rolling explaining conservatism

"Well he used to be one so you'd think he'd know better."

Yeah, he was a full Trotskyite in the 70's and SWP member from the age of 17. He fell out with the Conservative party in '03 and is always putting the boot in on them. One of his obsessions is of liberals and "cultural Marxists" trying to replace god with the state. His son Dan rebelled against him by becoming a left-footer and is the deputy editor of the Catholic Herald!

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2017/06/james_mcgill_buchanan_s_terrifying_vision_of_society_is_the_intellectual.html

yeah he was a big part of that adam curtis thingy

How many Nobels in Economics go to reactionary cranks with "research" that is readily falsified IRL?

About the same % as for those in the arts I guess

high quality post read elsewhere:

"They want a two-caste system. The rich elite, accountable to no-one, and the poor working class, a never ending inexhaustible pool of labor, with enough scarcity in employment to make high turnover, and thus lower paying, careers that leave most of the profit of production at the top of the food chain.

"They're more looking towards the... advanced societies of India, and Mexico, and now Russia. Look at all the actions they've taken over the last twenty years, and suddenly, it becomes obvious. Cut education, restrict birth control and abortion, and generally lower the quality of life of the people so that they and their children are happy with less and less. Children are expensive to raise, so unplanned children are a boon that benefit both objectives. They're still securing the religious based procreation directives through religious based law.

"But for a proper oligarchy, they need to cut any forms of control. The last strands of accountability are being cut in front of your very eyes. The White House press briefings no longer permit audio or video recording, to afford plausible deniability. You have a president that intentionally plays fast and loose with fact to dull you to danger of the situation. The ethics committees have been gutted and are useless. The system of checks and balances is broken.

"Even if Trump were somehow impeached, and the House and Senate control flipped to the Democrats, it would only delay all of this, not stop it. Remember, there's a decades long gaslighting program going on, where conservatives are being taught daily that the greatest threat to life on earth is liberalism, that they are their enemy, not their countrymen. That cutting their own throats to splash their blood on the libs is an honorable and brave sacrifice. They have no idea that we're being divided, and that we are all being conquered. Discourse will not sway them, facts will not change their course. They are not enemies, they are victims, and nobody knows how they can be helped. They have an immunity to reason itself."

Read that in the voice of David Thewlis in Naked

one of the lowest quality posts i've ever read i'm glad we could import it from its natural environs to ilx. why exactly is the party of "inexhaustible pool of labor, with enough scarcity in employment to make high turnover, and thus lower paying, careers" in favor of reducing immigration and the party of i guess more high quality jobs for fewer ppl in favor of practically open borders exactly? i thought for a second that maybe they're talking about the neoliberal elite on both sides of the aisle but then it starts talking about trump who if he stands for anything stands for importing less cheap labor and of all republicans seems least interested in restricting abortion/birth control. it's like someone had their talking points and instead of accommodating the change in scenery just decided to slap everything together and hope no one would notice. glad they were able to stick some sweet sweet false consciousness in there.

"the change in scenery"

I'm feeling your pushback but c'mon on this

Huh, I thought that post was blisteringly OTM. Weird.

you have two mutually exclusive options. either trump is trying to reduce cheap foreign labor in which case the concern over deportations, immigration bans and building walls is legitimate, or that's all a bullshit smokescreen and the concern over it is hysteria (it's not). you can't have both. if he's motivated primarily by socially engineering an infinite cheap supply of workers then he isn't trying to keep cheap labor out of the country.

the idea of government as a limiting force on the natural violent state of man (hobbesian gov) is v. conservative imo

also this is some andrew sullivan bullshit, where "conservative" is used like it has an ancient immutable meaning and thus when e.g. Hannity Limbaugh and Scott Baio use it, they're just bringing Hobbes into the 21st century

i.e. most non-conservative people today are not thinking "I wish my life were more violent than it is"---and of course most conservative people usually aren't either. it's more or less a wash

i was responding to the corey robin piece which is specifically about creating a narrative linking the history of conservatism together otherwise i agree w/ u that meanings change

Mordy what did your conservative orthodox acquaintances think about this week's ruling against El Al?

Trump is racist, but has still outsources the shit out of anything he has ever manufactured. It's not that hard to reconcile.

you can have both, mordy. trump is an idiot who doesn't think consistently

about the seating? i haven't discussed it with anyone specifically but my orthodox community is relatively modern and wouldn't be in favor of forcing women to change seats anyway. that's more of an ultra-charedi thing. xxp

No political agenda (in the US at least) is anywhere near that coherent - when you connect your dots and realize you drew Lex Luthor, you may have missed a few

seriously tombot otm please do not post post-apocalyptic handmaiden's fan fic and pretend like it explains politics irl

I still thought it was fun to read

it's waaaaaaaaaaaay more intellectually consistent than the assholes still insisting that prosperity trickles down

they're both fantasies

yeah the seating thing. was thinking of your resistance toward the characterization of conservativism as a drive to preserve hierarchies and how your orthodox communities, that you've said here give you a clearer eye into conservativism than others, sided on that issue (which is a clash over the preservation of a hierarchy imo)

the left has to be 1000% intellectually coherent while the right gets to be 1% intellectually coherent i guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In my 40+ years of experiencing Mississippi, I find most conservatives a) untroubled by inconsistency, and b) racist as fuck, to an extent that brushes aside "mutually exclusive options" before the first cup of coffee in the morning. The racism Trumps the need for an imported servant class; there are plenty of poor whites to handle the work, they just need to be poked harder.

does that actually square with what you think trump is about? he wants a birth explosion among poor whites in order to produce cheap labor? how does that square with any of his positions or ideas - even if they are half-baked? he isn't particularly anti-birth control. he is relatively pro welfare state compared to traditional (romney/bush) republicans. where is the evidence for his interest in this master plan of increasing US population to create cheap supply of labor? in fact, this is why the romney/GWB right is pro-immigration! bc they don't believe US whites are capable of fulfilling these labor needs. it's like u don't even have a negative interpretation of the right thing. like that article at the very top says - it's not that you're wrong, it's like you don't even understand what he's saying.

Re: post-apocalyptic handmaid's fanfic:

Missouri’s Senate is considering legislation that would allow employers and landlords to discriminate against women who use birth control or have had abortions. The bill, which has the support of the state’s governor, Eric Greitens, was approved by the Missouri House Tuesday.

Known as SB 5, the bill was first passed by the Senate on June 14 following a special session called by Greitens. His aim was to overturn an ordinance that prevents employers and housing providers from punishing women for their reproductive health choices, according to a report by Feministing, a feminist website.

The ordinance was passed by the city of St. Louis, and Greitens had said it made the area into “an abortion sanctuary city.” The Senate seemed to agree with him, as did the House, which on Tuesday passed an expanded version of SB 5 that included more anti-abortion restrictions. Given the Senate’s vote on June 14, it it seen as likely to approve the updated version of SB 5. This would mean that landlords could refuse to offer housing to women based on their reproductive health choices, while employers could fire female staff members who were using birth control, or refuse to hire them. And while of course this isn't information most landlords or employers have access to, under SB 5 they could ask women what forms of reproductive health care they are using.

http://www.newsweek.com/womens-rights-birth-control-abortion-missouri-discrimination-628538

there are republicans, esp evangelical christian ones, who want to eliminate abortion that's not a novelty.

That's a little more than "eliminating abortion." That's actively making someone's life worse because they've had one, or may have one, or may be taking active steps to be in the position of not needing one!

ANd while you might reply that that's, idk, "incentivizing" women not to have them, it doesn't do much to disassociate this subset of conservatives from the cruelty-based philosophy people itt have posited.

does that actually square with what you think trump is about?

Trump is about Trump, and doesn't seem to be in charge of the policy show at any level, local/state/fed. Trump is not relevant to a discussion of conservatism. In other words, Phil D. otm.

Missouri also prevented localities from implementing raises in minimum wage, so workers who were about to see a three-year phased-in increase to $11 per hour are still only making $7.90 per hour, a rate at which it's almost impossible to even live, let alone improve one's life. How does this square with a philosophy of "dignity in work, providing for oneself, bootstraps," etc. etc.?

mordy, i think trump is about being born into a vast fortune, cheating on women, enjoying a life of no consequences, and failing upward bankruptcy after bankruptcy

i think trump voters, petty and prone to false consciousness as they are, idolize that life

That strikes me as much more plausible

you have two mutually exclusive options. either trump is trying to reduce cheap foreign labor in which case the concern over deportations, immigration bans and building walls is legitimate, or that's all a bullshit smokescreen and the concern over it is hysteria (it's not). you can't have both. if he's motivated primarily by socially engineering an infinite cheap supply of workers then he isn't trying to keep cheap labor out of the country.

― Mordy, Sunday, June 25, 2017 9:31 AM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's completely bullshit. Rep Steve King is probably one of the most notable bigots in congress, fucking loves all the wall rhetoric, and Sioux City, arguable the central city of his district, is somewhere around 17% hispanic/latino as of the last census. The number one employer in the area is Tyson meats. I really don't think there's a long-term republican plan when it comes to employment, education, or business. It's literally "keep me and my family from having to do shitty jobs, don't make us pay for education for anyone other than our own kids, and make sure we don't have to pay our employees very much"

Missouri also prevented localities from implementing raises in minimum wage

pretty sure this was part of a Koch-funded legislative package several states passed at the same time

I believe you are correct -- Ohio passed such a law as well. But it was recently set aside by a judge who ruled that its inclusion in another bill violated Ohio's "one-subject" rule for state bills: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/06/judge_tosses_out_state_minimum.html

it's still in effect in Iowa iirc

Forcing people to do stuff has all sorts of unwanted psychological consequences down the line. Liberals tend to be dimly aware of this and feel guilty when conservatives are all “you can’t force me to be good!!” It’s true; you can’t.

Imo the counterargument would be “you’re not helping to provide ppl with oppurtunities to be good” but that’s utterly anti-Calvinist

the idea that the division between the saved and the damned is good and right.

hm, I don't know if it needs to have an eschatalogical component - certainly not explicitly.

I think the fears & prejudice being described are fears of moral corruption, and it seems obvious to me that there are positive ideals that conservatives see themselves as trying to protect and (hopefully) foster in their group, something like: honour, respect, self-sacrifice, duty. if you're worried about barbarians, you're worried about civilization. conservatism isn't necessarily aggressive and confrontational, & the gentler british conservatism & politesse Ed describes is imo the product of the confidence & hubris of empire.

hitchens is an interesting case bc he has the zeal of a convert to conservatism but also a fairly astute view of the structural forces changing british political culture & reconfiguring its constitutional settlement that gives him a narrative of decline (thinks the british establishment never recovered from the first world war) & leads him to a sort of heroic pessimist voice in the wilderness position, detached & reflective, more mournful than bellicose.

I read Adam Tooze's The Deluge on the strength of a Hitchens' recc. I wouldn't go as far as saying I like him really, but I definitely prefer him to a twat like Tristam Hunt and would respect his book recommendations more than any Blairite airheads.

you can't force goodness, but you can offer people all the resources they need to live a decent life. providing a basic level of healthcare, education, housing, and nutrition isn't unattainable and there are still plenty of opportunities for people to fuck up and face consequences, if your morality feels that's necessary. it just means they're not blocked by extreme circumstances when they try to live their lives.

if overcoming great hardships is the proving ground for making strong contributors to society, I don't see it. I know bright people, kind people, creative people from across the economic and social spectrum and the only difference is that the broke ones, sick ones, are less likely to have opportunities because they spent a hell of a lot of time and effort to get the level of exposure someone with resources had to start with

if overcoming great hardships is the proving ground for making strong contributors to society, and "conservatives" truly believed that, then they'd be eager for a 100% estate tax, so that the heirs of great fortunes wouldn't be diminished by growing up transcendentally advantaged. but "conservatives" are totally full of shit unfortunately

is Adam Tooze conservative?

ah, but once your family is rich, you are part of the rich status quo, which must be vigorously defended. the only good path is poor to rich. throwing rich kids back into the struggle would be wrong!

maybe rich people are so awesome too that competing with other such awesome people at school and in sailboat races and on the rugby field and whatnot is probably much more of a hardship than growing up poor

I wouldn't go as far as saying I like him really, but I definitely prefer him to a twat like Tristam Hunt and would respect his book recommendations more than any Blairite airheads.

I think I mentioned on here before that Hitchens was in my place of work and was very polite and respectful and seemed extremely nice. Actually Tristram Hunt's been in before but I don't remember anything about him.

ah, but once your family is rich, you are part of the rich status quo, which must be vigorously defended. the only good path is poor to rich. throwing rich kids back into the struggle would be wrong!

^ This is almost always the bit where I lose sympathy with them, and why the 'they are just evil and hate people and like to be cruel' take is so tempting

either trump is trying to reduce cheap foreign labor in which case the concern over deportations, immigration bans and building walls is legitimate, or that's and the concern over it is hysteria (it's not). you can't have both.

While Trump's rhetoric spoke of deporting about ten million people and building a massive wall to keep all cheap immigrant labor excluded, his program since the election has not come within 0.1% of fulfilling his rhetoric. So, yes, it's all a bullshit smokescreen.

The stepped up ICE raids have simply spread rampant fear throughout the immigrant community, making them far more exploitable by employers and vulnerable to racist violence. Which is why the concern over it is not hysteria, either.

So, having it both ways does pencil out.

xp to self. It's the vehemence of their condemning attitude toward the poor people on state benefits, contrasted with the lack of any such condemnation toward the inheritors of great wealth