3 ms·

Ugh. It took about two years for the world to more or less return to normal when COVID struck. Instead of conservatives learning a lesson about that, they ins

Ugh. It took about two years for the world to more or less return to normal when COVID struck. Instead of conservatives learning a lesson about that, they instead just declared COVID as fake, lied about vaccines, and reelected the demagogue that's partly responsible for the virus's wide spread in the US in the first place. Frankly, it's tiring. I don't know why about half the country wants this.

BSOhealth 2y ago
Always remember, only 31% of eligible voters voted for the current administration. 69% either disagree, or didn’t vote. If the current administration doesn’t prove their value, the people will start to have a say in another 2 years at the house level.
- bluGill 2y ago
  If you didn't vote I count you as agreeing without whatever. If you disagree vote. If you don't like the major candidates vote for a third party.
  - buttercraft 2y ago
    Not voting doesn't mean you automatically agree with the winner's policies, no.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      It means you don't care. Whatever happens you will happily go along with-
      - teddyh 2y ago
        Voting for either Kang or Kodos does not mean that you agree with whoever you voted for. And not voting does not mean that you do not care at all about the issues.
- tombert 2y ago
  We still have at least two more years of this crap. It hasn't even been a month and I am already exhausted. I guess that's kind of the point, so at least they're doing one thing right.
- jfengel 2y ago
  Of those who didn't vote, why would they choose to vote next time? None of this is a surprise. It's not even like 2016, where people could say "I figured he'd be less bad than he said he would be" with a straight face. Whatever excuse they found to not vote for the Democrat in 2024, will still apply in 2026 and 2028. Or they'll find a new one. And turnout in midterms is even worse than in Presidential years. I don't see those non-voters suddenly taking an interest then. It would be fantastic if somebody learned some lessons. But I think 2024 proves pretty definitively that people don't learn lessons.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Of those who didn't vote, why would they choose to vote next time? My recollection is that non-voters tend to be reliably lazy, but I can’t find a good source. The system almost relies on it. If you can identify a non-voting bloc, in primaries or ideally even generals, you can tax them to give goodies to citizens.
    - tombert 2y ago
      It's especially frustrating because it's always a self-righteous and sanctimonious rationalization to why they never vote. It's maddening, they complain about Trump, and when I mention that they didn't vote they say "YOU THINK KAMALA WOULD BE BETTER??? YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO FIX THIS PROBLEM BY VOTING LOL!!". And of course, they never define what "the problem" is, so there's actually no way to solve it, so they never have to actually vote.
      - jfengel 2y ago
        In my experience they can usually cite something that they don't like about the candidate. In the case of Harris I often heard her position on Gaza given. And they'll always find something, since we're talking about an office with life and death on the line.
        tombert 2y ago
mindslight 2y ago
Remember when Time Magazine did a Person of the Year that was just a mirror? That's where we are, even harder as (corporate) social media has ramped up. Simplistic conspiratorial "theories" play to people's egos. It's basically the populist outrage playbook the Republicans have been running for the past three decades (while keeping their monster contained in a cage and only feeding off the energy), gradually building more and more steam as they repeat the same tripe (eg myopic nonsense about the "deficit"), and now it has escaped. One of the first steps to righting this ship is to get our terminology straight and stop calling them conservatives. Conservative is not a synonym for Republican. Conservatives respect institutions, America's contribution to the world, fiscal responsibility, want to slow gradual change, etc. In the last election, the conservative option was squarely the Democrats. The modern grassroots Republican parties are populist reactionaries, and the people they've elected are (neo)fascists. The probable landscape is that they are just working for China to destroy this country and sell off the pieces.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  True conservatism has never been tried :) The problem with your analysis is that you don't have the power to define what conservatism is; if enough populist reactionaries wrap themselves in the mantle of conservatism (which they absolutely have) then they gain effective ownership of teh term and ruin it for everyone else. I agree with your general thesis but think the rot goes back longer than 3 decades, although it got markedly worse after Newt Gingrich became speaker, around the same time that Fox News started on cable. As an example, consider Phyllis Schlafy's 'Eagle Forum'. Founded in 1972, its always been a reflection of its late founder's strident reactory outlook, to the point that their periodic rants about communism seem quaint and anachronistic. You could be forgiven for thinking it was relevant for political scientists studying the American right in the 20th century...except the US attorney for DC (a guy named Ed Martin Jr) is an Eagle Forum veteran, and a glance at his X timeline shows he's still all in on la Schlafly, doing official government business through his X account (eg publishing documents ther and nowhere else), and generally living down to the stereotype of a wild-eyed ideologue. In short, I don't believe terminological exactitude isn't going to get us out of this. The famously cranky Samuel Johnson, writing disdainfully of a British Prime Minister in 1775, commented 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel'. His point was that any concept invested with general-purpose social value - patriotism, love of nation, belief in community, conserving the body politic - can be exploited for short-term political gain to the detriment of long-term well-being. It's a perennial problem.

BSOhealth 2y ago

Always remember, only 31% of eligible voters voted for the current administration. 69% either disagree, or didn’t vote. If the current administration doesn’t prove their value, the people will start to have a say in another 2 years at the house level.

bluGill 2y ago
If you didn't vote I count you as agreeing without whatever. If you disagree vote. If you don't like the major candidates vote for a third party.
- buttercraft 2y ago
  Not voting doesn't mean you automatically agree with the winner's policies, no.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    It means you don't care. Whatever happens you will happily go along with-
    - teddyh 2y ago
      Voting for either Kang or Kodos does not mean that you agree with whoever you voted for. And not voting does not mean that you do not care at all about the issues.
tombert 2y ago
We still have at least two more years of this crap. It hasn't even been a month and I am already exhausted. I guess that's kind of the point, so at least they're doing one thing right.
jfengel 2y ago
Of those who didn't vote, why would they choose to vote next time? None of this is a surprise. It's not even like 2016, where people could say "I figured he'd be less bad than he said he would be" with a straight face. Whatever excuse they found to not vote for the Democrat in 2024, will still apply in 2026 and 2028. Or they'll find a new one. And turnout in midterms is even worse than in Presidential years. I don't see those non-voters suddenly taking an interest then. It would be fantastic if somebody learned some lessons. But I think 2024 proves pretty definitively that people don't learn lessons.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Of those who didn't vote, why would they choose to vote next time? My recollection is that non-voters tend to be reliably lazy, but I can’t find a good source. The system almost relies on it. If you can identify a non-voting bloc, in primaries or ideally even generals, you can tax them to give goodies to citizens.
  - tombert 2y ago
    It's especially frustrating because it's always a self-righteous and sanctimonious rationalization to why they never vote. It's maddening, they complain about Trump, and when I mention that they didn't vote they say "YOU THINK KAMALA WOULD BE BETTER??? YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO FIX THIS PROBLEM BY VOTING LOL!!". And of course, they never define what "the problem" is, so there's actually no way to solve it, so they never have to actually vote.
    - jfengel 2y ago
      In my experience they can usually cite something that they don't like about the candidate. In the case of Harris I often heard her position on Gaza given. And they'll always find something, since we're talking about an office with life and death on the line.
      - tombert 2y ago

mindslight 2y ago

Remember when Time Magazine did a Person of the Year that was just a mirror? That's where we are, even harder as (corporate) social media has ramped up. Simplistic conspiratorial "theories" play to people's egos. It's basically the populist outrage playbook the Republicans have been running for the past three decades (while keeping their monster contained in a cage and only feeding off the energy), gradually building more and more steam as they repeat the same tripe (eg myopic nonsense about the "deficit"), and now it has escaped. One of the first steps to righting this ship is to get our terminology straight and stop calling them conservatives. Conservative is not a synonym for Republican. Conservatives respect institutions, America's contribution to the world, fiscal responsibility, want to slow gradual change, etc. In the last election, the conservative option was squarely the Democrats. The modern grassroots Republican parties are populist reactionaries, and the people they've elected are (neo)fascists. The probable landscape is that they are just working for China to destroy this country and sell off the pieces.

anigbrowl 2y ago
True conservatism has never been tried :) The problem with your analysis is that you don't have the power to define what conservatism is; if enough populist reactionaries wrap themselves in the mantle of conservatism (which they absolutely have) then they gain effective ownership of teh term and ruin it for everyone else. I agree with your general thesis but think the rot goes back longer than 3 decades, although it got markedly worse after Newt Gingrich became speaker, around the same time that Fox News started on cable. As an example, consider Phyllis Schlafy's 'Eagle Forum'. Founded in 1972, its always been a reflection of its late founder's strident reactory outlook, to the point that their periodic rants about communism seem quaint and anachronistic. You could be forgiven for thinking it was relevant for political scientists studying the American right in the 20th century...except the US attorney for DC (a guy named Ed Martin Jr) is an Eagle Forum veteran, and a glance at his X timeline shows he's still all in on la Schlafly, doing official government business through his X account (eg publishing documents ther and nowhere else), and generally living down to the stereotype of a wild-eyed ideologue. In short, I don't believe terminological exactitude isn't going to get us out of this. The famously cranky Samuel Johnson, writing disdainfully of a British Prime Minister in 1775, commented 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel'. His point was that any concept invested with general-purpose social value - patriotism, love of nation, belief in community, conserving the body politic - can be exploited for short-term political gain to the detriment of long-term well-being. It's a perennial problem.