3 ms·

> he’s generally intelligent. He’s not going to run the country into the ground I think you're having a hard time grasping the concept of people who care more

by dkarl 1y ago

> he’s generally intelligent. He’s not going to run the country into the ground I think you're having a hard time grasping the concept of people who care more about rolling back social and cultural change than they care about the United States being a strong and prosperous country. The tension between those priorities in the Republican party has been resolved. The current leaders in the party, including Vance, rose because they understood that their voters are ready to let go of world leadership, including technological leadership and economic competitiveness, in order to roll back social progress. If you ask them directly, they'll invoke some magical thinking about how this is going to unleash a golden age of prosperity and technology, but they don't care if they believe it or if anyone believes it, because they don't actually care anymore. That's why they don't blink when Trump talks about backwards, impoverished countries with admiration. There's no contradiction for them. They really do look at a country like Russia and think, yes, I want the U.S. to be an American-flavored version of that.

scoofy 1y ago
I grew up in a wildly religious family, and was in wildly conservative areas for part of that time. There are a lot of people who want to roll back social and cultural change for good-faith religious reasons. I think are wrong for thinking these things. However, they still also want to have a strong and prosperous nation. My point is not to say that I want the future they want. It's to say I also don't want the future they don't want. We can meet in the middle, where the world is less shitty, even though it's still shitty.
- dkarl 1y ago
  I think you're describing a part of the Republican Party that is now almost irrelevant, one that kept expecting the voters to turn against Donald Trump. They're the ones who thought, what the hell is Trump doing sucking up to Putin? Our voters are patriots who have no hesitation about calling the United States the greatest nation on earth. Surely they're going to be shocked at Trump fawning over a sad sack country like Russia. Surely patriotic voters are going to be offended at the president of their precious eagle scream U! S! A! showing open admiration for an ex-superpower with a ruined economy, zero cultural capital, a laughingstock of a democratic system, and a crumbling military with zero global reach. That point of view still exists in the Republican Party, but it has been eclipsed by something sadder and smaller-minded. Liberal progressives have long used national greatness as a lever on patriotic conservatives, telling them, look, our "national greatness" comes from our embrace of education, cultural change, new people, new ideas. If conservatives love our supposed national greatness, they should embrace the progressive liberal ideals that built it. Now, it's like the Republican Party has been taken over by conservatives who... decided the liberals were right? It's like they gave up and said, y'all are right, national greatness requires education, continual learning and self-criticism, openness to new ideas and new people, and acceptance of creative destruction, both economic and cultural. They accepted that, grieved, faced the choice with clear eyes, and decided that national greatness isn't worth the cost. They look at Russia and see a country that is marinating in its own chauvinism, and they want that instead.
  - scoofy 1y ago
    The Republican party is, in fact, a coalition. When parts of that coalition become alienated enough, and that is very much happening right now, then we have a chance to coordinate with our coalition. You sound like you don't know any decent Republicans who are really upset at what's happening. I do. They ought to be encouraged to speak up.
    - dralley 1y ago
      A lot of the "alienated" Republicans already split from the party. They're no longer in the coalition. The fundamental demographics of the party are different than they were 10-20 years ago. And this is a continuous process. The fact of the matter is that "the party" is MAGA now, there is effectively no internal resistance, and mounting one is basically intractable. Trump won the primary with 80% of the vote despite "strong" opposition.
    - busyant 1y ago
      > The Republican party is, in fact, a coalition. It really isn't anymore. I agree that there are many decent "old-time" Republicans, but they've been neutered and/or they've "self-deported" themselves from politics. Romney might've been able to run and split the vote. Bush the younger could've put his thumb on the scale, too. Murkowski says "we are all afraid" [of MAGA]. Many traditional Republican congressmen have simply bowed out and not sought re-election. McCain is dead. The only one that I can think of that actually stood up is Liz Cheney. To use a programming phrase, the country is in an "error state" and has been since 2017. I don't know what the re-set is.
    - dkarl 1y ago
      Sorry, we've been hearing that since before Trump clinched the nomination in 2016, but political parties change, and there's no enduring Republican norm that is going to imminently reassert itself. I do know some "decent Republicans," though they've been voting Democratic for a while now. When I was growing up in the 1980s and 1990s, a lot of people saw the Republican Party as a party of educated, foreign policy-savvy, business friendly elite pragmatists. For some people I know, that brand is cemented in their minds as the soul of the Republican Party, regardless of 30+ years of various radically different factions dominating the party since then. But now those "decent Republicans" vote Democrat. Their feeling about it, to repurpose a saying from a different context, could be summed up as, "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us." They never wanted to be Democrats and still have a sentimental attachment to the Republican Party, but here they are.
- awnird 1y ago
  "An imaginary man in the sky told me to hate you" is not a good-faith reason.
  - scoofy 1y ago
    Unfortunately, it is if you really believe it.
    - dragontamer 1y ago
      > 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. +------- I'm not thinking that Religion is the problem here.
- LexiMax 1y ago
  > There are a lot of people who want to roll back social and cultural change for good-faith religious reasons. What makes you believe that they are engaging with their religious views in good faith? I know a great many friends and acquaintances that take their religious studies seriously. I also have met a great many more whose approach is far more cavalier, simply using their beliefs to justify their existing biases and gut feelings, as well as justifying and excusing their own anti-social behavior.

by dkarl 1y ago

scoofy 1y ago

I grew up in a wildly religious family, and was in wildly conservative areas for part of that time. There are a lot of people who want to roll back social and cultural change for good-faith religious reasons. I think are wrong for thinking these things. However, they still also want to have a strong and prosperous nation. My point is not to say that I want the future they want. It's to say I also don't want the future they don't want. We can meet in the middle, where the world is less shitty, even though it's still shitty.

dkarl 1y ago
I think you're describing a part of the Republican Party that is now almost irrelevant, one that kept expecting the voters to turn against Donald Trump. They're the ones who thought, what the hell is Trump doing sucking up to Putin? Our voters are patriots who have no hesitation about calling the United States the greatest nation on earth. Surely they're going to be shocked at Trump fawning over a sad sack country like Russia. Surely patriotic voters are going to be offended at the president of their precious eagle scream U! S! A! showing open admiration for an ex-superpower with a ruined economy, zero cultural capital, a laughingstock of a democratic system, and a crumbling military with zero global reach. That point of view still exists in the Republican Party, but it has been eclipsed by something sadder and smaller-minded. Liberal progressives have long used national greatness as a lever on patriotic conservatives, telling them, look, our "national greatness" comes from our embrace of education, cultural change, new people, new ideas. If conservatives love our supposed national greatness, they should embrace the progressive liberal ideals that built it. Now, it's like the Republican Party has been taken over by conservatives who... decided the liberals were right? It's like they gave up and said, y'all are right, national greatness requires education, continual learning and self-criticism, openness to new ideas and new people, and acceptance of creative destruction, both economic and cultural. They accepted that, grieved, faced the choice with clear eyes, and decided that national greatness isn't worth the cost. They look at Russia and see a country that is marinating in its own chauvinism, and they want that instead.
- scoofy 1y ago
  The Republican party is, in fact, a coalition. When parts of that coalition become alienated enough, and that is very much happening right now, then we have a chance to coordinate with our coalition. You sound like you don't know any decent Republicans who are really upset at what's happening. I do. They ought to be encouraged to speak up.
  - dralley 1y ago
    A lot of the "alienated" Republicans already split from the party. They're no longer in the coalition. The fundamental demographics of the party are different than they were 10-20 years ago. And this is a continuous process. The fact of the matter is that "the party" is MAGA now, there is effectively no internal resistance, and mounting one is basically intractable. Trump won the primary with 80% of the vote despite "strong" opposition.
  - busyant 1y ago
    > The Republican party is, in fact, a coalition. It really isn't anymore. I agree that there are many decent "old-time" Republicans, but they've been neutered and/or they've "self-deported" themselves from politics. Romney might've been able to run and split the vote. Bush the younger could've put his thumb on the scale, too. Murkowski says "we are all afraid" [of MAGA]. Many traditional Republican congressmen have simply bowed out and not sought re-election. McCain is dead. The only one that I can think of that actually stood up is Liz Cheney. To use a programming phrase, the country is in an "error state" and has been since 2017. I don't know what the re-set is.
  - dkarl 1y ago
    Sorry, we've been hearing that since before Trump clinched the nomination in 2016, but political parties change, and there's no enduring Republican norm that is going to imminently reassert itself. I do know some "decent Republicans," though they've been voting Democratic for a while now. When I was growing up in the 1980s and 1990s, a lot of people saw the Republican Party as a party of educated, foreign policy-savvy, business friendly elite pragmatists. For some people I know, that brand is cemented in their minds as the soul of the Republican Party, regardless of 30+ years of various radically different factions dominating the party since then. But now those "decent Republicans" vote Democrat. Their feeling about it, to repurpose a saying from a different context, could be summed up as, "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us." They never wanted to be Democrats and still have a sentimental attachment to the Republican Party, but here they are.
awnird 1y ago
"An imaginary man in the sky told me to hate you" is not a good-faith reason.
- scoofy 1y ago
  Unfortunately, it is if you really believe it.
  - dragontamer 1y ago
    > 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. +------- I'm not thinking that Religion is the problem here.
LexiMax 1y ago
> There are a lot of people who want to roll back social and cultural change for good-faith religious reasons. What makes you believe that they are engaging with their religious views in good faith? I know a great many friends and acquaintances that take their religious studies seriously. I also have met a great many more whose approach is far more cavalier, simply using their beliefs to justify their existing biases and gut feelings, as well as justifying and excusing their own anti-social behavior.