1) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/trump-white-blue...
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/books/review/strangers-in-...
3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2016/09/01...
1) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/trump-white-blue...
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/books/review/strangers-in-...
3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2016/09/01...
The negative review you've given seems to be a content-free screed: most of what the writer criticizes is fairly innocuous phrasing (e.g. "my Tea Party friends" rather than "my friends"). The only substantive point is the claim that she lumps people into overly broad categories, but honestly, I've yet to see that. Do you have any sources that dislike the book and point out flaws in her analysis?
Would you care to summarize the review?
The phrase that comes to mind is epistemic closure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure
You will only accept a description of your reality from inside of your reality. Contrast that with the author who actually moved to Louisiana and lived there to find out what they think. Advantage the author.
No, I think its a poor choice when you are trying to tell the story of a people so that you can gain an understanding of them and they don't like or agree with the book, but their opposite number does and sees it as a revelation. Living among the natives to write a book is an old ploy that has been done poorly for a long time, but since I live here full time, clocking hours isn't really part of my argument.
Confirmation bias would be a nice way to put it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
BTW before you can cite confirmation bias you have to engage the material. She did. You didn't.
anyway, I'm done with this as I don't have an idea what your definition of "engagement" is and since I'm having flashbacks to running into trouble with the changing meaning of "socialize", I'll go think pleasant thoughts.
The "conservative intellectual" niche may be the most politically irrelevant group in the country.
Yes.
>The "conservative intellectual" niche may be the most politically irrelevant group in the country.
Trump won the Presidency, not the Movement. The rest of the GOP, though shell-shocked, has not suddenly ditched conservatism and embraced Trumpism. The vast majority of the GOP members of the House and Senate, and those in state governments, are conservative, not Trumpist.
Conservatives, not just Republicans, have far more power in the US right now than at any point in recent memory.
And thankfully, the Founding Fathers, sharp blokes that they were, crafted a system of checks and balances. I suspect we'll hear fewer cries of "obstruction!" when Congress blocks President Trump's policies than we did for Obama's.
It's a subcase of "blue team criticizes red team for action X, but conveniently ignores blue team performing action X". Problem is this accusation gets thrown constantly by both red and blue teams. And it's probably true most of the time: teams are partisan. It's also hard to objectively evaluate.
Political discussion on the net is mostly just replaying these well-worn tropes.
Again, nothing personal - I have been thinking since the politics ban how we can have good political discussions.
Any governing action is entirely political; I think your problem is that it was entirely partisan.
And quite frankly, they succeeded. I think you're unfairly discounting how much of that was ideologically driven, rather than the result of simple partisanship.
The notion that they wanted to make government work worse in order to bolster their claim that government doesn't work is what progressives tell each other, not what motivates conservatives. Ditto working class voters "voting against their interests", etc.
Given how much of it was their own agenda from 20 years back, what the hell was the point of that?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affor...
Every Republican voted against it. At no point did Republicans in Congress try to improve any of its manifest flaws, but instead they held hundreds of symbolic votes to repeal it and return to the status quo ante (which, prior to that, everyone had agreed was unacceptable - no presidential candidate of either party in living memory had failed to include healthcare reform in their platform). Republicans who had never objected to the individual mandate when they proposed it now claimed it was unconstitutional (Obama didn't help, by claiming for political reasons that it is not a tax). Romney ran for president on a platform that his healthcare plan was a good idea when he did it but a bad idea when Obama did it.
To liberal ears, it's really hard to explain how this was a principled stand against wacky liberal ideas run amok, and not simply an attempt to regain power by obstructing even previously-bipartisan ideas, even at the cost of damaging the country, to ensure that the other side couldn't take credit.
To my ears, it comes across as a desire to have no health-care reform at all, and blame it on the Democrats to boot. They just want to dismantle and privatize every public service they can, regardless of whether people actually rely on it or not.
David Frum argued against this and got booted from polite conservative company for his troubles. The Obama administration inserted poison pills into the bill, like some of the impositions on small businesses, as bargaining chips they could give up to Republicans in exchange for their support, but he seriously misjudged the Republican mood.
Fact is, in the middle of a massive recession when the government had just rammed through a really ugly trillion dollar bailout and the deficit was going through the roof, no conservative was going to vote for a massive new entitlement program. They wouldn't vote for it now, either.
You also have to understand how immensely unpopular Obamacare is with the Republican base, which has very little to do with Fox News and everything to do with how it's a massive wealth transfer from working taxpayers to the nonworking poor. Obama likes to crow about giving 20M people health coverage, but think of what that means: 300M already had it. And for those 300M, their health care coverage got worse and more expensive.
And Obama's "Elections have consequences. I won." line to Eric Cantor might, in retrospect, not have been the ideal way to get Republicans on side. Just throwing that one out there.
>Romney ran for president on a platform that his healthcare plan was a good idea when he did it but a bad idea when Obama did it.
Which was obvious bollocks, and one of the reasons he lost--there was absolutely no appetite for Romney among the Republican base. He was the Republican's Hillary Clinton.
>To liberal ears, it's really hard to explain how this was a principled stand against wacky liberal ideas run amok
Conservatives believe government is generally terrible at everything. They think the health care system needs less government, not more. Your default position when it comes to "will conservatives support x policy proposal" should be, "if it shrinks the government then yes, otherwise no".
The US currently has around $100T, with a 'T', in unfunded liabilities in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That gap is going to close one way or the other, either through increased taxes, decreased spending, or a sovereign debt crisis. Adding another massive chunk to that is a very bad idea that conservatives simply do not like. Paul Ryan isn't trying to cut Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security because he's a nasty man who hates poor people, he's doing it because the US simply cannot afford those programs and the only way to pay for them would be to massively raise taxes. If you're okay with that, vote Democrat.
>simply an attempt to regain power by obstructing even previously-bipartisan ideas, even at the cost of damaging the country, to ensure that the other side couldn't take credit.
There's a real divide in the GOP between the line-in-the-sand types and the responsible government types. You've got people like Boehner, who thought it was necessary to compromise with Obama on some things, and people like Cruz, who thought it was vital to take a stand and ensure the government did not continue to grow, even at the cost of shutting it down. While electoral politics certainly play some role in that, it really is driven by ideology. Ted Cruz, whatever else you might say about him, is not a flap-in-the-wind sort of guy. He's a true believer. Ditto Ryan.
Most GOP voters are not conservative true believers. The fact that Trump won the GOP nomination is proof enough of that.
I suspect the trillion-dollar infrastructure spend will happen. But the "Muslim registry", and similar illiberal proposals, will not.
How can a trillion dollars infrastructure spend under Trump and yet a health care plan that would save money be blocked by under Obama?
I applaud your constructive approach in this conversation BTW. And I hope you are right about blocking Trumps craziness.
>a health care plan that would save money be blocked by under Obama?
Which plan was this? Obamacare was a massive expenditure. If you're talking about proposals to improve it, why would Republicans try to fix a program they thought was ill-conceived and detestable in the first place? They now have the opportunity to repeal and replace Obamacare whole cloth. Let's see what they do with it.
>I applaud your constructive approach in this conversation BTW.
Thanks. I'm trying to be civil, hopefully with some success. I realize SV types aren't a natural audience for conservative views, but I think HN is a pretty good forum for people to discuss opposing views rationally and civilly.
>And I hope you are right about blocking Trumps craziness.
You and me both. I'm more hopeful than optimistic, at least in the first year while Congressional Republicans find their legs. My appraisal is that they'll probably pass some legislation that's anathemic to conservatives, but they'll stop short of endorsing illiberalism. There's a personal, moral difference between doing things you think are wrong and doing things you think are Wrong, and the latter will remind Republicans of who they are and what they believe.
[1] http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
[2] https://mises.org/library/if-men-were-angels
The money shot:
"The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
My hope is that Trump Twitter fatigue sets in very early.
I've been hoping that for a year now :(
Washington Post has asserted the claim that it is unconstitutional as a "3 pinocchios" falsity[1]
[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/...
I can't recommend a primary source that answers your question, as I've yet to find one. Vance aside, the white working class is not known for its prodigious literary output. But I found this article enlightening[1]. Granted, I'm a middle-class coastal professional, so my personal ability to discern its truth is limited. And the author injects a little too much of her own progressivism for my taste. But it passes the sniff test for me.
[1]https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-t...
I'm not trying to be cute here btw.
That's rich considering the popularity of conservatives books with titles like 'Liberalism is a mental disease' and 'Liberal fascism.'
How about Victoria (2014) by William S. Lind? There's a good conservative author for you. I would recommend everyone interested in politics to become familiar with his ideas.
In fact, I am commenting on the contents, not the title.
I have not read Victoria (2014) by William S. Lind, so I have no comment on that.
Regardless, I don't think that unhappiness of a work's subject with the portrayal therein necessarily carries any weight. Demonstrable inaccuracy would be a valid critique, but portraits can be both truthful and unflattering.
I also notice that I didn't say if I agreed or disagreed with the practice, nor have I read either book. Marketing is quite a nasty subject in its own right.
"Regardless, I don't think that unhappiness of a work's subject with the portrayal therein necessarily carries any weight. Demonstrable inaccuracy would be a valid critique, but portraits can be both truthful and unflattering."
raisspen found a nice review that points out the flaws https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13162277