rolling explaining conservatism

"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

Who have got far more without working than the poor

I think what it comes down to is that conservatism is about protection of privilege and in this increasingly short term world any kind of intellectual or ideological consistency gets thrown out in favour of doing whatever is necessary to stay in power - not a recent phenomenon cf. rotten boroughs, Tammany hall, Jim Crow etc. etc. Say or do anything to hold back the slow tide eroding that privilege - that's how you end up with trump - at least they have their own moron in the White House.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/social-darwinism-is-what-truly-guides-trump.html

Rolling chiding conservatism.

"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"

Apparently in his latest column he is ranting against our unusable waste of money Trident, when we can't even provide safe social housing. so on some matters he is actually shoulder to shoulder with Corbz.

Mitch McConnell will be 78 in 2020. We're seeing the last gasp of a man who knows he won't have to live with the consequences. And that might be one of the biggest factors in current conservatism, tbrh.

NRO book review here that aims to rethread the needle.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448924/henry-olsen-book-working-class-republican-ronald-reagan-lessons-gop

any kind of intellectual or ideological consistency gets thrown out in favour of doing whatever is necessary to stay in power

so yes just like the other side, tho i know people hate to hear that