2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Drakle]

I will note that "liberals" have certainly attempted rebranding as "progressives".

Rebranding in politics is natural, as some labels become attractive / become toxic. But there is much greater continuity between Clinton-Gore-Kerry-Obama-Clinton-Biden, with Pelosi, Reid and Schumer than there is between the various Republican nominees and their congresscritters. As well as a lot of actual turnover. Republicans have gone through a lot of their House leadership very rapidly, and now most of them refuse the job.

 

[EgonSpengler]

You know it says something about the US conservative sphere, that they are constantly rebranding.

2000 - Bush style conservatism rebrands from toxic Gingrich Republican congress, with a somewhat bipartisan State Governor. 'Compassionate' moralistic conservatism.

2008-2010 - Bush and co are fully discredited, and he leaves office with approval in the low 20s. Republicans ignore Bush, concede somewhat that he was bad. Rebrand as hardline opposition to everything Obama does, and insane deficit hawks, despite spending like crazy during Bush years and some go Tea Party

2012 - Some conservatives in the aftermath of Bush, rebrand as Libertarians, Ron Paul 2012. They don't take over the party, but it becomes a useful label to hide behind for ashamed conservatives. Instead Mitt Romney wins the primary and loses the general. Also in the mix is the Paul Ryan types, who media proclaim as conservatives with ideas. Their one idea is tax cuts of course.

2014-2016 Trump takes over the Republican Party, now as a 'populist'. Very bad way to describe it, demoguague fits better. But he openly repudiates toxic Republican Paul Ryan economics, and doesn't both defending unpopular Republican missteps and trounces a Republican field. Most of the Paulite Libertarians become Trumpists.

2020-? Trump is very likely to lose with a campaign that has literally no ideas on anything, has reverted to Republican orthodoxy, and is full on cultural grievance politics. Lots of Republicans have already started visiting New Hampshire, preparing for the next primary, with candidates from all over the spectrum. My guess is a new morphing, and a new label of sorts.

Part of the problem American conservatives face lies with our 2-party system (progressives have issues with the 2-party system, but maybe not the same issues). Something we're seeing now is that conservative =/= Republican (and progressive =/= Democrat). In truth, conservative never = Republican, but people know so little about our own history they just assume it was ever thus. (Go ahead and laugh a hearty laugh whenever the Republicans calls themselves "the party of Lincoln.")

When I (try to) explain American politics to people from other countries, I sometimes describe our two political parties as coalitions of smaller parties that are locked together. The myriad conservatives constantly have to negotiate with each other over the direction of the party. This is true for the Democratic Party too, but conservatives value conformity and unity, while progressives value diversity.* Presenting a "united front" is more important for the Republicans, while the Democrats don't really mind having a "lovers' quarrel" on the street right in front of everybody. So the Republicans zig-zag a lot and the Democrats frequently seem to have no direction at all; in both cases, it's because the two Parties represent multiple groups with varying opinions and priorities.


* This gets even more confusing, because conservatives and progressives both value individuality sometimes and community other times. Conservatives will assert the individual right to bear arms but refute the individual right to marry whomever you want. Meanwhile, progressives will demand that wealthy people pay more in taxes, then riot in the streets when military conscription is imposed.

 

[Estebonrober]

You know it says something about the US conservative sphere, that they are constantly rebranding.

2000 - Bush style conservatism rebrands from toxic Gingrich Republican congress, with a somewhat bipartisan State Governor. 'Compassionate' moralistic conservatism.

2008-2010 - Bush and co are fully discredited, and he leaves office with approval in the low 20s. Republicans ignore Bush, concede somewhat that he was bad. Rebrand as hardline opposition to everything Obama does, and insane deficit hawks, despite spending like crazy during Bush years and some go Tea Party

2012 - Some conservatives in the aftermath of Bush, rebrand as Libertarians, Ron Paul 2012. They don't take over the party, but it becomes a useful label to hide behind for ashamed conservatives. Instead Mitt Romney wins the primary and loses the general. Also in the mix is the Paul Ryan types, who media proclaim as conservatives with ideas. Their one idea is tax cuts of course.

2014-2016 Trump takes over the Republican Party, now as a 'populist'. Very bad way to describe it, demoguague fits better. But he openly repudiates toxic Republican Paul Ryan economics, and doesn't both defending unpopular Republican missteps and trounces a Republican field. Most of the Paulite Libertarians become Trumpists.

2020-? Trump is very likely to lose with a campaign that has literally no ideas on anything, has reverted to Republican orthodoxy, and is full on cultural grievance politics. Lots of Republicans have already started visiting New Hampshire, preparing for the next primary, with candidates from all over the spectrum. My guess is a new morphing, and a new label of sorts.

My take on this is pretty simple. 40 years ago the GOP was the party of small efficient government (at least this was the talk). Now they are for the complete destruction of the administrative state. The problem of course is it is 2020, jsut take a look at the US from space at night and you know their is no frontier for people to hide in anymore which means and administrative state is necessary. Or put in simpler terms they went from government is a necessary evil to government is not necessary at all (with the exception of putting poor people in jail when they step out of line).

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'd like to also note that for all the stupid faces Trump made at Biden last night, particularly when he was getting called out for his lies, tax returns and his relationship with Putin/Russia... I haven't seen or heard one peep from commentators about his facial expressions... like what was done to Kamala Harris.

 

[Farm Boy]

I will note that "liberals" have certainly attempted rebranding as "progressives".

I'm not sure they didn't actually become something else. Destroying the independent judiciary in fact rather than in nicety isn't a liberal dream. Downplaying class in favor of ethnicity isn't a liberal outlook. Negative liberty arguments about money and freedom to the tune of 10x the police issue isn't liberal, either. Those issue people probably aren't liberals regardless of brand.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm not sure they didn't actually become something else. Destroying the independent judiciary in fact rather than in nicety isn't a liberal dream. Downplaying class in favor of ethnicity isn't a liberal outlook. Negative liberty arguments about money and freedom to the tune of 10x the police issue isn't liberal, either. Those issue people probably aren't liberals regardless of brand.

I believe Sommer is talking about actual liberals still being liberals while branding themselves as progressive. Not actually being progressive. Your problems with the latter being a completely different can of worms

 

[Phrossack]

You know it says something about the US conservative sphere, that they are constantly rebranding.

2000 - Bush style conservatism rebrands from toxic Gingrich Republican congress, with a somewhat bipartisan State Governor. 'Compassionate' moralistic conservatism.

2008-2010 - Bush and co are fully discredited, and he leaves office with approval in the low 20s. Republicans ignore Bush, concede somewhat that he was bad. Rebrand as hardline opposition to everything Obama does, and insane deficit hawks, despite spending like crazy during Bush years and some go Tea Party

2012 - Some conservatives in the aftermath of Bush, rebrand as Libertarians, Ron Paul 2012. They don't take over the party, but it becomes a useful label to hide behind for ashamed conservatives. Instead Mitt Romney wins the primary and loses the general. Also in the mix is the Paul Ryan types, who media proclaim as conservatives with ideas. Their one idea is tax cuts of course.

2014-2016 Trump takes over the Republican Party, now as a 'populist'. Very bad way to describe it, demoguague fits better. But he openly repudiates toxic Republican Paul Ryan economics, and doesn't both defending unpopular Republican missteps and trounces a Republican field. Most of the Paulite Libertarians become Trumpists.

2020-? Trump is very likely to lose with a campaign that has literally no ideas on anything, has reverted to Republican orthodoxy, and is full on cultural grievance politics. Lots of Republicans have already started visiting New Hampshire, preparing for the next primary, with candidates from all over the spectrum. My guess is a new morphing, and a new label of sorts.

Reminds me of how the mercenary outfit formerly known as Blackwater constantly renames itself to run away from the bad PR it earns.

 

[Ironsided]

Not sure if this is a good thread or this has been covered somewhere else, but AOC was playing Among Us on Twitch two days ago. I watched the VOD last night. It was funny. Ilhan was in the game as well. Really cool way to reach out to a new generation - and adult children like us. Anyway, if you missed it here is a link:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/776770697

The main campaigning message outside the game was – go vote, make plans and in general, vote out Orange – he is totally sus! Cannot argue with that. (If in a safe state, I’d still vote Green 100% though)

 

[Drakle]

(If in a safe state, I’d still vote Green 100% though)

Why? It isn't like the US Greens are particularly good progressive champions. They are full of idiots, anti-vaxxers, and people who openly welcome Republican support to get on the ballot and act as splinters.

And you miss the fact that AOC endorsed voting Biden/Harris on the Working Families ballot line in NY, to ensure they remain a viable party. People should back stuff like that, which doesn't waste a vote and helps actual progressive movements, not the idiots and controlled opposition that make up the US Greens.

 

[Farm Boy]

I believe Sommer is talking about actual liberals still being liberals while branding themselves as progressive. Not actually being progressive. Your problems with the latter being a completely different can of worms

I don't run into the first in conversation as often as I used to*. I think they're the second now. And yes, it's a different can of worms. A new world order would certainly be a type of progress, so would a lot of various things.

*Might be that situation where all the people sick and/or complying with COVID regulations essentially become invisible. The COVID sick aren't in view. The COVID isolating people are home, they aren't in view. But man, the idiots, those are easy to see. Maybe it's that. That'd be nice, but... it's not what the candidates seem to be saying for themselves. I guess we'll see how they act, maybe.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I believe Sommer is talking about actual liberals still being liberals while branding themselves as progressive. Not actually being progressive. Your problems with the latter being a completely different can of worms

The specific person I had in my mind when I made that comment was Nancy Pelosi, when she was being interviewed about her beefs with progressives in the Democratic party and she piped up and said "I'm a progressive!"

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not sure about Pelosi on the first two things I mentioned, but she fits the 3rd. She might be. She's certainly not going to condemn them if she's not. She's smart, she knows her fine people.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm not sure they didn't actually become something else. Destroying the independent judiciary in fact rather than in nicety isn't a liberal dream. Downplaying class in favor of ethnicity isn't a liberal outlook. Negative liberty arguments about money and freedom to the tune of 10x the police issue isn't liberal, either. Those issue people probably aren't liberals regardless of brand.

On the first thing. I don't buy the distinction you're drawing between "in fact" versus "in nicety." There's no distinction. In other words... No, they started it... which is your real point, yes?

As for the second and third things, again... you (the royal you) can't claim the moral high ground on that when you're holding on to "the rag" and advocating in favor of Confedrate monuments that went up in protest of the Civil Rights movement, and Blue Lives Mattter'ing/All Lives Matter'ing in response to people protesting black people being mistreated and unnecessarily killed by police. Again...they started it. It's too late to try to pretend it was ever anything else so they can bemoan "racial politics" now.

I don't run into the first in conversation as often as I used to*. I think they're the second now. And yes, it's a different can of worms. A new world order would certainly be a type of progress, so would a lot of various things. *Might be that situation where all the people sick and/or complying with COVID regulations essentially become invisible. The COVID sick aren't in view. The COVID isolating people are home, they aren't in view. But man, the idiots, those are easy to see. Maybe it's that. That'd be nice, but... it's not what the candidates seem to be saying for themselves. I guess we'll see how they act, maybe.

It may end up being the case that all the mail in voting is how those invisible folks make themselves visible... but I guess we'll see...

 

[Farm Boy]

I claim no ground here, but they're not liberals even if they got good reason to be mad.

You're either with us or against us. There is no distinction. Not liberal. No way.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Here is my analogy. We're in a boat, playing a game, the rules are we take turns shooting a ball into a bucket, if you make it, I walk the plank, if you miss I get to shoot, and if I make it, you walk the plank. When whoever goes into the water climbs out of the water and back into the boat, the person who made it gets to shoot again and the game continues.

One day after I've made my shot, and you've climbed back into the boat, I shoot again and make it... but you refuse to go in the water and tell me to shoot again, which I am puzzled about but I shoot again, and make it again. You once again refuse to go in the water. So in response, I take the bucket to the side of the boat, get a bucket of water and pour it on your head and say that from now on if you refuse to go in the water yourself, when I make a shot, I will pour it on you.

You respond by grabbing the ball and bucket, hurling them over the side, and then pushing me into the water. You then declare that from now on the rule is that the only person who is allowed to stay in the boat is the person who is strongest and if I try to get back in you will try to throw me back out. You then say that the situation is my fault, because I poured water on your head, which was against the rules (niceties?) of the game.

That is the situation the Democrats find themselves in with the Republicans with regard to the Courts. So the best option now is to rock/tip the boat over and dump the Republicans out. Or go get some more friends to help storm the boat by force. That is, what Court packing represents.​

 

[Farm Boy]

No, term length matters even if the vote is partially skeezy. Like Illinois. The term lengths still matter. The court stuffed puts the override of lifelong appointments in the Senate and the EC instead of in impeachment or amendment if the judiciary is to be overridden.

It's banana republic level **** but without even dressing up. Either way, not liberal. Probably progressive. It's new. It might be order.

 

[Birdjaguar]

and Hunter did nothing wrong

Intersting that you are all over Hunter Biden but completely ignore the actually corrupt Ivanka, Jared, Erik and Donald Jr. let alone Trump's ongoing corruption and self dealing.

 

[stinkubus]

The planet requires some level of rule of law on a global level, without it its an endless race to the bottom democracy or not. Small democracies are easier to over-run then large ones.

The first sentence I agree with 100%. The end game for socialism must be one world governance.

The last sentence I disagree with 100%. Institutional rules and structure matter. The US system is trivially easy for monied interests to capture compared to other, much smaller parliamentary systems found all over the world.

 

[Lexicus]

Not a great comparison. Soleimani’s Quds Force was directing Hezbollah in attacks on US citizens and personnel in Iraq for three months before he was taken out. That’s much more directly severe action than crooked warmongering which you could morally hang tons of politicians throughout the world for imo.

Don't like the comparison? Fine, should Iran be able to assassinate the American and Israeli officials behind the Stuxnet attack, a direct act of war on Iran that didn't even involve working through proxies?

Or, hey, let's turn the situation around, hypothetically. Let's say that Iran invaded Mexico and destroyed its government. Worried about Iranian influence in a country next door to our own territory, the US government offers assistance to Mexican insurgents fighting against the Iranian occupation. Iran uses a cruise missile to assassinate an American general involved in these operations while the general is on the runway at the airport in Mexico City.

Would this be okay with you? Why or why not?

The main campaigning message outside the game was – go vote, make plans and in general, vote out Orange – he is totally sus! Cannot argue with that. (If in a safe state, I’d still vote Green 100% though)

I have to agree with Drakle that the Greens really are not impressive (read that as "The Green Party is comprised of clowns"). If you want to make a statement about how non-mainstream you are (and take this as general 'you' because I know you are not American) vote for Gloria La Riva or Allyson Kennedy (PSL and SWP candidates respectively).

The last sentence I disagree with 100%. Institutional rules and structure matter. The US system is trivially easy for monied interests to capture compared to other, much smaller parliamentary systems found all over the world.

It's not the size, it's the premodern constitution.

 

[stinkubus]

OMG The Green Party are literally right wing plants. Their funding here in PA comes almost 100% from huge GOP donors.

Third parties CANNOT be trusted. Our system ensures they only exist in your state if they are of use to one or both of the major parties.