Another open thread

by liberal japonicus

Seems like I should open another thread, so here it is. Have at it.

Comments

[liberal japonicus]

And to start things off, from
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/14/cool-heads-needed-as-political-fringe-dwellers-spread-disinformation-after-trump-shooting

Disinformation researcher Amanda Rogers has described the polarized, unhinged, conspiracy-driven noise in social media responses to the shooting of Donald Trump as “a self-sustaining spiral of shit”.

[Hartmut]

Anyone surprised?
To a degree, actually. The amount (and in parts insanity) of 9/11-trutherist conspiracy stuff swelling up within minutes came as a bit of a surprise. The RW reaction was 150% predictable in every aspect though.

[wonkie]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/after-trump-assassination-attempt-a-reckoning-over-american-political-rhetoric/ar-BB1pXAUF?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=8f3ba4e25c754ac89f19fd176e8744d5&ei=16

After thirty years of the Republicans deliberately and cynically promoting hate of all non-Republicans, after decades of rightwing violence, after multiple Republican leaders openly or by implication promoting civil war, after Trump instigated an attack on Congress, after nationwide threats directed at election workers, after the recent Heritage Foundation statement that they either get their way or there will be violence, FINALLY a call for moderating rhetoric? And only because a Republican was shot at--a Republican who INSTIGATED A VIOLENT ATTACK ON CONGRESS!
And of course this call for moderation will mean we can't tell the truth about Republicans while they keep right on hatemongering about the rest of us.

[wj]

I'm wondering if he was exposed to the dust up currently occurring over Trump (whether sincerely or tactically) disavowing Project 2025. There seems to be a bit of noise over this "betrayal".

As ever, waiting for details to trickle out over the next few days.

[nous]

As far as Trump is concerned, the thing I wish most to read about him, inspired by the Icelandic Sagas, is "and then Donald Fredrickson passed out of the saga." I wan't nothing more than I want his absence from the narrative. I want him to go away and take his vacuous, vicious family with him, into a cultural oubliette. Neither his death in political violence nor his survival of an assassination attempt brings me closer to this much wished for moment.

The war on women is not a war that Trump started. He's not political in that sense. He's a narcissist, and everything is personal for him. He's allowed others to wage a war on women because it gives him one more big thing to put his name on. But whether the name is Trump, or Heritage, or Claremont, etc., the war will go on.

This latest round of violence does nothing to hasten the blessed silence that I wish for there. It only brings further chaos and unrest that feeds the hunger for authoritarian responses. And it's that hunger that feeds the war on women.

[Donald]

It shouldn’t matter what his motives were. We know they were dumb, no matter what the flavor of stupidity turns out to be. We have so many guns in the US and in a country of 300 something million people, some are nuts.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Lots of commentary (elsewhere) of the "shame he missed" vs. "how DARE you!".

So I'm going to resurrect a joke from the early-70's:

"An IRA man was going to confession, and says to the priest: Father, I have sinned. I killed two protestants...
...and I missed Edward Heath* by an inch."

(* tells you how old it is!)

[wj]

Probably the best outcome would be for him to lose the election by a substantial margin. And then stroke out relatively soon thereafter.

[bobbyp]

Some of that grand history stuff from Timothy Burke on his substack: Fall of the House of US, parts 1 & 2.

https://timothyburke.substack.com/

Weaves together some large themes to diagnose where we were, and how we got here.

Highly recommended.

[liberal japonicus]

The term is ending here, so we didn't have the TV news on, so I have a probably mistaken impression that it wasn't paid much attention to here. I'd love to know how it was reported in China.

One thing that my wife mentioned is that US movies/TV/etc often have some 'secret cabal' plot. While that sort of plot isn't unheard of here, when I stopped to think about it, it's a standard trope, so much so that I wonder if a lot of this is woven into the dna of the US.

[JanieM]

@bobbyp: thanks for the Timothy Burke link. Unusually for me, I read both of the essays, and the comments. He comes from a perspective that I'm not likely to run into normally, and that's enlightening in its own right. Just a few quick reactions:

1) I had never run across the use of "imaginary" as a noun. It threw me at first, though I righted myself quickly enough. Felt pretty jargon-y but I suppose I'm not his primary audience.

2) One of the comment exchanges -- about lawyers -- was fascinating.

3) This...

So it was both "struggles" that weren't understood as such by at least one group pursuing civic virtue or it was groups that were the beneficiaries of previous struggles who started to lose sight of how hard it had been to win, and what they'd needed to do in order to secure what they had. All of which--coming in the next few installments--meant that progressive-liberal ideas about a virtuous politics started to be divorced from the political conditions that had established those ideas.

...is a sort of fraternal twin of something I have been thinking about a lot over the past few years, and that is the lack of awareness of what it is going to take to *keep* the "progress" "we" have made over the past 100 years or so. Because of that lack of awareness (which is a core human "failing," perhaps), the progress is being dismantled brick by brick.

Which brings me to ...

4) I was reading pretty quickly, and I know Burke is coming from a very bird's eye view, but I don't think he said a single word about the particularity of what was gained and is now being lost by and for women.

'Nuff said, it's past when I should be in bed.

Thanks again.

[Donald]

Trying to cut and paste a Twitter thread here. Seems to have worked.

He is complaining about how many liberals are now pulling back on criticizing Trump. I can see doing that for a day or two, but what is the long term plan here? Have they decided to run on their record?

———-

Adam Johnson
@adamjohnsonCHI
NYT says they’d have withheld anti Trump editorial Sunday if they could have. If the shooter wrote a manifesto citing Paul Krugman and Gail Collins maybe this would be a polite gesture but he was some rw crank, why is liberal media accepting premise they are somehow responsible?
Quote

David Folkenflik
@davidfolkenflik
·
1h
In essay condemning political violence, NYT editorial page editor ⁦@katiekings⁩ explains timing of paper’s editorial in Sunday print paper declaring Trump unfit for office

(tldr: it’s printed way in advance)
Image
8:37 AM · Jul 15, 2024
·

Adam Johnson
@adamjohnsonCHI
·
1h
Begging people to get a grip.

Adam Johnson
@adamjohnsonCHI
·
1h
There are plenty of psycho killers who cite the NYT to justify their actions, but they are sending weapons to Israel and Saudi Arabia not one off losers shooting at presidential candidates.

Adam Johnson
@adamjohnsonCHI
·
1h
Noting that Trump is hellbent on destroying whatever traces of US democracy there is is pretty much the one thing liberal media was good for. Now their role is, what, full time Washington Generals? What’s the plan here? I guess they give Pulitzers for well written handwringing

[liberal japonicus]

Spent the evening working my way thru the Timothy Burke piece. It's quite interesting, but I thought there were some lacunae there. Janie mentioned about women, and he talks about the opening of high culture so one could first read DH Lawrence and unexpurgated Joyce, which the came to being able to watch pornography (I'm assuming that is what I am Curious (Yellow) is signifying) The structure makes it seem as if the imperative is more a cultural reflex rather than equal rights for women and minorities. He argues that this has been tossed aside in the rush to identity politics, but it seems to me that identity politics is more the result of vying for parts of a political power pie that is judged to be set and requires that one group lose some in order for another group to acquire it. I'm not convinced that it is as reductive as that.

I also thank Janie for pointing me to the comments, and besides lawyers, there is only a passing mention to the problems of capitalism and the concentration of wealth, along with the regulatory capture involved. Had we been able to avoid that (and it has been at least addressed in some countries), would he be able to put so much weight on what he does emphasize.

The last lacuna is the near total absence of historical events, except for domestic events such as Reagan and the air-traffic controllers, and a nod to the Cold War. WWII isn't even mentioned, with FDR's New Deal magically morphing into a post 1945 coalition. It seems to me a lot of the parameters for that post 1945 coalition were forged in WWII.

He dings liberal-progressives (kind of ironic grouping, given that the two groups are often at each other's throats, though he wants to highlight the sort of enabling that the two groups do) for being able to pack their toys and go home if they felt insufficiently catered to or recognized in public institutions, and that increasingly meant that they did not always notice or even care (at least at first) as public goods disappeared or were stolen by a new wave of capitalist enterprises.. That is one possible narrative, but I wonder if, at the inflecton point of Reagan, there had not been an anti-government crusade that had allowed power to be concentrated, which then created many of the problems we are seeing today.

I am still thinking about this and it's good to read something that requires multiple readings, but I'm not convinced yet.

[hairshirthedonist]

Classified-documents case dismissed. Ugh...

[JanieM]

lj -- thank you for the analysis. I am with you on your last paragraph, though since I'm off for a couple of days of baby-helping, I'm not going to get any chance for rereading right away. I'll at least try to keep an eye out for the continuing series.

[wj]

Classified-documents case dismissed. Ugh...

Perhaps not. Apparently it wasn't dismissed "With Prejudice." (Actually I don't think it could be at this point.) Which means it can be refiled, and hopefully get a different judge.

Or it could be appealed. If the 11th Circuit slaps her down again, that might be cause to get her kicked off the case.

[CharlesWT]

Trying to cut and paste a Twitter thread here. Seems to have worked.

As an aside, comment with

@threadreaderapp unroll

after the first tweet, it will return a link to a webpage containing the tweet thread. First, look in the comments to see if someone else has already done it.

Adam Johnson

[nous]

Quick note about I Am Curious (Yellow). It's a 1968 Swedish social critical film about a young woman who is exploring her political and sexual identities. A lot of the film explores Lena's attitudes towards social justice and her relationship with her father who was briefly an international volunteer in the Spanish Civil War. Lena is sexually liberated and the film features some frank erotic scenes, but they are filmed in a more social realist mode than in a manner meant to titillate. Several places in the US did label it pornographic because of the nudity and sexual content, but I think a lot of people also had difficulty with its social commentary.

It's now part of the Criterion Collection and is enjoying a bit of critical reassessment among film scholars.

[nous]

Timothy Burke seems to me to be coming at the issues from a more communitarian perspective (along the lines of Charles Taylor). At least that seems like the perspective given his particular use of "the imaginary" and his criticisms of the Clintons.

There again, I may know just enough about those subjects to see half of the signs, miss the other half, and misread it, so take those comments with a proper degree of caution.

[wj]

Several places in the US did label it pornographic because of the nudity and sexual content, but I think a lot of people also had difficulty with its social commentary.

Possibly. But my recollection of the time is that virtually all of the public discussion/objection had to do with its sexual content. Whether labeling it pornography or praising it.

[hairshirthedonist]

JD Vance is the VP candidate. The clown show marches on.

[Hartmut]

The toxic slime mould oozed ahead on the final stretch despite not having shaved. The other two candidates simply botched their opportunity after the Pennsylvania event. Rubio was of course handicapped as a Latino and a Floridian but he could at least have tried to publicly spew some vile in(s)anities on the occasion. It was obvious to everyone that this would have been the deciding factor: How low can you go and how far can you debase yourself to please His Orangeness?

[nous]

Wonder if Peter Thiel is feeling any sense of betrayal about now.

[wj]

Too busy writing checks to various Trump scams PACs. You know TCFG only went with Vance for the money.

[nous]

Last I read, Thiel was sitting out 2024 because he was pissed that the GOP was focusing all its attention on culture war crap, and not on the tech war with Chinese industry. An openly gay German immigrant billionaire can't be too happy with the Project 2025 agenda.

[wj]

If Thiel is keeping his wallet shut, Trump is going to feel (quite reasonably) like he's been stiffed. And be furious.

[Girl from the North Country]

My recollection about I Am Curious (Yellow), which I never saw but which was a cultural touchstone at the time, was that it was regarded as an "arthouse" pornographic film, like Ai no corrida (also known as In the Empire of the Senses) ten years later, which I did see. Which is to say, not a pornographic film solely for titillation, but one with artistic pretensions, or perhaps more fairly, intentions.

[JanieM]

1. The Vance audition has been going on for a while; whether Thiel is pissed off or not, surely he can't be surprised. Nor does it seem likely that Clickbait is ignorant of Thiel's intention to sit it out. This is very old news (on the scale of our current news cycles; i.e. months at least, not hours). I mean, maybe Vance has been lying about his access to funds, nothing would surprise me with these slimeballs. But if so, Clickbait was even stupider than I would have expected to believe him.

2. I saw I am Curious (Yellow) when I was in college -- must have been a few years after it first came out, but it was presented with great hype as daring and edgy (related to sex, not the other stuff).

Relative to what's on the screen now (I watched Bull Durham the other night), it's pretty tame -- certainly not porn just for the sake of it by present-day standards. I do remember two people having sex while sitting on (IIRC) a stone wall in a public place -- pretty out of bounds for a good Catholic girl in the late sixties.

[JanieM]

Clarification -- I am Curious (Yellow) is more explicit than Bull Durham, but Bull Durham itself would have been far far beyond what was considered respectable in those days. Then again, I grew up with the Legion of Decency running my movie-going life.....

[hairshirthedonist]

The Ministry of Indecency is here for you, Janie.

[JanieM]

Anne Laurie's current post at BJ says this:

Second, Vance’s sugar daddy Peter ‘Bathory’ Thiel offered Trump and/or the RNC a boatload of campaign money, which both entities desperately need right now. (Small possible consolation: watching them fight over which team gets how much of Thiel’s bribe.)

So I am clearly out of date on Thiel's machinations.

[JanieM]

hsh -- thank you, it will be a much needed corrective. Although I've tried to do as much correcting as I could manage for the past 50+ years..... ;-)

[nous]

Dunno if Thiel turns around on this or not:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/27/peter-thiel-says-if-you-hold-a-gun-to-my-head-ill-vote-for-trump.html

He must also have seen how Vance underperformed in his election relative to the other Republicans.

Someone should start a conspiracy theory that Thiel has convinced yon Cassius...er... Vance to win the VP position, but plans to have Vance go 25th Amendment on Clay Pigeon at the earliest possible opportunity.

[wj]

The challenge with the 25th Amendment thing is that it requires buy-in from a majority of the cabinet. (Not sure what happens if some of them are not yet confirmed by the Senate.) And the cabinet might well include a bunch of Trump loyalists.

Still, it might be workable. But it would probably take a deft hand at stacking the cabinet. (Maybe stack the minor positions, i.e. departments that Trump doesn't care about.)

[nous]

I don't care if the 25th. is feasible, just that Trump hears it and that it starts to work on his paranoia.

Meanwhile: Sharkey/Wormtongue 2024 - Make the Shire Great Again.

[JanieM]

Funny, nous, the Scouring of the Shire has come into my thoughts more than once lately. Too bad it's not that easy.

Would be nice if people who are young now could put down their mugs in 50 years and say "That was a proper twenty-twenty-four, that was."

[JanieM]

Although nerdily i have to say it would probably be twenty-twenty-five, which misses the echo of four/fourteen.

[nous]

I've had a lot of thoughts about it and about our current circumstances - fueled by re-reading and re-watching the book and the films. Too much for a comment on an open thread. There's a lot there.

[JanieM]

Too much for a comment on an open thread. There's a lot there.

Want to write a post?

Want a dedicated thread for putting stuff into comments ad hoc?

[nous]

JanieM - Let me throw some things at a page tomorrow to see if what I've been thinking about coheres, and if it will come out in something fewer than fourteen pages with footnotes. You can never tell with these things.

[JanieM]

nous -- it's a deal.

[bobbyp]

Fall of the House of the US Part 3 is out.

Has the Left lost its way? Tune in.

[wj]

bobbyp, so they're saying that the US is a has been, rather than a never was. That's more credit than the left usually give this country. :-)

[GftNC]

On J D Vance, and his connections:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1812923820421906464.html?utm_campaign=topunroll

[russell]

That's more credit than the left usually give this country.

I'm not sure I understand this. Can you unpack it a bit?

First, who is on the "left"? What does it mean to be "on the left" in the United States now?

And what does it mean to "not give credit" to this country? What are you referring to? Candid and honest talk about our history?

[wj]

That's more credit than the left usually give this country.

I'm not sure I understand this. Can you unpack it a bit?

In my experience, the left (however delineated) has always had a negative view of the state of the nation. Some, reluctantly, will concede that things are a bit better than they once were. While insisting (correctly) that we've got further to go; that's the entire focus.

But to say "Fall of the House of the US" you have to admit that it was once, arguably recently, substantially better. Good even -- because you can't really fall from abysmal. And that we were ever good is not, again in my experience, a position the left embraces.

[wj]

First, who is on the "left"? What does it mean to be "on the left" in the United States now?

I would, as a first approximation, say it includes those who dispute that there is any difference between anyone and everyone who is more conservative/moderate than they are and the most rabid reactionaries. In short, that there is no center, no such thing as a moderate (let alone a moderate, non-reactionary) conservative.

[GftNC]

I have to start looking at hilzoy's feed more regularly. She was the reason I first came to ObWi, and still is the opinion I trust the most on issues where I don't know what I think. I did actually know what I thought about J D Vance, but even so, she retweeted (or re-blueskyed) Rick Perlstein posting this, by John Ganz, today:

https://www.unpopularfront.news/p/the-meaning-of-jd-vance

[Donald]

“ In short, that there is no center, no such thing as a moderate (let alone a moderate, non-reactionary) conservative.”

There might be someone like this because you can find all sorts of views if you look hard enough, but actually existing leftists are perfectly capable of employing political bestiaries that include “ far left” “ centrist lib”, “ moderate right” “ far right” and so on. One can even notice distinctions between different sorts of rightwingers that aren’t captured by terms like “ moderate” and “ far”. There are paleocons and neocons. There are libertarians. There is also a difference between social democrats and socialists. There are tankies. Chomsky calls himself a libertarian socialist, which in the US is very confusing. Never fully got it myself.

The words “ moderate” and “ centrist” are confusing anyway. Does it mean someone whose views on most issues are in- between or is it someone with a mix of rightwing and leftwing views? I also get the sense that self- described moderates think there is something inherently virtuous about being a moderate, because they conflate the non- political virtues of moderation in everyday life with their political stance. Also, what is moderate in one decade might have been crazy extremism a decade or two earlier.

[CharlesWT]

On the surveys I take on political topics, I describe myself as a moderate. On the one-dimensional political spectrum everyone insists on using that's as close as I can get.

[Hartmut]

They way I get it, in the US 'centrist' means in favor of the status quo. 'Moderate' these days means the next step to the right as far as politicians are concerned. They see themselves as between the centrists and the Right trying to find a compromise between them (thus actually producing a pull to the Right).

[wonkie]

I think the MSM uses the term "moderate" to mean "A Beltway insider we know who has good manners, doesn't yell at people, and seems to favor the rich though without being really ostentatious about it."

I think Vance is likely to be deemed moderate by the same media that perseverated for weeks on Biden's imaginary mental decline.

Howard Dean was treated like a radical because he had a loud voice and was a Beltway outsider.

In my perception, the pundit class uses words like "centrist" "progressive" "moderate" and "conservative" in response to personal style and presentation as much as in response to policy ideas.

[hairshirthedonist]

Maybe there's a willingness to compromise involved with moderates, regardless of what they consider ideal. That is to say, they may be radically liberal or conservative in their ideals, but will accept something short to get things done. And centrists want whatever's in between the poles, because they just buy into that, maybe to save themselves from thinking critically and to feel above it all. Crap, now I'm being mean.

Take a stand or admit you don't give a sh*t. I don't give a sh*t sometimes, but it's mostly weariness. I give sh*t somewhere inside, but I've given up. I'm an ennuist.

[wj]

Let me, as someone who considers himself a mildly conservative (in the old time meaning of the term), i.e. center-right, try to lay out how I see things.

There definitely is a lot of room for improvement in this country. Both things which merely could be better and things which are just flat wrong. And those should be addressed.

However, there are also a lot of things which are right. And we should not, when addressing the problems, ignore the potential damage to those good things arising from the particular proposed solution. A part of that, given how poorly we understand how the various parts of our economy, society, etc. interact, is a preference for incremental approaches. Naturally there are times when that is infeasible or inappropriate. It's a preference, not a straitjacket.

It is my perception that those furthest from the center, on both the right and the left, see few or none of the things which are right. (Or simply fail to imagine that their proposed solutions could possibly impact them.) So the tend to suggest solutions which are indistinguishable from "smash it all entirely and build something new and better." Said new building which utterly ignores real life human nature. Except when it involves authoritarianism, in order to avoid dealing with the views of the real population.

Note that I'm talking about the extremes. As both left and right approach the center their solutions become more realistic. Note also that all this also applies to views, such as libertarianism, which run orthogonal to the usual left/right framing. Except that, having had few opportunities to actually run a country, the solutions of their proponents tend to run further from reality.

[liberal japonicus]

I've been poking around a bit to find out where Timothy Burke is coming from. Interestingly, if I'm not mistaken, he's an Africanist, here's his blurb from his faculty page at Swarthmore
https://www.swarthmore.edu/profile/timothy-burke

Timothy Burke's main field of specialty is modern African history, specifically southern Africa, but he has also worked on U.S. popular culture and on computer games. Professor Burke teaches a wide variety of courses at Swarthmore, including surveys of African history, the environmental history of Africa, the social history of consumption, history of leisure and play, and a cultural history of the idea of the future.

Different countries manifest different scales and looking at individual issues or particular areas can be quite misleading and tt seems to me that trying to place him on the Likert scale of US politics seems kind of lazy. I suppose he could be on 'the left', he is a prof at Swarthmore, a little Ivy, and how he writes represents the academy, but that dumps a whole lot of positions on him that he may not accept or even violently disagree with.

[Hartmut]

Just watched Colbert's take(s) on the RNC which include(s) clips of speeches held there. Even without his commentary I was torn between "Is this (bad) comedy?" "What the Riefenstahl?" "Wtf" "OMG, these loonies are going to run the country?" and "Bolshevik Party 2.0, brown Edition". Both hilarious and horrifying (although not unexpected).

[russell]

In my experience, the left (however delineated) has always had a negative view of the state of the nation

I think it's fair to say that the "left" typically has a critical view of the state of the nation. Which is to say, a view that notices where we do harm, or fall short of our own ideals, and says "we can do better than this".

Whereas the more conservative view is typically "yes, maybe there are problems, but let's not rush into making any changes".

I put left in quotes above because what gets called "the left" here in the US doesn't always have much to do with what left-ism (for lack of a better term) means in most of the world. That broader sense has IMO more to do with the rights and privileges of property and the folks who hold it.

That's an aspect of the American "left" but isn't essential to it. What is consistently true of the American "left" is an interest in expanding the scope of rights - both the rights themselves, and the people who are seen as deserving them.

The economic dimension of that mostly shows up in the form of remedial efforts to keep folks from, literally, starving or similar - the social safety net. Which is, relative to what a truly left agenda would be, pretty small beer.

IMO there really is not a meaningful left in the United States. Not today, and maybe not really ever. Certainly not since WWII. What we have today are liberals - people interested in expanding the scope of rights - and reactionaries - people who want to stand athwart the bow of history while yelling "stop".

And lots of folks - probably the majority of folks - who are mostly just trying to get through their day, and are not that interested in any of it except in the ways that it intersects with their own lives.

My own personal view on all of this - my own understanding of how public life ought to work - is captured in the preamble to the Massachusetts state constitution.

The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.

Or, in Lincoln's words, a government "of the people, by the people, for the people".

In short, a commonwealth. WIth, per Adam's language from the MA Constitution, an assumption of mutual and reciprocal duty and obligation between individuals and the people as a whole. And for the common good - the good of all, not just some.

And, for us here in the US, in the form of a republic.

All of which are concepts with a really long heritage, which is why it always cracks me up to find myself counted among the "radical left". In the area of political economy, I consider myself to be deeply and profoundly traditional.

We're in a weird place in this country right now. We appear to be on the verge of abandoning the republican model and the rule of law in favor of a dictatorship. And with a dictator of the most despicable personal character, which I guess may just be part of the job description.

It's quite a reversal. I'm at a loss to explain it, other than to say that we may not be who we claim to be.

If that seems like another case of a "leftist" being overly "negative", I'm not sure what to say. I refer you to the events of January 6, and the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of our response to it as a polity.

I'm not sure the terms "left" and "right" apply to our situation. I'm not sure what would be a better way to describe it. But we need better language for this - the language we use now fails to clarify what's actually going on.

[JanieM]

It's quite a reversal. I'm at a loss to explain it, other than to say that we may not be who we claim to be.

"We" – meaning the USA – never were who we claimed to be. The original deal was made in terms of lofty language about rights and freedoms for . . . straight white males who owned property, some of that property being other human beings.

We (I will stop using the quotation marks, having made my point about “we” for the gazillionth time) have made some progress in expanding the set of people who are recognized, under the law anyhow, as being owed those rights and freedoms. But the country is now under siege by people who want to roll back that (what I consider to be) progress.

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts, yesterday (I think), quoted by Anne Laurie in a BJ thread, and also elsewhere (and note the word “Heritage”):

“How many of you are ready to very steadily, calmly and peacefully take our country back?” Roberts asked the crowd Monday…

That asshole vocabulary is an attempt to walk back his previous statement that they were about to bring about the second American revolution, and it would be non-violent if the left would allow it . ("The left" being acc' to cleek's law -- anyone they hate and want to step on, or who supports the people they hate and want to step on.)

I read that quote after driving for an hour through Maine back roads and seeing the equivalent on a Clickbait sign in front of a dwelling: "take back our country again."

By "our" they certainly don't mean me, or anyone of color, or recent immigrants....

And my point back is: "our" means all of us. Get over it, violently or not. I'm not the one claiming that the world or the country we both live in is for me and not for you....

*****

Also: as russell says, “left” and “right” are pretty meaningless in the US, especially now. There was some discussion here yesterday about centrist vs moderate, but just as one example, none of the terms discussed covered someone who is to the “right” economically and to the “left” socially. Mostly they’re terms used as a convenient way to categorize the other side (from oneself) into one blameable, caricaturable lump. ("We" do it too. Although I do feel as though the whole MAGA phenomenon, and the bowing down the Clickbait, has made a sameness among the people who are going to vote for him that we blatantly obviously don't have on "the other side." Witness the past 20 days......

[JanieM]

"Take our country back" enrages me as much as allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because it's against their religion. The latter is actually a clear step toward the former and should never have been allowed. You want to be a pharmacists? You serve everyone. You don't? Find another job.

"Our" country. All of us.

[JanieM]

straight white males who owned property, some of that property being other human beings.

On reflection, I would modify this statement somewhat, because including "straight" is a modern addition to the list of qualifications. For reasons that I hope are obvious enough not to need an explanation, there was no need or opportunity to add LGBTQ+-related qualifiers to the job description then.

[JanieM]

NYT mention of Roberts's earlier statement:

The president of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank that has developed a prominent series of policy plans to overhaul the federal government under a Republican president, said on Tuesday that the country was “in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

[JanieM]

All of which are concepts with a really long heritage, which is why it always cracks me up to find myself counted among the "radical left". In the area of political economy, I consider myself to be deeply and profoundly traditional.

As the Timothy Burke essays make blindingly clear, I am not educated in these topic areas. But from the pop perspective of Colin Woodard's "American Nations," I would say that your (russell's) notions about political economy are rooted in New England traditions, and have nothing much to do with some other parts of the US.

[nous]

As to wj's earlier observation that he was surprised to see someone (who may be, maybe) progressive saying anything about progress having been made. You aren't alone in making this observation. I've seen it more than a bit from people whose mission seems to be scolding the Democrats for scaring the straights. (I am not trying to lump you into that group, wj.)

I think of it more this way: it's not that progressives do not appreciate the progress that has been made, they just don't want to stop and take a selfie when the opposition is busy dragging back that progress. No "maybe we pulled a bit too far and need to ease back a bit and rest" moments while there are people still on the rope whose progress we have yet to achieve.

From that perspective, a centrist is someone who does not feel threatened when a more marginal group suffers a setback, and is willing to let it rest for the sake of economy of effort. And a moderate is someone who thinks that the marginalized groups calling for change should slow their roll and not ask for so much so quickly. They think that parts of their coalition are pulling too hard to sustain the movement and call for a rest.

[russell]

I would say that your (russell's) notions about political economy are rooted in New England traditions, and have nothing much to do with some other parts of the US.

In Woodard's characterization, I'm a blend of Yankee, Midland, and New Netherland.

But all or nearly all of the groups Woodard calls out have deep roots. And yes, this country encompasses groups of people with dramatically different histories, values, and understandings of what the country is (or should be) about.

To follow that idea a step further, that's pretty much why I'm skeptical of calls for "unity" and "finding common ground". We are not all going to agree. It's not reasonable to think we're going to somehow wave a magic wand and "all come together".

A more reasonable goal might be to live with our disagreements. It's unclear if that's achievable.

[JanieM]

To follow that idea a step further, that's pretty much why I'm skeptical of calls for "unity" and "finding common ground". We are not all going to agree. It's not reasonable to think we're going to somehow wave a magic wand and "all come together".

A more reasonable goal might be to live with our disagreements. It's unclear if that's achievable.

A much better formulation of my notions about whose country it is. Living with our disagreements is the fundamental challenge, unless your notion is that everyone is going to do it your way, tough shit. (Alito, Vance, et al.)

[bobbyp]

Rick Perlstein actually reads Project 2025.

Terms such as: Unbelievable, ghastly, terrible outlandish, dreadful, appalling, horrific, abominable, shocking, and hideous do not really convey the dystopian vision that is contained therein.

https://americanprospect.bluelena.io/index.php?action=social&chash=cdd96eedd7f695f4d61802f8105ba2b0.2809&s=dc0796b2ca975e64fd6b1b00a629e04c

[bobbyp]

A modicum of belief in the concept of "the common good" is all it takes to be labelled a "leftist" in some quarters.

In terms of numbers, there has not been a significant left (in the commonly accepted term, i.e., marxists and/or socialists of one stripe or another) in this country since Gene Debs' high water mark in his presidential run(s) prior to the First World War.

[hairshirthedonist]

Adam Schiff calls for Biden to drop out. I don't know what to think.

[bobbyp]

hsh,

My congressman, Adam Smith, has also called for Biden to move on. I, too, am at a loss.

The convention shall decide this one way or the other. What we need now is less panic and resignation and greater resolve.

[nous]

Schiff is a Los Angeles creature. He's fairly well wrapped up in all that Hollywood donor anxiety. No telling if this is him, or if this is him serving his core constituency.

Had Porter won the primary, I doubt that she would be tilting that direction. She didn't win in large part because Schiff had all those big donors and was willing to spend their money to elevate his Republican opponent above the colleague most dangerous to his ambitions.

The panic seems strongest amongst donors and technocrats. I feel a lot of dread and anxiety, but no real panic.

[Girl from the North Country]

Adam Schiff calls for Biden to drop out. I don't know what to think.

Me neither, still. I feel so much dread and anxiety about it, that it is stopping me feeling as much relief as I should about Labour's win.

But after reading that thread of hilzoy's, one thing I do believe is that (re Biden) it actually is reasonable to worry, it is not just a panic confected by the media, Hollywood donors, the sort of people who always blame Dems etc etc.

As for J D Vance, Project 2025 may be too abstruse to worry the average voter (although it shouldn't be), but one would think that if the Dems go hard on his anti-abortion stance, along with his anthropogenic climate change denial, it might have a salutary effect on younger undecided voters. I mean, even if people generally don't take that much notice of VP picks, maybe Trump's age might give them pause, at least the ones who are unpersuaded by Trump's absurd pretence of superhuman strength and resilience.

[JanieM]

One damned thing after another.

"Biden tests positive for Covid-19."

[CaseyL]

Biden has Covid again. Fuckitty fuck.

That is genuinely bad news. Covid can hit you worse if you're older (which he is), and if you've had it before (which he has).

This is bad news.

[CharlesWT]

Vance is becoming a more intelligent, competent, and ambitious version of Trump.

[novakant]

Nearly two thirds of Democrats now believe Biden should drop out of the race. Unsurprisingly that number goes up to 75% among those between 18-44.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/17/us/politics/biden-poll-democrats-drop-out.html

[Girl from the North Country]

I see from a piece in the NYT that the gunman had searched for images of both Trump and Biden, and had searched the dates of the Dem convention as well. It would be interesting to see how the Rs would spin this, in view of their "Biden has blood on his hands" narrative.

[wj]

"The left" being acc' to cleek's law -- anyone they hate and want to step on, or who supports the people they hate and want to step on.

For folks like the Heritage Foundation and the MAGAts, "the left" includes a lot of us who are rather right of center. Certainly conservative enough for most here to consider them conservative.

I really dislike any sign of allowing those scum to set the framing for the discussion.

[wj]

I think of it more this way: it's not that progressives do not appreciate the progress that has been made, they just don't want to stop and take a selfie when the opposition is busy dragging back that progress. No "maybe we pulled a bit too far and need to ease back a bit and rest" moments while there are people still on the rope whose progress we have yet to achieve.

From that perspective, a centrist is someone who does not feel threatened when a more marginal group suffers a setback, and is willing to let it rest for the sake of economy of effort. And a moderate is someone who thinks that the marginalized groups calling for change should slow their roll and not ask for so much so quickly. They think that parts of their coalition are pulling too hard to sustain the movement and call for a rest.

Sometimes, that's true. Other times, not so much.

For those with long memories, here's a counterexample: circa 1980, California came up with "domestic partnerships" as a way to give gay couples some of the benefits of marriage. It was, to be kind, a kludge. It also had a variety of negative unintended (and unanticipated) consequences.

Why do this this way? Mostly concern by politicians about what would be tolerable to those you frame as "moderates" or "centerists." But that's an incorrect framing IMHO. I certainly don't recall (although I may be mistaken) any serious effort to ask "Could you live with something else?"

Those folks would, I believe, have tolerated (not been enthused about, but tolerated) a conservative solution: just tweak (and it was a damn small tweak) the marriage law to say "two adults" rather than "a man and a woman". It took a couple of decades before risk-averse "progressive" politicians finally bit the bullet and did the right thing.

[wj]

Sorry to be flooding the zone. But today got busy, and I'm way behind.

A modicum of belief in the concept of "the common good" is all it takes to be labelled a "leftist" in some quarters.

I've definitely noticed that. Right here. Where I've been told more than once that I am actually a closet liberal, rather than the conservative I think I am. Merely because I support something that is, in my view, merely a matter of the common good.

In short, the far right is not the only who does this.

[JanieM]

Those folks would, I believe, have tolerated (not been enthused about, but tolerated) a conservative solution: just tweak (and it was a damn small tweak) the marriage law to say "two adults" rather than "a man and a woman". It took a couple of decades before risk-averse "progressive" politicians finally bit the bullet and did the right thing.

I think you're wildly wrong about this, wj. Maybe you're assuming that a lot of other "conservatives" were sensible like you, but my experience is that they definitely were (and in many case still are) not.

The whole point of the anti-SSM mindset and political position was that you can't let *those people* have what *normal (virtuous) people* have. By some weird voo-doo that is never explained, if same-sex couples have it, it ruins it for opposite-sex couples.

Domestic partnerships were an attempt to give same-sex couples some protection under the law while making sure they were *not* recognized as normal human beings who should have the same things straight people have.

I gathered a lot of the history of Maine marriage laws in 2009 when we had our first SSM referendum, but I don't have time to track any of it down right now. One thing to note, though, is that Maine stopped mentioning words like "husband" and "wife" in the marriage laws in 1967.

[wj]

if the Dems go hard on his [Vance's] anti-abortion stance, along with his anthropogenic climate change denial, it might have a salutary effect on younger undecided voters.

I hope they also go after his statements in favor of forcing people to stay in violently abusive marriages. And yes, he does explicitly talk about violent physical abuse, not just psychologically abusive ones.

[JanieM]

I.e. once you were married, there was no distinction in your rights or responsibilities based on gender. This I know because I did the research in the law library after a Colby college professor whined in an op-ed that if the SSM law passed, he would no longer be a "husband." Under the law, he already wasn't a "husband," he was a "spouse." This idiot actually taught con law, though not as a lawyer.

[wj]

I think you're wildly wrong about this, wj. Maybe you're assuming that a lot of other "conservatives" were sensible like you, but my experience is that they definitely were (and in many case still are) not.

It may also be that my view is colored (how could it not be?) by my own not-typical-of-the-whole-country environment. I'll just note that I wasn't going just on my personal view. Personally, I thought SSM was a positive good. But while most of the conservatives I knew then wouldn't go that far, they didn't run screaming from the suggestion either.

[JanieM]

We had 7 or 8 statewide votes on "gay rights" from 1995 onward, a referendum on marriage in 2009 in which it was defeated, and a referendum on marriage in 2012 which passed. There were plenty of people even in this fairly blue state who were hell bent (I choose my words advisedly) on making sure gay people continued to be treated as second-class citizens.

And not all those votes by a long shot were initiated by gay people trying to gain their rights. The 1995 one was initiated by anti-gay activists who wanted to codify in the law that gay people explicitly were NOT protected from discrimination in housing, public accommodation, etc.

[JanieM]

In 1998 (per the NYT):

In a landmark victory for Christian conservatives, Maine voters have narrowly chosen to make their state the first in the nation to repeal its law protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination, according to all-but-official referendum results published today.

Casting ballots on Tuesday in a single-issue ''people's veto'' plebiscite, nearly 52 percent of voters backed the repeal despite pleas from the state's popular independent Governor and almost a half-million dollars in campaign spending by gay, lesbian and civil rights advocates. The new law they struck down had barred discrimination against gay men and lesbians in employment, housing, credit and public accommodations.

The repeal is ''a clear victory for people of faith,'' said Randy Tate, executive director of the national Christian Coalition, which helped finance and organize the Maine repeal campaign. ''The American people rejected the notion of special rights based on sexual activity behind closed doors.''

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/12/us/maine-voters-repeal-a-law-on-gay-rights.html

They never had any cogent explanation beyond "I SAY GOD SAID SO" for why *discrimination* should be allowed based on (often only suspected) sexual activity behind closed doors.........

[liberal japonicus]

I really dislike any sign of allowing those scum to set the framing for the discussion.

Not to make too fine a point, but isn't

That's more credit than the left usually give this country.

basically installing the joists?...

[JanieM]

1. lj -- lol, I noticed that when wj first wrote it, but didn't want to rag him too much.

2. The "behind closed doors" comment is fascinating, isn't it? I mean, all the closeting of and discrimination against gay people was because of what bigots thought about "sexual activity behind closed doors." So to suggest that gay people wanted the same rights as everyone else *because* of what they did behind closed doors is pretty rich.

Imagine a long litany of swear words inserted here.

[nous]

I used to think about the "decent" evangelicals the way that wj still appears to think about the "decent" conservatives - that they were just acting in conscience, respected freedom of religion for all, and would yield to the will of the voters and follow settled law. Instead, they gave into their fear and disgust, and steeled themselves to lie, cheat, and dehumanize anyone that their leaders told them to hate. I know a tiny minority who have not given into the vileness, but even there, they lack the strength to confront and oppose the vileness in their community.

I really miss that illusion of decency and am dismayed at how few have held out against the last 30 years of radicalization.

[liberal japonicus]

About evangelicals, apparently

"The number of evangelicals that never attend church increased from 25% pre-COVID to 33% today (AEI Survey Center on American Life) The number of evangelicals that attend church regularly dropped from 26% pre-COVID to 24% today (AEI Survey Center on American Life)"
(emph mine)
https://www.churchtrac.com/articles/the-state-of-church-attendance-trends-and-statistics-2023

An evangelical who doesn't attend church seems like an oxymoron, but apparently, that is 1/3rd, I have to think that as then move away from attendance and a congregation, they necessarily move away from compromising.

[Hartmut]

Does that include online or TV church services? The worst offenders reach many of their marks that way.
Televangelist has become a dirty word not for nothing.
I consider guys like Kenneth Copeland to be among the most despicable excuses for human beings around, leaving even most political demagogues far behind.
And that guy in particular already looks like a c-movie edition of 'demon badly disguised as human'.

[liberal japonicus]

That's an interesting point, though the survey is self-reporting and apparently gives the option of online attendance

According to Barna, 16% of Christians who regularly attended church services before COVID no longer attend at all. Surprisingly, Boomers had the highest dropoff rate, with 22% self-reporting as no longer attending church services either in-person or online.

Though I wonder how they worded it.

[liberal japonicus]

That's an interesting point, though the survey is self-reporting and apparently gives the option of online attendance

According to Barna, 16% of Christians who regularly attended church services before COVID no longer attend at all. Surprisingly, Boomers had the highest dropoff rate, with 22% self-reporting as no longer attending church services either in-person or online.

Though I wonder how they worded it.

[liberal japonicus]

That's an interesting point, though the survey is self-reporting and apparently gives the option of online attendance

According to Barna, 16% of Christians who regularly attended church services before COVID no longer attend at all. Surprisingly, Boomers had the highest dropoff rate, with 22% self-reporting as no longer attending church services either in-person or online.

Though I wonder how they worded it.

[GftNC]

In my now daily check-in to hilzoy's feed, she links this when talking about the death of Bernice Johnson Reagon, and says it is "finally, the very best (possibly the only) song ever written about the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court". I attended those hearings, so although I have never heard of Bernice Johnson Reagon, I was delighted to see this. I think I only went out of interest (I have always been obsessed with the SCOTUS), but I remember feeling awkward because I knew something discreditable but not in the public domain about Bork (I can't now remember what it was), and didn't know what to do about it. In the end I did nothing, but luckily then had no cause to regret it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjRFbB72sxY

[wonkie]

An evangelical who doesn't attend church seems like an oxymoron, but apparently, that is 1/3rd, I have to think that as then move away from attendance and a congregation, they necessarily move away from compromising."

I'm no 3xpert but I think it is the other way around. The church is a group think experience. Someone outside is, well, outside. More flexible, possibly critical.

I used to visit a family of evangelicals regularly. They read and discussed the Bible at home, had TV preachers on as background noise while doing other things including playing solitaire on the computer, and--while giving lip service to the evangelical party line--were actually quite flexible in their attitudes even toward core issues like abortion. In fact, one told be that she was "pro-life" but it turned out after discussion that she was pretty strongly pro-choice. She said she didn't think people should use abortion like birth control--as if there was no moral issue involved in the termination of the...life form. But she definitely saw the mother has having rights and having lots of different reasons why the pregnancy should be terminated including simply not being able to raise the child.
She also told me that she thought the pastor of one of the local churches was the type who could engage in violence.
Who will she voter for? Her family probably won't vote, but if they do they are more likely to voter for Trump because they are very uninformed, give politics very little thought, and react only to messages that are strong enough to break through the fog of their business and indifference. Trump is louder than Biden, and while my guess is he's loud in a way they don't approve of, they at least can hear him. So, if they vote, it will be for him.

On the other hand, the church functions like a cult and the pastor will tell the congregation how to vote. I also had a client who attended weekly, and she was always full of whatever the pastor said.

[JanieM]

I never listen to the radio except in the car, and I quit doing that when I switched over to a huge music library on CDs that someone gave me a few years ago.

But when I was still listening to NPR sometimes, I heard part of a program about the growing belief in Q and conspiracy theories. It included interviews with a number of pastors concerned about how so many people in their congregations were turning to belief in Q and attendant scary nonsense.

Can't remember if this was just before or just after covid started, but I thought it was both scary and ironic. I was almost rooting for the pastors. (Not really.)

Substituting one fantasy fairy tale as your alleged guide for life to another ... watching what the beginnings of Christianity might have been like ... so many angles on that story.

[JanieM]

If it wasn't obvious by implication, the pastors were concerned partly because the belief in Q was undermining *their* authority and teachings.

[CharlesWT]

COVID broke a lot of habits. People formed new habits or just didn't return to the old habits. Tens of thousands of kids vanished from the public schools. Some are in home schools or private schools. For thousands of others, the schools they attended have no idea what happened to them.

[Hartmut]

JD Vance in his acceptance speech called His Orangeness "America's Last Best Hope".

May I suggest that they adapt this old classic*:
https://www.lbi.org/griffinger/record/5543998

He also came up with this:

“Wall Street barons crashed the economy and American builders went out of business. ... President Trump’s vision is so simple and yet so powerful. We’re done, ladies and gentlemen, catering to Wall Street. We’ll commit to the working man.”

The footnote to the election poster notes that at the time AH had a private meeting with industrialists that led to them donating to his campaign. So, nice parallel there.
[DJT is NOT the new AH, he's at best what the German Old Right believed AH to be: a corruptible lowlife that could be easily manipulated to do their bidding]

*It would not be the first time. I have seen numerous variations of the infamous German "stab-in-the-back" poster with the communist replaced by the Dem donkey and the soldier by a GI

[CharlesWT]

Trump likes to be seen driving the monster truck. Vance likes driving the monster truck because of the things you can do with it. Like running over your enemies.