One of the saddest things I have seen from the right recently is the very clear tradeoff they are making. I have read several comments along the lines of "ok so what if he's a rapist and a felon and he's dismantling our government and ending worker safety and ensuring the next pandemic is much worse? I might save some money on my taxes! He might even reduce the deficit!"
The former party of morality has become the party of "everything is for sale."
I think, compared to history, the biggest difference is that they're saying certain things out loud. It's been a long, downward spiral, so what do we mean by "recently"? Remember that the #neverTrump movement that emerged among Republicans in 2015 was largely okay with certain outcomes, such that their problem with Trump was a matter of saying certain things out loud. That is to say, the Southern Strategy: People like Billl Kristol and David French were always okay with disparate impact, and if they could go back to supremacism as an outlier or accident, they would.
†
Go back and compare the part about the rapist and felon.
We're Americans, and if we are of a certain age, then we have most likely voted for rapists, before. Brock Adams, Bob Packwood, Bill Clinton. But I also list them in that order because it makes a small point: At some point, we're supposed to learn. And as the Clinton inquisition demonstrated, and has reiterated since, we didn't really learn anything along the way. The difference, which has been emerging in American culture over the last ten to fifteen years, isn't even those who care or not, but the difference between whether or not rape is wrong.
They've had enough. They are so fucking sick and tired of liberal elitists telling them there is no good rape. Same thing with the racism, religious supremacism, &c.
That's the most recent part. The underlying attitudes have been gathering in the GOP tent for years; these values have endured among conservatives the whole time, but the arc we're on has been happening since the Eighties, if not '68, or even the CRA in '64, and in that context, the Sexual Revolution opened ca. 1960-65.
In my opinion, a lot of this has sharpened since 1992-96, and with increasing pitch and urgency through the new century. When I invoke Riesebrodt↗ (see below), for instance, it isn't just some easy line: The period between 2003-2015 can easily be described as involving "rapid social change" triggering a "crisis consciousness" lending to a "revitalization and search for authenticity"; and it's one thing if I might suggest rightest "'identical' authenticity" is "experiential", but we appear to be well into "charismatic fundamentalism", and if the question becomes "fundamentalism", the discussion of "antievolutionary thinking" is vast and even psychoanalytical.
The last ten years have been nearly shocking, but we are not stretching any boundaries of reasonability to consider that the time of Trump is a conservative reaction to the twelve to twenty years preceding.
Part of the sadness is in the abjectness of saying it out loud; it is as if, having run out of arguments, they would in their exhaustion rather be seen as what they always said they weren't. Once upon a time, a Republican candidate in a southern-state congressional primary argued that it was unchristian to feed the poor and hungry; in the moment, maybe it seemed just another moment, because it was something like a baker's dozen trying to outflank each other from the right, but the difference is a outlier assertion of otherwise respected values. Plenty of Christians have let the coin sweat in the palm of their hand, and we all kind of get that no one person can do it all. One can pass by a beggar and still remain among decent society.
Comparatively, who will say the same about rape?
Akin to Kristol and French vis à vis the Southern Strategy. They're okay with disparate impact, just don't be undignified about it. It's a lot harder to say that about rape.
Also, if there are reasons I might declare↗ that Horatio Alger must die, it is not unimportant to remember that sometimes↗ Horatio Alger even trumps↗ Jesus Christ.
And if the problem is that people are holding out for their chance to get rich, we can only wonder who would dare say the same about rape.
The difference is the outlier assertion of otherwise respected values.
Riesebrodt, Martin. Pious Passion: The Emergence of Modern Fundamentalism in the United States and Iran. Oakland: University of California Press, 1993.
Proclaiming your own superiority is rather different from demonstrating it.
I see you, Mr. G.
The real problem is that you're worried that if you tried to defend your Trumpism here, you'd make yourself more of a laughing stock here than you already are.
As things stand, you have a status here that is approximately equivalent to that of a fly buzzing in one's ear. There might be some mild annoyance. You might wave a hand at it to shoo it away, but it inevitably comes back with more buzzing.
Can you do better than the fly, Mr. G? I honestly don't think you can, these days.
Indeed. I've known some very intelligent people in my time - Nobel prize winners, planetary scientists, physicists, astronauts, CEO's - and one thing they have in common is that they never need to mention how intelligent they are.
Crowing about one's intelligence, superiority or success is a sure sign that those things are somewhat lacking in that person.
Indeed. I've known some very intelligent people in my time - Nobel prize winners, planetary scientists, physicists, astronauts, CEO's - and one thing they have in common is that they never need to mention how intelligent they are.
More importantly, I think, it's a signal that the person is insecure about their own intelligence, superiority or whatever other characteristic they are crowing about. Bluster is often an over-compensation for crippling self-doubt.
North Korea has called for the US to stop ‘encroaching upon the dignity and sovereignty’ of the Palestinian people.
www.aljazeera.com
And if anyone saw Musk's "press conference" from the Oval Office, where his son was in attendance, it seems that his son told Trump him wanted him to "shut your ****ing mouth up" before picking his nose and wiping it on the Resolute desk, all in front of Trump.
After Elon Musk brought his four-year-old son X to the Oval Office press conference on Tuesday, internet users have been trying to figure out exactly what the toddler told President Donald Trump.
Trump and Israel reach The Final Solution for Gaza
US President Donald Trump has restated a vision in which the US would take over Gaza, after officials in his administration appeared to contradict his earlier comments.
"The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting," Trump said on Thursday. He reiterated that the idea would mean resettling Palestinians, and that no US soldiers would be needed.
Indeed. I've known some very intelligent people in my time - Nobel prize winners, planetary scientists, physicists, astronauts, CEO's - and one thing they have in common is that they never need to mention how intelligent they are.
Crowing about one's intelligence, superiority or success is a sure sign that those things are somewhat lacking in that person.
“And you know, let’s go back over there, because I’m the weaver,” Trump said, abruptly switching topics. “I’m the great weaver, you know that right? OK? I’m the great weaver.”
“Trust me,” Baier replied. “I get it.” The Fox News host put one hand up as if to physically stop the president from getting off track, but Trump chugged along like a runaway train.
“Somebody said, ‘Oh, he rambles,’ no, no. Only the fake news says that,” Trump said. “To weave you have to be brilliant; to ramble you don’t have to be brilliant at all.”
That’s far too kind. They’ve been aching to get rid of the Palestinians for decades, and now someone comes along who can help them normalise their ethnic cleansing and genocide and help them achieve the goal.
That’s far too kind. They’ve been aching to get rid of the Palestinians for decades, and now someone comes along who can help them normalise their ethnic cleansing and genocide and help them achieve the goal.
I am sure that some Israelis have that as a goal. But by far the overriding concern for them is $$$. They get 4 billion from the US (1/6th of their entire defense budget) every year in military aid alone and they are not about to give that up for anything.
I am sure that some Israelis have that as a goal. But by far the overriding concern for them is $$$. They get 4 billion from the US (1/6th of their entire defense budget) every year in military aid alone and they are not about to give that up for anything.
Ok so now Trump has moved from Gaza to Ukraine making NATO great again in the process. Cheers Donald.
It looks like he has been talking to his buddy Vlad regarding all this war nonsense but he has come to the rescue with a peace plan.
Great.
Not exactly sure what that is because the UK the rest NATO and Ukraine were not included in those talks.
The US defense secretary Peter Hegseth told us, the UK, whatever the peace plan is that everyone will agree to it and we will have to pay our way going forward.
I was surprised by that as we have committed 12.8 billion to Ukraine in humanitarian and defence and already spend 2% GDP on defense set to increase to 2.5%.
Is that not a lot? 12.8 Billion seems a lot supporting a NATO boarder.
Ok so now Trump has moved from Gaza to Ukraine making NATO great again in the process. Cheers Donald.
It looks like he has been talking to his buddy Vlad regarding all this war nonsense but he has come to the rescue with a peace plan.
Great.
Not exactly sure what that is because the UK the rest NATO and Ukraine were not included in those talks.
The US defense secretary Peter Hegseth told us, the UK, whatever the peace plan is that everyone will agree to it and we will have to pay our way going forward.
I was surprised by that as we have committed 12.8 billion to Ukraine in humanitarian and defence and already spend 2% GDP on defense set to increase to 2.5%.
Is that not a lot? 12.8 Billion seems a lot supporting a NATO boarder.
America seems an outlier in defence spending. Any idea why it spends so much?
Would it be that that high level of military expenditure is more useful (profitable) to its economy overall (than to other countries) and so it is easier for it to afford?
For example would it be the leader in exporting military hardware and technology and that "subsidises" the military spending that is purely for its own security?
I understand why America would not appreciate Europe and other "allies" apparently spending less than it does but is it fair to expect them to actually match American levels of spending?
I understand why America would not appreciate Europe and other "allies" apparently spending less than it does but is it fair to expect them to actually match American levels of spending?
I just checked and we are one of only 8 countries who meet the 2% expected contribution to NATO. We contributed 2.3% in 2023 and have pledged to increase to 2.5%.
Investment in defence and sales is big business for the US and UK, we have the technology.
Trump made noises about our contribution to NATO a while back.
An alliance that has held well for 80 years could be eroded in a lot less time.
I just checked and we are one of only 8 countries who meet the 2% expected contribution to NATO. We contributed 2.3% in 2023 and have pledged to increase to 2.5%.
Just a clarification: it's not a contribution to NATO, it's a minimum spend (% of GDP) on a country's own military.
NATO has no military of its own. It does have a combined command structure, which is funded by member states. The US and Germany end up paying about 16% of whatever that relatively small budget is, the UK about 11% etc.
I understand why America would not appreciate Europe and other "allies" apparently spending less than it does but is it fair to expect them to actually match American levels of spending?
Military spending in the US is driven by the lobbyists, who give donations to the politicians to pass the increases in the military budget, which means more money being spent with those the lobbyists represent. There is no need for the US military to be as bloated as it is. Its spending is unnecessarily high, and it would be nonsense to require another country to match those levels. Maybe if the US sorted itself out, cut back on its own military spending rather than push countries to inflate theirs? Oh, but that would go against all the lobbyists, and politicians may find their donations disappearing.
And so the world keeps turning.
So does that exagerate the vaue of contribution of the US and the UK if they are actually benefiting financially from their spending?
(as an aside it is ,I think claimed that while the US has been the greatest contributer of military hardware to Ukraine ,this actually came at very little real cost to them as they offloaded a lot of old equipment -and of course no boots on the ground)
Military spending in the US is driven by the lobbyists, who give donations to the politicians to pass the increases in the military budget, which means more money being spent with those the lobbyists represent
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.justsecurity.org
newrepublic.com
