Random Rants ΟΔ: broken record

[Traitorfish]

The bit where conservatives whipped themselves into a frenzy about all sorts of radical evils their opponents were up to, which for the most part they essentially all made up.

You really think that contemporary conservative discourse out-crazies McCarthyism, or the opposition to the Civil Rights Movement?

If the current discourse predicts a civil war, then America has apparently been a few bad days away from civil for the last seventy years at least.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You really think that contemporary conservative discourse out-crazies McCarthyism, or the opposition to the Civil Rights Movement?

Well, yes.

If the current discourse predicts a civil war, then America has apparently been a few bad days away from civil for the last seventy years at least.

No, it has been decades away, advancing to years away, and perhaps is now down to months away. Your examples are perfect illustration. The craziness of McCarthyism pit a handful of accused 'reds' against a handful of paranoids. Outside of those small groups there was little inclination to choose sides, or even pay attention. The craziness around the civil rights movement involved a larger group than the accused reds, but the black minority was in fact a fairly small minority. Again the paranoids in opposition were a larger group than mad Joe and his minions, but the raving open racists were not a much bigger minority than the blacks they raved against. While most people were happy to lounge along enjoying the benefits of systemic racism, they were for the most part genuinely unaware of it and again showed little inclination to take sides..

Now we have the crazies taking full control of one political party in a system that only has two. That makes them de facto about half of the population, and they aren't shy about "if you ain't with us yer agin' us" being a core element in their position. There is no room for not taking a side. That means that the vast majority who eventually told both sides of McCarthyism "okay, enough" and the somewhat smaller majority who eventually told both sides of the civil rights crisis "okay, enough" just doesn't exist...or at the very least is so small a minority as to not matter. Without that moderation we have the two opposing positions locked on course, and they are finally gonna get where they have been headed all along.

 

[Lexicus]

You really think that contemporary conservative discourse out-crazies McCarthyism, or the opposition to the Civil Rights Movement?

It is exactly on par with those things. Actually what Trump is doing today makes McCarthyism look genuinely quaint by comparison.

If the current discourse predicts a civil war, then America has apparently been a few bad days away from civil for the last seventy years at least.

It's not (only) current discourse; it's the fact that the Republican Party is solidifying its control over American institutions in ways that are going to make peaceful change impossible for the next few decades at least. Something will give. I don't know if it will be a civil war or some sort of insurgency or maybe even just a pre-emptive purge by the state, but the current liberal constitutional order is not going to survive.

 

[Traitorfish]

It is exactly on par with those things. Actually what Trump is doing today makes McCarthyism look genuinely quaint by comparison.

In what sense?

It's not (only) current discourse; it's the fact that the Republican Party is solidifying its control over American institutions in ways that are going to make peaceful change impossible for the next few decades at least. Something will give. I don't know if it will be a civil war or some sort of insurgency or maybe even just a pre-emptive purge by the state, but the current liberal constitutional order is not going to survive.

Well, why? Mexico had a far more entrenched dominant party through the twentieth century, but it managed to return to a multi-party system without the need for a civil war, and the Institutional Revolutionary Party was far more coherent and entrenched at all levels of Mexican politic than the Republican Party shows any sign of becoming.

 

[Takhisis]

It's not (only) current discourse; it's the fact that the Republican Party is solidifying its control over American institutions in ways that are going to make peaceful change impossible for the next few decades at least. Something will give. I don't know if it will be a civil war or some sort of insurgency or maybe even just a pre-emptive purge by the state, but the current liberal constitutional order is not going to survive.

And this is all (partly) the result of decisions by the ruling autocracies in Russia and China to attack the US just so that they can solve internal issues, i.e. stay in power. Russia attacks the political structure of the US while China goes in for an economic war.

Well, why? Mexico had a far more entrenched dominant party through the twentieth century, but it managed to return to a multi-party system without the need for a civil war, and the Institutional Revolutionary Party was far more coherent and entrenched at all levels of Mexican politicthan the Republican Party shows any sign of becoming.

Mexico's PRI didn't have a racist-supremacist end-of-world thing going on. They were/are scum, but a different type of scum.
Edit: And also they were entrenched while commanding a society. The current US Republican lunacy is unsustainable because it's like apartheid: an economically exploitative regime that relies on disenfranchising its population to stay in power and (actually religious) messianic justifications for itself.

And the struggle against the drug lords is a bit of a civil war.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In what sense?


Well, why? Mexico had a far more entrenched dominant party through the twentieth century, but it managed to return to a multi-party system without the need for a civil war, and the Institutional Revolutionary Party was far more coherent and entrenched at all levels of Mexican politic than the Republican Party shows any sign of becoming.

Notice the phrase "returned to a multi-party system." The US doesn't really have a history of multi-party system available to return to. We have two parties, which at this point have both embraced the idea that their only means of survival involves the well earned destruction of their enemy...a position they have been making seldom interrupted progress towards for decades.

 

[Cutlass]

You really think that contemporary conservative discourse out-crazies McCarthyism, or the opposition to the Civil Rights Movement?

Please. That was amateur hour. That wasn't even within an order of magnitude of where we are now.

If the current discourse predicts a civil war, then America has apparently been a few bad days away from civil for the last seventy years at least.

We really weren't headed that way until the GW Bush years. Maybe not even until the Obama years. Maybe the Clinton years is where it started. At least before Gingrich was Speaker of the House, we disagreed on a lot of things, but both sides agreed that black was black and white was white. Both sides even agreed that water was wet. The real seachange came between Gingrich believing that it was OK to try to bring down a president, and cripple the country in the process, because he felt personally snubbed by not getting the seat on Air Force One that he thought he was entitled to, and the unmitigated gall of the American voters in electing a Negro with an Arab name.

This level of divisiveness fundamentally did not exist when Reagan or GHW Bush were in office.

 

[cardgame]

I used to use Comic Rocket's RSS feeds for this kind of thing. It doesn't help if your comics aren't on the site though.

oh wow, this is superb. thank you!

RSS hasn't really died. I'm subscribe to it in Feedly for all my sites.

Then what was all the news about in 2013?

 

[Lexicus]

In what sense?

In the sense that the current paranoia is even less based on reality, and more explicitly about homage or loyalty to the figure of Trump himself.

And this is all (partly) the result of decisions by the ruling autocracies in Russia and China to attack the US just so that they can solve internal issues, i.e. stay in power.

I don't agree. The American political economy has been in a reactionary backslide for decades. And it's been rotten since slavery days.

Well, why? Mexico had a far more entrenched dominant party through the twentieth century, but it managed to return to a multi-party system without the need for a civil war, and the Institutional Revolutionary Party was far more coherent and entrenched at all levels of Mexican politic than the Republican Party shows any sign of becoming.

Edit: And also they were entrenched while commanding a society. The current US Republican lunacy is unsustainable because it's like apartheid: an economically exploitative regime that relies on disenfranchising its population to stay in power and (actually religious) messianic justifications for itself.

And the struggle against the drug lords is a bit of a civil war.

This here. It's more like apartheid, anyway. The Trumpoids are only something around a third of the population. And Mexico is seeing the kind of searing low-level violence that I hope happens in the US - I hope that what happens is the Democrats see overwhelming electoral victories and use the power they gain to begin reforming the system, which prompts an insurgency by the far-right, which can be stamped out. The more of the American state is controlled by the Republicans at the decisive moment, the worse things will be.

First note that I'm not even necessarily predicting a real civil war with two sides fighting each other until one loses. I'm just predicting some sort of continuity break, involving more organized and widespread political violence than the US has seen in many decades at least.

And I don't think this simply because Trump won the election, either. The modern "conservative movement" is a multigenerational project that was begun decades ago. And it will take decades to shake itself out.

 

[Takhisis]

I don't agree. The American political economy has been in a reactionary backslide for decades. And it's been rotten since slavery days.

There's a part I never posted!

Regarding wilful actions of China and Russia, they've helped tip the US over the edge for their own gain. The Putin Tsardom is openly meddling with the EU, South America and the Middle East just to have a free hand in removing internal political opponents and plundering the Russian economy.

Of course, the necessary condition is, in my view, well… read Tim's post above (#662). There's always been two groups that descend from at least the slave states v. free states divide.
As long as there was a BIG ENEMY to fight (the Reds) the US stayed united (Otto von Bismarck would've been proud). Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union (right at the end of the Reagan-Bush dodecade) and the alleged end of history the conservatives have finally decided that since libruls weren't a necessary evil anymore the time to roll back ‘librulism’ had come… of course, Kissinger-Nixon had torpedoed LBJ's peace negotiations in Viet Nam to get political credit in the future when they'd win the elections (and got a Nobel prize for it!), and there were very nasty things done against Carter, but even then there were limits.
From 1992 onwards it was time to take over the world US.

This here. It's more like apartheid, anyway. The Trumpoids are only something around a third of the population. And Mexico is seeing the kind of searing low-level violence that I hope happens in the US - I hope that what happens is the Democrats see overwhelming electoral victories and use the power they gain to begin reforming the system, which prompts an insurgency by the far-right, which can be stamped out. The more of the American state is controlled by the Republicans at the decisive moment, the worse things will be.

First note that I'm not even necessarily predicting a real civil war with two sides fighting each other until one loses. I'm just predicting some sort of continuity break, involving more organized and widespread political violence than the US has seen in many decades at least.

And I don't think this simply because Trump won the election, either. The modern "conservative movement" is a multigenerational project that was begun decades ago. And it will take decades to shake itself out.

You hope? I hope that the US can vote a set of corrupt authoritarian buffoons out as Argentina did in 2015. Of course, it took over a decade and global climate and security concerns make every single minute of Trump and the Republicans staying in power some orders of magnitude worse than the ridiculous presidents of Argentina, a country without military might, without a currency used as a means of exchange and value storage around the world, or the capacity to set prices of commodities. And maybe 1/8 the population of the U.S. of A., too.

 

[Lexicus]

You hope?

I hope for that because having to fight a real civil war, or just being put in a concentration camp by a far-right federal government, are not options that I would prefer.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You hope? I hope that the US can vote a set of corrupt authoritarian buffoons out as Argentina did in 2015. Of course, it took over a decade and global climate and security concerns make every single minute of Trump and the Republicans staying in power some orders of magnitude worse than the ridiculous presidents of Argentina, a country without military might, without a currency used as a means of exchange and value storage around the world, or the capacity to set prices of commodities. And maybe 1/8 the population of the U.S. of A., too.

These are reasons to hold such a hope. Without a severe internal collapse eventually the rest of the world is going to have to confront the very painful task of reining in the rogue state that does hold all those cards. If you consider the agonies of the cold war and recognize that such a reining in of an even more dangerous rogue can be nothing but worse you too will start thinking that the internal collapse might be a beneficial thing.

 

[Takhisis]

It would be one hell of a reversal if Germany had to lead the EU and others into restoring sanity in fascist 'Murica.

But not improbable enough for my peace of mind.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It would be one hell of a reversal if Germany had to lead the EU and others into restoring sanity in fascist 'Murica.

But not improbable enough for my peace of mind.

Germany won't be leading. China's time is at hand, I suspect.

 

[Takhisis]

I don't see China doing anything to combat authoritarianism and repression, honestly.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't see China doing anything to combat authoritarianism and repression, honestly.

That's not what it's about. The cold war wasn't about breaking down the USSR because they were really backwards on human rights internally. It was a battle for supremacy of influence between a supposed aggressive imperial conqueror and a supposed peacekeeper. Now the allies in the winning coalition are finding out that the horse they backed was no better than the one they pushed down the chute at the slaughterhouse. China plays a very good "we just want to do our own thing and catch up" game that Europe should be far more comfortable with than they are with the unpredictable and overpowering US.

 

[Traitorfish]

Foreigners: "Americans are too dramatic."
Americans: "How can we not be dramatic when the sky is falling!?"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Europeans: "Nothing that happens in one little podunk country really matters."
USians: "Yeah, but unlike you we aren't in one."

 

[Hygro]

Ayyyyy take that Traitorfish

 

[Mouthwash]

Europeans: "But unlike you we live in those little podunk countries."