Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Politics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bottom Line: How State Budget Cuts Affect Your Education (NY Times, Nov, 2016)

    Higher education has been an easy target for budget cuts since the 2008 recession, forcing many public universities to lay off faculty and staff members, postpone investment in new facilities and raise tuition and fees (up an average 31 percent for in-state students). State support for public two- and four-year colleges — funding is nearly $10 billion below what it was just before the recession — has begun to recover, though officials at the nation’s flagship universities say that doing more with less is the new norm. Some are even finding fresh ways to ease the financial burden on students.

    Percentages indicate changes since 2008: in per-student state spending on higher education, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and in tuition/fees, adjusted for inflation.
    Google - State Education cuts - for more articles for specific states' cuts.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Legacy View Post
      Bottom Line: How State Budget Cuts Affect Your Education (NY Times, Nov, 2016)



      Google - State Education cuts - for more articles for specific states' cuts.
      As long as public schools are subsidizing college athletics with taxpayer/tuition dollars, I will not shed a tear for them.
      Based Mullet Kid owns

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NDgradstudent View Post
        There was a bit of a circus on campus today, with Charles Murray coming to speak about his book Coming Apart.

        Some of my fellow graduate students circulated this frivolous and embarrassing statement (link is below), which reads as though it were written by a high-school freshman. It may be pabulum, but because it is left-wing pabulum, the Observer will dutifully publish it.

        Graduate student statement on Charles Murray // The Observer

        In fact, there is nothing that Murray has said about race and IQ that is inconsistent with the available evidence. For this reason, the statement resorts to fallacious ad hominem and guilt by association attacks ('he quotes people who are funded by people who we don't like,' etc.) All this in a statement full of unbearable self-praise about the mission of academics to spread knowledge, teach the young, blah, blah, blah.

        The argument is essentially that if a scientific finding is upsetting enough, it should be discarded. But these same people celebrate someone like Giordano Bruno, who was also accused of heresy because he challenged assumptions widespread in that culture. Murray is doing the same thing, of course, but now the assumptions are too precious to be abandoned. Whatever these critics are engaged in, it is not "inquiry." It would be better described as propaganda.
        Wooly referred to Murray's stance on the intelligence of women, but. among other quotes, Murray has said:

        "no woman has been a significant original thinker in any of the world's great philosophical traditions. In the sciences, the most abstract field is mathematics, where the number of great female mathematicians is approximately two (Emmy Noether definitely, Sonya Kovalevskaya maybe). In the other hard sciences, the contributions of great women have usually been empirical rather than theoretical, with leading cases in point being Henrietta Leavitt, Dorothy Hodgkin, Lise Meitner, Irene Joliot-Curie and Marie Curie herself."
        His opinions on the differences in the sexes:
        Where Are the Female Einsteins?

        Do you believe that Charles Murray's beliefs are contrary to Catholic teaching and principles? If so, on what grounds should Murray be speaking at a Catholic university?

        Do you know if he has factored in environmental factors that could impair achievement and intelligence such as lead levels in water that affect children that would disproportionately affect races? I realize that his conclusions are derived from an approach that:
        1. The differences I discuss involve means and distributions. In all cases, the variation within groups is greater than the variation between groups. On psychological and cognitive dimensions, some members of both sexes fall everywhere along the range.
        So, do you think that approach using means and distributions is worth coming to general conclusions on race, sex, and social policy?
        Last edited by Legacy; 04-17-2017, 02:15 PM.

        Comment


        • O'Reilly out at Fox News.

          <iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O_HyZ5aW76c?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

          Comment


          • Hopefully Bill Kristol is next on the left's hit list.

            Comment


            • Gov. Kay Ivey takes a chainsaw to Luther Strange. Now what? (al.com)

              Timberrr.

              That's the sound of 6-foot-9 Sen. Luther Strange falling flat on his face.

              It's a long way down.

              Gov. Kay Ivey did it. In unwinding the warped world of ex-Gov. Robert Bentley she today set a special election to fill the senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions and assumed by Big Luther. The primary will be August 15, which is practically right on top of us.

              Which means all Strange's backroom bargaining amounts to nothing but stinky Montgomery cheese. Which means America's tallest senator may become one of the shortest-lasting.....

              Comment


              • http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/20/gener...uto-plant.html
                General Motors says Venezuela illegally seizes auto plant

                General Motors plant seized, protesters killed in Venezuela | syracuse.com

                Socialism is fair, equal, and makes everyone happy.
                The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                Comment


                • ‘I’m Not the Left!’: Mark Cuban Fires Back at Tucker Carlson Over Accusation He’s Liberal | Mediaite

                  Free market capitalism is now the "left." Thanks Trump.

                  Comment


                  • Overall outlook on our gov during the last three admins:

                    2005-... okay, well, this has to get better soon, just hang tight.
                    2010-... Jeebus Fuck! How the hell did this happen?! Can't get worse.
                    2017-... So yeah.... I hear real estate in Costa Rica is really cheap these days...
                    This sig will not change until The Browns win the Super Bowl... So get real used to it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
                      This.... the Republican party is no longer the "conservative" party. They are simply the populist party. A party that focuses on strong nationalism and protectionism. Neither of which are conservative principles. It was the fear of many conservatives had during the election, which was the hard decision of voting for a woman that stood for everything they were against, or the guy that could single handily take down the principles of their party.

                      There are no William F Buckley's in this party anymore.
                      Originally posted by koonja
                      I'm making peace with Woolly in 2017.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                        O'Reilly out at Fox News.

                        <iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O_HyZ5aW76c?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
                        I know the guy did some unforgivable things...

                        But I watched CNN try and pile on last night...the best they had was this powers nut saying he got her confused with the other blondes at the network....WHO HASN'T.

                        Then some other woman he called hysterical...

                        Really....
                        One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

                        Comment


                        • <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Berkeley Campus On Lockdown After Loose Pages From ‘Wall Street Journal’ Found On Park Bench <a href="https://t.co/Qxdap24EIK">https://t.co/Qxdap24EIK</a> <a href="https://t.co/8aQLO2euUP">pic.twitter.com/8aQLO2euUP</a></p>&mdash; The Onion (@TheOnion) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/855143858493165568">April 20, 2017</a></blockquote>
                          <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

                          Comment


                          • LMAO
                            This sig will not change until The Browns win the Super Bowl... So get real used to it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
                              Government assisting business in hiring cheap foreign labor = free markets.

                              Ha

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wild Bill View Post
                                Government assisting business in hiring cheap foreign labor = free markets.

                                Ha
                                What the hell are you talking about, "assisting"? Businesses should be able to hire whomever the hell they want and, at most, the government ALLOWS it. They're not "assisting" shit.

                                Comment


                                • O’Reilly Factor Sharpened Conservatives’ Generational Conflict | National Review

                                  Great stuff from Ian Tuttle at National Review. Week after week I'm glad I got my print subscription.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by woolybug25 View Post
                                    There are no William F Buckley's in this party anymore.
                                    There are still plenty of Buckley types. Just not running the show at the moment.
                                    Winners see success and want to climb up to its level. Losers see success and want to drag it down to their own.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by wizards8507 View Post
                                      What the hell are you talking about, "assisting"? Businesses should be able to hire whomever the hell they want and, at most, the government ALLOWS it. They're not "assisting" shit.
                                      No, businesses aren't free to hire whomever they want. They're bound by laws, and in this case they're bound by immigration laws, and cannot import illegals to work for below market wages. They need a little assistance from the government, if you will, to carve out exceptions in our immigration laws to fill positions at discount prices.

                                      I want to hire cheap household labor too. A maid, lawn service, nanny etc. You think they'll carve out exceptions for me to import some immigrants willing to work for half the price?

                                      Comment


                                      • What if America Voted Like France? (Politico)
                                        Our history would be surprisingly different if America’s elections worked like Sunday’s French vote—or like Britain’s.
                                        Excerpt:
                                        In France, with a Presidential election being watched around the world for the chance a right-wing nationalist or a far-left populist could win, the only certain outcome of the vote Sunday is that there will be no winner: The top two finishers will meet in a decisive runoff two weeks later.

                                        Then there’s Great Britain, which will have a general parliamentary election years earlier than expected—on June 7, to be exact—because Prime Minister Theresa May exercised her power to call a “snap” election. The entire campaign season will run about six weeks from start to finish—a length unimaginable here, where prospective 2020 presidential candidates are already checking flight schedules to Des Moines and Manchester.

                                        Either one of those systems would lead to radically different outcomes in US presidential elections – where a winner can (and often does) become president without a majority of the popular vote, and where the length of the campaign puts huge emphasis on finances, backing, media campaigns, and pure stamina.

                                        The French system is based on a simple premise: no one should lead the nation unless he or she commands an absolute majority of voters. If nobody achieves a majority in the first round, the two winners face off one-on-one. In the U.S., many of our elections—for mayor, governor, House and Senate seats—are held under the same standard. But our Presidential campaigns aren’t: they require a majority of the electoral college, which isn’t the same as the popular vote. While the champions of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton are painfully aware of the results this system can produce, the full story of how “absolute majority” voting would change American politics is nothing less than eye-opening....
                                        Last edited by Legacy; 04-22-2017, 02:38 PM.

                                        Comment


                                        • Probably shouldn't distract this thread with abortion-related posts, but IF there was an artificial womb, then Roe vs Wade would make ALL abortion decisions illegal, because at that time, all stages of fetal/embryonic development would be "viable."

                                          Almost no one appears to know, or at least focus upon, the fact that the Roe vs Wade decision is a law based entirely upon the state of technology ( better technology means earlier viability ) and the technological arbitrariness of that is that pregnancies in some areas and in some states become actually viable at different stages --- not that anyone wants to open up that mare's nest as it would make "practical" evaluating of pregnancy status another nightmare.

                                          But medical research will ultimately void Roe vs Wade, and there is huge incentive pushing that having nothing to do with abortion --- the preservation of premature births. It is extremely ironic that hard-right conservatives will rail against the concept of the artificial womb, while also railing against abortion, which it will make unnecessary and illegal.

                                          Comment


                                          • Originally posted by Old Man Mike View Post
                                            Probably shouldn't distract this thread with abortion-related posts, but IF there was an artificial womb, then Roe vs Wade would make ALL abortion decisions illegal, because at that time, all stages of fetal/embryonic development would be "viable."

                                            Almost no one appears to know, or at least focus upon, the fact that the Roe vs Wade decision is a law based entirely upon the state of technology ( better technology means earlier viability ) and the technological arbitrariness of that is that pregnancies in some areas and in some states become actually viable at different stages --- not that anyone wants to open up that mare's nest as it would make "practical" evaluating of pregnancy status another nightmare.

                                            But medical research will ultimately void Roe vs Wade, and there is huge incentive pushing that having nothing to do with abortion --- the preservation of premature births. It is extremely ironic that hard-right conservatives will rail against the concept of the artificial womb, while also railing against abortion, which it will make unnecessary and illegal.
                                            OMM, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude an artificial womb would due away with abortion altogether. Assuming it followed the path above, you don't believe a new case would arrive in courts to give similar or greater license to dispose of developing fetuses? Outside of genetic testing, I can imagine a number of approved termination reasons not limited to: economic strain, lifestyle impediment, etc.

                                            Roe v Wade desensitized the public to fetal termination. I don't see how we ever climb out of the ever-widening abyss that landmark ruling created.

                                            Comment


                                            • I'm not talking about "what could happen new", I'm talking about the current law/legal status. Heck, you and I could make ANY statement about anything and then object to it because we are mentally nimble enough to invent a new basis of discussion.

                                              And I see that I have done just what I didn't want to do --- get abortion discussion started in the Science thread (sorry guys, I thought that just maybe this would stop at a "science-related" point.)

                                              Comment


                                              • Originally posted by Old Man Mike View Post
                                                Probably shouldn't distract this thread with abortion-related posts, but IF there was an artificial womb, then Roe vs Wade would make ALL abortion decisions illegal, because at that time, all stages of fetal/embryonic development would be "viable."

                                                Almost no one appears to know, or at least focus upon, the fact that the Roe vs Wade decision is a law based entirely upon the state of technology ( better technology means earlier viability ) and the technological arbitrariness of that is that pregnancies in some areas and in some states become actually viable at different stages --- not that anyone wants to open up that mare's nest as it would make "practical" evaluating of pregnancy status another nightmare.

                                                But medical research will ultimately void Roe vs Wade, and there is huge incentive pushing that having nothing to do with abortion --- the preservation of premature births. It is extremely ironic that hard-right conservatives will rail against the concept of the artificial womb, while also railing against abortion, which it will make unnecessary and illegal.
                                                This is exactly what I was getting at. I mean if the technology exists to take a fetus and develop it in this type of technology, effectively abortion providers and services could be replaced by this more moral application IMO.

                                                Comment


                                                • Originally posted by Veritate Duce Progredi View Post
                                                  OMM, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude an artificial womb would due away with abortion altogether. Assuming it followed the path above, you don't believe a new case would arrive in courts to give similar or greater license to dispose of developing fetuses? Outside of genetic testing, I can imagine a number of approved termination reasons not limited to: economic strain, lifestyle impediment, etc.

                                                  Roe v Wade desensitized the public to fetal termination. I don't see how we ever climb out of the ever-widening abyss that landmark ruling created.
                                                  I see it much differently. If the typical person who would get an abortion for reasons including that you could not afford it, or it was an accident ,or any of the other multitude reasons.... and the technology existed to take the fetus at some developed stage... then would the morally responsible option be to give it to a provider who develops the fetus until ready for birth in lieu of aborting completely? I think this is much more pleasing idea than having to choose to take it to term or abort it all together.
                                                  Last edited by Cackalacky; 04-26-2017, 09:56 AM.

                                                  Comment


                                                  • Originally posted by Old Man Mike View Post
                                                    I'm not talking about "what could happen new", I'm talking about the current law/legal status. Heck, you and I could make ANY statement about anything and then object to it because we are mentally nimble enough to invent a new basis of discussion.

                                                    And I see that I have done just what I didn't want to do --- get abortion discussion started in the Science thread (sorry guys, I thought that just maybe this would stop at a "science-related" point.)
                                                    No I did OMM and I did so for a reason as technology and politics and morality are all intertwined at a point. Please dont not discuss this here as it was my intent to start such a discussion hoping that it could be kept civil.

                                                    Comment


                                                    • Originally posted by Old Man Mike View Post
                                                      Probably shouldn't distract this thread with abortion-related posts, but IF there was an artificial womb, then Roe vs Wade would make ALL abortion decisions illegal, because at that time, all stages of fetal/embryonic development would be "viable."

                                                      Almost no one appears to know, or at least focus upon, the fact that the Roe vs Wade decision is a law based entirely upon the state of technology ( better technology means earlier viability ) and the technological arbitrariness of that is that pregnancies in some areas and in some states become actually viable at different stages --- not that anyone wants to open up that mare's nest as it would make "practical" evaluating of pregnancy status another nightmare.

                                                      But medical research will ultimately void Roe vs Wade, and there is huge incentive pushing that having nothing to do with abortion --- the preservation of premature births. It is extremely ironic that hard-right conservatives will rail against the concept of the artificial womb, while also railing against abortion, which it will make unnecessary and illegal.
                                                      I agree with your legal analysis, OMM (which is partly why Roe is such a horribly reasoned opinion), though I'm not as optimistic about the prospect of this new technology ending abortion. Abortion is a necessary policy backstop for any liberal regime, because contraceptive technologies often fail, and sex must be severed from procreation if citizens are to be granted unrestrained genital "freedom". The pro-abortion crowd wll simply switch to a different fallacious argument (person v. nonperson, the absolute sovereignty of a female over her body, etc.) in its favor once the advance of technology removes viability as a concern.

                                                      I can definitely see this technology being used for good, but human nature doesn't change, and it can also be used for great evil--like growing designer babies completely separate from the mother. Here's praying the former prevails.

                                                      Comment


                                                      • Originally posted by Whiskeyjack View Post
                                                        I agree with your legal analysis, OMM (which is partly why Roe is such a horribly reasoned opinion), though I'm not as optimistic about the prospect of this new technology ending abortion. Abortion is a necessary policy backstop for any liberal regime, because contraceptive technologies often fail, and sex must be severed from procreation if citizens are to be granted unrestrained genital "freedom". The pro-abortion crowd wll simply switch to a different fallacious argument (person v. nonperson, the absolute sovereignty of a female over her body, etc.) in its favor once the advance of technology remove viability as a concern.

                                                        I can definitely see this technology being used for good, but human nature doesn't change, and it can also be used for great evil--like growing designer babies completely separate from the mother. Here's praying the former prevails.
                                                        So thought experiment here...
                                                        Lets assume the following:
                                                        1. This technology is effective and viable for use in the healthcare market
                                                        2. Healthcare providers can provide reasonable and cost-effective access to this technology
                                                        3. use of this method is limited for assisting problematic pregnancies, premature births or as an alternative to abortion, etc., but dont allow for designer babies or for mothers who just dont want to carry their own baby but still want the child (ie the procedure is limited to legitimate medical causes and abortion as an alternative)
                                                        4. women/parents who opt into this procedure as an alternative to abortion legally gives up all rights to the child and all children developed under this procedure are put up for immediate adoption


                                                        I think, personally, that given these circumstances, it is a morally more acceptable alternative to abortion as well as providing significant medical promise for troubled births. Do you think that a women who finds out they are pregnant wouldnt make this choice to give up the fetus earlier than having to abort it? You think that our liberal society would reject this for purely political reasons becasue of a need to maintain their stranglehold on abortion rights which was litigated in a time where other options were not available?

                                                        I see this as a game changer and would essentially negate Roe vs Wade if it was available per my assumptions above (obviously hurdles for sure but worth the fight no?). Other problems I see though would be getting to the place where it was cost effective and adoptions were able to keep up. If the gov could not keep up then we would have another set of problems with parent-less children being housed and supported by the government courtesy tax payers. I think this would be somewhat more palatable as well to liberals who claim that is how government is supposed to work.

                                                        Comment


                                                        • Originally posted by Whiskeyjack View Post
                                                          I agree with your legal analysis, OMM (which is partly why Roe is such a horribly reasoned opinion), though I'm not as optimistic about the prospect of this new technology ending abortion. Abortion is a necessary policy backstop for any liberal regime, because contraceptive technologies often fail, and sex must be severed from procreation if citizens are to be granted unrestrained genital "freedom". The pro-abortion crowd wll simply switch to a different fallacious argument (person v. nonperson, the absolute sovereignty of a female over her body, etc.) in its favor once the advance of technology removes viability as a concern.

                                                          I can definitely see this technology being used for good, but human nature doesn't change, and it can also be used for great evil--like growing designer babies completely separate from the mother. Here's praying the former prevails.
                                                          Can you imagine all of the "Housewives" that choose to have their eggs fertilized in a tube and then stuck in an artificial womb, thus never actually having to carry a baby? What a Pandora's Box that opens. What happens to maternity leave? What would that do to healthcare costs? What effects does it have on the sanctity of marriage? Interesting topic for certain.
                                                          Originally posted by koonja
                                                          I'm making peace with Woolly in 2017.

                                                          Comment


                                                          • Originally posted by Old Man Mike View Post
                                                            I'm not talking about "what could happen new", I'm talking about the current law/legal status. Heck, you and I could make ANY statement about anything and then object to it because we are mentally nimble enough to invent a new basis of discussion.

                                                            And I see that I have done just what I didn't want to do --- get abortion discussion started in the Science thread (sorry guys, I thought that just maybe this would stop at a "science-related" point.)
                                                            Understood Mike, I think a precedent has been set but I may be wrong and perhaps a counter argument can be made.

                                                            Originally posted by Cackalacky View Post
                                                            I see it much differently. If the typical person who would get an abortion for reasons including that you could not afford it, or it was an accident ,or any of the other multitude reasons.... and the technology existed to take the fetus at some developed stage... then would the morally responsible option be to give it to a provider who develops the fetus until ready for birth in lieu of aborting completely? I think this is much more pleasing idea than having to choose to take it to term or abort it all together.
                                                            Of course the morally responsible option would be to transfer development from 'in utero' to 'in synthetic utero' and allow the child to completely mature before birth....er....harvesting. (which is another gruesome direction this is likely to go but I digress). I think almost every pro-lifer would agree to this in lieu of abortion.

                                                            When do we start using these synthetic uteruses to grow organs? Anyone read "Never Let Me Go" by Kazuro Ishiguro? Hopefully we skip whole human incubators and attach our organs to reduced brains, no prefrontal cortex needed so hopefully we can knock that out with genetic manipulation. It'd be great if we could reduce the skeletal structure so it looks less human as well, perhaps de-limb them so our flesh sacks don't reflect the humanity that designed them.

                                                            Of course, all of these changes to the human form could only be completed after we've mapped the hormonal milieu needed to keep development on course. Changes in the morphology of a human would incur unforeseen changes in the hormonal signaling/cellular signaling so it'll take time.

                                                            Don't take my mental soliloquy as a serious railing against artificial wombs, this is mostly a thought exercise but one that is important. I'm certain these deliberations occurred when developing the atomic bomb and it only resulted in 230,000 deaths since 1945 and a cold war that certainly led to premature aging in countless people.

                                                            How much more serious should we consider synthetic incubation chambers and their myriad uses?

                                                            Comment


                                                            • Originally posted by Veritate Duce Progredi View Post
                                                              Understood Mike, I think a precedent has been set but I may be wrong and perhaps a counter argument can be made.



                                                              Of course the morally responsible option would be to transfer development from 'in utero' to 'in synthetic utero' and allow the child to completely mature before birth....er....harvesting. (which is another gruesome direction this is likely to go but I digress). I think almost every pro-lifer would agree to this in lieu of abortion.

                                                              When do we start using these synthetic uteruses to grow organs? Anyone read "Never Let Me Go" by Kazuro Ishiguro? Hopefully we skip whole human incubators and attach our organs to reduced brains, no prefrontal cortex needed so hopefully we can knock that out with genetic manipulation. It'd be great if we could reduce the skeletal structure so it looks less human as well, perhaps de-limb them so our flesh sacks don't reflect the humanity that designed them.

                                                              Of course, all of these changes to the human form could only be completed after we've mapped the hormonal milieu needed to keep development on course. Changes in the morphology of a human would incur unforeseen changes in the hormonal signaling/cellular signaling so it'll take time.

                                                              Don't take my mental soliloquy as a serious railing against artificial wombs, this is mostly a thought exercise but one that is important. I'm certain these deliberations occurred when developing the atomic bomb and it only resulted in 230,000 deaths since 1945 and a cold war that certainly led to premature aging in countless people.

                                                              How much more serious should we consider synthetic incubation chambers and their myriad uses?
                                                              Or it could be used to halt or stop what is equivalent to a Holocaust every year.

                                                              Comment


                                                              • Originally posted by Cackalacky View Post
                                                                Or it could be used to halt or stop what is equivalent to a Holocaust every year.
                                                                Certainly. It's all in the policies that surround it's development. I assume we'll want to exploit it but your depiction of how we'd use the synthetic womb would be a very welcomed development, if that's where it stopped.

                                                                Comment


                                                                • Or when AI finally takes over it will know exactly how to do this to us:

                                                                  Comment


                                                                  • {{{{I apparently can't help myself and so "I'm talking and can't shut up!!!!"}}}}

                                                                    These arguments/discussions have occupied the bioethics community at least since I began teaching relevant materials in 1970. A reasonably written "popular" exposition of this stuff was authored by Gerald Leach (THE BIOCRATS, copyright 1970.) That book somewhat presciently discussed almost all of these things and many of their imagined consequences.

                                                                    If there were any consensus opinions on anything back in those days, one of the strongest was the distinction between things done for "positive eugenics" reasons vs "negative eugenics." ("Positive" meaning "improve the individual over the norm", and "Negative" meaning "eliminate obvious generally medically agreed upon illness, malformation, malfunction." {Yes, there are an almost uncountable number of arguments as to which is which in each sort of thing, but the medical ethics community took a pretty hard line on this, even strongly stating that choosing the sex of a baby was "positive eugenics" and therefore should NOT be done (except in sex-linked genetic diseases where the choice, if the technology was used, would have to be for a girl --- since girls do not get such diseases.)

                                                                    The positive vs negative eugenics prohibition would not solve all these Brave New World problems, but that criterion could be a start.

                                                                    Comment


                                                                    • Originally posted by Cackalacky View Post
                                                                      I think, personally, that given these circumstances, it is a morally more acceptable alternative to abortion as well as providing significant medical promise for troubled births.
                                                                      I agree, completely! I'm not upset by this technology, nor do I find anything in it that is intrinsically evil. I just doubt the feasibility of your 3rd assumption.

                                                                      Do you think that a women who finds out they are pregnant wouldnt make this choice to give up the fetus earlier than having to abort it? You think that our liberal society would reject this for purely political reasons becasue of a need to maintain their stranglehold on abortion rights which was litigated in a time where other options were not available?
                                                                      Liberalism has an internal logic that strongly favors the powerful and the wealthy over classes like the unborn. And there are currently very well-funded and politically connected interest groups that are massively invested in maintaining the legality of abortion. So I very much doubt that technological advancements wiping out the viability issue will change anything, absent a groundswell of support for protecting human life at all stages of development.

                                                                      I see this as a game changer and would essentially negate Roe vs Wade if it was available per my assumptions above (obviously hurdles for sure but worth the fight no?). Other problems I see though would be getting to the place where it was cost effective and adoptions were able to keep up. If the gov could not keep up then we would have another set of problems with parent-less children being housed and supported by the government courtesy tax payers. I think this would be somewhat more palatable as well to liberals who claim that is how government is supposed to work.
                                                                      I'm encouraged to see left-leaning posters that I respect feeling this way. I just don't have much faith that our liberal overlords will put this technology to such constructive use.

                                                                      Originally posted by woolybug25 View Post
                                                                      Can you imagine all of the "Housewives" that choose to have their eggs fertilized in a tube and then stuck in an artificial womb, thus never actually having to carry a baby? What a Pandora's Box that opens. What happens to maternity leave? What would that do to healthcare costs? What effects does it have on the sanctity of marriage? Interesting topic for certain.
                                                                      I'd be very surprised if this doesn't come to pass during our lifetimes. No stretch-marks, morning sickness, weight gain, etc. and you get your pick of things like hair color, eye color, and other traits that may correlate with intelligence? Bougie liberals already view children as a "lifestyle choice", akin to buying a dog. This is just the next logical step.

                                                                      Comment


                                                                      • "Bougie Liberals" ..............

                                                                        FWIW: in my teaching career and without, the vast majority of persons favoring self-centered decision-making on almost any topic were people headed towards the rich-suburbia lifestyle having no politics or even values at all. "Liberals" in any political sense (since they didn't give a damm about that) they were not.

                                                                        What these people were should be described as Kohlberg Stage Two egocentric hedonists. They had no views on liberalism nor conservatism just selfism. I will bet that their voting varied (if they even bothered) between "liberal" and "conservative" positions simply on what they thought they could get out of it. If you wanted to tax them (against conservatism) they were with the "conservatives" and against the "liberals". If you wanted to force them to do something, they were with whatever "side" it was that didn't want to be forced.

                                                                        I'm slightly pissed at the lumping of people, thoughtless and thoughtful, under these labels, and, when it's done it's always in aid of broad brush smearing the whole. NO "liberal" can be labeled a "Liberal" and be a self-centered thoughtless Kohlberg Stage Two --- neither can a "conservative." All people deserving of either label must have been thoughtful in some way to earn them. That means Kohlberg Stage Fours at least, and Stage Fives most likely.

                                                                        These things are "handy" smear words and really unhelpful in any discussion. I can take almost any conceivable "issue" and describe opposite positions which in some interpretation can be called "liberal" or "conservative." I can cite any of my friends who sometimes see things in some sort of classical "liberal" way and other times in a classical "conservative" way. I can cite issues which can be described rationally as either liberal or conservative on the precise same thing. {lets cut down that old growth forest ---- Oh those tree-hugging liberals won't like it --- WAIT A MINUTE! We're trying to conserve this park for individual citizen enjoyment!! --- No you're not! You're trying to thwart people from turning assets into cash! --- YOU are the liberals!!! both shout. WE are the conservatives!!! Both shout. --- neither of you are using words which really apply to helping the situation out, I shout.)

                                                                        I wonder if it is even possible to dump these lazily applied labels and simply talk details of issues.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                        • OMM, perhaps I've gotten lax in clarifying my terminology, though we've discussed this issue in the political and theological threads so often that I'm surprised by the confusion. When I write "liberals" or "liberalism", I'm not referring to Americans with left-of-center politics, but to the political ideology that has dominated the West since the Enlightenment-- Hobbes, Locke, Mill, etc. The way I'm using the term, the GOP and American "conservatism" isn't meaningfully less liberal than the Democrats and American "liberalism". So I'm not slinging mud at political opponents, but trying to make the case that much of what's wrong with modern society can be traced to the Enlightenment, and the unexamined first principles that most of us take for granted.

                                                                          I assume this confusion partly explains the argument we recently had in the Theology thread as well.

                                                                          Comment


                                                                          • Well, OK sort of.

                                                                            But look at the way this term was tossed into the post #235 above. Very difficult to see that use of Liberals referring to some intellectual tradition of any sort. The tone there is about irresponsible unthinking self-immersed egocentrics. "Bougie" on down that braindead socially-valueless path.

                                                                            Mud was slung in that case. Who it was slung at I can't clearly tell, but the word "liberals" was involved in whomever those mud catchers were, and that seems broad-brush to me.

                                                                            So, once again, I'm guilty of derailing a thread by an off-center comment.

                                                                            Comment


                                                                            • Originally posted by Old Man Mike View Post
                                                                              So, once again, I'm guilty of derailing a thread by an off-center comment.
                                                                              Not at all, Mike. I value these exchanges, and want to ensure that we at least understand each other.

                                                                              But look at the way this term was tossed into the post #235 above. Very difficult to see that use of Liberals referring to some intellectual tradition of any sort. The tone there is about irresponsible unthinking self-immersed egocentrics. "Bougie" on down that braindead socially-valueless path.
                                                                              My use of the term "bougie" was intentionally evocative of Marx, because I think the class distinctions here are much more instructive than the partisan ones. The closer one gets to the top 1% of American wealth distribution, the families all start to look very similar-- few children meticulously groomed for bourgeois respectability and success in the liberal marketplace rather than large families that emphasize virtue and willingness to sacrifice for the Common Good. It doesn't matter whether the parents pull the lever for the red team or the blue team, the more successful a family is, the more invested they are in the liberal status quo, and the more anxiety they feel about ensuring that their few children learn the ropes of how to be economic "winners" too. Thus, there's little doubt in my mind that our elites will eagerly pay top dollar for genetically modified off-spring that will be more competitive in the global market, regardless of the ethical implications.

                                                                              As an estate planning attorney, my experience has been that the wealthier the client, the more f*cked up their kids are likely to be. Take from that what you will, but I see that as an indictment of liberalism.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                              • Originally posted by Whiskeyjack View Post
                                                                                OMM, perhaps I've gotten lax in clarifying my terminology, though we've discussed this issue in the political and theological threads so often that I'm surprised by the confusion. When I write "liberals" or "liberalism", I'm not referring to Americans with left-of-center politics, but to the political ideology that has dominated the West since the Enlightenment-- Hobbes, Locke, Mill, etc. The way I'm using the term, the GOP and American "conservatism" isn't meaningfully less liberal than the Democrats and American "liberalism". So I'm not slinging mud at political opponents, but trying to make the case that much of what's wrong with modern society can be traced to the Enlightenment, and the unexamined first principles that most of us take for granted.

                                                                                I assume this confusion partly explains the argument we recently had in the Theology thread as well.
                                                                                Fan since Vagas Ferguson and Jerome Heavens!

                                                                                Comment




                                                                                • Comment


                                                                                  • Originally posted by Whiskeyjack View Post


                                                                                    I have seen and used those before too..heehee
                                                                                    Fan since Vagas Ferguson and Jerome Heavens!

                                                                                    Comment




                                                                                    • That mayor is a joke. What a spineless coward.

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                      • I'm always amazes how those who pull stuff like this seem to lack any self awareness... that breed of leftists are exactly what they claim to hate
                                                                                        This sig will not change until The Browns win the Super Bowl... So get real used to it.

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                        • Originally posted by ACamp1900 View Post
                                                                                          I'm always amazes how those who pull stuff like this seem to lack any self awareness... that breed of leftists are exactly what they claim to hate
                                                                                          It's fVcking beautiful because people are starting to recognize the absurdity.

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                          • Samuel Goldman, a professor at GWU, just published an article titled "What is the Future of Conservatism?"

                                                                                            In his 1936 essay “The Crack-Up,” F. Scott Fitzgerald proposed that “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise.”

                                                                                            This strikes me as an illuminating description of the conservative mind, least in its American incarnation. Since its emergence in the decade following the Second World War, the American conservative movement has been characterized by a dramatic combination of pessimism and optimism. Think about what it means to stand athwart history yelling stop.

                                                                                            Yet the point of Fitzgerald’s famous Esquire magazine essay, which is more often quoted than read, is that this philosophy is untenable. In the long run, even a first-rate mind has a limited capacity for paradox. At some point, it becomes impossible to hold intellect and will in equilibrium. That is when the crack-up occurs.

                                                                                            Like the middle-aged Fitzgerald, intellectual conservatism has entered its crack-up phase. It was always a product of competing motives and sources, and now the tension between its fundamental elements has become too sharp to sustain. Events have moved so quickly since the emergence of Donald Trump as a presidential contender that prognosis may well be foolhardy, but here goes: the patient is unlikely to be cured.

                                                                                            Conservatives’ inconsistent attitudes toward the future are reflections of more fundamental tendencies that were once safely contained within the conservative mind but now strain its boundaries. These cannot be reduced to the familiar distinctions between libertarianism and traditionalism, neoconservatism and paleoconservatism, establishment and base. For the sake of simplicity, call them liberalism and reaction.

                                                                                            Start with liberalism. It hardly needs to be said that I mean the philosophical movement retrospectively dubbed “classical liberalism.” This term, familiar to the point of clich, means different things to different people. So I beg the reader’s indulgence of a brief explanation.

                                                                                            Although it is often associated with the doctrines of natural right, the essential feature of classical liberalism is its distinction between public and private. This distinction was originally deployed in favor of religious toleration. Over time, it became a more expansive argument that certain activities are of concern only to those directly involved. It followed that such activities should be protected against restrictions imposed for ostensibly general purposes.

                                                                                            Among the activities considered as private is the production and exchange of value. Unless they pose direct threats to the essential interests of others, liberalism places making and doing, buying and selling beyond public control. This application of the public/private distinction has an instrumental justification: that free markets promote prosperity. But it was, in its origins, a moral claim.

                                                                                            An extensive private sphere could, in principle, be secured by a benevolent despotism. Indeed, there have been situations in which despots were more favorable to liberalism than were peoples. But skepticism toward absolute power is deeply rooted in the liberal tradition. Although liberals have sometimes been tempted by dictatorial shortcuts, liberal thought emphasizes rules and institutions—including mechanisms of democratic accountability—that prevent arbitrariness.

                                                                                            But if liberalism fears that power corrupts, it also promotes a certain confidence in reason. The pendant to private freedom is a public sphere in which common enterprises are open to scrutiny and debate. The exercise is useless, even dangerous, if it is not based on sufficient information or conducted by citizens unskilled in reasoning. Liberalism is therefore traditionally protective of formal education and—more concretely—of the political influence of persons who possess it.

                                                                                            This collection of assumptions and dispositions generates a particular combination of optimism and pessimism. In a sense, classical liberalism is hope that human beings will develop reasonable solutions to their problems if they are left free to do so. At the same time, it warns that these solutions cannot be determined in advance or effectively imposed on those who do not accept them. Reversing Antonio Gramsci’s famous motto, liberalism could be described as optimism of the intellect and pessimism of the will.

                                                                                            Notwithstanding all the Adam Smith neckties and ceremonial tributes to Alexis de Tocqueville, classical liberalism is not the only pole of American conservatism. If liberalism is American conservatism’s Antarctica, reaction is its Ultima Thule. The liberal landscape is solid and open to exploration. The topography of reaction is shrouded by mists and shifting seas.

                                                                                            Intellectual history is an unreliable guide because the masters of reaction—Joseph de Maistre, Thomas Carlyle, Friedrich Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt—exercised only an attenuated influence on American conservatism. A few native intellectuals, including H.L. Mencken and Robert Nisbet, studied and wrote about the reactionary canon. European-born scholars like Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin adopted some its themes in their teaching and passed them on to American students. On the whole, however, these were very recherch tastes. Despite the recent surge of interest in figures like Julius Evola, whom Trump advisor Steve Bannon has apparently read, we are looking for elective affinities rather than direct inspiration.

                                                                                            The political theorist Mark Lilla provides a useful starting point in his recent book The Shipwrecked Mind (2016). He describes reaction as the yearning to overturn a present condition of decadence and recover an idealized past. The pursuit of social transformation distinguishes reaction from the conservative inclination to cherish and preserve what actually exists.

                                                                                            If reaction is temperamentally unconservative, it is also historically antiliberal. In the 18th and 19th centuries, reactionary thought challenged the public/private distinction, free markets, constitutional government, and the public authority of reason. These critiques were often brilliant and remain major accomplishments of political theory. For all their insight, however, the reactionaries struggled to propose appealing alternatives to liberalism. Some defended the old prerogatives of altar and throne. Others articulated a kind of aristocratic anarchism that held some literary appeal but was hard to accept as a guide to practical politics.

                                                                                            The historical opposition between liberalism and reaction has led some analysts to impose a sharp separation between an essentially liberal Anglo-American conservatism and a reactionary European Right. Because it is politically flattering as well conceptually clarifying, I have been tempted to make this distinction myself. But I now think the opposition between liberalism and reaction is only contingent. When reaction is defined as the attempt to recover a lost golden age rather than commitment to a specific historical order, it becomes compatible with liberalism.

                                                                                            Liberalism and reaction can overlap in a specific kind of decline narrative—one according to which private conduct used to be protected, government was properly limited, reason ruled. There was a veritable golden age of freedom. But this paradise was interrupted by a calamity that undermined liberalism and imposed different principles of social order. Unless confronted, the substitution threatens to become permanent.

                                                                                            This decline narrative is not just an abstract possibility. Although it can be presented in several versions, it provides a template for the self-understanding of American conservative thought. It does not matter precisely which period is identified as the golden age or what event serves that intervening calamity. Whether the point at which things went wrong is the Civil War, the Progressive movement, the New Deal, or the Great Society, the basic structure is the same.

                                                                                            It might be objected that even if American conservative thought involves a reactionary pattern of historical reasoning, it does not seek classically reactionary ends. Few American conservatives admired early modern absolutism or ancient paganism (although more expressed affection for the antebellum South). But they have dabbled in the endorsement of non-liberal means to liberal ends.

                                                                                            In the American context, that usually means adopting populist strategies that cater to the prejudices of the public. Conservative intellectuals have been willing to accept support where they could find it, without inquiring too deeply into its sources. In particular, the role of conspiracy theories and racism in generating support for putatively liberal candidates and policies tends to be downplayed or ignored. Conservatives have also been less than vigilant about limited government when sympathetic figures are in office. Concerns about executive power, for example, have a way of disappearing when Republicans occupy the White House.

                                                                                            The divergences are not simply lapses from principle. Reaction is, in a paradoxical way, more hopeful than liberalism. Instead of placing its faith in the long-term salutary effects of countless private actions, it depends on the acquisition and assertion of power. Like Antonio Gramsci’s Marxism, reaction could be characterized as pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will.

                                                                                            Despite the tension between them, liberalism and reaction are not mutually exclusive. They coexist not only as factions within the conservative movement, but even in the thought of individual conservatives—maybe most of them. That is where the political theorist Corey Robin goes wrong in his perceptive if polemical book The Reactionary Mind (2011). Robin depicts conservatism as inherently reactionary and only situationally liberal. Rather than the inner truth of conservatism, however, reaction is part of a dynamic tension that helps explain its vitality.

                                                                                            That tension has been sustained for longer than Fitzgerald’s 39 years of sanity. But now the conservative mind is coming apart.

                                                                                            Some of the centrifugal forces encouraging a separation of liberalism and reaction are technological. As the political scientist George Hawley (about whom David B. Frisk has written instructively for Law and Liberty) has argued, innovations in media have made it more difficult to hold any coalition together. The preservation of balance within the conservative movement owed a great deal to the ability of a few institutions to exclude figures and ideas they judged kooky, cranky, or otherwise unacceptable. Talk radio, cable news-entertainment, and especially the Internet make this task virtually impossible.

                                                                                            The international setting for conservative thought is also different from what it was 30 years ago. Anticommunism no longer acts as a force field holding together disparate elements of the Right. Economic libertarians and foreign policy hawks, for example, shared an enemy in the Soviet Union. Our current geopolitical challenges—including Islamist movements, Russia, China—do not exert this unifying effect.

                                                                                            Domestically, Reagan-era concerns about excessive personal taxation and inflation are not as salient as they used to be. As a result, conservative obsessions with cutting marginal tax rates and hard money seem more like ideological fetishes than serious responses to today’s problems.

                                                                                            The aforementioned causes of the conservative crack-up have been widely discussed. But there are deeper causes that have received less attention. One is a growing skepticism about the sufficiency of classically liberal means to classically liberal ends. Conservatives have published books, established think tanks, served in Congress, and staffed the White House. But has anything really changed?

                                                                                            Given the centrality of anticommunism to the development of conservatism, it is ironic that concepts derived from Marxism have become central to understanding its failures. Originally developed by James Burnham, the theory of the administrative or managerial state holds that our country is actually governed by institutions with no basis in the written constitution. This unelected fourth branch is composed primarily of the federal bureaucracy. But it also includes representatives of the legal establishment, media, academia, and major financial interests.

                                                                                            There is nothing inherently reactionary about the theory of the managerial state, which offers considerable insight into the reality of American government. The theory only acquires that connotation when it becomes the basis for political strategy. Because the administrative or managerial state is not elected and operates through regulation not statute, the argument goes, it is impossible to overturn this shadow government by winning congressional majorities, passing laws, or even raising in challenges in court. Since Leviathan cannot be restrained, it must be smashed.

                                                                                            The classical liberalism I have tried to describe is characteristically skeptical of executive power, particularly as an instrument for renovating constitutions whether written or unwritten. The reactionary tendency, by contrast, sees a strong executive as the only viable weapon against managerialism. This analysis has become a central feature of the theoretical case for Donald Trump. His combativeness, unpredictability, and indifference to expert opinion are seen not as defects of character but as tactical advantages over the bureaucracy.

                                                                                            Approving radical tactics of opposition to the administrative state need not involve sympathizing with authoritarianism as such. Some conservatives see Trumpian intransigence as an unpleasant but unavoidable precondition of any revival of old-fashioned liberalism. But there is no longer a consensus around that goal. One reason that the dispute between the libertarians and traditionalists of the 1950s could be resolved was that they agreed about their preferred social form: an idealized version of the federal republic that existed before the New Deal. As it slips out of living memory, this vision no longer brings together elements of the intellectual Right.

                                                                                            The breakdown of the consensus may have been inevitable. For psychological reasons, most people recall with fondness the period of their youth. It is not coincidental that the early conservatives could actually remember the arrangements and mores that many of them wished to restore. The presidency of Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) was nearer in time to the heroic age of American conservatism than that period is to our own.

                                                                                            The focus of political nostalgia has shifted accordingly. Today, it is the comparatively socially stable, economically egalitarian, and culturally homogeneous America that flourished from roughly the end of the Second World War to the mid-1970s that stands out in the popular imagination as a golden age. Intellectual honesty requires us to acknowledge that these conditions were not the result of classically liberal policies. On the contrary, they were sustained by the very processes of nationalization, bureaucratization, and regulation that American conservatism arose to challenge.

                                                                                            Generational shifts are not the only reason for the waning appeal of the brand of conservatism derived from classical liberalism. Some intellectuals on the Right have always questioned whether the likes of Smith, Tocqueville, and Mill were right in the first place.

                                                                                            It goes without saying that there are important differences between these thinkers. Even so, their arguments for limited government, free markets, and a rational public sphere presuppose a shared anthropology. According to this conception, human beings in full command of their faculties are capable of recognizing, if not discovering, the conditions of their own flourishing. We need governments, on this view, to protect our lives and property, adjudicate disputes, and perform other tasks that are hard to accomplish on a voluntary basis. But it is morally illegitimate and generally ineffective to coercively impose a specific vision of the good life.

                                                                                            Yet this assumption is dubious. Consenting adults often make very foolish decisions. And many of the societies conservatives admire were far more coercive and intrusive than classical liberal principles would permit. The desire for a more powerful sense of purpose and moral direction calls those principles into question. This deeper nostalgia, when it is not expressed as what Peter Augustine Lawler calls “polis envy,” often fixates on medieval Christendom. An uglier version defends the old South as a model social order.

                                                                                            The conclusion that classical liberalism is based on fundamentally mistaken premises is part of the reactionary inheritance that has always played a role, if a submerged one, in American conservative thought. In the past, however, it was rarely asserted consistently or used as the point of entry to wholly independent currents of political thought. Vaguely absurd expressions of anti-liberalism like Brent Bozell’s affection for Francoist Spain are exceptions that prove the rule. What is new is the emergence of illiberal movements that cannot easily be dismissed as marginal. The influence of the so-called alt-Right should not be exaggerated. Nevertheless, the growing popularity of neo-reactionaries, white nationalists, and men’s rights activists, to say nothing of freelance provocateurs like Milo Yiannopoulos, demonstrate the appeal of joining an opposition to the modern Left that is not liberal and, because it is not liberal, also not conservative.

                                                                                            The stresses on the conservative mind that I have described in this essay predate Trump’s emergence on the political scene. But his election made them acute. For the first time since Dwight D. Eisenhower, whose indifference to classical liberalism prompted the creation of the conservative movement, a Republican President barely pretends to care about the philosophy. Eisenhower, however, had compensating virtues not found in Trump.

                                                                                            In this unprecedented situation, tendencies that once coexisted are being resolved into independent alternatives. For some conservatives, Trump’s hostility to institutions and formalities, markets, and expertise is impossible to accept. For others, Trump’s gaining the White House is an irresistible opportunity to throw off stale orthodoxies. The result is a decomposition of conservatism into opposed factions. One group basically accepts a classically liberal conception of how the world works—and how it should be governed. The other rejects one or both of these premises.

                                                                                            These factions are comprised of more intellectually various members than one might expect. The conservatives drawn toward opposition include neoconservatives, libertarians, Catholics influenced by natural law, theologically serious evangelicals, conservative legal activists, and East Coast Straussians. Many Trump skeptics share, in addition to an philosophical inclination toward classical liberalism, a relatively favorable assessment of the current state of constitutional government. They tend to see the Constitution as diminished but far from a dead letter.

                                                                                            The sociological homogeneity of this group belies its intellectual diversity, however. Trump-skeptical conservatives are often products of prestigious universities and comfortable in major political and cultural institutions. The academics and lawyers among them, especially, tend to regard themselves as custodians of majestic structures in a condition of severe but remediable decay.

                                                                                            Classical liberalism is at home in the classroom, courtroom, and boardroom. It is—and always has been—less effective at the hustings. One of the most important lessons of Trump’s success is that classically liberal rhetoric and positions were not very important to voters. It turned out that they wanted a candidate who promised to help, not one who knew his Hayek. The institutional advantages that the liberal strand of conservatism enjoys are thus the mirror image of its political weakness. It excels in producing journal articles, legal briefs, and business plans, but struggles to win popular support.

                                                                                            The group drawn in a reactionary direction is also intellectually diverse. It includes (among others) the surviving paleoconservatives, the heirs of the Reagan-era religious right, traditionalist Catholics, Orthodox Jews, West Coast Straussians, as well as the alt-Right. These conservatives either do not believe that strategies of education, legal maneuvering, and market competition are going to secure conservative goals any time soon, or believe that those goals were misguided in the first place.

                                                                                            Then, too, as with the Trump-averse conservatives, the connecting thread among reactionary conservatives may be as much sociological as ideological. Although not necessarily members of the working class they often claim to defend, conservatives drawn to Trump are typically outsiders to the educational, legal, or economic establishment. Both as a cause and a result, they have no affection for elite institutions or the norms associated with them. These are not monuments to be defended but obstacles to be demolished.

                                                                                            This taxonomy is more like a spectrum than a hard-and-fast division. Some conservatives lean more to one side, some to the other. A few seem determined to remain in the middle. But the balancing act is growing more challenging as the distance between the poles expands. In the future, the diverging tribes of conservatism may have less in common with each other than with formations outside the Right as we have known it.

                                                                                            Having failed (along with many, indeed most political observers) to accurately predict the outcome of the election, I hesitate to offer forecasts of the development of conservatism. Too much depends on what happens over the next few years. It is possible that the administration will avoid major crises, develop a coherent legislative agenda, and find ways to insulate the President from the aspects of his duty that he seems to find overwhelming. But I doubt it.

                                                                                            So I will conclude by sketching a scenario that I regard as plausible, if far from certain. It involves the comprehensive Trumpification of “official” conservatism. That would mean the ascendance of certain reactionary features, including demotic style and an emphasis on executive power.

                                                                                            As it grew more reactionary in these respects, this conservatism could at the same time moderate in other respects. In particular, it could coopt the labor movement with its promotion of protectionism, and it could attract the religiously unaffiliated, who were alienated by the ostentatious religiosity of the old conservative movement. The danger is that the bond between these constituencies and traditional Republican voting blocs would be white identity politics. And that danger increases the more that Trump and his supporters deny that this bond exists.

                                                                                            Would a Trumpified American Right have room for intellectuals? Yes, but their role would be more retrospective than original. Their task would not be charting new directions; it would be making sense of accomplished facts. That is not necessarily a bad thing. The habit of deducing law and policy directly from an abstract anthropology is a congenital vice of philosophical liberalism. On the other hand, the pragmatic assessment of decisions that have already been made can also degenerate into the sycophantic application of a rubber stamp.

                                                                                            What about those left behind by the Trump revolution? Some will find ways to reconcile with existing centers of opposition to the Trump administration, including the Democratic Party. “Liberal-tarians” who see economic freedom and the protection of individual liberties as means for securing social justice have pioneered this realignment. Neoconservatives may also find that they share more with their Wilsonian cousins than with Trump’s revival of America First.

                                                                                            Other conservatives will conclude that Trump and his supporters are unacceptable but find it difficult to make common cause with non-classical liberals and Progressives. Their inclination will be to hunker down in their own communities and institutions. The Benedict Option, Rod Dreher’s just-published manual for riding out the storm, is addressed to orthodox Christians, but it may prove useful to nonconformists of other kinds. Associations that were conceived as beachheads in advance of a larger invasion can also be refuges for those waiting for more favorable opportunities.

                                                                                            This is not a happy scenario and I hope to be wrong about it. Trump has promised to make America great again, but his hostility to freedom, to the rule of law, and to disciplined thought suggest that his conception of greatness is very different from any that I can share. Nonetheless, one can believe that things are hopeless and remain determined to make them otherwise. In some sense, that is what is necessary for those of us who retain the unfashionable opinion that classical liberalism, for all its imperfections, is the best available guide to the means and ends of politics. It also part of what it means to be a conservative.
                                                                                            I don't agree with his conclusion, but his description of the various factions that American conservatism is breaking out into is helpful.

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                            • What Steve Bannon really wants

                                                                                              Bannon’s political philosophy boils down to three things that a Western country, and America in particular, needs to be successful: Capitalism, nationalism, and “Judeo-Christian values.” These are all deeply related, and essential.

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                              • .
                                                                                                What the sweet baby Jesus...?


                                                                                                <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Virginia Lt. Gov race now has an ad where suburban terroristsrob a house? Go on a shopping run? <a href="https://t.co/3u6HfTpx1c">https://t.co/3u6HfTpx1c</a></p>&mdash; Will Rahn (@willrahn) <a href="https://twitter.com/willrahn/status/859780307809181696">May 3, 2017</a></blockquote>
                                                                                                <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
                                                                                                Fan since Vagas Ferguson and Jerome Heavens!

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                • Interesting article:

                                                                                                  "Noting that the Green Bay Packers have survived and generally thrived as a publicly owned, nonprofit corporation for the better part of a century, the younger Lumumba told the Jackson Clarion-Ledger: “If Green Bay can figure out how to get a professional football team, then I feel we can figure out how to get a movie theater.” "


                                                                                                  https://www.thenation.com/article/ja...he-next-mayor/
                                                                                                  Last edited by Bluto; 05-04-2017, 08:52 AM.

                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                  • Originally posted by TDHeysus View Post
                                                                                                    depending how you get your news, this story may be buried so far that you never saw it, or the source hasnt reported on it at all.

                                                                                                    The premise is every leftists nightmare scenario; if they side with the illegal immigrant, they support the 'rape culture' that feminists/leftists like to spew. If they support the girl, they strengthen the immigration argument. it's a no win for leftists, and since they can't blame it on Putin or the Russians, they'd rather not talk about it at all.

                                                                                                    Lawyer for accused Rockville High School rapist says sex with 14-year-old girl was consensual - Story | WTTG


                                                                                                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.0991c66bba50
                                                                                                    Following up on this: Rape charge against immigrant teen in Maryland case will be dropped, defense lawyer says

                                                                                                    Maryland prosecutors will drop rape and sex offense charges against one of two immigrant teens accused of attacking a 14-year-old classmate in a school bathroom stall, according to the suspect’s attorney in the case that horrified local parents, attracted international attention and intensified debate about illegal crossings into the U.S.

                                                                                                    Attorneys for the second suspect said they had not been told of the status of the rape case against their client who is due in court Friday morning for a hearing.

                                                                                                    The defense lawyers for both defendants have said the sex acts were consensual and that text messages and school surveillance videos did not substantiate the girl’s claims she had been pushed from a hallway into a bathroom at Rockville High School on March 16 where the suspects took turns assaulting her in a stall as she tried to break free.

                                                                                                    Prosecutors declined to comment Thursday on whether they were dropping charges in the case that rocked the suburban community near Washington, D.C. But they had signaled in an early court proceeding that they were having challenges corroborating events the girl described to Montgomery County Police detectives and that led to the arrests of Henry Sanchez Milian, 18, and Jose Montano, 17.
                                                                                                    If, after I depart this vale, you ever remember me and have thought to please my ghost, forgive some sinner and wink your eye at some homely girl.

                                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                                    Adsense

                                                                                                    Collapse
                                                                                                    Working...
                                                                                                    X