven is 1.876, so one (which is what it is currently) is too few and two is actually too many. If all districts reflected the state's demographics as a whole equally, none would be majority-black. Besides, I think it imprudent to assume that people vote on racial lines; as the majority opinion notes, "The Court’s opinion does not diminish or disregard the concern that [section 2 of the Voting Rights Act] may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the States", and that "racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters". Both the majority and the dissents are worth reading, as usual. On the second point of campus voting, I think there is reasonable room to argue on what the voting age should be. Prior to the 26th Amendment in 1971, the voting age was 21; which meant that for most of the country's history, young first-time voters already had many years of work experience under their belts and were further on their way to "adulthood". Nowadays, someone at the first-time voting age of 18 is less likely than ever to have worked[1]. Besides, if limiting suffrage is anti-democratic, then is expanding suffrage necessarily pro-democratic? There have been attempts at lowering the voting age to 16[2]; would it be considered anti-democratic to oppose such an action? And even states that are perennially unfriendly to big-C Conservatism based on voting record[3], like New York and New Jersey, were among states that made voting more difficult[4] recently. All this to say: we should continue to have rational debates on the best way to ensure the ongoing health of the nation (that is, politics), and we would all be served better if one side was not depicted as acting against ("anti democratic pattern of behavior") that health, at least not without critical examination. [0]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/AL https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/AL [1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300012 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300012 [2]: https://meng.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/meng-reintroduces-legislation-to-lower-the-voting-age-in-america-to-16-0 https://meng.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/meng-rein... [3]: https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ranking-the-states-demographically-from-most-republican-friendly-to-most-democratic-friendly/ https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ranking-t... [4]: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/VOTING-RESTRICTIONS/znvnbdjbkvl/index.html https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/VOTING-RESTRIC...
danans 3y ago
I get what Frum is saying, but he is getting quite a bit of mileage by overly conflating "conservative" and "Republican". I think the people he is referring to are the Conservative Nationalists, who have struck a tacit deal with the fossil fuel extraction industries (someone let me know if there is a pro-renewables Conservative Nationalist of any significance out there). From a small-c conservative point of view, renewables make imminent sense because of the low cost and the fact that they literally conserve resources. This fits very much with the conservative tendency to save and not spend frivolously. Observing this contradiction really demonstrates to me how much big-C Conservatism in the US is really more about institutionally prolonging and cementing the long term viability of fossil fuels. Everything else seems in service to that goal.
bandyaboot 3y ago
> Liberals ("neolibs") fucked up bad by taking the working class for granted and letting globalization erode them I can't help but take note of the dichotomy that exists in current US politics. The implication seems to be that Liberals took on a policy stance that was electorally unfavorable and could jeopardize their ability to win elections. And yet: “Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Democratic Party. You should. Liberals will always be with us. If liberals become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon liberalism. The will reject democracy." ― nobody
yamazakiwi 3y ago
There are tons of working class liberals. I'm tired of people implying working class people are all conservatives. These people are always framing arguments equating the working class to everyone with staunch conservative political views.
- danans 3y ago
  > There are tons of working class liberals You are correct, but with the rise of nationalism as an appealing ideology, there are fewer white working class liberals (AKA blue collar) than there were in the past. These people were decisive in the 2016 election, and were a big reason that swing states had close elections in 2020. Many of them have abandoned universalist progressive economic ideas because of the loss of economic security they experienced with globalization. Also, unlike the capitalist and professional classes, the nationalists are often OK with strong safety nets, as long as these benefits are limited to their tribe. They are really neither conservative or liberal. There are other political dimensions involved.
  - yamazakiwi 3y ago
    > there are fewer white working class liberals (AKA blue collar) than there were in the past. This could be because of increased migration into the US and a billion other reasons that have nothing to do with nationalism. >Also, unlike the capitalist and professional classes, the nationalists are often OK with strong safety nets, as long as these benefits are limited to their tribe. They are really neither conservative or liberal. There are other political dimensions involved. Agreed
    - danans 3y ago
      > This could be because of increased migration into the US and a billion other reasons that have nothing to do with nationalism. As voting numbers go, migration only comes into play if you interpret "fewer white working class liberals" proportionally, but I meant it in an absolute sense: that blue collar white Americans have shifted Conservative independently. There is pretty good evidence of the nexus of race and occupational class in recent voting patterns [1][2]. This coupled with the fact that this population overwhelmingly supported economically liberal candidates in the past indicates a major shift, balanced partly in the other direction by the shift of the white professional class toward liberal voting tendencies. If the argument is that migration into the US (which is mostly non-white [3]) is encouraging the white working class less liberal, then that is pretty well describing nationalism. 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-28/how-occupational-class-influences-u-s-voting-patterns https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-28/how-occup... 2. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examinati... 3. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/20/facts-on-u-s-immigrants/#fb-key-charts-origins https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/20/facts-on-u-s...