Now? I never called those authoritarian cultists "conservatives." I'd like to reserve the term for people like myself, advocates of fiscal restraint, a strong defense and law-and-order, with leaders as accountable as everyone else. But sadly, almost no one uses that term in that sense anymore, so I just don't use it at all. Same with "liberals," another term that has been redefined to the point of being meaningless at best.
Chem - as in the way the words communist and socialist are spit out as curse word devoid of any of their original meaning. Conservative once stood for certain principles. Now claimed by too many people with none
Good question. What's a "Conservative" today? A mouth-breathing idiot who votes for every rapist like Trump he can find? A corrupt senior official like Bill Barr who never missed an opportunity to cover up crimes made by his second pope, Trump? Or perhaps a senator-cum-podcaster like Ted Cruz, who lies nearly as easily as his lead dog Trump? Aren't THEY "Conservatives?"
In my view, for the time being "Conservatism" is dead. It's become an anachronism. Time to put it in the closet with the buggy whips. The centre-right coalition that used to be sane Republicans has been scattered to the wind. Republican integrity is now a contradiction in terms. Yet ALL of today's despicable Republicans claim to be "Conservatives." Aren't they lying daily to themselves, their constituents and their donors?
Conservatism is DEAD! Long live anything with integrity that follows, but don't hold your breath. Liz C. & Adam K. and their ilk will be politically homeless for at least a decade, I'd guess.
Republicans are known for a bit of intellectual laziness, and the new media loves simplistic labels. Like it or not, 'conservative' == right wing, and there's nothing we can do about it except cease reading/viewing/hearing any news sources which keep using those terms interchangeably. IOW, gotta hit 'em in the wallet to get their attention.
Just think--if Republicans had voted to remove Trump after 1/6, they could've been on the road to redemption by now. And they would have insured that no future President would refuse to transfer power to the winning candidate.
So true. Also, if they’d dumped him in the Ukraine impeachment, Mike Pence would have presided over the Covid epidemic and some 250,000 Americans might still be alive. Pence would likely have been elected president in 2020 but the GOP economic response would have us looking more like Europe than today’s booming economy.
Voting for a Republican for president equals voting to have a recession. You know, a recession that costs ordinary Americans their jobs and makes it truly difficult to care for their families.
His abject failure in the final outcome of J6 will no doubt feature prominently in "The Incredible Senate Career of Mitch McConnell." Many writers will produce some version of the bio, but any with credibility will devote a lengthy chapter as to what accounted for this decision.
This is written in a weird sort of normalizing way. The idea of Trump being somehow sullied by another awful candidate feels like we’ve gone through the looking glass. Again. And the quotes from gutless integrity-free elected Republicans are, as always, sickening. Why is all this being reported in this column purely in terms that the GOP needs to find better candidates in order to win general elections? The whole party needs to lose and lose big. They are all a threat to our democracy. The ones that actively attack it and the spineless ninnies who go along.
These voters fall into one of five categories: (1) Republican office holders who want to get re-elected by the base, democracy be damned, (2) Republican operatives who want the disinformation lucre to keep coming in, democracy be damned, (3) Rich republicans who want less regulation so they can game the system and get more tax breaks, democracy be damned (4) Misinformed morons, the single largest group, who don’t realize the democracy is in peril or don’t give a damn and (5) Hateful conservatives who relish “triggering the libs”, democracy be damned. There are no other reasons to support DJT.
Why isn’t the media pressing evangelical leaders for more comments on this guy? Especially those who are on record supporting him? Does he get the same “God works in mysterious ways” pitch as Trump or is that a show of hands vote outside the celestial world?
Fox is schooling the major media limp lightweights in how to go to war in PR. Sort of need to rage up the game a bit here with this guy in such a key state. Not Kamala but the rest of the guys. The evangelicals scare people away. These are the closet slavery fans and confederacy romantics who rationalize anything with the Bible. Something for everyone in it. Peace or war. Old time Americana.
And there’s a lot of silence about the abortion in Robinson’s personal background. I wonder why, when it’s a top issue in this election and the hypocrisy is stunning - even though we always suspected hypocrisy on a gargantuan scale in all the GOP with regard to abortion.
Robinson has made statements about his salvation moment, but that it took some time for him to work his way into being less of a sinner. Apparently once you’ve accepted your personal saviour, there’s a lengthy break-in period where you get a free pass to sin sin sin. I learn more about religion every day
"The Problem Isn’t Mark Robinson. It’s GOP Voters."
We talk a lot about giving "normie" GOP elected officials permission structures to bail on trump and join the Harris/Walz coalition, and when they don't, we blame their voters more than we blame them. Does anyone ever wonder what would have happened if the GOP elected officials had stood up from the beginning, held true to their "supposed" values - maybe their voters would have as well. Why should we expect their voters to show more backbone, courage, and integrity than their elected officials did all along the sorry way? Want judges? Trade your integrity for it. Want Tax Cuts for the wealthy? Trade more of your soul for it.
So they ALL hold responsibility, and even more so the elected officials who took an oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution.
Yes, the GOP voter is a problem child, but they take their cues from the GOP leadership on what’s acceptable. Decades of bad mouthing government set the tone for this inevitable Enron-like failure of a national party.
Trump was the final filter. Some left earlier- the rise of the Tea Party finished off whatever old sympathies I had for the party when it became clear it was built around outrage, racism, and irrational conspiracy theories. Others walked when Trump became the candidate. Others walked after he was elected, because they saw the writing on the wall. A few more walked after J6.
A not insubstantial portion of our population (mostly male, mostly white) is horribly unsatisfied with the state of affairs--or what they perceive to be the state of affairs, anyway.
IOW the increased success and power of those portions of the populace that are not male or white--although (it appears) that the maleness is the more important part of the equation, by probably a small margin. The is a certain solidarity in maleness that can outweigh differences in ethnicity.
And this is one of the central components of our current problems.
The more equitable treatment of women and minorities is almost anathema to these people. As is the disrespect to their maleness that is represented in the gay and trans communities. Because reality/life is seen as a zero-sum game, rather than what it is (which is a non-zero-sum cooperative venture).
Because they have been on top for so long, any erosion of that status/position is perceived as an attack, rather than something that might have some justification.
All of the rather toxic maleness that is on display in the GoP/MAGA highlights this... as does the inordinate concern with women having too many rights and to much control over themselves (because control is a male prerogative, indeed, a right hallowed by tradition, law, and long practice).
This people are naturally labeled conservative, because they ARE social conservatives. Defenders (and now reactionaries because they have lost important battles) of the status quo. They just aren't philosophical/establishment conservatives.
These people are steeped in traditional cultural narratives and definitions of maleness that extend beyond biology. That are culturally generated and fixed, not matters of necessary fact. They are particularly enmeshed in the American narratives of self-reliance/liberty (for males and whites, anyway) and the Frontier (even though the Frontier closed in 1906, officially). Hence the obsession with guns (instruments of individual power) as well--despite how much has changed over time.
Many of them are angry that (for some reason) women do not want them--which means (in their minds, anyway) women should be forced to want them... because that is the natural order of things. Any woman that doesn't want them must be obviously flawed somehow. The problem is not in them, Horatio, but in the women (my apologies to Shakespeare).
Looking at the gender gaps in electoral support for the Democrats vs. GoP again makes this pretty clear. The GoP, despite a few token people of color or female gender is the party of white males. This is not an accident, not a statistical anomaly--and the persistence of it (in the face of data and science, and economic history) again highlights the essentially cultural nature of the thing, rather than a concern with what are generally called "kitchen table" issues that pundits and analysts feel are so determinant--but that aren't really (except for the plutocratic class).
Politics IS culture made manifest.. and the cultural aspect has, historically, been more powerful than the so-called objective aspects. The culture war is THE war, currently played out in the realm of politics rather than on the battlefield (at least for now)... and too many people ignore or denigrate this aspect of politics, preferring to pretend that other aspects are more controlling, rather than being excuses or justifications for supporting your side of the culture war.
Disclaimer: I am a 63 year old white male and *I* can see this after being raised in a time and place that was far more sexist and racist than American society was for the last few decades--maybe that is WHY I can see it.
R Mercer - you’ve said a lot I agree with. But one group of MAGA guys is the frat boy/Barstool sports set. They aren’t really social conservatives in that alcohol, drugs, porn, and sexual adventuring are celebrated and key to the culture. In a variety of way not conservative at all - risk takers, profligate spenders and ostentatious if they have the wherewithal
The social conservatism is in the treatment of women and those Other People.
Don't confuse adherence to Xtian sexual and social mores (which a lot of people historically paid lip service to and actually ignored, unless applying it to others) to the core of conservatism (how women are treated and who the Other is and how they are treated).
Christianity got turned into a justification for enslaving blacks, after all.
I think for some today that Christian is a label (as is conservative) largely stripped of its original meaning. Just as conservative doesn't define an agreed-upon set of principles anymore, Christian has little clear to denote. Somewhere in there, there's this guy from 2000 years ago but even who he was is up for grabs.
I generally don't yak about it but since we're discussing, I say I follow Jesus cuz I don't like the image most people lay on me if I say I'm a Christian. There are so many kinds of Christians but a very specific kind have kinda stolen the descriptor for themselves rather than using the lessons passed on from Jesus... who never enslaved anybody, but did mention loving your neighbor
Conservative does define an agreed upon set of principles, within the context of the society culture that is in play.
IOW, American conservatism has core principles. British conservatism has core principles, same with French... or Chinese, or Islamic.
These core principles aren't usually about economics or the specifics of government policy. Though economics comes into play.
American Establishment Conservatism (which ran from the 60s until Reagan) was supposedly about things like small government, low taxes, free markets.... but that was a facade put on traditional American conservatism--which was about nativism, racism, and male superiority. WF Buckley and a few others worked hard to shed that image--but that only lasted until the 90s.
The key to understanding conservatism and its principles/values is that it is primarily about maintaining privilege and the status quo, the existing power and economic structures.
I lost faith in the intelligence of the American people when Dubya got re-elected. The dumbest person (at the time) ever to hold the office, draft dodger, wrong-country-invader tool won, beating a decorated war veteran.
Well no pol is going to get very far by coming out and overtly stating "I think most of you are idiots and really you need people like me to get the work done."
I continue to hold reality TV responsible for making American voters favorable to “crazy” politicians. And I’m not even referring to Trump’s history with reality TV. Reality TV rewarded dysfunctional behavior, the more outrageous the better, and added the subliminal lure that everyone’s life is actually, potentially reality TV worthy - as long as there’s enough crazy to be entertaining. The spillover to our politics was inevitable. The line between “reality” and “entertainment” is blurred, perhaps permanently. And people now expect entertainment 24/7. Trump delivered.
I don’t know how we pull out of this unhealthy way of living. I often think another Trump presidency would teach voters a lesson, except for the fact that there will be no corrective allowed. Project 2025 will make sure of that.
Yes that was an interesting exploration of strategies by “players”. I’m curious what it has done to the minds of watchers. I can’t even examine my own self as a subject, because I have never watched a reality show. The “Bachelor” series are totally cringe for me to even think about! Watching might be hazardous to my health. And definitely bad for my soul.
It's never over. If Nebraska-2 is the electoral vote that tips the election for Harris, they'll change it the next day, retroactively. And Dems will go 'that's outrageous' and the Supreme Court will scratch their head for a couple weeks, then sign off on it.
I expect the Supreme Court to hand the election to Donald Trump regardless. The GOP is ginning up multiple scenarios for getting SCOTUS involved for that presumption.
A recent poll had Robinson getting 40, 41% for governor. In another poll, (MN senate race) Royce White polled about the same as Robinson. White is every bit the screwball as Robinson. Why they receive even that amount is beyond comprehension. This just shows that the Republican electorate is lock step behind these candidates. And it is not going away soon. As Tom Nichols suggests, the only way to effect this is to keep voting D's
It’s a fantasy world where the worse the candidate waving the cross, the greater God’s Glory to be revealed by working through such an *awful* man.
Mark’s entire pitch comes down to, “We need to weed the fields to protect the wheat, and I’m the guy with the scythe.” Which itself is reprehensible, but it also kinda directly disobeys Jesus, who says, with no ambiguity, to NOT do that.
Blows me away to hear Sunday school teachers trying to rationalize their support of Trump and Robinson
There are honest and ethical evangelicals like David French who point out how the mixing of religion with politics hurts religion, in fact betrays god.
Who could have predicted that a party tying itself with religious devotion to the most aggressively selfish and defiantly amoral politician in memory would do serious damage to itself - as well as the country.
Jesus, can we stop calling them Conservatives now? How about "Revanchists"?
Hypocrites?
I would call them Radical Rightist. They may be right wing, but they are NOT conservatives
or reactionary or cultists
"Cultists" is the most accurate term I've heard.
I like a more cultured term: nuts
Revanchist
Authoritarian
Cultist
Illiberal
Sycophantic
Transgressors
iswydt ;)
I like “seditionist”, personally
Sadly they're only seditionists until they gain power. Then you become the seditionist with a 1-way trip to Guantanamo.
My go to has always been "A-holes."
That's the most important virtue in the GOP right now.
Now? I never called those authoritarian cultists "conservatives." I'd like to reserve the term for people like myself, advocates of fiscal restraint, a strong defense and law-and-order, with leaders as accountable as everyone else. But sadly, almost no one uses that term in that sense anymore, so I just don't use it at all. Same with "liberals," another term that has been redefined to the point of being meaningless at best.
Chem - as in the way the words communist and socialist are spit out as curse word devoid of any of their original meaning. Conservative once stood for certain principles. Now claimed by too many people with none
Good question. What's a "Conservative" today? A mouth-breathing idiot who votes for every rapist like Trump he can find? A corrupt senior official like Bill Barr who never missed an opportunity to cover up crimes made by his second pope, Trump? Or perhaps a senator-cum-podcaster like Ted Cruz, who lies nearly as easily as his lead dog Trump? Aren't THEY "Conservatives?"
In my view, for the time being "Conservatism" is dead. It's become an anachronism. Time to put it in the closet with the buggy whips. The centre-right coalition that used to be sane Republicans has been scattered to the wind. Republican integrity is now a contradiction in terms. Yet ALL of today's despicable Republicans claim to be "Conservatives." Aren't they lying daily to themselves, their constituents and their donors?
Conservatism is DEAD! Long live anything with integrity that follows, but don't hold your breath. Liz C. & Adam K. and their ilk will be politically homeless for at least a decade, I'd guess.
I'm with you on revanchists. That's accurate. Or if you wanna have more fun with it may I submit: Y’all Qaeda, Vanilla ISIS, or Talibangelicals.
I like "Radical Reactionaries"
Republicans are known for a bit of intellectual laziness, and the new media loves simplistic labels. Like it or not, 'conservative' == right wing, and there's nothing we can do about it except cease reading/viewing/hearing any news sources which keep using those terms interchangeably. IOW, gotta hit 'em in the wallet to get their attention.
Yep, perfect use of the term.
The GOP should rebrand as the Insane Unknowns. I'm sure the Chicago street gang would license the name.
I prefer Know Nothings 2.0.
Just think--if Republicans had voted to remove Trump after 1/6, they could've been on the road to redemption by now. And they would have insured that no future President would refuse to transfer power to the winning candidate.
I’d sure love to know if there is remorse hidden in those cowardly hearts. We may never know, because . . . they’re cowards.
So true. Also, if they’d dumped him in the Ukraine impeachment, Mike Pence would have presided over the Covid epidemic and some 250,000 Americans might still be alive. Pence would likely have been elected president in 2020 but the GOP economic response would have us looking more like Europe than today’s booming economy.
Voting for a Republican for president equals voting to have a recession. You know, a recession that costs ordinary Americans their jobs and makes it truly difficult to care for their families.
His abject failure in the final outcome of J6 will no doubt feature prominently in "The Incredible Senate Career of Mitch McConnell." Many writers will produce some version of the bio, but any with credibility will devote a lengthy chapter as to what accounted for this decision.
This is written in a weird sort of normalizing way. The idea of Trump being somehow sullied by another awful candidate feels like we’ve gone through the looking glass. Again. And the quotes from gutless integrity-free elected Republicans are, as always, sickening. Why is all this being reported in this column purely in terms that the GOP needs to find better candidates in order to win general elections? The whole party needs to lose and lose big. They are all a threat to our democracy. The ones that actively attack it and the spineless ninnies who go along.
"The Problem Isn’t Mark Robinson. It’s GOP Voters."
Yes, Joe. I would be surprised if any Bulwark readers don't already know that.
These voters fall into one of five categories: (1) Republican office holders who want to get re-elected by the base, democracy be damned, (2) Republican operatives who want the disinformation lucre to keep coming in, democracy be damned, (3) Rich republicans who want less regulation so they can game the system and get more tax breaks, democracy be damned (4) Misinformed morons, the single largest group, who don’t realize the democracy is in peril or don’t give a damn and (5) Hateful conservatives who relish “triggering the libs”, democracy be damned. There are no other reasons to support DJT.
Perhaps the GOP needs to attract some new, saner voters.
Good luck; they're all here at The Bulwark!
Voting for Dems.
JVL has been shouting that from the rooftop for like forever.
Why isn’t the media pressing evangelical leaders for more comments on this guy? Especially those who are on record supporting him? Does he get the same “God works in mysterious ways” pitch as Trump or is that a show of hands vote outside the celestial world?
Fox is schooling the major media limp lightweights in how to go to war in PR. Sort of need to rage up the game a bit here with this guy in such a key state. Not Kamala but the rest of the guys. The evangelicals scare people away. These are the closet slavery fans and confederacy romantics who rationalize anything with the Bible. Something for everyone in it. Peace or war. Old time Americana.
And there’s a lot of silence about the abortion in Robinson’s personal background. I wonder why, when it’s a top issue in this election and the hypocrisy is stunning - even though we always suspected hypocrisy on a gargantuan scale in all the GOP with regard to abortion.
Robinson has made statements about his salvation moment, but that it took some time for him to work his way into being less of a sinner. Apparently once you’ve accepted your personal saviour, there’s a lengthy break-in period where you get a free pass to sin sin sin. I learn more about religion every day
I think the word they used for Trump when he failed “spiritually” is he’s “a baby Christian.” Excuses are always at the ready.
In Game of Thrones was Joffrey a baby “something””? They needed to work that in.
"The Problem Isn’t Mark Robinson. It’s GOP Voters."
We talk a lot about giving "normie" GOP elected officials permission structures to bail on trump and join the Harris/Walz coalition, and when they don't, we blame their voters more than we blame them. Does anyone ever wonder what would have happened if the GOP elected officials had stood up from the beginning, held true to their "supposed" values - maybe their voters would have as well. Why should we expect their voters to show more backbone, courage, and integrity than their elected officials did all along the sorry way? Want judges? Trade your integrity for it. Want Tax Cuts for the wealthy? Trade more of your soul for it.
So they ALL hold responsibility, and even more so the elected officials who took an oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution.
Yes, the GOP voter is a problem child, but they take their cues from the GOP leadership on what’s acceptable. Decades of bad mouthing government set the tone for this inevitable Enron-like failure of a national party.
Trump was the final filter. Some left earlier- the rise of the Tea Party finished off whatever old sympathies I had for the party when it became clear it was built around outrage, racism, and irrational conspiracy theories. Others walked when Trump became the candidate. Others walked after he was elected, because they saw the writing on the wall. A few more walked after J6.
What's left are the jellyfish and the grifters.
A not insubstantial portion of our population (mostly male, mostly white) is horribly unsatisfied with the state of affairs--or what they perceive to be the state of affairs, anyway.
IOW the increased success and power of those portions of the populace that are not male or white--although (it appears) that the maleness is the more important part of the equation, by probably a small margin. The is a certain solidarity in maleness that can outweigh differences in ethnicity.
And this is one of the central components of our current problems.
The more equitable treatment of women and minorities is almost anathema to these people. As is the disrespect to their maleness that is represented in the gay and trans communities. Because reality/life is seen as a zero-sum game, rather than what it is (which is a non-zero-sum cooperative venture).
Because they have been on top for so long, any erosion of that status/position is perceived as an attack, rather than something that might have some justification.
All of the rather toxic maleness that is on display in the GoP/MAGA highlights this... as does the inordinate concern with women having too many rights and to much control over themselves (because control is a male prerogative, indeed, a right hallowed by tradition, law, and long practice).
This people are naturally labeled conservative, because they ARE social conservatives. Defenders (and now reactionaries because they have lost important battles) of the status quo. They just aren't philosophical/establishment conservatives.
These people are steeped in traditional cultural narratives and definitions of maleness that extend beyond biology. That are culturally generated and fixed, not matters of necessary fact. They are particularly enmeshed in the American narratives of self-reliance/liberty (for males and whites, anyway) and the Frontier (even though the Frontier closed in 1906, officially). Hence the obsession with guns (instruments of individual power) as well--despite how much has changed over time.
Many of them are angry that (for some reason) women do not want them--which means (in their minds, anyway) women should be forced to want them... because that is the natural order of things. Any woman that doesn't want them must be obviously flawed somehow. The problem is not in them, Horatio, but in the women (my apologies to Shakespeare).
Looking at the gender gaps in electoral support for the Democrats vs. GoP again makes this pretty clear. The GoP, despite a few token people of color or female gender is the party of white males. This is not an accident, not a statistical anomaly--and the persistence of it (in the face of data and science, and economic history) again highlights the essentially cultural nature of the thing, rather than a concern with what are generally called "kitchen table" issues that pundits and analysts feel are so determinant--but that aren't really (except for the plutocratic class).
Politics IS culture made manifest.. and the cultural aspect has, historically, been more powerful than the so-called objective aspects. The culture war is THE war, currently played out in the realm of politics rather than on the battlefield (at least for now)... and too many people ignore or denigrate this aspect of politics, preferring to pretend that other aspects are more controlling, rather than being excuses or justifications for supporting your side of the culture war.
Disclaimer: I am a 63 year old white male and *I* can see this after being raised in a time and place that was far more sexist and racist than American society was for the last few decades--maybe that is WHY I can see it.
R Mercer - you’ve said a lot I agree with. But one group of MAGA guys is the frat boy/Barstool sports set. They aren’t really social conservatives in that alcohol, drugs, porn, and sexual adventuring are celebrated and key to the culture. In a variety of way not conservative at all - risk takers, profligate spenders and ostentatious if they have the wherewithal
The social conservatism is in the treatment of women and those Other People.
Don't confuse adherence to Xtian sexual and social mores (which a lot of people historically paid lip service to and actually ignored, unless applying it to others) to the core of conservatism (how women are treated and who the Other is and how they are treated).
Christianity got turned into a justification for enslaving blacks, after all.
I think for some today that Christian is a label (as is conservative) largely stripped of its original meaning. Just as conservative doesn't define an agreed-upon set of principles anymore, Christian has little clear to denote. Somewhere in there, there's this guy from 2000 years ago but even who he was is up for grabs.
I generally don't yak about it but since we're discussing, I say I follow Jesus cuz I don't like the image most people lay on me if I say I'm a Christian. There are so many kinds of Christians but a very specific kind have kinda stolen the descriptor for themselves rather than using the lessons passed on from Jesus... who never enslaved anybody, but did mention loving your neighbor
Conservative does define an agreed upon set of principles, within the context of the society culture that is in play.
IOW, American conservatism has core principles. British conservatism has core principles, same with French... or Chinese, or Islamic.
These core principles aren't usually about economics or the specifics of government policy. Though economics comes into play.
American Establishment Conservatism (which ran from the 60s until Reagan) was supposedly about things like small government, low taxes, free markets.... but that was a facade put on traditional American conservatism--which was about nativism, racism, and male superiority. WF Buckley and a few others worked hard to shed that image--but that only lasted until the 90s.
The key to understanding conservatism and its principles/values is that it is primarily about maintaining privilege and the status quo, the existing power and economic structures.
Thank you gentlemen! My initial reaction to the "bag" coming down the
"golden" escalator was "...never underestimate the stupidity of the american electorate..."
I stand by that then, now, and - we'll see....
President Obama used to talk about the "wisdom of the American voter"...I knew even then it was NOT true
I lost faith in the intelligence of the American people when Dubya got re-elected. The dumbest person (at the time) ever to hold the office, draft dodger, wrong-country-invader tool won, beating a decorated war veteran.
Well no pol is going to get very far by coming out and overtly stating "I think most of you are idiots and really you need people like me to get the work done."
I can think of one who spent 4 years in the White House...
"I love the poorly educated!"
"I don't care about you, I just need your vote."
I continue to hold reality TV responsible for making American voters favorable to “crazy” politicians. And I’m not even referring to Trump’s history with reality TV. Reality TV rewarded dysfunctional behavior, the more outrageous the better, and added the subliminal lure that everyone’s life is actually, potentially reality TV worthy - as long as there’s enough crazy to be entertaining. The spillover to our politics was inevitable. The line between “reality” and “entertainment” is blurred, perhaps permanently. And people now expect entertainment 24/7. Trump delivered.
I don’t know how we pull out of this unhealthy way of living. I often think another Trump presidency would teach voters a lesson, except for the fact that there will be no corrective allowed. Project 2025 will make sure of that.
You're not wrong on that one.
How a naked man on a tropical island shaped our current political insanity https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/13/opinion/donald-trump-reality-tv-survivor.html?smid=url-share
Written by a guy who is former head of programming at VH 1.
Yes that was an interesting exploration of strategies by “players”. I’m curious what it has done to the minds of watchers. I can’t even examine my own self as a subject, because I have never watched a reality show. The “Bachelor” series are totally cringe for me to even think about! Watching might be hazardous to my health. And definitely bad for my soul.
Never watched 'reality teevee'. But I do watch some football. Both seem to produce the same byproduct: unengaged watchers. Lazy thinking
JF - one catch: another Trump presidency MIGHT teach them a lesson. But the rest of us don’t need to take that class!!
It's never over. If Nebraska-2 is the electoral vote that tips the election for Harris, they'll change it the next day, retroactively. And Dems will go 'that's outrageous' and the Supreme Court will scratch their head for a couple weeks, then sign off on it.
Be forewarned.
I expect the Supreme Court to hand the election to Donald Trump regardless. The GOP is ginning up multiple scenarios for getting SCOTUS involved for that presumption.
Oh it has been clear for at lest 15 years that Republican voters want one thing: the craziest son-of-a-bitch out there.
A recent poll had Robinson getting 40, 41% for governor. In another poll, (MN senate race) Royce White polled about the same as Robinson. White is every bit the screwball as Robinson. Why they receive even that amount is beyond comprehension. This just shows that the Republican electorate is lock step behind these candidates. And it is not going away soon. As Tom Nichols suggests, the only way to effect this is to keep voting D's
The Rule is; R’s vote for R’s. Party first. Always.
Yeah, so much for country first. :)
TILLIS: "You’ve seen it happen in Democratic races."
Sorry, Thom. You ain't NEVER seen Mark Robinson-level shit in a Democratic race.
What a damn fool.
Democrats throw out their rotten eggs. (Except for Bill Clinton—but that was 30 yrs ago. He wouldn’t get away with that shit today.)
It’s a fantasy world where the worse the candidate waving the cross, the greater God’s Glory to be revealed by working through such an *awful* man.
Mark’s entire pitch comes down to, “We need to weed the fields to protect the wheat, and I’m the guy with the scythe.” Which itself is reprehensible, but it also kinda directly disobeys Jesus, who says, with no ambiguity, to NOT do that.
Blows me away to hear Sunday school teachers trying to rationalize their support of Trump and Robinson
There are honest and ethical evangelicals like David French who point out how the mixing of religion with politics hurts religion, in fact betrays god.
I used to love Sunday School. Back in the before times.
Who could have predicted that a party tying itself with religious devotion to the most aggressively selfish and defiantly amoral politician in memory would do serious damage to itself - as well as the country.
As JVL often says: "the people are the problem."