7 ms·

Im confused over the state of ideology within the republican party at this point. For years, government ownership and oversight has been demonized as the very t

Im confused over the state of ideology within the republican party at this point. For years, government ownership and oversight has been demonized as the very thing that leads to inefficiencies and bad business practices. Now the same party has their figurehead looking to take partial government ownership of a business? Can someone explain this ideological whiplash?

ToDougie 1y ago
1. The Republican party of 10 years ago is not the Republican party of today. 2. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  How are they different?
  - jkestner 1y ago
    Now they’re less subtle.
    - throwaway29812 1y ago
      [dead]
  - usefulcat 1y ago
    Consider that the current president campaigned on raising taxes, and was elected anyway. Perhaps a lot of R voters didn't have a problem with that because they somehow assumed that enacting a bunch of tariffs wouldn't result in higher prices for them.
    - paulryanrogers 1y ago
      When did Trump ever campaign on raising taxes? Perhaps you mean the tariffs which he promised that other countries will pay for?
      - JohnTHaller 1y ago
        It was a lie, but it was still a campaign to raise taxes on Americans.
        paulryanrogers 1y ago
        To call it a "campaign to raise taxes" I think assumes voters are more informed and open minded they they really are. My boomer parents genuinely believed Trump had and would continue to reduce their taxes. When confronted with tariff facts they counter with more spin, like "he's just negotiating" or "it'll make the economy so much stronger".
        wahern 1y ago
        He's making the trains run on time. Before I learned it was an infamous political meme immortalized by the fallout from WWII, I heard that claim recited in utter sincerity in the 1990s by a woman who had been a teenager in Italy during that period. Even after what happened with Mussolini, she still believed.
  - Modified3019 1y ago
    2 decades of increasingly refined 24/7 propaganda designed to radicalize.
    - OnlineGladiator 1y ago
      I don't think it's been refined so much as it's been amplified.
  - threatofrain 1y ago
    One era can be exemplified by people who sound like Mitt Romney or George Bush.
  - tick_tock_tick 1y ago
    I mean the Republican part is now the party of the poor and working class while the Democrats are the educated and rich. As in who votes for them not necessarily who they pay lip service too. For example the Democrats still deeply message on them being the party of the working class even as the working class no longer votes for them. They literally flipped inside the last decade.
    - jrs235 1y ago
      The Republican party is now the party of billionaires, grifters, the dumb, and the duped.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      Dems/Repubs seem evenly split by income. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls
    - kenjackson 1y ago
      If you view this around identity then its pretty straightfoward. Republicans are the party of the dominant group and maintaining their power. Democrats are the party of the non-dominant groups and speading power across groups. Everything else is just chips to push these two agendas. And I think this is why Republicans will have a long-term advantage. The dominant group is by definition the group in power and its the group that people eventually want to be in (see Hispanics). No one wants to stay in the out-group.
      - somenameforme 1y ago
        What does this mean? The majority of people, regardless of 'group', are facing similar issues. I think this sort of rhetoric, alongside the endless hyperbole, is a big part of why the Democrat party is facing substantial difficulties. I also think this claim is falsifiable by the homogeneity of party views. The stereotype of a Republican is pro-gun, anti-abortion, yeehaw. In reality? Only 24% of Republicans completely oppose abortion [1] and only 27% think gun laws should be less strict. [2] The party has become extremely heterogeneous. By contrast, stereotypes on Democrat views are somewhat more accurate with 86% thinking gun laws should be more strict, and 56% supporting abortion at any time, for any reason. Were the Republican party supporting some specific 'group', you would expect to see a general homogeneity of views. And were the Democrat party supporting a large number of otherwise relatively independent 'groups', you would expect to see a general heterogeneity of views. Instead, we see something much closer to the exact opposite. [1] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.as... [2] - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts...
- malfist 1y ago
  What desperate times to you see here?
ggoo 1y ago
It's just about winning (read: more power for the upper class), not about ideals.
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - blackguardx 1y ago
    "Flatten the curve for just 2 weeks." Wait, who was in power for the first year of Covid?
    - gjsman-1000 1y ago
      Democratic governors in almost all states that mattered, due to the aftermath of the 2018 election.
      - bigyabai 1y ago
        That isn't a response to the parent's question nor is it related to the principles of federally absorbing Intel stake in 2025. When you write hollow comments like this as a response to good-faith observations, you ironically reaffirm the great-grandparent comment. You can't justify owning a significant stake in Intel on principle alone.
linkjuice4all 1y ago
At some point a new group of organized criminals has either replaced or partnered with the "Republican Party." It seems this is partially for the Trump-aligned group to draw in votes and presumably corrupt or pressure the remaining "good guys" in the various government and political organizations. Many of these moves and strategies make sense when viewed through the lens of organized crime shaking down companies, governments, private organizations, and such. As to why they still have supporters - I can't really explain that aside from "they're hurting the right people."
- bamboozled 1y ago
  As to why they still have supporters - I can't really explain that aside from "they're hurting the right people." Don't underestimate how hard it is to admit you're wrong when you're strongly invested in an ideology which is: I'm always correct, I'm always winning, I'm strong, I'm alpha and nothing is every my fault nor am I ever responsible for anything I interact with MAGAs on Reddit, it's sadistic but I really cannot stop because I just cannot believe people believe in the things they do. All I can say is these people have really really bought the lies, hook line an sinker. It's dangerous and I don't see how it's going to change anytime soon. The only way I see the spell breaking is economic catastrophe, even then these people would believe it's not Trump's fault, or the current admins fault, it would be Biden's fault.
lawik 1y ago
I think Intel wants to stay alive so they are looking for a lifeline and the current administration wants to bring chip production into the US. Intel's death would be very embarassing to that whole effort. So Intel has incentives (survival) and the administration has incentives (jobs in the US). The method is "whatever can be claimed as a win". No US party seems particularly capable or keen to hold an ideological line but especially not the GOP from what I've seen. Not saying other countries have particularly impressive parties either. I'm less than thrilled with ours over here.
- deprave 1y ago
  I agree, and I think the government’s incentive might also be a having strategic production capability in the US. Maybe they’re concerned about TSMC’s future with the tension between China and Taiwan?
  - bamboozled 1y ago
    That's all fine, but this is definitely heading into socialist territory. I guess they're out of ideas and this is how they incentivize. The free markets have failed?
    - deprave 1y ago
      My hypothesis is that this is government response (own stake in Intel) to another government’s action (hint take over of Taiwan) and as such is outside the free market. But I have no evidence to support it, it’s just an opinion and it could be that they view Intel as “too big to fail” or something like that as you suggest.
      - bamboozled 1y ago
        Well I guess tariffs were supposed to fix all this? What happened to the CHIPS act? I really wonder how 10% stake in Intel will fix anything practical ?
- UncleOxidant 1y ago
tick_tock_tick 1y ago
When Trump says "America First" he means whatever is needed for America to "win". Lots of major tech leaders and people around him think the AI race with China is going to define the next 25-50 years some think this is "the race" as in whoever wins is going to be The Superpower full stop not for the next 50 year just forever. With that on the line a lot of principles are just plain unimportant. Hell even Democrats are falling inline behind him on China. D.C. seems to think this is a make or break moment for the long term success of the country.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Buttons840 1y ago
  One recent thing that isn't "America First", and doesn't help America "win", is that Trump blew up Canada trade negotiations because Canada decided to recognize the statehood of some distance nation in the middle east. Screwing up trade that affects everyone in America because of policy changes about things on the other side of the world doesn't seem focused on America. We only distance ourself from Canada and encourage Canada to do more trade with the EU and China; how does that help America? The "let's just do whatever helps those in power gain more power" is a better match for what is happening.
  - tick_tock_tick 1y ago
    > We only distance ourself from Canada and encourage Canada to do more trade with the EU and China; how does that help America? I mean Canada doesn't really have the choice to do that. They are too dependent on America to really do much but just accept whatever we say. Maybe they can start reorienting themselves for a future in 10-20 years where they can meaningfully ramp up EU/China trade but for now they just accept whatever the USA says. It's like when the last election was all "elbows up" then it turned out they had folded instantly and just hid it from their population.
    - Buttons840 1y ago
fabian2k 1y ago
There is no consistent ideology. There is only grift, and rage against anyone that they think wronged them. Okay, there is ideology. But it's a bunch of different people with very different ideologies and goals.
- ants_everywhere 1y ago
  Ah, the Soviet model of governance
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    Right, this is what's so amazing to me. The American conservative party spent the last 30 years taking a victory lap over the fall of the USSR, extolling the evils of socialism wherever they could, only to run in the opposite direction so hard, they ended up proving horseshoe theory by emulating everything that made the Soviets government dysfunctional.
    - ants_everywhere 1y ago
      The way I see this is in terms of attractors (in the sense of dynamics). The dynamics are characterized mostly by institutions and rules rather than ideology. The idea of liberalism was to get the institutions correct and so create a stable democracy. If you destroy the institutions then the ideology behind why you did it doesn't matter. Just like it doesn't matter why you remove a load bearing wall in a building. You're at the mercy of primate emotions and everything tends toward oligarchy. That was just as true in the Soviet Union as in countless other countries throughout history. Oligarchy is an attractor, and you need careful planning to avoid the whirlpool.
kelnos 1y ago
Because it's never been about ideals. It's about power and financial/economic dominance. Politicians will align themselves with whatever ideology will get them the support they need to accumulate power and money. Whenever they take actions that seem to violate that ideology, they'll use spin and propaganda to justify it so as not to anger their base.
- beefnugs 1y ago
  Yeah and it turns out if you lie to enough little disparate groups you can become supreme ruler! Maybe dump isnt really a racist, or a crystal rubbing brain worm yoga mom... but he sure tricked them into voting for him. He actually did more than most politicians and actually did each of them a tiny solid rather than just ignore them after winning too
  - equinox_nl 1y ago
    Unless you chronically need healthcare. In that case: good luck.
- Frieren 1y ago
  > Politicians will align themselves with whatever ideology will get them the support they need to accumulate power and money. Not all politicians are like that. The Republican party has been very focused on that. "All politicians bad" thinking damages the work of the many people fighting for a better and more just world. There are even politicians in conflict areas that give their lives trying to fight cartels or terrorist groups. "All are the same" is degrading for us all humans.
  - lesuorac 1y ago
    Sure "not all" but it's a lot. Biden voted to make same-sex marriage Illegal [1] and later for legalizing same-sex [2]. A bit interesting that his running mate neglected to legalize it and instead just didn't defend it in court (Imagine how people would talk if Trump refused to defend a law in court, lol!) But yeah, some politicians like Bernie actually have been consistent their career while others like Ron Paul just make a big talk about their stances but then vote to inflate the deficit anyways. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act
bamboozled 1y ago
I'm the same, they absolutely loathe Zohran Mamdani for talking about state run grocery stores, but getting involved in Intel is fine? What? The cognitive dissonance is what blows my mind, this applies to almost every topic. Borders? Well according to them borders are the most important thing ever, border security etc. Yet Ukraine? Well f** their borders, they're just something Putin can play with and that's totally fine according to them? The ideology seems to be, "Whatever aligns with my or the great leaders world view, is good and I'll tell whatever stories I have to justify it to myself and others.".
- barbazoo 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - bamboozled 1y ago
    Maybe the 70 million+ people who voted for this and continue to support this ideology?
crazygringo 1y ago
> Can someone explain this ideological whiplash? Yes. The party used to be conservative; now it's populist. They are two very different ideological positions. It changed under Trump. It's the same party in name, but a totally different ideology. Many traditional conservatives have gone along with it because the party still slashed taxes, which has been their main goal for a long time. They care much more about lower taxes than government ownership.
- giarc 1y ago
  Slashed taxes but raised tariffs (aka import taxes).
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
prepend 1y ago
To me it feels like the same whiplash around auto bailouts and equity. Different donors and lobbyists so the roles are reversed for parties. I don’t think there’s ideology in politics any longer. And it’s even hard to predict what industries and firms are in favor.
throw0101c 1y ago
> Im confused over the state of ideology within the republican party at this point. The ideology is whatever Trump says.
- theturtle 1y ago
  In a couple years when he's dead, they are gonna be seriously fuk't. Yay.
  - dpkirchner 1y ago
    The good news is there isn't a backup. There's no room for someone to be a second Trump -- they'd get destroyed as long as Trump is in power. I am hopeful that the party will split into two pieces, forever.
    - nerdsniper 1y ago
      Donald Trump Jr
    - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      I think Vance is trying to position himself to be the Next Guy. That means doing whatever he has to to not be destroyed now, but trying to leave himself the room to shift when it's his turn. But I'm not sure he can pull it off. He's too stiff. He doesn't have "it" - whatever "it" it is that Trump has.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - bamboozled 1y ago
        Trump has a long and impossible to replicate history with American popular culture, I don't see how any career politician can ever beat it solely on being a politician, especially one that has to live in the shadows of the current President. You'll always be number 2. Obama is now equally as famous IMO but he got there through his career. Not because of it.
jryan49 1y ago
Pretty sure they've jumped the ideological shark a long time ago at this point. Nothing is consistent. They say what's convenient for the situation. There are no ideals. People's attention spans are so short they don't notice, and if they do notice, most don't seem to care. You can find an infinite amount of tweets with these people contradicting themselves over and over again.
orthecreedence 1y ago
> Can someone explain this ideological whiplash? Easily. It's called fascism, one of the cornerstones being the marriage of industry and state. It has long been the marching direction of the US power structures, whether the individual participants cop to it or not. It has been an unwritten rule for decades and now it's just becoming more blatant. Republicans are not experiencing whiplash as much as they are becoming self-aware of their actual desires. There is a minority of the republican party that actually values small government (my respect goes out to them), but most of the party's actions to this end have been an obscene minority compared to their constant desire to either regulate morality via government overreach or enshrine their big business butt buddies into monopoly status. While I feel the democrats are guilty of many of the same things, they are still a faction of what I would call the "capitalist-imperialist party." The GOP has been splitting off into the "fascist-imperialist party" for many years, which is likely one of the reasons for the political divide.
ralfd 1y ago
Party realignment: https://time.com/7173651/democratic-party-alignment-history/ https://time.com/7173651/democratic-party-alignment-history/ The Democrats moved from working class to the professional managerial class and the Republicans in reverse.
- zaphirplane 1y ago
  I thought the republicans are at the top and bottom of the wealth scale and the democrats are in the middle
  - obvious_sock 1y ago
    Republicans are at the top and good at messaging to the bottom (but they rarely actually help the bottom). Democrats are just bad all around, bad at messaging and bad at achieving things, but at least they mostly don't make things worse, and people with enough time invested in understanding politics (a minority of people) see that. When things do get worse and Democrats are in charge, Republican messaging is effective at convincing people it's the Democrats' fault (which it kinda is because they did nothing to stop it, and kinda isn't because they did nothing to cause it, and in any case the Republicans are even worse but good at saying they're not).
- kashunstva 1y ago
  I won’t disagree that the Democratic party has developed an identity crisis as well, in part to chase campaign finance. But to say that the Republican party has occupied the ideological space of pro-working class would be true only nominally. It has broad cultural appeal there in some quarters but its political economic actions are in no way focused on the real betterment of the working class. Where’s that comprehensive health finance plan which was due “in two weeks.” Several years ago.
UncleOxidant 1y ago
They used to be against tariffs and for free trade as well. The Republican Party circa 2012 no longer exists. The hood ornament looks the same, but the car is completely different.
- tstrimple 1y ago
  They have just refined themselves to their essence. Gotten rid of all the baggage of civility and decorum and allowed their true colors to fly. The core uniting force between these folks is still there and it has never been about fiscal responsibility. That's just a mantle they took up to target programs for minorities back when they pretended to care about being called racist. Folks left of Democrats have been calling this our for literally decades only to be told we're overreacting as liberals once again try bipartisanship with fascists.
kenjackson 1y ago
" For years, government ownership and oversight has been demonized as the very thing that leads to inefficiencies and bad business practices. " This was their position just a few months back. This was the reason DOGE existed. At least that's what they said. But it was never about that. It was always about the fact that they felt that they didn't have control of the government so they didn't want it dictating terms to them. Now that they have control and believe they always will -- now they believe that government should control everything.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- immibis 1y ago
  You can see this exemplified in their positions on abortion. At first, when they only controlled some states, they were very emphatic that abortion should be a per-state issue and always should have been one - because this would allow them to at least illegalize it in some states rather than none. Once they controlled the whole country, they were very emphatic that it should be a country-wide issue and always should have been one - because this would allow them to illegalize it in all states rather than some.
ModernMech 1y ago
The same guy who tried to overthrow the 2020 election despite claiming to defend the constitution, is now trying to take government control over corporations despite claiming to believe in capitalism. And you're confused as to why this is happening? > Can someone explain this ideological whiplash? You've misidentified the ideology. It's "might makes right" not "let's do capitalism".
therealpygon 1y ago
It’s communism! But we want it.. They literally have no political North Star at this point. It is the whatever Trump says goes for the spineless Republicans and do-nothing Dems.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
cvwright 1y ago
It’s the end of the postwar consensus and the return of the “strong gods”. Before: hands-off economic liberalism. Now: doing what seems best for ones own nation state. See “Return of the Strong Gods” by RR Reno for an interesting explanation of lots of puzzling behavior from major political parties.

ToDougie 1y ago

1. The Republican party of 10 years ago is not the Republican party of today. 2. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

lotsofpulp 1y ago
How are they different?
- jkestner 1y ago
  Now they’re less subtle.
  - throwaway29812 1y ago
    [dead]
- usefulcat 1y ago
  Consider that the current president campaigned on raising taxes, and was elected anyway. Perhaps a lot of R voters didn't have a problem with that because they somehow assumed that enacting a bunch of tariffs wouldn't result in higher prices for them.
  - paulryanrogers 1y ago
    When did Trump ever campaign on raising taxes? Perhaps you mean the tariffs which he promised that other countries will pay for?
    - JohnTHaller 1y ago
      It was a lie, but it was still a campaign to raise taxes on Americans.
      - paulryanrogers 1y ago
        To call it a "campaign to raise taxes" I think assumes voters are more informed and open minded they they really are. My boomer parents genuinely believed Trump had and would continue to reduce their taxes. When confronted with tariff facts they counter with more spin, like "he's just negotiating" or "it'll make the economy so much stronger".
        wahern 1y ago
        He's making the trains run on time. Before I learned it was an infamous political meme immortalized by the fallout from WWII, I heard that claim recited in utter sincerity in the 1990s by a woman who had been a teenager in Italy during that period. Even after what happened with Mussolini, she still believed.
- Modified3019 1y ago
  2 decades of increasingly refined 24/7 propaganda designed to radicalize.
  - OnlineGladiator 1y ago
    I don't think it's been refined so much as it's been amplified.
- threatofrain 1y ago
  One era can be exemplified by people who sound like Mitt Romney or George Bush.
- tick_tock_tick 1y ago
  I mean the Republican part is now the party of the poor and working class while the Democrats are the educated and rich. As in who votes for them not necessarily who they pay lip service too. For example the Democrats still deeply message on them being the party of the working class even as the working class no longer votes for them. They literally flipped inside the last decade.
  - jrs235 1y ago
    The Republican party is now the party of billionaires, grifters, the dumb, and the duped.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    Dems/Repubs seem evenly split by income. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls
  - kenjackson 1y ago
    If you view this around identity then its pretty straightfoward. Republicans are the party of the dominant group and maintaining their power. Democrats are the party of the non-dominant groups and speading power across groups. Everything else is just chips to push these two agendas. And I think this is why Republicans will have a long-term advantage. The dominant group is by definition the group in power and its the group that people eventually want to be in (see Hispanics). No one wants to stay in the out-group.
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      What does this mean? The majority of people, regardless of 'group', are facing similar issues. I think this sort of rhetoric, alongside the endless hyperbole, is a big part of why the Democrat party is facing substantial difficulties. I also think this claim is falsifiable by the homogeneity of party views. The stereotype of a Republican is pro-gun, anti-abortion, yeehaw. In reality? Only 24% of Republicans completely oppose abortion [1] and only 27% think gun laws should be less strict. [2] The party has become extremely heterogeneous. By contrast, stereotypes on Democrat views are somewhat more accurate with 86% thinking gun laws should be more strict, and 56% supporting abortion at any time, for any reason. Were the Republican party supporting some specific 'group', you would expect to see a general homogeneity of views. And were the Democrat party supporting a large number of otherwise relatively independent 'groups', you would expect to see a general heterogeneity of views. Instead, we see something much closer to the exact opposite. [1] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.as... [2] - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts...
malfist 1y ago
What desperate times to you see here?

ggoo 1y ago

It's just about winning (read: more power for the upper class), not about ideals.

gjsman-1000 1y ago
[flagged]
- blackguardx 1y ago
  "Flatten the curve for just 2 weeks." Wait, who was in power for the first year of Covid?
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    Democratic governors in almost all states that mattered, due to the aftermath of the 2018 election.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      That isn't a response to the parent's question nor is it related to the principles of federally absorbing Intel stake in 2025. When you write hollow comments like this as a response to good-faith observations, you ironically reaffirm the great-grandparent comment. You can't justify owning a significant stake in Intel on principle alone.

linkjuice4all 1y ago

At some point a new group of organized criminals has either replaced or partnered with the "Republican Party." It seems this is partially for the Trump-aligned group to draw in votes and presumably corrupt or pressure the remaining "good guys" in the various government and political organizations. Many of these moves and strategies make sense when viewed through the lens of organized crime shaking down companies, governments, private organizations, and such. As to why they still have supporters - I can't really explain that aside from "they're hurting the right people."

bamboozled 1y ago
As to why they still have supporters - I can't really explain that aside from "they're hurting the right people." Don't underestimate how hard it is to admit you're wrong when you're strongly invested in an ideology which is: I'm always correct, I'm always winning, I'm strong, I'm alpha and nothing is every my fault nor am I ever responsible for anything I interact with MAGAs on Reddit, it's sadistic but I really cannot stop because I just cannot believe people believe in the things they do. All I can say is these people have really really bought the lies, hook line an sinker. It's dangerous and I don't see how it's going to change anytime soon. The only way I see the spell breaking is economic catastrophe, even then these people would believe it's not Trump's fault, or the current admins fault, it would be Biden's fault.

lawik 1y ago

I think Intel wants to stay alive so they are looking for a lifeline and the current administration wants to bring chip production into the US. Intel's death would be very embarassing to that whole effort. So Intel has incentives (survival) and the administration has incentives (jobs in the US). The method is "whatever can be claimed as a win". No US party seems particularly capable or keen to hold an ideological line but especially not the GOP from what I've seen. Not saying other countries have particularly impressive parties either. I'm less than thrilled with ours over here.

deprave 1y ago
I agree, and I think the government’s incentive might also be a having strategic production capability in the US. Maybe they’re concerned about TSMC’s future with the tension between China and Taiwan?
- bamboozled 1y ago
  That's all fine, but this is definitely heading into socialist territory. I guess they're out of ideas and this is how they incentivize. The free markets have failed?
  - deprave 1y ago
    My hypothesis is that this is government response (own stake in Intel) to another government’s action (hint take over of Taiwan) and as such is outside the free market. But I have no evidence to support it, it’s just an opinion and it could be that they view Intel as “too big to fail” or something like that as you suggest.
    - bamboozled 1y ago
      Well I guess tariffs were supposed to fix all this? What happened to the CHIPS act? I really wonder how 10% stake in Intel will fix anything practical ?
UncleOxidant 1y ago

tick_tock_tick 1y ago

When Trump says "America First" he means whatever is needed for America to "win". Lots of major tech leaders and people around him think the AI race with China is going to define the next 25-50 years some think this is "the race" as in whoever wins is going to be The Superpower full stop not for the next 50 year just forever. With that on the line a lot of principles are just plain unimportant. Hell even Democrats are falling inline behind him on China. D.C. seems to think this is a make or break moment for the long term success of the country.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Buttons840 1y ago
One recent thing that isn't "America First", and doesn't help America "win", is that Trump blew up Canada trade negotiations because Canada decided to recognize the statehood of some distance nation in the middle east. Screwing up trade that affects everyone in America because of policy changes about things on the other side of the world doesn't seem focused on America. We only distance ourself from Canada and encourage Canada to do more trade with the EU and China; how does that help America? The "let's just do whatever helps those in power gain more power" is a better match for what is happening.
- tick_tock_tick 1y ago
  > We only distance ourself from Canada and encourage Canada to do more trade with the EU and China; how does that help America? I mean Canada doesn't really have the choice to do that. They are too dependent on America to really do much but just accept whatever we say. Maybe they can start reorienting themselves for a future in 10-20 years where they can meaningfully ramp up EU/China trade but for now they just accept whatever the USA says. It's like when the last election was all "elbows up" then it turned out they had folded instantly and just hid it from their population.
  - Buttons840 1y ago

fabian2k 1y ago

There is no consistent ideology. There is only grift, and rage against anyone that they think wronged them. Okay, there is ideology. But it's a bunch of different people with very different ideologies and goals.

ants_everywhere 1y ago
Ah, the Soviet model of governance
- ModernMech 1y ago
  Right, this is what's so amazing to me. The American conservative party spent the last 30 years taking a victory lap over the fall of the USSR, extolling the evils of socialism wherever they could, only to run in the opposite direction so hard, they ended up proving horseshoe theory by emulating everything that made the Soviets government dysfunctional.
  - ants_everywhere 1y ago
    The way I see this is in terms of attractors (in the sense of dynamics). The dynamics are characterized mostly by institutions and rules rather than ideology. The idea of liberalism was to get the institutions correct and so create a stable democracy. If you destroy the institutions then the ideology behind why you did it doesn't matter. Just like it doesn't matter why you remove a load bearing wall in a building. You're at the mercy of primate emotions and everything tends toward oligarchy. That was just as true in the Soviet Union as in countless other countries throughout history. Oligarchy is an attractor, and you need careful planning to avoid the whirlpool.

kelnos 1y ago

Because it's never been about ideals. It's about power and financial/economic dominance. Politicians will align themselves with whatever ideology will get them the support they need to accumulate power and money. Whenever they take actions that seem to violate that ideology, they'll use spin and propaganda to justify it so as not to anger their base.

beefnugs 1y ago
Yeah and it turns out if you lie to enough little disparate groups you can become supreme ruler! Maybe dump isnt really a racist, or a crystal rubbing brain worm yoga mom... but he sure tricked them into voting for him. He actually did more than most politicians and actually did each of them a tiny solid rather than just ignore them after winning too
- equinox_nl 1y ago
  Unless you chronically need healthcare. In that case: good luck.
Frieren 1y ago
> Politicians will align themselves with whatever ideology will get them the support they need to accumulate power and money. Not all politicians are like that. The Republican party has been very focused on that. "All politicians bad" thinking damages the work of the many people fighting for a better and more just world. There are even politicians in conflict areas that give their lives trying to fight cartels or terrorist groups. "All are the same" is degrading for us all humans.
- lesuorac 1y ago
  Sure "not all" but it's a lot. Biden voted to make same-sex marriage Illegal [1] and later for legalizing same-sex [2]. A bit interesting that his running mate neglected to legalize it and instead just didn't defend it in court (Imagine how people would talk if Trump refused to defend a law in court, lol!) But yeah, some politicians like Bernie actually have been consistent their career while others like Ron Paul just make a big talk about their stances but then vote to inflate the deficit anyways. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act

bamboozled 1y ago

I'm the same, they absolutely loathe Zohran Mamdani for talking about state run grocery stores, but getting involved in Intel is fine? What? The cognitive dissonance is what blows my mind, this applies to almost every topic. Borders? Well according to them borders are the most important thing ever, border security etc. Yet Ukraine? Well f** their borders, they're just something Putin can play with and that's totally fine according to them? The ideology seems to be, "Whatever aligns with my or the great leaders world view, is good and I'll tell whatever stories I have to justify it to myself and others.".

barbazoo 1y ago
[flagged]
- bamboozled 1y ago
  Maybe the 70 million+ people who voted for this and continue to support this ideology?

crazygringo 1y ago

> Can someone explain this ideological whiplash? Yes. The party used to be conservative; now it's populist. They are two very different ideological positions. It changed under Trump. It's the same party in name, but a totally different ideology. Many traditional conservatives have gone along with it because the party still slashed taxes, which has been their main goal for a long time. They care much more about lower taxes than government ownership.

giarc 1y ago
Slashed taxes but raised tariffs (aka import taxes).

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

prepend 1y ago

To me it feels like the same whiplash around auto bailouts and equity. Different donors and lobbyists so the roles are reversed for parties. I don’t think there’s ideology in politics any longer. And it’s even hard to predict what industries and firms are in favor.

throw0101c 1y ago

> Im confused over the state of ideology within the republican party at this point. The ideology is whatever Trump says.

theturtle 1y ago
In a couple years when he's dead, they are gonna be seriously fuk't. Yay.
- dpkirchner 1y ago
  The good news is there isn't a backup. There's no room for someone to be a second Trump -- they'd get destroyed as long as Trump is in power. I am hopeful that the party will split into two pieces, forever.
  - nerdsniper 1y ago
    Donald Trump Jr
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    I think Vance is trying to position himself to be the Next Guy. That means doing whatever he has to to not be destroyed now, but trying to leave himself the room to shift when it's his turn. But I'm not sure he can pull it off. He's too stiff. He doesn't have "it" - whatever "it" it is that Trump has.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - bamboozled 1y ago
      Trump has a long and impossible to replicate history with American popular culture, I don't see how any career politician can ever beat it solely on being a politician, especially one that has to live in the shadows of the current President. You'll always be number 2. Obama is now equally as famous IMO but he got there through his career. Not because of it.

jryan49 1y ago

Pretty sure they've jumped the ideological shark a long time ago at this point. Nothing is consistent. They say what's convenient for the situation. There are no ideals. People's attention spans are so short they don't notice, and if they do notice, most don't seem to care. You can find an infinite amount of tweets with these people contradicting themselves over and over again.

orthecreedence 1y ago

> Can someone explain this ideological whiplash? Easily. It's called fascism, one of the cornerstones being the marriage of industry and state. It has long been the marching direction of the US power structures, whether the individual participants cop to it or not. It has been an unwritten rule for decades and now it's just becoming more blatant. Republicans are not experiencing whiplash as much as they are becoming self-aware of their actual desires. There is a minority of the republican party that actually values small government (my respect goes out to them), but most of the party's actions to this end have been an obscene minority compared to their constant desire to either regulate morality via government overreach or enshrine their big business butt buddies into monopoly status. While I feel the democrats are guilty of many of the same things, they are still a faction of what I would call the "capitalist-imperialist party." The GOP has been splitting off into the "fascist-imperialist party" for many years, which is likely one of the reasons for the political divide.

ralfd 1y ago

Party realignment: https://time.com/7173651/democratic-party-alignment-history/ https://time.com/7173651/democratic-party-alignment-history/ The Democrats moved from working class to the professional managerial class and the Republicans in reverse.

zaphirplane 1y ago
I thought the republicans are at the top and bottom of the wealth scale and the democrats are in the middle
- obvious_sock 1y ago
  Republicans are at the top and good at messaging to the bottom (but they rarely actually help the bottom). Democrats are just bad all around, bad at messaging and bad at achieving things, but at least they mostly don't make things worse, and people with enough time invested in understanding politics (a minority of people) see that. When things do get worse and Democrats are in charge, Republican messaging is effective at convincing people it's the Democrats' fault (which it kinda is because they did nothing to stop it, and kinda isn't because they did nothing to cause it, and in any case the Republicans are even worse but good at saying they're not).
kashunstva 1y ago
I won’t disagree that the Democratic party has developed an identity crisis as well, in part to chase campaign finance. But to say that the Republican party has occupied the ideological space of pro-working class would be true only nominally. It has broad cultural appeal there in some quarters but its political economic actions are in no way focused on the real betterment of the working class. Where’s that comprehensive health finance plan which was due “in two weeks.” Several years ago.

UncleOxidant 1y ago

They used to be against tariffs and for free trade as well. The Republican Party circa 2012 no longer exists. The hood ornament looks the same, but the car is completely different.

tstrimple 1y ago
They have just refined themselves to their essence. Gotten rid of all the baggage of civility and decorum and allowed their true colors to fly. The core uniting force between these folks is still there and it has never been about fiscal responsibility. That's just a mantle they took up to target programs for minorities back when they pretended to care about being called racist. Folks left of Democrats have been calling this our for literally decades only to be told we're overreacting as liberals once again try bipartisanship with fascists.

kenjackson 1y ago

" For years, government ownership and oversight has been demonized as the very thing that leads to inefficiencies and bad business practices. " This was their position just a few months back. This was the reason DOGE existed. At least that's what they said. But it was never about that. It was always about the fact that they felt that they didn't have control of the government so they didn't want it dictating terms to them. Now that they have control and believe they always will -- now they believe that government should control everything.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
immibis 1y ago
You can see this exemplified in their positions on abortion. At first, when they only controlled some states, they were very emphatic that abortion should be a per-state issue and always should have been one - because this would allow them to at least illegalize it in some states rather than none. Once they controlled the whole country, they were very emphatic that it should be a country-wide issue and always should have been one - because this would allow them to illegalize it in all states rather than some.

ModernMech 1y ago

The same guy who tried to overthrow the 2020 election despite claiming to defend the constitution, is now trying to take government control over corporations despite claiming to believe in capitalism. And you're confused as to why this is happening? > Can someone explain this ideological whiplash? You've misidentified the ideology. It's "might makes right" not "let's do capitalism".

therealpygon 1y ago

It’s communism! But we want it.. They literally have no political North Star at this point. It is the whatever Trump says goes for the spineless Republicans and do-nothing Dems.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

cvwright 1y ago

It’s the end of the postwar consensus and the return of the “strong gods”. Before: hands-off economic liberalism. Now: doing what seems best for ones own nation state. See “Return of the Strong Gods” by RR Reno for an interesting explanation of lots of puzzling behavior from major political parties.