Two things. One, it's amazing how quickly Qanon talking points end up going from the fringe to Carlson's mouth. The talk of biolabs is a direct qanon talking point. And while you didn't mention it, last nights pivot to 'democrats and all lgbtq people are groomers' is also straight qanon.
But let's talk about something I mentioned before …
Two things. One, it's amazing how quickly Qanon talking points end up going from the fringe to Carlson's mouth. The talk of biolabs is a direct qanon talking point. And while you didn't mention it, last nights pivot to 'democrats and all lgbtq people are groomers' is also straight qanon.
But let's talk about something I mentioned before when we debated finding common ground on here some time ago: there is a lot of overlap between left and right on various issues, but the reasons for it are often in conflict. For example, the left and right mostly agree on Ukraine being good, and Russia being bad. For the right it's mostly because of xenophobia mixed with old school anti-russia sentiment left over from the cold war, mixed with a heavy dash of pro-america militarism. For the left, it's mostly about how Russia is a right wing autocracy and Ukraine is a democracy, and war is almost always a thing to oppose. These are major generalizations, obviously. But the point I'm trying to make is that while the reasoning differs, they end up at the same place: Russia bad, Ukraine good. Perhaps this is why supporting Ukraine monetarily has been bipartisan.
I think this can be applied to a lot of foreign policy. Despite Trump and his sycophants talking of 'America First' isolationism, it doesn't appear most of the party is actually that far along. What most seem to be for is fewer one-sided commitments, a sentiment that the left shares even though it's often for different people. And yet, there is still some agreement there. For example, both left and right particularly dislike nations like Saudi Arabia, again for different reasons. But focusing on the actual policy, there's a lot of overlap.
I sense that, if Biden is savvy enough, and I do not doubt that he is, that he'll be able to cut through this. We should, I think, focus less on reasons and more on results; there's a decidedly healthy amount of bipartisanship between us. To use another example: the left views Europe as mostly cultural kin, whereas the right likes to have America at the head of the table, and both views require healthy American commitments. 'America First' in actual reality, would basically be a return to healthy international commitments like we've seen from Biden. America is first, but we're not alone.
Anyway, I fully expect in the coming days that this position around Biden as a leader of foreign policy will harden, if only because Americans love having an external enemy. It's been argued that things like the cold war spurred on the civil rights movement, because we disliked having the Soviets lord things over us. Americans will do lots of things for selfish reasons; American pride is a hell of a beast. Politicians really should just make the arguement of 'we're better than this' on a whole host of issues, because while shamelessness is a super power, shame is abhorrent to most Americans.
Shawn mentioned voting rights: Pretty much every voter on the right wants fair elections. Many think this means stopping nonexistent mass fraud, but not all.
Among those who think mass fraud exists, some doubtless find the belief convenient for identitarian reasons (their gut feeling really is that too many of the "wrong kind" of citizens voting couldn't possibly be fair, even if it's legal). Others may just trust the wrong sources. Beliefs can range from something even many Democratic voters could agree to, if it were done right, like making voter ID easily accessible and using it (Democratic activists worry this will disenfranchise the marginalized more than Democratic voters do), to full-on whackadoo.
Those on the right who don't believe mass voter fraud exist may believe this as strongly as Democrats do, but because it's not a characteristically "right wing" belief these days, they don't seem like "sincere right-wingers" on this.
Regarding LGBTQ matters, authoritarian moralizing makes non-reactionary libertarians, whether they are personally religious or not, nervous. Cathy Young is an example.
If you're asking me a rhetorical question, you're asking the wrong person: I don't object to mail-in voting.
But, since you're asking someone who's also been a pollworker, and seen how my state and county run things, there is a *lot* of hysteresis (lag and path-dependence) in our voting systems: a fair amount of "foot dragging" may be due to the malice of Republican state legislators, but by no means all of it.
Not every issue. But I also believe that most people only have one or two 'major' issues that stick out to them. The rest gets absorbed in rhetoric.
For example, on voting rights, lots genuinely want 'fair' elections. Well, so do Democrats. Now obviously, bad people are trying to steal that and manipulate it for their own gain. But lots of the voters would go along with being told there's an 'election security' package that just included a lot of the things Democrats want.
On lgbtq rights, in general the more libertarian set of the GOP follows a similar tact to liberals on religion: they don't care what you do personally as long as it doesn't effect them. And they're not hugely happy with the idea of having religion imposed upon them. The same people who hate dry laws hate religious mandates.
Shawn, I completely agree with your nuance and logical reasoning. I also firmly believe it will never work on a group of people that can't let go of MTG,Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Paul Gosar, Jan 6, Q-Anon, and a million more insane people and conspiracy claims.
For far too long the sane Republicans used the crazy part of the party to their advantage, ie: winning elections. Now the party is run by the crazy part and turning that ship around is, imho, impossible. I used to think an external enemy would work, I no longer do.
I hope you are right and that I am wrong, I am just not feeling it right now.
I agree! In fact, I fully agree that those people will not agree with what I've stated. But this is also because I am not using 'America First' in the manner that they are using it. This is because their idea of what that means looks entirely opposite to what I've described. They'd rather be more like Russia, North Korea, or Iran; a closed off society to the rest of the world. Those people are not going to come around to this way of thinking.
And it is true that much of the party is run by people who are out of their mind, and this is because they suck up a lot of oxygen. More than that, the social issues part of the party has become very extreme. But if I may make an observation: most people are only extreme on their personal issue.
I've met a lot of people who consider lgbtq or abortion or race as their 'major' issue. It's the one that absorbs their attention and focus. That's normal. But what it means is that very rarely are they as extreme on lots of other issues. The MTG group are never going to come around.
But there are a lot of other GOP individuals who we might disagree on when it comes to other issues, but which we can swing around on this one. Worth noting that about 80% of the GOP currently supports an anti-Russia stance, despite years of attempts to get them to come around under Trump.
What this tells me is that for most GOP members, foreign policy is not a huge issue in their minds, and thus they fall back on what confirms a lot of their other priors: America good, America strong, ect.
Which is what I mean when I say 'different reasons, same outcome.'
My only quibble is, if the people who are single issue, and I agree there are many, don’t have the intelligence to see that they must vote D in the next election (and I don’t believe many think that way) we are done. We all have our pet issues, I agree, but my gut on this one says too many voters are simply not informed enough, willing to become informed, or care enough to understand what is really at stake.
Again, I pray you are right and I am wrong. (I am a non believer, so take that with a grain of salt :) or two!)
Two things. One, it's amazing how quickly Qanon talking points end up going from the fringe to Carlson's mouth. The talk of biolabs is a direct qanon talking point. And while you didn't mention it, last nights pivot to 'democrats and all lgbtq people are groomers' is also straight qanon.
But let's talk about something I mentioned before when we debated finding common ground on here some time ago: there is a lot of overlap between left and right on various issues, but the reasons for it are often in conflict. For example, the left and right mostly agree on Ukraine being good, and Russia being bad. For the right it's mostly because of xenophobia mixed with old school anti-russia sentiment left over from the cold war, mixed with a heavy dash of pro-america militarism. For the left, it's mostly about how Russia is a right wing autocracy and Ukraine is a democracy, and war is almost always a thing to oppose. These are major generalizations, obviously. But the point I'm trying to make is that while the reasoning differs, they end up at the same place: Russia bad, Ukraine good. Perhaps this is why supporting Ukraine monetarily has been bipartisan.
I think this can be applied to a lot of foreign policy. Despite Trump and his sycophants talking of 'America First' isolationism, it doesn't appear most of the party is actually that far along. What most seem to be for is fewer one-sided commitments, a sentiment that the left shares even though it's often for different people. And yet, there is still some agreement there. For example, both left and right particularly dislike nations like Saudi Arabia, again for different reasons. But focusing on the actual policy, there's a lot of overlap.
I sense that, if Biden is savvy enough, and I do not doubt that he is, that he'll be able to cut through this. We should, I think, focus less on reasons and more on results; there's a decidedly healthy amount of bipartisanship between us. To use another example: the left views Europe as mostly cultural kin, whereas the right likes to have America at the head of the table, and both views require healthy American commitments. 'America First' in actual reality, would basically be a return to healthy international commitments like we've seen from Biden. America is first, but we're not alone.
Anyway, I fully expect in the coming days that this position around Biden as a leader of foreign policy will harden, if only because Americans love having an external enemy. It's been argued that things like the cold war spurred on the civil rights movement, because we disliked having the Soviets lord things over us. Americans will do lots of things for selfish reasons; American pride is a hell of a beast. Politicians really should just make the arguement of 'we're better than this' on a whole host of issues, because while shamelessness is a super power, shame is abhorrent to most Americans.
There's overlap on voting rights or on gay right?
As Shawn says, it depends.
Shawn mentioned voting rights: Pretty much every voter on the right wants fair elections. Many think this means stopping nonexistent mass fraud, but not all.
Among those who think mass fraud exists, some doubtless find the belief convenient for identitarian reasons (their gut feeling really is that too many of the "wrong kind" of citizens voting couldn't possibly be fair, even if it's legal). Others may just trust the wrong sources. Beliefs can range from something even many Democratic voters could agree to, if it were done right, like making voter ID easily accessible and using it (Democratic activists worry this will disenfranchise the marginalized more than Democratic voters do), to full-on whackadoo.
Those on the right who don't believe mass voter fraud exist may believe this as strongly as Democrats do, but because it's not a characteristically "right wing" belief these days, they don't seem like "sincere right-wingers" on this.
Regarding LGBTQ matters, authoritarian moralizing makes non-reactionary libertarians, whether they are personally religious or not, nervous. Cathy Young is an example.
Both UT and WA have universal mail-in and no fraud. Why isn't that the new standard for states?
If you're asking me a rhetorical question, you're asking the wrong person: I don't object to mail-in voting.
But, since you're asking someone who's also been a pollworker, and seen how my state and county run things, there is a *lot* of hysteresis (lag and path-dependence) in our voting systems: a fair amount of "foot dragging" may be due to the malice of Republican state legislators, but by no means all of it.
Not every issue. But I also believe that most people only have one or two 'major' issues that stick out to them. The rest gets absorbed in rhetoric.
For example, on voting rights, lots genuinely want 'fair' elections. Well, so do Democrats. Now obviously, bad people are trying to steal that and manipulate it for their own gain. But lots of the voters would go along with being told there's an 'election security' package that just included a lot of the things Democrats want.
On lgbtq rights, in general the more libertarian set of the GOP follows a similar tact to liberals on religion: they don't care what you do personally as long as it doesn't effect them. And they're not hugely happy with the idea of having religion imposed upon them. The same people who hate dry laws hate religious mandates.
Utah and WA both have universal mail-in and no corruption, so why do The GOP and the right wing oppose it on a national level?
If they believe that way on social issues, how do they stay in a party advocating for a white Christian ethnostate?
Shawn, I completely agree with your nuance and logical reasoning. I also firmly believe it will never work on a group of people that can't let go of MTG,Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Paul Gosar, Jan 6, Q-Anon, and a million more insane people and conspiracy claims.
For far too long the sane Republicans used the crazy part of the party to their advantage, ie: winning elections. Now the party is run by the crazy part and turning that ship around is, imho, impossible. I used to think an external enemy would work, I no longer do.
I hope you are right and that I am wrong, I am just not feeling it right now.
I agree! In fact, I fully agree that those people will not agree with what I've stated. But this is also because I am not using 'America First' in the manner that they are using it. This is because their idea of what that means looks entirely opposite to what I've described. They'd rather be more like Russia, North Korea, or Iran; a closed off society to the rest of the world. Those people are not going to come around to this way of thinking.
And it is true that much of the party is run by people who are out of their mind, and this is because they suck up a lot of oxygen. More than that, the social issues part of the party has become very extreme. But if I may make an observation: most people are only extreme on their personal issue.
I've met a lot of people who consider lgbtq or abortion or race as their 'major' issue. It's the one that absorbs their attention and focus. That's normal. But what it means is that very rarely are they as extreme on lots of other issues. The MTG group are never going to come around.
But there are a lot of other GOP individuals who we might disagree on when it comes to other issues, but which we can swing around on this one. Worth noting that about 80% of the GOP currently supports an anti-Russia stance, despite years of attempts to get them to come around under Trump.
What this tells me is that for most GOP members, foreign policy is not a huge issue in their minds, and thus they fall back on what confirms a lot of their other priors: America good, America strong, ect.
Which is what I mean when I say 'different reasons, same outcome.'
My only quibble is, if the people who are single issue, and I agree there are many, don’t have the intelligence to see that they must vote D in the next election (and I don’t believe many think that way) we are done. We all have our pet issues, I agree, but my gut on this one says too many voters are simply not informed enough, willing to become informed, or care enough to understand what is really at stake.
Again, I pray you are right and I am wrong. (I am a non believer, so take that with a grain of salt :) or two!)