7 ms·

"Party of free speech," my ass.

ttul 1y ago
The GOP under Trump has considerably changed from the GOP under Bush. There is no longer a political home for Reagan/Bush-style conservatives. Perhaps a shift might be coming with the next economic downturn, which seems inevitable given the risk-off investment climate across most industries stemming from Trump’s erratic, unpredictable trade and economic policy. Things don’t look bad just yet, but it takes a while for the full impact of such enormous changes in sentiment to ripple down through the entire economy.
- toyg 1y ago
  > There is no longer a political home for Reagan/Bush-style conservatives That's funny, considering Bush II effectively established the coalition of business interests, religious zealots, and neofascist militias, which then expanded to be the backbone of Trump's support. Cautionary tale about consequences of one's political choices? I wish.
- tomrod 1y ago
  Libertarian and Democratic parties ought to feel right at home for any refugees from the GOP who have conservative principles. Democratic party is right of center.
- yardie 1y ago
  Reagan and Bush were constrained by much more liberal supreme court justices of the previous era. The current Supreme Court justices were clerks and lawyers during Reagan and Bush presidency. If Reagan and Bush had the current justices in their bench I can almost guarantee they’d be pulling the same stunts.
- zeroonetwothree 1y ago
  Bush wasn’t exactly a steward of free speech
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  > There is no longer a political home for Reagan/Bush-style conservatives. There is, they just don’t like it for aesthetic and/or historical reasons. The faction that currently runs the Democratic party is the centrist, deficit-reducing, foreign-intervention-when-necessary party of Reagan/Bush. If the centrists and moderate conservatives could make common cause, they would easily shut out both the far left and far right wings of American politics. The demographics are there. I think the main wedge preventing this unification is still abortion, and to a lesser extent LGBTQ rights. But it’s so weird to see two political factions that agree on 90% of policy get shellacked and overruled by their respective extreme wings. Real tail wagging the dog stuff.
  - tyre 1y ago
    > it’s so weird to see two political factions that agree on 90% of policy get shellacked and overruled by their respective extreme wings These parties have primaries and Republicans are choosing—by a majority—the crazies over the “traditional” wing. They aren’t extremists. They are the party views.
    - SoftTalker 1y ago
      Most moderates don’t vote in the primaries. The hardcore extremists vote unfailingly.
    - donatj 1y ago
      Primaries are primarily voted in by crazies. Regular people have lives and jobs.
    - TimorousBestie 1y ago
      > These parties have primaries and Republicans are choosing—by a majority—the crazies over the “traditional” wing. Elections are by and large not contests of policy, and I think it’s likely that most American voters (across the spectrum, not just the GOP) aren’t voting in their own self-interest anymore.
  - opo 1y ago
    >The faction that currently runs the Democratic party is the centrist, deficit-reducing, foreign-intervention-when-necessary party of Reagan/Bush. How are you defining "deficit-reducing"? >Over the four years of President Biden’s term – from January 2021 through January 2025 – we estimate that he approved $4.7 trillion in new ten-year debt through legislation and executive actions. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did-president-biden-add-debt https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did-president-biden-add-... That rate of debt increase is neither responsible or sustainable - though such irresponsible behavior has now been adopted by both parties. Both parties seem to have become radicalized and are catering to their worst instincts.
- CalChris 1y ago
  The Bushes and Reagan were a little more genteel but that's it. Reagan even gave the wink wink nod nod speech about States' Rights at the Neshoba County Fair. The difference between them and Trump is sortorial.
gchamonlive 1y ago
Free speech for me, not for thee
barbazoo 1y ago
Virtue signalling Christian values, obviously that overrides free speech.
zeroonetwothree 1y ago
Neither of the two parties is very much in favor of free speech. The left has cancel culture and policing pronouns while the right has blocking books with gay characters and age verification laws.
- archagon 1y ago
  “Cancel culture” is not government policy (and never was).
  - YetAnotherNick 1y ago
    Except it was. It was the government who ordered Twitter to ban or shadowban people like Prof. Jay Bhattacharya.
    - archagon 1y ago
      The government had no capacity to “order” Twitter to do this, in stark contrast to this law.
      - reliabilityguy 1y ago
        And yet they did, and twitter did comply.
    - yakz 1y ago
      The government didn't do that. "The primary weakness in the record of past restrictions is the lack of specific causation findings with respect to any discrete instance of content moderation." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
  - const_cast 1y ago
    Cancel Culture is actually just the free market, the invisible hand, at work. What is a boycott but cancel culture? The idea of the free market is that good behaviors and products emerge because consumers "vote" with their wallet. If a company has bad values I don't support then I don't shop there. Enough people do that and the company collapses. So, what remains is an economy where every company acts virtuously. Theoretically. Then enters propaganda and the GOP. They tell you this invisible hand is bad, and companies should be able to do anything. At a glance this appears to be free speech, but it's not - it's the exact opposite. You see, they can say anything they want, but we can't. We may not criticize them. Our opinions are not valid, they're "Cancel Culture".
istjohn 1y ago
I worry that young people across the political spectrum increasingly no longer see free speech as a foundational value. Both sides pay lip service and deploy it strategically but are quick to sacrifice it when it conflicts with other values and goals. The ACLU won our expansive free speech protections defending the KKK in the 1950s. But today, the ACLU has become short-sighted. They are more concerned with social progressivism than the liberal foundations of our democracy which allow social progressives to continue fighting. Young progressives are happy to sacrifice free speech protections to prevent hate speech. On the other hand, social conservatives have always been eager to curtail speech they consider obscene or liscentious, and now Trump is using executive powers to punish protesters, creating an authoritarian atmosphere unlike anything we've experienced since perhaps the McCarthy era. There are organisations like FIRE and EFF that give me some hope, but it increasingly feels like all sides would rather cement themselves in power than continue the infinite game of liberal democracy.
- myko 1y ago
  > But today, the ACLU has become short-sighted. They are more concerned with social progressivism than the liberal foundations of our democracy which allow social progressives to continue fighting. Quite the opposite. I stopped donating to the ACLU after a few years of the last trump administration because I could no longer stomach it given the clear direction trumpism is taking the country. I still support the mission ideologically but can't back it up with my money. Seeing trump this time around I'm glad I haven't wasted the money - the constitution is dead.
- waffleiron 1y ago
  >They are more concerned with social progressivism than the liberal foundations of our democracy That's absolutely not true In 2017 they filed a lawsuit defending conservative / far-right Milo Yiannopoulos [1] and spoke up for suppression of Trump [2]. Defended someone wishing death to gay people [3]. Filed an amicus brief supporting the NRA's free speech in '18 [4] And tons of other examples every single year after that: https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-we-hate https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-w... [1] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-dc-metro-over-rejection-first-amendment-ad https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-dc-metro-over-... [2] https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/donald-trump-has-free-speech-rights-too https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/donald-trump-has-free-... [3] https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/06/aclu-defending-guy-called-death-fs/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/06/aclu-defending-guy-calle... [4] https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/new-york-state-cant-be-allowed-stifle-nras-political-speech https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/new-york-state-cant-be...
timeon 1y ago
[flagged]

ttul 1y ago

The GOP under Trump has considerably changed from the GOP under Bush. There is no longer a political home for Reagan/Bush-style conservatives. Perhaps a shift might be coming with the next economic downturn, which seems inevitable given the risk-off investment climate across most industries stemming from Trump’s erratic, unpredictable trade and economic policy. Things don’t look bad just yet, but it takes a while for the full impact of such enormous changes in sentiment to ripple down through the entire economy.

toyg 1y ago
> There is no longer a political home for Reagan/Bush-style conservatives That's funny, considering Bush II effectively established the coalition of business interests, religious zealots, and neofascist militias, which then expanded to be the backbone of Trump's support. Cautionary tale about consequences of one's political choices? I wish.
tomrod 1y ago
Libertarian and Democratic parties ought to feel right at home for any refugees from the GOP who have conservative principles. Democratic party is right of center.
yardie 1y ago
Reagan and Bush were constrained by much more liberal supreme court justices of the previous era. The current Supreme Court justices were clerks and lawyers during Reagan and Bush presidency. If Reagan and Bush had the current justices in their bench I can almost guarantee they’d be pulling the same stunts.
zeroonetwothree 1y ago
Bush wasn’t exactly a steward of free speech
TimorousBestie 1y ago
> There is no longer a political home for Reagan/Bush-style conservatives. There is, they just don’t like it for aesthetic and/or historical reasons. The faction that currently runs the Democratic party is the centrist, deficit-reducing, foreign-intervention-when-necessary party of Reagan/Bush. If the centrists and moderate conservatives could make common cause, they would easily shut out both the far left and far right wings of American politics. The demographics are there. I think the main wedge preventing this unification is still abortion, and to a lesser extent LGBTQ rights. But it’s so weird to see two political factions that agree on 90% of policy get shellacked and overruled by their respective extreme wings. Real tail wagging the dog stuff.
- tyre 1y ago
  > it’s so weird to see two political factions that agree on 90% of policy get shellacked and overruled by their respective extreme wings These parties have primaries and Republicans are choosing—by a majority—the crazies over the “traditional” wing. They aren’t extremists. They are the party views.
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    Most moderates don’t vote in the primaries. The hardcore extremists vote unfailingly.
  - donatj 1y ago
    Primaries are primarily voted in by crazies. Regular people have lives and jobs.
  - TimorousBestie 1y ago
    > These parties have primaries and Republicans are choosing—by a majority—the crazies over the “traditional” wing. Elections are by and large not contests of policy, and I think it’s likely that most American voters (across the spectrum, not just the GOP) aren’t voting in their own self-interest anymore.
- opo 1y ago
  >The faction that currently runs the Democratic party is the centrist, deficit-reducing, foreign-intervention-when-necessary party of Reagan/Bush. How are you defining "deficit-reducing"? >Over the four years of President Biden’s term – from January 2021 through January 2025 – we estimate that he approved $4.7 trillion in new ten-year debt through legislation and executive actions. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did-president-biden-add-debt https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did-president-biden-add-... That rate of debt increase is neither responsible or sustainable - though such irresponsible behavior has now been adopted by both parties. Both parties seem to have become radicalized and are catering to their worst instincts.
CalChris 1y ago
The Bushes and Reagan were a little more genteel but that's it. Reagan even gave the wink wink nod nod speech about States' Rights at the Neshoba County Fair. The difference between them and Trump is sortorial.

gchamonlive 1y ago

Free speech for me, not for thee

barbazoo 1y ago

Virtue signalling Christian values, obviously that overrides free speech.

zeroonetwothree 1y ago

Neither of the two parties is very much in favor of free speech. The left has cancel culture and policing pronouns while the right has blocking books with gay characters and age verification laws.

archagon 1y ago
“Cancel culture” is not government policy (and never was).
- YetAnotherNick 1y ago
  Except it was. It was the government who ordered Twitter to ban or shadowban people like Prof. Jay Bhattacharya.
  - archagon 1y ago
    The government had no capacity to “order” Twitter to do this, in stark contrast to this law.
    - reliabilityguy 1y ago
      And yet they did, and twitter did comply.
  - yakz 1y ago
    The government didn't do that. "The primary weakness in the record of past restrictions is the lack of specific causation findings with respect to any discrete instance of content moderation." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
- const_cast 1y ago
  Cancel Culture is actually just the free market, the invisible hand, at work. What is a boycott but cancel culture? The idea of the free market is that good behaviors and products emerge because consumers "vote" with their wallet. If a company has bad values I don't support then I don't shop there. Enough people do that and the company collapses. So, what remains is an economy where every company acts virtuously. Theoretically. Then enters propaganda and the GOP. They tell you this invisible hand is bad, and companies should be able to do anything. At a glance this appears to be free speech, but it's not - it's the exact opposite. You see, they can say anything they want, but we can't. We may not criticize them. Our opinions are not valid, they're "Cancel Culture".

istjohn 1y ago

I worry that young people across the political spectrum increasingly no longer see free speech as a foundational value. Both sides pay lip service and deploy it strategically but are quick to sacrifice it when it conflicts with other values and goals. The ACLU won our expansive free speech protections defending the KKK in the 1950s. But today, the ACLU has become short-sighted. They are more concerned with social progressivism than the liberal foundations of our democracy which allow social progressives to continue fighting. Young progressives are happy to sacrifice free speech protections to prevent hate speech. On the other hand, social conservatives have always been eager to curtail speech they consider obscene or liscentious, and now Trump is using executive powers to punish protesters, creating an authoritarian atmosphere unlike anything we've experienced since perhaps the McCarthy era. There are organisations like FIRE and EFF that give me some hope, but it increasingly feels like all sides would rather cement themselves in power than continue the infinite game of liberal democracy.

myko 1y ago
> But today, the ACLU has become short-sighted. They are more concerned with social progressivism than the liberal foundations of our democracy which allow social progressives to continue fighting. Quite the opposite. I stopped donating to the ACLU after a few years of the last trump administration because I could no longer stomach it given the clear direction trumpism is taking the country. I still support the mission ideologically but can't back it up with my money. Seeing trump this time around I'm glad I haven't wasted the money - the constitution is dead.
waffleiron 1y ago
>They are more concerned with social progressivism than the liberal foundations of our democracy That's absolutely not true In 2017 they filed a lawsuit defending conservative / far-right Milo Yiannopoulos [1] and spoke up for suppression of Trump [2]. Defended someone wishing death to gay people [3]. Filed an amicus brief supporting the NRA's free speech in '18 [4] And tons of other examples every single year after that: https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-we-hate https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-w... [1] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-dc-metro-over-rejection-first-amendment-ad https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-dc-metro-over-... [2] https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/donald-trump-has-free-speech-rights-too https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/donald-trump-has-free-... [3] https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/06/aclu-defending-guy-called-death-fs/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/06/aclu-defending-guy-calle... [4] https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/new-york-state-cant-be-allowed-stifle-nras-political-speech https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/new-york-state-cant-be...

timeon 1y ago

[flagged]