Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Conservatism is dead. This is a class election not an ideology election.

The Flight 93 Election revisited By Vox Day September 14, 2016

Publius Decius Mus is taking a considerable amount of flak from conservatives because he is directly over the target, which is the staunchly pusillanimous way in which they have betrayed America and Americans for at least 50 years, and the way some of them are stilltrying to do so:
Conservatives have shouted since the beginning of Trump’s improbable rise: He’s not one of us! He is not conservative! And, indeed, in many ways, Trump is downright liberal. You might think that would make him more acceptable to the Left. But no. As “compassionate conservatism” did nothing to blunt leftist hatred of George W. Bush, neither do Trump’s quasi-liberal economic positions. In fact, they hate Trump much more. Trump is not conservative enough for the conservatives but way too conservative for the Left, yet somehow they find common cause. Earlier I posited that the reason is Trump’s position on immigration. Let me add two others.

The first is simply that Trump might win. He is not playing his assigned role of gentlemanly loser the way McCain and Romney did, and may well have tapped into some previously untapped sentiment that he can ride to victory. This is a problem for both the Right and the Left. The professional Right (correctly) fears that a Trump victory will finally make their irrelevance undeniable. The Left knows that so long as Republicans kept playing by the same rules and appealing to the same dwindling base of voters, there was no danger. Even if one of the old breed had won, nothing much would have changed, since their positions on the most decisive issues were effectively the same as the Democrats and because they posed no serious challenge to the administrative state.

Which points to the far more important reason. I urge readers to go back through John Marini’s argument, to which I cannot do anything close to full justice. Suffice to say here, the current governing arrangement of the United States is rule by a transnational managerial class in conjunction with the administrative state. To the extent that the parties are adversarial at the national level, it is merely to determine who gets to run the administrative state for four years. Challenging the administrative state is out of the question. The Democrats are united on this point. The Republicans are at least nominally divided. But those nominally opposed (to the extent that they even understand the problem, which is: not much) are unwilling or unable to actually do anything about it. Are challenges to the administrative state allowed only if they are guaranteed to be ineffectual? If so, the current conservative movement is tailor-made for the task. Meanwhile, the much stronger Ryan wing of the Party actively abets the administrative state and works to further the managerial class agenda.

Trump is the first candidate since Reagan to threaten this arrangement. To again oversimplify Marini (and Aristotle), the question here is: who rules? The many or the few? The people or the oligarchs? Our Constitution says: the people are sovereign, and their rule is mediated through representative institutions, limited by written Constitutional norms. The administrative state says: experts must rule because various advances (the march of history) have made governing too complicated for public deliberation, and besides, the unwise people often lack knowledge of their own best interests even on rudimentary matters. When the people want something that they shouldn’t want or mustn’t have, the administrative state prevents it, no matter what the people vote for. When the people don’t want something that the administrative state sees as salutary or necessary, it is simply imposed by fiat.

Don’t want more immigration? Too bad, we know what’s best. Think bathrooms should be reserved for the two biological sexes? Too bad, we rule. And so on and on.

To all the “conservatives” yammering about my supposed opposition to Constitutional principle (more on that below) and who hate Trump, I say: Trump is mounting the first serious national-political defense of the Constitution in a generation. He may not see himself in those terms. I believe he sees himself as a straightforward patriot who just wants to do what is best for his country and its people. Whatever the case, he is asserting the right of the sovereign people to make their government do what they want it to do, and not do things they don’t want it to do, in the teeth of determined opposition from a managerial class and administrative state that want not merely different policies but above all to perpetuate their own rule.

If the Constitution has any force or meaning, then “We the People” get to decide not merely who gets to run the administrative state—which, whatever the outcome, will always continue on the same path—more fundamentally, we get to decide what policies we want and which we don’t.
Conservatism as we have known it since Reagan is dead. Whether the Alt Right or NeoTrumpism or something else will ascend in its place is presently unknown, but we can be fairly certain that conservatives will never win another national election, thanks to the demographic transformation they supported, and, in many cases, still support.

Shed no tears and spare no pity for them. Like every ideology that stands in opposition to observable reality, their eventual irrelevance is assured, it is merely a question of time.


Julie Pascal said...

Meh. What seems apparent if you ever listen to a "reasonable" Democrat is that they really would rather have Trump win than any of the pablum and white bread "acceptable" Republican candidates and would rather have Trump win *and* be hung by their toenails than have Cruz or any "Tea Party" approved Republican win.

It's one thing to say, hey, early cross-overs were for the guy they were sure would be easy to beat. And maybe they're still thinking he's easy to beat. But for all the public drama, outrage, and never ending shrieking over him being a facist dictator in the making... they really and truly honest to dog have drunk their own koolaid to the extent that any *other* Republican candidate would be considered far worse if simply because they might be both evil *and* competent.

And I wonder, I really do, what do these people think a Republican is going to do that is so horrific they can't face the possibility of it? Raise spending on a government program 2% less than they'd prefer spending to be raised? Bomb farking Libya?

edutcher said...

A lot of people have been pushing the class election idea and there's truth to it, but I think a lot of people who, up to a couple of years ago, supported the Republican party have seen it (and them) sold out.

This is about restoring balance in a way that didn't exist when Reagan ran. The big parallel is Bucketmouth was at least as bad as Pissy.

Or vice versa.

The issue is now you even have large swathes of Democrats coming over - consider Western PA or blacks to the tune of 17% and hispanics by 30%, if you believe the LAT.

This is more than just class. It's who stands for this country and who doesn't.

Julie Pascal said...

Meh. What seems apparent if you ever listen to a "reasonable" Democrat is that they really would rather have Trump win than any of the pablum and white bread "acceptable" Republican candidates and would rather have Trump win *and* be hung by their toenails than have Cruz or any "Tea Party" approved Republican win.

Sorry, kid, but the One True Ted was no different than Jeb! or Little Marco once you looked under the hood.

That's why people soured on him when the vote poaching came out and why even Texans fell away when he showed he was more concerned about getting even with Trump than beating Frumpty.

Julie Pascal said...

Small beans infighting. Happens and we get past it most of the time. Note that Cruz didn't have a public fit and declare that he was running as an independent.

It will be very interesting to see if blue collar Dems cross over in large numbers. I won't find it surprising if they do, or if they don't, either way.

In the end it might all be as simple as: Did you experience the economic recovery? And if you did and are therefore employed, were you ever required to sit in a mandatory training class about how you're a horrible person because of your sex and skin tone?

Is there anything else?

edutcher said...

No, he just refused to go with everyone else and remember who the real enemy was. He did throw a tantrum that give aid and comfort to all the NeverTrumpers, not to mention the real enemy.

When your own delegation bails on you, you've jumped the track. When the retired governor polls better than you in your upcoming re-election bid, it's time to consider the words, "private practice"

bagoh20 said...

We have never run a conservative. The case has never even been attempted, let alone well made.

All that's new is that the butt hurt movement just added another team to the social justice league. Waaaaaaaa! I want mine. I want the government to make me feel important, and take care of me, and protect me from the mean people. So the same stupid mistakes will continue as both sides attempt to out-pander the other.

Do you want Trump to promise and then deliver goodies, promise just to win, or do something different than they always do?

bagoh20 said...

The force of The Constitution is to make change difficult - not easy. The problem is that the people have been choosing officials who go around The Constitution to help them "get mine". First one coalition, then another, and now another. Everybody gets theirs, but from who?

Trooper York said...

"We have never run a conservative."

That's the bullshit we hear over and over again. Just donate this much more. Just vote for this guy. Because you know he is going grab hold of the tiller and move the ship of state 180 degrees because conservatives really, really care about you.

Well the conservatives showed what they thought about the base. The average working class joe. Especially if he is white. They said "You should die. It is all your fault. Move away from the land of your fathers. Your communities are worthless. You are only there to give us votes."

So listen you need to be a pure pristine conservative. You need to not worry about "getting yours." Only a short fingered vulgarian asshole New Yorker would act in such an ungentlemanly way.

Patrick said...

I think the problem described indicts the Republican Party, not conservatism. They had several chances, but blew them. Our conservatism won't happen, that is true, but that's no reason to roll over and accept big government in everything. Bagoh is right, free stuff - from whom?

Trooper York said...

You need to abide by the constitution. Because the liberals do. It is not like they find new rights and ways to do what they want. With the help of so called "conservatives" like Roberts. A penalty is a tax. A baby is just a clump of cells. On and on and on and on.

So don't do things that give you an advantage. That gets you yours. Your tribe. You have to be better than that. Give it over to the minorities and the immigrants. Until you become a minority in your own town. Then you have to give up anyway.

Because that is what the Washington Generals Conservative Kabuki dance team signed on for and you better follow along. Or die.

Trooper York said...

"Free stuff - from whom?"

Wrong question. There is always free stuff from the government. The question is "for whom."

For your tribe. Your peeps. Your voting bloc. Selfishness is good.

If we make the moves to unshackle energy and business and increase American manufacturing to create good jobs we will have some money coming in. If we stop spending on bullshit like college educations when trade schools are what people need we will be way ahead of the game.

We need to turnover the moneylenders table in the Temple. You know be like Jesus.

Trooper York said...

Conservatism is as dead as Murphy's dick.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

I look at this election as the Addams playing with their trains. I just hope the Trump one derails the Hillary one.

edutcher said...

Troop, Kristol was never a Conservative, any more the Erickson and any of the Libertarians.

They used the name because the country is mostly center-right. alt-right is an offshoot of conservatism in that it;s policy ideas are more specific, but a lot of the principles are still there.

Simply because McConnell and Ryan call themselves Conservatives doesn't make it so.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

Constitution? We are way beyond Constitution. There will not be any Constitution if Hillary engages justices who think the 2nd Amendment is just a quaint anachronism of a dangerous bygone age. Who think they can create special rules for the Basket of Deplorables.

Trump may be a short fingered vulgarian, but he is a damn sight less dangerous than Hillary and her evil stooges.

Trooper York said...

Where did you get the idea that the country is now center/right?

People vote their self interest. We need to change the paradigm from ideology to class.

Because conservatism is a loser. Big time. It's like parachute pants.

We need a nationalistic pro American party. Not a pro conservative party. That is what this election is about.

Trooper York said...

I am primarily a social conservative. Just like many of the Evangelicals who support Trump to the consternation of hypocrites like Ted Cruz and Bill Maher and George Will. Because you see the concerns of social conservatives only get lip service from the so called conservatives. They want my vote but the don't deliver. So we have to go the route of Saint Benedict. Trump will help with that. He has said he will repeal the Johnson amendment so churches can get involved in politics without losing their tax exemption. He will not buy into the political correctness that sends a dude with a dick into a kindergarten bathroom. That's enough for me.

If he shakes up the gravy train so my peeps get a bigger rice bowl that is just fine with me.

Trooper York said...

What he fuck did the conservatives ever do for social conservatives? Did they defund Planned Parenthood? Did they stop abortions? Did they protect bakers who don't want to bake homo cakes? Did they pass Katie's law to deport illegal immigrant criminals? Did they even vote on it.

No they did not.

Now you are going to tell me that Trump supports Planned Parenthood. Of course he does. At least he is honest about it. He is doing it to get votes. But we are no worse off than if Paul Ryan was President.

I think on a lot of other issues Trump will take a common sense position that I can get behind.

The key is to live your own live as a social conservative and protect your family as best you can.

Conservatives offer nothing but more bullshit promises.

bagoh20 said...

Troop has been reading Marks. The merchant class isn't spared in the end. You better get out that Che shirt?

edutcher said...

OK, if you believe any survey, it's still 40% right, 40% center, 20% Left.

And the One True Ted and George Will, like Kristol, only call themselves Conservative - in fact, for years, Will was known as the "Perrier Conservative", he was so Lefty-safe; where you get the idea Bill Maher is one, I can't imagine.

bagoh20 said...

Social conservative is ideology - not class?

Methadras said...

I've told you guys for a long time here and you can go back and find my posts where I've told you that conservativism is dead.

bagoh20 said...

Trump is as far from a social conservative as any Republican nominee ever, and that's one thing I like about him.

edutcher said...

Trooper York said...

What he fuck did the conservatives ever do for social conservatives? Did they defund Planned Parenthood? Did they stop abortions? Did they protect bakers who don't want to bake homo cakes? Did they pass Katie's law to deport illegal immigrant criminals? Did they even vote on it.

That's the point. You're talking about the guys who love reaching across the aisle to their friends in the Democrat party and only trot out the C word when it was time to go home and get re-elected.

If you're saying deeds, not words, I agree with you. Anybody that's been paying attention knows that maybe 20% of Congress is truly Conservative. That's what primarying guys like Ryan and Little Marco is so important. Getting rid of the dead wood is the next big issue.

It's interesting people think the Tea Party was Conservative when it was run mostly by Libertarians, since a lot of "Tea Party favorites" like Little Marco have turned out to be disappointments. As I say, the principles of Conservatism are still valid, but, like the word, Liberal, it can be corrupted by corrupt people.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

And I've told you guys for along time here, and you can go back and find my posts, that you didn't care about conservatism. That got a few people really pissed. It was "who the hell are you to tell me I'm not conservative?" Well, if you were, YOU'RE dead now.

edutcher said...

I think the issue here is the Alt-right is an iteration of the basic Conservative principles of the country.

A new coat of paint, much as Buckley and Goldwater did. I do think it may be deeper than renaming old Liberals as Progressives, because the kind of fight a lot of people have been wanting seems to be back in style.


Methadras said...

Bag, not only do I care about conservativism, I am one as far as I understand it.

rcocean said...

What is conservatism? I was a Reagan conservative in the 80s and it meant respect for the Constitution, favoring free enterprise, love of country, anti-communism, and support for Church and family.

Then sometime in the late 90s and early 2000s conservatism came to mean "invade the world, invite the world", helping the Big Banks, bad trade deals, open borders, hating racism, and cutting deals with Ted Kennedy over education policy.

Oh, yeah and yapping about "limited government" and cutting farm subsidies and the capital gains tax.

Fuck that noise. If Jonah Goldberg and Mitt Romney are "conservative" than I'm Alt-right.

rcocean said...

That all the so-called "conservatives" liked Goldberg, Erickson, Bush II, Romney, Kristol, Will, Beck, NRO, etc. don't give a damn about stopping Hillary, shows them for the $3 phonies they always were.

Where have the "conservatives" been for the last 16 years? They say they love "small government" which is why they can't support Trump. But they've done NOTHING in the last 16 years to prevent the massive rise in Federal spending. They've done NOTHING for social conservatives. They've done NOTHING to prevent the USA from turning into Brazil Nortre.

You're left with either two options: they're either frauds or worthless incompetents.

Sixty Grit said...

I hope Trump gets elected and does for comb-overs what JFK did for hats. No, wait, the opposite - I am thinking of growin' out a wicked long comb-over. Like 3 feet of hair, all wrapped around my head like my last name is Singh.

Synova said...

"Liberal" as a word is descriptive of an objective thing... individual rights, individual agency, individual expression, a belief that all people *need* those things no matter who they are or in what culture. Person to person contracts, free association, free markets. If one "liberalizes" a market, that has a meaning. "Liberalizing" laws has a meaning. Not an anarchy by any means but government aimed at protecting individual autonomy. In the world "neo-liberal" refers to capitalism and a free market.

The opposite of "Liberal" is "Statist." Government doing it for you. Government handling your morality, your checkbook, your life. All bad things need to be illegal. All good things need to be compelled.

"Left" and "Right" are generally, mostly, and always have been Statists with different ideas of which things ought to be forbidden and which things ought to be compelled and which small areas might be left to individuals. I forget that sometimes but in general terms my "Left" and my "Right" relatives or friends are no different from each other in that they want government to reflect their own desires. I forget that the Right is mostly Statists so promising laws about this or that thing, if it's what they'd like to have or think people should do or not do, is going to appeal to a very large number of people.

And then there are "Progressives" and there are "Conservatives". Neither of those have anything whatsoever to do with policies or ideologies or a given set of beliefs beyond... "Progress is always good and how dare you impede progress when we're trying to help people," and "Progress must be slow enough to evaluate the results of changes so that bad things are not introduced and good things are not thrown away." This is a method of evaluating things. These are not the *things* themselves.

Okay so far?

So here's a new one. A new pair of things. People First and Principles First.

Synova said...

"Stealing from people is wrong," is a principle. "Unless you're poor," puts people before that principle. "Lying is wrong," is a principle. "Unless it's for a good cause," puts people before that principle. "Free Speech must always be protected," is a principle. "Unless it hurts someone's feelings," puts people before that principle. "Assumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt," is a principle. "Unless someone is accused of rape," is putting people before that principle. "Absolute equality under the law," is a principle. "Unless we need to make up for past grievance," puts people before that principle.

Some of what Trooper said made me think of this. Why? Because the issue with putting people before principle is that it only protects or helps who you LIKE. And I'm sure that you noticed that my examples weren't random. Those who's politics are based on how much they CARE, put people before principles and call you mean if you disagree. The 1st Am? Not if it hurts someone. The 2nd Am? Not if it hurts someone. The 3rd Am? 4th? 5th? 10th? The Bill of Rights? Not if it hurts someone, and lookie there... you're MEAN. Also, we cheered Wiki-leaks but now ought you not adhere to your principles and pretend not to have that information?

So are you a chump if you don't work to make sure that this time the people YOU like get the upper hand?


I'm not talking about taking the high ground. But fighting dirty for principles that apply to everyone, that protect everyone, is the difference between continuing civilization and not. This one way, one sided, one directional, "it's good when I do it for a good cause", disrespect of the dignity of half the population in service of some notion of dignity for the other half...

That's why it's about CLASS, about which CLASS you belong to, about how YOU have been treated.

And we can't even have the conversation because someone will make it about "You're MEAN."

Trooper York said...

It might surprise you to hear that I agree with what you say Synova.

Because the time for playing nice is over. The time for fighting for other people instead of your tribe is over. You have to protect yourself and people like you. Politicians won't do it. Ideology won't do it. It is the same as it ever was.

Everything you quoted is the essence of political correctness. I don't want to do that anymore. I want to help and protect the people and the things I like. It is crass. It is crude. It is self interest. It is the human condition. I know it is certainly not Christian. It is the law of the jungle. We live in an jungle right now not a seminary.

The Muslims and the forces unleashed by their jihad have brought us to this. I was at the 911 memorial yesterday. Should we wait until they explode a nuclear bomb in NYC before we do something. It seems like the Iranians and the North Koreans really respect us. It seems like ISIS will not act like savages and kill us indiscriminately. It seems like every illegal immigrant gets to game the system while regular Americans get screwed.

I am for me and mine and screw everybody else. We had a saying when I was a kid. "Hurray for me and fuck you." It is that simple.

Trooper York said...

I have you been watching the History Channel series "The Vikings?"

It sort give you an over view of where we are right no. Invasions of the homeland by aliens. Destruction of a cultured polite Christian society.

Watch Ragner at the gates of Paris. Hmmmmmmmm. Paris. That shit seems to be happening again.

Trooper York said...

You are most likely the only person here who reads more science fiction than I do. You know all about the Rabid Puppies and the fights against the SJW's. Science fiction has many stories about first contact and aliens meeting new civilizations. They are almost always bullshit. Especially the social justice ones where there is a great civilized meeting and peaceful relations. That never happens. The strong exploit the weak. Even today. It is the same as it ever was.

In the Dark Ages. In the future. Reality doesn't change.

Trooper York said...

You see to the elites we are the guys in the red shirts. Fuck Starfleet.

Synova said...

There's a line in... golly, Barrayar I think. (The novel.) Where Cordelia is having a conversation with Emperor Yuri, I think. Gosh, it's been a long time since I re-read that. I might be totally mistaken. But they discuss which to put first, people or principles. And I *think* that Cordelia says "people". I must have read that 15 or more years ago and it never made sense. I'd heard the terms here and there... but it didn't make sense. Certainly putting principle first is HOW one puts people first? If one wants to protect people then strictly adhering to principles of equality and individual rights was how you did that. The notion of putting a person before a principle was so nonsensical it was like... how can you put a person before that person's own rights? How?

And yeah, the mess in the sci-fi community, where prominent authors are publicly arguing against the principle of freedom of speech, with all earnestness and NO concept of the absurd, is why it makes sense to me now.

If I put the people I LIKE or the people I feel need a boost or the people who are MY people ahead of principles that apply equally to everyone... well dang. Winner take freaking all. We're toast.

And maybe we ARE toast.

It makes "winning" a much more serious and fraught problem. It's no longer SAFE to LOSE.

Trooper York said...

"It makes "winning" a much more serious and fraught problem. It's no longer SAFE to LOSE"

911 with a dirty bomb.

We are there. Right now.

Synova said...

The beauty of a Republic with a Constitution that applies to all people equally with equal rights, emphasizing liberty and protecting the individual against the majority is that it is SAFE to LOSE.

When it's not safe to lose, well then, what is ever again unacceptable to make sure you win?

Trooper York said...

Here's an example of where you put people first over laws. In colonial America there were taxation laws put over the property and persons of Englishmen without their voices being heard in the form of their elected representatives. They put the people first over the laws and principles of the divine rights of kings.

People over principles. Or more correctly their principles over other peoples principles. Because principles are nothing more than rules that you live by. I like my principles more than your principles because they benefit me.

Raw naked self interest. Period.

Trooper York said...

"When it's not safe to lose, well then, what is ever again unacceptable to make sure you win?"

Pretty much nothing is unacceptable to make sure you win. The Americans who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima understood that. The Americans who slaughtered the Indians and stole their land to build their country understood that. The Mafia guys who killed Kennedy understood that.

We have lost that. It has always been a part of American life. We did what we had to do. You wrapped it up in the flag but you did it. Not so much anymore.

rcocean said...

Speaking of SF. I'm almost thru "A dance of dragons". What does anyone think of George Rape.Rape. Martin?

I don't know what's more amazing, his ability to create an interesting, lively fantasy world, or his bizarre love of sexual violence, creepy characters, and plots that go nowhere.

I'm trying to think of female character who hasn't been raped or killed. Yet, George Martin is loved by liberals - just like Clinton.

bagoh20 said...

I'm not part of a tribe. It's dumb, unthinking, and the opposite of what being an American was and still should be. There is no place in such a mindless association for me. As I've said to Ritmo on several occasions, there is a whole world full of places with your vision, can we just have one exceptional place in the world? Tribal bullshit is the source of mankind's greatest failures and atrocities. America has always been about leaving that shit behind. It's not new, smart, special or successful. It's just easy, because it's free. It's all you have left after you have surrendered everything that's earned. I'm not what I was born - I'm what I've made from it, and I'm not surrendering it. America's promise is not a silly tribe that you imagine you belong to. That smallness is an insult to so many who have sacrificed so much to get beyond it.

Trooper York said...

The Constitution died with the Obamacare rulings, the executive orders on immigration,the Iranian nuclear deal without Senate approval and the destruction of peoples businesses when they didn't acquiesce in celebrating gay marriages. The laws are being used to protect only "protected classes." That is why you never see a straight white victim of a hate crime. That is why people get fired when they stop men from going into the little girls rooms. The principle of equal protection under the law is out the window. Ask any straight white kid accused of rape in some tin pot college.

Their principles. Not mine.

rcocean said...

"I'm not part of a tribe. It's dumb, unthinking, and the opposite of what being an American was and still should be."

The world is full of tribes and always has been. You have the luxury of thinking yourself a special snowflake, army of one, because you belong to a tribe called the United States of America (white peoples branch).

Go to Japan,Israel, China or Russia and tell them you're a world citizen, the great Mr. Bags and see how far it get you.

Chip Ahoy said...

Who said conversation is dead? I just now had an excellent conversation with two people at the deli, a lovely lady of lesbian persuasion bagging groceries, and delightfully cheerful mentally challenged dude outside collecting carts. Then almost had an accident on the way home, my poor judgement and impatience, and the person who saved us both honked his horn at me like a maniac, and that's a conversation in its way. Then parking my truck my timing coincided with two neighbor also parking their car right next to mine. And then going through one of two doors downstairs, a dude conversed while insisting on holding up my door, which is quite heavy and a challenge for everyone. And then upstairs my neighbor who carried off two huge trash bags at once -- It's awesome seeing people do that -- stopped briefly to converse. That's quite a lot of conversing for one tiny short trip. So shut up. No, wait. I meant to say just now, that's proof conversation is alive and well. You just have to start talking and show that you're human.


Yes, I know quite well how to read.

Synova said...

Tribal, yes. Because people are social and we're not social at the scale of millions. We're social in smaller groups than that. Hostile to other "tribes"... that's entirely optional.

And yeah, I suppose "My people first, yours can fuck off and die," is a *principle*. Technically.

But I'm not about to cede the field. Centuries of philosophy completely down the tubes? Might as well pretend that Keynesian economics work because the powers that be have the upper hand in redistributing wealth. The end result of winner take all, not safe to lose, might be better *longer* if you're the winner, but getting eaten last is still getting eaten. I'm sure there are still people in Venezuela with enough to eat. The system is still rotted. A political system in the US of winner take all, screw the Constitution, screw the rights of half the population because I want to prove that I'm a caring person who cares... rotted.

Not a thing to do this election, at least not at the top and I have hope that Trump will actually not be bad, somehow. It can't be that bad. It could actually turn out pretty well if I close my eyes and remind myself that we're really not at the point YET when there can be no reassertion of a system of laws not men. I'll probably even vote for him, most likely. He can't be worse than Hillary and golly if he doesn't at least understand the *concept* of being FOR America. People are so tired of being beaten down when they didn't DO anything.

But winner take all, my people on top this time... hell, that's what they had in Iraq (probably do again) that's what they have in every hell hole on the planet. Life is good if you're Sunni (but not Kurdish), and life is hell if you're Shi'a or some other group. Most of Africa functions that way. Note that people aren't trying to move to Africa. It's a diseased philosophy.

Synova said...

"You just have to start talking and show that you're human."

Thank you for that, Chip. I'm a grump and somehow you're always uplifting. Maybe the world needs more Chips. Many, many, more Chips.

Sixty Grit said...

I went onsite yesterday to build some stair railings for a friend whose elderly mother is visiting.

It was very hot and humid and my friend's mother brought me a glass of water. She is in her 80s and lives in Louisiana. She started talking about politics and said that she could never vote for Hillary "That awful woman - why does she stay with that man?" - to her, staying with a cheating husband is as immoral as the cheating itself.

I found that perspective interesting. Not sure how many other people look at the Clintons' relationship like that, but she was going to vote for Trump.

Does that make her a conservative? It just might - she is a moral, church going woman who thinks we have obligations to live our life based on rules that go back further than the founding of this nation.

That's today's anecdote.

AprilApple said...

People are so tired of being beaten down when they didn't DO anything.

The Clintons and the protected class of Hollywood desperately want that beat-down to continue.

AprilApple said...

I'm not what I was born - I'm what I've made from it, and I'm not surrendering it. America's promise is not a silly tribe that you imagine you belong to. That smallness is an insult to so many who have sacrificed so much to get beyond it.


bagoh20 said...

Not a world citizen - I pay enough taxes already. Just an American, not a branch, not hyphenated - 100% American - by definition not tribal.

I guess what's comforting about belonging to an imaginary tribe is that you can just assume who is in it and who isn't, and claim them as comrades in your class struggle, but they may see you as the enemy. Do you know the secret handshake? Don't have one? You better get on that, and maybe get your own hat: "Make my tribe great again!" That's a winner, Pocahontas.

bagoh20 said...

"Tribal, yes. Because people are social and we're not social at the scale of millions. We're social in smaller groups than that. "

People are also, murderous, racist, exclusionary, larcenous and a lot of other natural, but undesirable qualities. Fortunately, we are usually also intelligent enough to fight those things with law and agreement, self control and compromise, respect and tolerance. That's what being civilized is, and the height of civilization is the American experiment. Just because it hits some bumps and has some setbacks from corrupt individuals isn't enough to get me to abandon it. Some may be less dedicated and easily peeled off into their tiny safe spaces.

Jim in St Louis said...

Synova- good shit right there.

Amartel said...

The Constitution is not dead. This assumes it was alive at some point, a view that is derived from the constantly repeated to the point where it's become internalized progressive fiction that it is a "living" document.
It's not a living document. Documents aren't alive.
It's not even, technically, a document.
It's a set of principles (documented at our nation's outset) that we either follow or allow our public servants to circumvent and dilute. It's a road map to a balanced government that also recognizes previously suppressed individual rights (to speak and worship freely, to defend oneself, to be free from unreasonable government searches and land grabs and cruel and unusual punishment, etc.). Progs want to pretend it's a "living" document (a concept they stole from religion) so they can expand individual rights to include things that heretofore have been individual obligations (health care, welfare, housing, etc.). They call these "positive" rights as opposed to the "negative" rights currently recognized under the Constitution that place limits on the government. Only a prog would think that limiting government is a "negative" right. Turning individual obligations into positive rights is wicked and evil prog propaganda. It makes the individual a ward of the State and ultimately no more than a powerless pawn, a cog in the big state machine. You may have the right to healthcare but your individual healthcare will be sacrificed for the good of the many. Just ask smokers or fat people in England. No more life-saving operations for them (unless they're valuable cronies, probably).

We could go full Venezuela and the Constitution would not be dead.
The Constitution is not dead until and unless we forget how incredibly important it is.
It was a quantum leap forward in terms of human governance.
Re-directing the flow of free shit and positive rights is not a good answer to our problems. I expect that if Trump continues to surge the fakeconomy will finally be allowed to crater anyway so there won't be any free shit to give away anyway. Problem solved.

Methadras said...

rcocean said...

I don't know what's more amazing, his ability to create an interesting, lively fantasy world, or his bizarre love of sexual violence, creepy characters, and plots that go nowhere.

You mean a Bill Clinton biography?

Trooper York said...

My grandmother used to make tripe with potatoes and olives. It was hard to choke down.

Sanctimonious tripe is even harder to swallow.

Trooper York said...

The set of principles and laws set up by proprieted Englishmen in the 18th century will never be respected by the savages now being imported wholesale into our nation.

If you think that you are just foolish.

rcocean said...

Meth- haha.

Good one.

rcocean said...

Open borders really worked out well for the native Hawaiians and the American Indians. But we'll be different.

Yep, yep.