Is the left making itself irrelevant by becoming boring?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
That wasn't anything close to a "crushing victory". It was an expected and completely normal mid term election.

It was not in any way expected or normal. It was one of the largest electoral victories in modern US history by a number of measures.

It was:

1) the largest Democratic house gain since Nixon despite massive gerrymandering advantages for Republicans.
2) the largest midterm margin of victory in our lifetimes, far exceeding margins for Republicans in 2010 and Democrats in 2006. (about a 25% larger margin than the Republican margin in their 'wave' election of 2010)
3) it was the largest midterm popular vote margin in US history and it's not even close.

If that's not a crushing victory then almost no one posting here has been alive for a crushing victory.

Beyond that, the democrats do need something more than "orange man bad" as a platform. A moderate democrat with a real plan that stops illegal immigration would destroy Trump in 2020, even if the economy stays strong.

Illegal immigration simply isn't a particularly important issue for most Americans, it's only an issue for the right. What Americans DO care about is actually what Democrats ran on but the media refused to cover because it likes drama: They basically ran on 'Republicans are trying to take away health care from millions in order to give rich people money'. This also has the virtue of being undeniably true, haha.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
I have to say I find all the warnings of what Democrats must do to win to be pretty tiresome. It seems to assume a win for Republicans is the default unless Democrats engage in precisely the proper ritual which will allow them to win. It’s silliness.

If you worry that ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ will lead to Republican victory then why didn’t ‘Obama Derangement Syndrome’ or ‘Clinton Derangement Syndrome’, which was vastly more unhinged, lead to Democratic victory? You are right that emotion tends to win out over reason when it comes to elections but shitting on your opponents is a tried and true appeal to emotion that’s extremely effective. In this case it’s also very well deserved.

If you need any evidence to its effectiveness this environment just led to one of the largest vote victories in modern American history, both by percentage and by margin. It seems that what bores you has motivated other Americans to an extent almost never before seen.
I don't believe that Trump Derangement Syndrome is actually deranged. I used the term the right uses to identify what I was talking about. I find it boring because it is mechanical, it's pay back, it's getting what you deserve. It's the inevitable result of conservatives creating what they fear and it will be followed by liberals creating what they fear. My point is that fear has its origins in the unconscious and is the result of walled off emotions we do not want to remember and become violent about if poked at. Without some synthesis of the opposites into an higher level of understanding we will continue to ping pong between extremes, in my opinion. You are looking at political victory as the be all and end all of the game, but I am concerned with healing our culture and advancing our understanding in an inclusive way. I disagree that people who are psychologically backward and emotionally vicious from trauma they don't know they experience, people in short who live in inward ignorance and darkness, deserve more bad things to happen to them. I already have way to much of that vindictive and small minded person within me for my taste. Without the psychological integration of opposites we will continue to exchange one oppressor for another. I don't care to live in a world where the left is screaming like banshees in the face of everybody they disagree with. That reeks of lack of confidence and fear. We have met the enemy and he is me and I intend to find a way to love him.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
I don't believe that Trump Derangement Syndrome is actually deranged. I used the term the right uses to identify what I was talking about. I find it boring because it is mechanical, it's pay back, it's getting what you deserve.

I strongly disagree. Trump represents an existential threat to our system of government and that is in no way an exaggeration. If we aren't laser focused every day on that threat it will overtake us before we know it.

You have a situation today where it appears highly likely the chief executive is either in cahoots with or compromised by a hostile foreign power and is attempting to subvert federal law enforcement to both escape accountability for this and to attack and imprison his political enemies. Anyone who doesn't see we are in a national emergency right now is deluding themselves or complicit. This isn't payback, this is defense of the nation.

It's the inevitable result of conservatives creating what they fear and it will be followed by liberals creating what they fear. My point is that fear has its origins in the unconscious and is the result of walled off emotions we do not want to remember and become violent about if poked at. Without some synthesis of the opposites into an higher level of understanding we will continue to ping pong between extremes, in my opinion. You are looking at political victory as the be all and end all of the game, but I am concerned with healing our culture and advancing our understanding in an inclusive way. I disagree that people who are psychologically backward and emotionally vicious from trauma they don't know they experience, people in short who live in inward ignorance and darkness, deserve more bad things to happen to them. I already have way to much of that vindictive and small minded person within me for my taste. Without the psychological integration of opposites we will continue to exchange one oppressor for another. I don't care to live in a world where the left is screaming like banshees in the face of everybody they disagree with. That reeks of lack of confidence and fear. We have met the enemy and he is me and I intend to find a way to love him.

While I agree that healing our culture and advancing our understanding in an inclusive way is both an important and laudable goal. I do not believe that sort of healing is possible until the immediate national emergency is dealt with, however. As a good analogy if someone is standing on the ledge about to leap off the most important thing is to get them off the ledge. After the emergency has passed then you deal with whatever caused them to climb it in the first place.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
I agree we need to continue to evolve, and we do need to take the positive parts of every perspective. My mother always used to tell me "eat the chicken and spit out the bones." The major problem as I currently see it is that it is assumed that just because Democrats do not consider a certain moral value as important as a conservative might, it means that the Democrat does not care about that value at all. This is obviously false but it is the default mindset of a huge amount of Americans today. Take for example loyalty. I think loyalty is a very important moral value, but I think there are other moral values that override it in certain situations.

On top of that, as you noticed, a lot of Americans have a tendency apply way too much value to something like loyalty in any situation where they need it to score points for their team, even while devaluing it in other situations where it is inconvenient. Logic and reason cannot compete with this type of insanity.
Yes, the corrective to loyalty becoming blind is the moral imperative that loyalty must be earned.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,936
5,560
136
It was not in any way expected or normal. It was one of the largest electoral victories in modern US history by a number of measures.

It was:

1) the largest Democratic house gain since Nixon despite massive gerrymandering advantages for Republicans.
2) the largest midterm margin of victory in our lifetimes, far exceeding margins for Republicans in 2010 and Democrats in 2006. (about a 25% larger margin than the Republican margin in their 'wave' election of 2010)
3) it was the largest midterm popular vote margin in US history and it's not even close.

If that's not a crushing victory then almost no one posting here has been alive for a crushing victory.



Illegal immigration simply isn't a particularly important issue for most Americans, it's only an issue for the right. What Americans DO care about is actually what Democrats ran on but the media refused to cover because it likes drama: They basically ran on 'Republicans are trying to take away health care from millions in order to give rich people money'. This also has the virtue of being undeniably true, haha.
Biggest Midterm House Losses Since WWII: Obama (-63), Truman (-55), Clinton (-54)
You can spin that any way you want, but the republican mid term losses were by no means abnormal.
I'll try to dig up the poll about immigration. Basically it showed that around 80% of US citizens wanted immigration levels to be the same or less.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Meh, I’m not so sure about that. Regardless it seems odd to think that the focus of Democrats have them on the road to electoral defeat almost exactly a month after they won one of the most crushing midterm victories in decades.

Dems did poorly in the 2010 midterms but Obama still won in 2012. American voters have a curious way of flipping between mid terms and presidential election years which is well documented. There are apparently just enough swing voters who do this to produce alternating results.

I think much will depend on the state of the economy, because that seems primary to independent voters. If the economy remains strong, then the dems are going to need a strong candidate and the right messaging. If the economy tanks, which some economists seem to be predicting now, then Trump will go down almost regardless of who we run against him.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,518
136
Biggest Midterm House Losses Since WWII: Obama (-63), Truman (-55), Clinton (-54)
You can spin that any way you want, but the republican mid term losses were by no means abnormal.
I'll try to dig up the poll about immigration. Basically it showed that around 80% of US citizens wanted immigration levels to be the same or less.
Looking at the results from any other perspective shows that the 2018 election was one of the largest electoral victories in modern US history. In other words, you have to look at a very specific data point in order to support your argument. THAT is the definition of spin, not what Fsk is doing.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Dems did poorly in the 2010 midterms but Obama still won in 2012. American voters have a curious way of flipping between mid terms and presidential election years which is well documented. There are apparently just enough swing voters who do this to produce alternating results.

I think much will depend on the state of the economy, because that seems primary to independent voters. If the economy remains strong, then the dems are going to need a strong candidate and the right messaging. If the economy tanks, which some economists seem to be predicting now, then Trump will go down almost regardless of who we run against him.

While I agree that midterm victory in no way guarantees presidential victory I think this is a mistaken analysis. The primary difference we see between presidential elections and midterms is that the composition of the electorate is different. (More Republican in midterms, more democratic in presidential).

In fact, that’s probably the #1 reason this midterm was such a crushing victory for Democrats. Turnout looked like 2008 and 2012, not 2016 or 2010.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
fskimospy: I strongly disagree. Trump represents an existential threat to our system of government and that is in no way an exaggeration. If we aren't laser focused every day on that threat it will overtake us before we know it.

M: That Trump is a serious existential threat to our system of government depends, first of all, as to what you mean by serious. I believe it is real. I believe seriously bad damage has already been done, I do not believe we will tip over and become a totalitarian state. I also see signs of the system self correcting. I therefore think there are rational and irrational ways to react to Trump and the balls up panic and near revolutionary fervor against him, while it has some positive effects, can have some bad ones down the line. I don't like humiliating losers for example or righteous pride and self justification of evil.

f: You have a situation today where it appears highly likely the chief executive is either in cahoots with or compromised by a hostile foreign power and is attempting to subvert federal law enforcement to both escape accountability for this and to attack and imprison his political enemies. Anyone who doesn't see we are in a national emergency right now is deluding themselves or complicit. This isn't payback, this is defense of the nation.

M: I am past that point. Now what is my interest. I know all of this. I also know, or think I know, that complicit or self deluding are psychological means of ego protection that people have no voluntary control over. I want to get behind the defenses to show their values are also important to me, that we defend the same thing but see it differently.

f: While I agree that healing our culture and advancing our understanding in an inclusive way is both an important and laudable goal. I do not believe that sort of healing is possible until the immediate national emergency is dealt with, however. As a good analogy if someone is standing on the ledge about to leap off the most important thing is to get them off the ledge. After the emergency has passed then you deal with whatever caused them to climb it in the first place.

M: To talk somebody down from a ledge, I suggest you have a good reason to give them to live. "Don't jump you worthless fuck, you'll filth up the street!" would not be a good one, in my opinion. In short, I do not see a requirement to order these things temporally.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Biggest Midterm House Losses Since WWII: Obama (-63), Truman (-55), Clinton (-54)
You can spin that any way you want, but the republican mid term losses were by no means abnormal.

If anyone is doing spinning here it's you. (in fact you are adopting exactly what the GOP has started saying to explain away the blowout). Democrats gained fewer seats than those other elections specifically in part because due to gerrymandering and geographic concentration there has never been a more tilted map in favor of one party than there was in 2018 in favor of the Republicans. In addition, Obama had won so big in 2008 there were a LOT of democrats in nominally Republican districts. That was not the case here. Basically for lack of a better word Republicans 'cheated' in this election. You are then trying to cite the results that include their cheating as evidence they didn't lose big.

The simplest, easiest, and least spinnable way to look at this is that the Democrats won by the largest midterm margin in more than 3 decades. They won by the largest vote margin in history, which is also important because it shows their popular vote percentage margin wasn't due to a low turnout affair. If you consider 2010 to have been a crushing victory for the Republicans this was a much larger victory than that, at least if what people voted for is what matters to you and not how people draw lines on a map to protect their seats.

I'm not aware of any nonpartisan election analyst that does not consider this to be a 'blue wave' or crushing Democratic victory. If you know of one I would like to read their analysis as to why not. It's basically universal.

I'll try to dig up the poll about immigration. Basically it showed that around 80% of US citizens wanted immigration levels to be the same or less.

I'm pretty sure that's White House spin on recent polling. As far as actual polls go the most recent ones I can find if anything show the exact opposite, that Americans are either evenly split or want even more immigration than we have now. (I would be among those, we need WAY more immigration than we currently have.) The trend also seems to be towards even more support for immigration going forwards.

immigrationb.png


If anything the next Democrat should probably run on the more immigration platform.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
fskimospy: I strongly disagree. Trump represents an existential threat to our system of government and that is in no way an exaggeration. If we aren't laser focused every day on that threat it will overtake us before we know it.

M: That Trump is a serious existential threat to our system of government depends, first of all, as to what you mean by serious. I believe it is real. I believe seriously bad damage has already been done, I do not believe we will tip over and become a totalitarian state. I also see signs of the system self correcting. I therefore think there are rational and irrational ways to react to Trump and the balls up panic and near revolutionary fervor against him, while it has some positive effects, can have some bad ones down the line. I don't like humiliating losers for example or righteous pride and self justification of evil.

I have no interest in humiliating him; it's frankly irrelevant to me. While I think if the current available evidence leads to where it currently indicates Trump should be in prison for the rest of his life I would gladly accept him simply resigning. It's far more important to me that we protect the country than we make Trump feel bad.

f: You have a situation today where it appears highly likely the chief executive is either in cahoots with or compromised by a hostile foreign power and is attempting to subvert federal law enforcement to both escape accountability for this and to attack and imprison his political enemies. Anyone who doesn't see we are in a national emergency right now is deluding themselves or complicit. This isn't payback, this is defense of the nation.

M: I am past that point. Now what is my interest. I know all of this. I also know, or think I know, that complicit or self deluding are psychological means of ego protection that people have no voluntary control over. I want to get behind the defenses to show their values are also important to me, that we defend the same thing but see it differently.

Right, so we agree we are in a national emergency. The last say, decade or so has shown it is exceedingly unlikely that reaching out to salve Republican feelings will have the results you desire. After all, Obama spent most of his first term doing that and if anything Republicans went even crazier. The 'now what' is that we move in every legal way possible to limit Trump's ability to cause more damage. So far, Democratic attacks on him have been highly effective and now they are in a position to do so even more effectively. We should be moving towards making the best possible case for impeachment and failing that, to damage Trump as much as possible so he is defeated in the 2020 election.

This has zero to do with actual policy differences as other than giving tax breaks to rich people Trump's policy agenda has been ineffective. This is entirely about removing an existential threat to democracy from power before it's too late.

f: While I agree that healing our culture and advancing our understanding in an inclusive way is both an important and laudable goal. I do not believe that sort of healing is possible until the immediate national emergency is dealt with, however. As a good analogy if someone is standing on the ledge about to leap off the most important thing is to get them off the ledge. After the emergency has passed then you deal with whatever caused them to climb it in the first place.

M: To talk somebody down from a ledge, I suggest you have a good reason to give them to live. "Don't jump you worthless fuck, you'll filth up the street!" would not be a good one, in my opinion. In short, I do not see a requirement to order these things temporally.

One common way to get people off a ledge is for a policeman to get close enough and physically restrain them. Alternatively, popular locations install nets to prevent people from succeeding. In short, we don't rely on the ability to talk someone down when there's an emergency.

I believe the current situation is the greatest threat our country has faced since the Civil War so we need to view all potential actions in that way.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
While I agree that midterm victory in no way guarantees presidential victory I think this is a mistaken analysis. The primary difference we see between presidential elections and midterms is that the composition of the electorate is different. (More Republican in midterms, more democratic in presidential).

In fact, that’s probably the #1 reason this midterm was such a crushing victory for Democrats. Turnout looked like 2008 and 2012, not 2016 or 2010.

That might be, but I prefer to leave nothing to chance. The circumstances in this country right now are dire. The GOP has become an authoritarian party who will do anything to seize and retain power. I don't think we can just assume we're going to do well in 2020 because "doing well" means a lot this time. We need to not only oust Trump, but retake the Senate, and we also need to do well in the statewide races to reverse the gerrymandering and voter suppression. We cannot allow the GOP as presently constituted to govern any more. There's too much at stake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
That might be, but I prefer to leave nothing to chance. The circumstances in this country right now are dire. The GOP has become an authoritarian party who will do anything to seize and retain power. I don't think we can just assume we're going to do well in 2020 because "doing well" means a lot this time. We need to not only oust Trump, but retake the Senate, and we also need to do well in the statewide races to reverse the gerrymandering and voter suppression. We cannot allow the GOP as presently constituted to govern any more. There's too much at stake.

I agree this is no time for complacency and anyone who assumes Democrats will do well is being way too cavalier about the future of this country. As you mention some of the most important parts of victory in 2020 would be rolling back the barriers the GOP has put in place to try and cement minority rule against the will of the voters.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
f: While I agree that healing our culture and advancing our understanding in an inclusive way is both an important and laudable goal. I do not believe that sort of healing is possible until the immediate national emergency is dealt with, however. As a good analogy if someone is standing on the ledge about to leap off the most important thing is to get them off the ledge. After the emergency has passed then you deal with whatever caused them to climb it in the first place.

You're mostly incorrect here because this isn't just about Trump. It's about the entire GOP and, especially, conservative voters. That problem will not go away even if Trump is ousted, and it's a very serious problem. We aren't going to become a totalitarian state under Trump and, in any event, it won't happen overnight by violent coup. It will happen because every time the GOP takes power anywhere, they corrupt the system to allow themselves to keep it. This is a serious threat to democracy over the near to mid term future (the next 5-20 years).

M: To talk somebody down from a ledge, I suggest you have a good reason to give them to live. "Don't jump you worthless fuck, you'll filth up the street!" would not be a good one, in my opinion. In short, I do not see a requirement to order these things temporally.

Sorry, but they will not listen. Not ever. They are willingly in thrall of propagandists who lie to them on a daily basis and this is their sole source of information, by choice. They couldn't care less what any of us has to say. They are literally not listening. At all.

The republican party must be defeated at the ballot box, on every level, decisively. And the dems then need to hold power long enough for either the GOP to moderate or for the demographics to overtake them. There is no other way.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,518
136
...

The republican party must be defeated at the ballot box, on every level, decisively. And the dems then need to hold power long enough for either the GOP to moderate or for the demographics to overtake them. There is no other way.
I agree with everything you said but to the above the time for that action was in 2016, and honestly back in 2000. I am afraid anything we do from this point on will be too little too late in many regards. Even if we manage to rescue Democracy in the near term, huge portions of the electorate seem to have taken up residence in another universe.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I agree with everything you said but to the above the time for that action was in 2016, and honestly back in 2000. I am afraid anything we do from this point on will be too little too late in many regards. Even if we manage to rescue Democracy in the near term, huge portions of the electorate seem to have taken up residence in another universe.

Yes, of that there is little doubt. And I am no more optimistic than you about them returning to reality. They need to be made irrelevant as a percentage of the voting populace by age and ethnic related demographic shifts. If that is not really going to happen, then I'm afraid in the longer term we're screwed. For now, we just have to assume it is, and try to keep power out of their hands until it does.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Yes, of that there is little doubt. And I am no more optimistic than you about them returning to reality. They need to be made irrelevant as a percentage of the voting populace by age and ethnic related demographic shifts. If that is not really going to happen, then I'm afraid in the longer term we're screwed. For now, we just have to assume it is, and try to keep power out of their hands until it does.

This is a similarly sad conclusion to what I've come to. It seems like there's a decent chance that the right has simply moved beyond reason or, maybe more frighteningly, is simply no longer interested in maintaining the system of government we've come to rely on in the postwar era. If that's the case then sooner or later they will likely succeed in either taking it over or rendering it useless.

We should fight this as hard as we can of course but long term I don't know what you do if a large, radical minority simply decides the rules and facts no longer matter.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Sorry, but they will not listen. Not ever.

The republican party must be defeated at the ballot box, on every level, decisively. And the dems then need to hold power long enough for either the GOP to moderate or for the demographics to overtake them. There is no other way.
You know things I don't know. If I knew what you know I would not be able to listen nor would I be able to see another way because I would assume that what I know is what can be known. I differ from you then in that I do not assume they can't listen and will seek a way, one based on inclusion by seeking a message they will want to hear.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
You know things I don't know. If I knew what you know I would not be able to listen nor would I be able to see another way because I would assume that what I know is what can be known. I differ from you then in that I do not assume they can't listen and will seek a way, one based on inclusion by seeking a message they will want to hear.

I don't assume they will not listen. I know they will not from past experience. Conservatives don't even read main stream media. Their sole source of information is conservative propaganda. Obama tried to reach out to them with a message of inclusion and they flipped him the bird. Clinton compromised with them on policy time and time again and they hate him more than anyone. If you have some formula for getting them to listen, I'm all ears.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
This is a similarly sad conclusion to what I've come to. It seems like there's a decent chance that the right has simply moved beyond reason or, maybe more frighteningly, is simply no longer interested in maintaining the system of government we've come to rely on in the postwar era. If that's the case then sooner or later they will likely succeed in either taking it over or rendering it useless.

We should fight this as hard as we can of course but long term I don't know what you do if a large, radical minority simply decides the rules and facts no longer matter.

Like I said, you wait for them to become a small enough minority that they can't wreck the system any more. The demographics have already shifted to a significant degree to where they can only hold on by cheating the system. Another 10-15 years of boomers dying off and minorities growing as a percentage of the population and even the cheating may not be enough and they then become irrelevant except in a few rural states.
'
Or maybe that never happens, or they succeed in wrecking the system before it does. In which case, we're screwed. We just have to operate on the assumption that it will happen and fight tooth and nail until then.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
I don't assume they will not listen. I know they will not from past experience. Conservatives don't even read main stream media. Their sole source of information is conservative propaganda. Obama tried to reach out to them with a message of inclusion and they flipped him the bird. Clinton compromised with them on policy time and time again and they hate him more than anyone. If you have some formula for getting them to listen, I'm all ears.
I tried to suggest earlier that I am tired of the futility of trying to debate conservatives from the point of view of how wrong and evil they are. I am looking for a consciously evolved understanding or explanation of western cultural evolution, a philosophical and psychological explanation of human nature and human society into which their contribution to cloture has a place. I want to integrate and include rather than mock and reject. I am not interested in winning elections but in establishing new understandings that promote western cultural advance. The presence of the culture war is a sign that the memes of our current level of understandings are failing.

I have been spending more time out of boredom with the same old Trump is a disaster in P and N exploring what other people are saying and have discovered a number of thinkers with whom I have natural sympathy. Their skills and positions of notoriety verbal and intellectual plus the internet made it possible for them to come to my attention. A number of them note the same flaws or weaknesses in liberal thinking as I do and they are all pretty much liberals who tend to include rather than divide.

The point is that you wast to find a way to get conservatives to see the he world as you do whereas I want to get them to see that I see the world as they do and more. You fight and reject and I want to include and add. They are me. You diminish yourself to reject the best in them. Their point of view at core is vital to civilization. They conserve core values that are foundational to society.
To provide something on your request for formulas I searched around for the kind of thinking I have been looking at and found this: https://www.culturalevolution.org/
 
Last edited:

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,407
8,698
136
Because liberals are enemies of the people and Americans are always looking for any excuse to return to their abusive GOP masters. They have been conditioned from birth to feel shame whenever they pull a lever with a D next to it.
No, that's an R next to it, where I live. I'm in one of the most progressive/liberal enclaves of a state (CA) that has effectively given last rites to the Republican party. Even Orange County, formerly an R enclave, has every congressperson a Democrat as of Nov. 6, well, as soon as they are sworn in.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I tried to suggest earlier that I am tired of the futility of trying to debate conservatives from the point of view of how wrong and evil they are. I am looking for a consciously evolved understanding or explanation of western cultural evolution, a philosophical and psychological explanation of human nature and human society into which their contribution to cloture has a place. I want to integrate and include rather than mock and reject. I am not interested in winning elections but in establishing new understandings that promote western cultural advance. The presence of the culture war is a sign that the memes of our current level of understandings are failing.

I take issue with the focus on "traditional values" when it come to modern American conservatism. While I understand that as a generally correct description of the conservative world view, something is awry of late. That being the sudden tolerance of serial adultery (see Commandment #7) while condemning it only when done by members of another tribe, being a "patriotic" flag waver while supporting a POTUS who consorts with authoritarian dictators who hate democracy, and supporting a POTUS who pisses all over the rule of law (including law enforcement) to name just three flagrant departures from the traditional values conservatives claim to represent.

I agree with at least some of the traditional values that conservatives say they support. The problem is, I'm no longer certain that they agree.

I have been spending more time out of boredom with the same old Trump is a disaster in P and N exploring what other people are saying and have discovered a number of thinkers with whom I have natural sympathy. Their skills and positions of notoriety verbal and intellectual plus the internet made it possible for them to come to my attention. A number of them note the same flaws or weaknesses in liberal thinking as I do and they are all pretty much liberals who tend to include rather than divide.

The point is that you wast to find a way to get conservatives to see the he world as you do whereas I want to get them to see that I see the world as they do and more. You fight and reject and I want to include and add. They are me. You diminish yourself to reject the best in them. Their point of view at core is vital to civilization. They conserve core values that are foundational to society.
To provide something on your request for formulas I searched around for the kind of thinking I have been looking at and found this: https://www.culturalevolution.org/

Read your link, or one article in it, for starts.

https://www.culturalevolution.org/docs/ICE-Growing-Out-of-Americas-Divided-Culture.pdf

I liked the piece quite a bit. Its description of the three, or, arguably, four prevalent political world views in America strikes me as useful and likely accurate. Traditionalism (i.e. social conservatism), conservative modernism (establishment/libertarian conservatism), liberal modernism (establishment), and postmodern progressivism (far left).

It's useful because it doesn't just describe a right left spectrum but actually explains that each category involves a qualitatively different set of values. I would consider myself to be a liberal modernist, yet that doesn't make me "center-left." I tend to agree with postmodern progressives 85-90% on issues. Yet I recognize that they have a totally different world view than I do.
The problem in all this is that there is no notion of how to even formulate a single, coherent world view which synthesizes the existing world views, retaining the positive aspects and discarding the negative, let alone how to make this the dominant view in our culture. When people change their world view - and they don't do it often after about age 20 - it's usually in response to events in their lives or in the world, not to people trying to convince them to do it. That was why I had a skeptical reaction to your post. Not because I don't agree with your theoretical framework, which seems sound. But because I don't see its practical application on a wide scale.

The article does contain an important practical idea, however, but it is issue specific and unfortunately cannot be applied across the board. They give the example of gay marriage, as furthering the values of progressives (caring), liberal modernists (equality/fairness), conservatives modernists (freedom), and, crucially, traditionalists (family values). If traditionists object to the wild promiscuity they see in gay culture, shouldn't they consider that allowing them to marry promotes monogamy?

If only all issues were like that, where one could credibly argue that policies they support also advance the values of those with a seemingly opposing world view. And again, if only they were listening in the first place.

Still, there's a kernel of a good practical idea there. Will read more.

When I said, I'm all ears, I wasn't being flip. I'll listen to any ideas from anyone who, in good faith, is trying to get us out of this mess we're in.
 
Last edited:

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
I think my post before this one and in the original I mention the notion of a sacred nature of law and rules for human interactions, that there are abstract values that are natural or higher ordered that we need rather than might is right.

Please don't mistake my statement of boredom as a request to be personally entertained. I believe that the messages being expressed by, dare I say, the Trump Derangement Syndrome, easily visible here in this forum will equate, nationally as another lost election for Democrats in 2020 if it continues. I am not important and if I don't post in most of these lamentation threads on how totally fucked up Trump is because I find them to be boringly repetitive and utterly useless at convincing the other side of the inanity of their own ways, nothing is really lost. My intention is to say that what bores me will bore many. In fact I picked up the notion of how boring such threads are from folk who are themselves pushing for integrative evolution, another term I'm borrowing. I find a great deal of personal identification with my own notions of the integration of opposites at a higher level of understanding and others expressing similar ideas in the political- pshchological field. All this harkens back to my warning that Democrats are crap at messaging because they are fundamentally out to lunch in their understanding of moral values. They are thus out to lunch of how to be pursuasive.

I am back to warning again, most likely with little effect other than the subject matter here at least is more interesting to me. ;)

Its tough to consider something objectively that has the potential to throw the planet into disarray, change our way of life forever. On the one hand, if you dont get involved, if you dont fight hard enough you get eaten by predators, on the other hand if you fight too hard you end up going home from ATPN with a PTSD diagnosis. Balance in life is a tough cookie.