Thursday’s Forum
Steven L. Taylor
·
Thursday, January 30, 2025
·
96 comments
OTB relies on its readers to support it. Please consider helping by becoming a monthly contributor through Patreon or making a one-time contribution via PayPal. Thanks for your consideration.
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a retired Professor of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored
A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on
Twitter
Airplane collisions didn’t happen when we had a gay Transportation Secretary!
DEI saves lives!
Waiting for @Kathy to weigh in on the crash. Strikes me as odd that a Blackhawk was on a training mission in a flight path.
Quite the week to be purging the staff of the FAA to fill their ranks with unqualified lackeys.
Eight days ago:
Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Ends DEI Madness and Restores Excellence and Safety within the Federal Aviation Administration
Last night:
American Airlines jet with 64 aboard collides with Army helicopter at Reagan Airport near DC
Right now the FAA does not have even an acting director, there’s a hiring freeze on already very short-handed air traffic controllers and the FAA, and Trump fired all the members of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee on January 21st.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/
I’m also glad to see some Southern politicians finally willing to be their true self — and fly their Nazi colors.
Missouri institutes Informants program — yep, straight out of the Nazi era. Informing on neighbors was a key feature of that Germany.
If you call the Tip Line and turn in an immigrant, you get a grand! Good times.
Just FYI, being in the US illegally remains a misdemeanor.
It can happen here — because Republicans want it.
@Gavin:
Call the tip line and report Elon Musk. Get your neighbors and friends to help. Host tip-calling parties at your house. Celebrate the most creative descriptions they can invent to describe Musk. Make sure they mention he was seen at the local supermarket arguing with the staff about not being able to buy imported foodstuffs there. Mention that someone whose brother-in-law is a local realtor claims that he knows another realtor who is looking around for local property for Musk to purchase. Save Missouri before it’s too late!
@Michael Reynolds:
There’s not much to tell yet. What was a helicopter doing in that airspace, what altitude was it at, did it have a transponder on, did it have functioning TCAS gear? No idea.
One thing worth noting, though, is the airline involved. The news call it PSA, which is accurate, stating it flew on behalf of American Airlines. In fact, PSA is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Airlines Group. So one can call it an American Airlines flight.
Transponder and TCAS are highly relevant. The little known fact about civilian radar is that it doesn’t detect aircraft, but rather it interrogates transponders. The latter transmit altitude, heading, speed, and other info on the aircraft. Military aircraft do have transponders, but they are commonly switched off near or in hostile territory, to make them harder to detect and identify. A military craft on a training mission might have done this.
@Gavin:
Also a prominent policy of East Germany, the Stasi had an huge informant program.
edit: So they want to imprison them for life, at an average cost of $33,000/year per immigrant.
Stupid R’s
According to Hegseth, the soldiers on the helicopter had night vision goggles.
The helicopter was also flying well above the mandated limit of 200 feet.
Does anyone else’s view of the comments have missing timestamps? The day is there, but not the time.
@Michael Cain:
No time stamps for me, either. Nor for the past few days.
@Michael Cain: @CSK:
It’s just more evidence that we are in a middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, between the pit of our fears, and the summit of our knowledge. We have drifted into the dimension of imagination. The problem I’m having is I don’t know what to call where we are.
@Michael Reynolds:
Given that Trump is prez, we’re probably in The Toilet Zone.
I have a question and I’m trying not to be inflammatory about it. The question is: why is so much of contemporary Conservatism based on lies and lying?
Think of any topic and the Conservative position starts and ends with lies. This predates Trump, although now it’s just a fire hose of lies. Look at any of the trans stuff, or abortion, the first it’s all lies from top to bottom.
Regan did it masterfully with trickle-down economics or the racist welfare queen lies. All of the Conservative positions about the civil war and Black civil rights start and rest on lies. Like, it’s not a lie to argue that the U.S. shouldn’t pay reparations for slavery because that was a lot time ago and no one alive now was back then. Fine. I think it’s wrong, but it’s not a lie. But it is a lie to say that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery and was actually about tariffs.
My father in law likes to tell me that there was no trans people before recently (a lie) and that it wasn’t until queer people “started shoveling it down everyone’s throats” that it got bad for us. He likes to claim that everyone was fine with gay people until the 80’s (pants on fire lie).
I really don’t get it. If the Conservative position is that we have to go slow and keep traditional values/whatever, why do they have to lie about how bad it was for women or minorities in the past.
I could spend the next hour thinking about the lies that are just accepted and regurgitated by Conservatives about Women, Black people, or Queer people. It really seems to me that to be a contemporary conservative, one has to accept a mountain of lies to be let in.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot and would appreciate some respectful holes punched in my argument. Weirdo troll bs not welcome.
@Michael Reynolds:
Interregnum.
The old world (post U.S. Civil War U.S. ascendancy) has died and the new world has yet to be born.
Uncharitably, Ronald Regan gave us AIDS and Donald Trump decided the patient wasn’t worth saving.
Whatever goes around comes around, but IOKIYAR.
Regular readers here know that I think the whole Hillary’s emails thing was just bogus from the start. Like Hillary, her predecessors all used private email accounts for their non-secret government email because of how difficult it was to use the government system. The one thing that she did that was different was host that private email on a dedicated server rather than, say, use an AOL account as Colin Powell did, and that was much, much more secure than Powell’s efforts. But we had years of “But Her Emails!” and all that ensued. The Republicans put out so much bullshit about it all that many otherwise reasonble people became convinced there must be something there.
Now, though, it is Elon Musk that is setting up a private server, and not just for himself but is also demanding that the entire OPM use it. Need I say that not a single Republican will raise so much as an eyebrow?
Don’t get too excited. This is not the asteroid that will end humanity and all life on Earth.
However, it’s a good chance to try out asteroid interception and diversion techniques. I see two options:
1) Once we know the asteroid won’t strike Earth, we can try altering its trajectory so it moves to a far different neighborhood. Asteroids that intersect our orbit keep coming back again and again.
2) If it is going tos trike, then it’s imperative to divert it. Now, It may sound like getting it to impact Mar a Lardo or Xtarbase or the Kremlin would be easier and cheaper than getting it to miss the planet entirely, and that is likely so. But even a tiny error might make it strike someplace important or full of people.
In any case, nazi in chief Xlon should volunteer to foot the bill for the entire operation.
@Kathy: I happened to go from here to Mistermix at Balloon Juice.
He quotes an expert as saying the TCAS by design does not provide a solution, i.e. “climb” or “descend”, below 1,000 ft.
It occurs to me that the airliner would have been slow and throttled back. Its ability to pull up sharply would be limited.
@Beth: @Beth:
Again, it’s good to have you here commenting.
@Beth: I don’t think that’s inflammatory, and I won’t even get on my hobbyhorse about the difference between small-c concervative policies and capital-C Conservatism as a movement with a self applied label. The reality is that almost the entire Republican leadership and the vast majority of the rank and file have either completely left reality or are indifferent to reality and driven completely by anger, revenge and owning the libs. (Could be both, I guess.) You can’t have a discussion with them, no more than I can have a discussion with the guy I pass on the streetcorner on my way home every day shouting about all the people out to get him and the things that have been implanted in his head. The few remaining Republican leaders that have some semblance of normalcy are at the state level. And those are being actively driven out by the loons.
@MarkedMan:
None of them did when 22 million official emails of W. Bush staff were lost from the RNC server they continued to use while in government.
@Beth:
I’ve ranted about this many times. They are incapable of honestly explaining what they want because what they want is to hurt people. Either prey on them financially, or use law to punish people they don’t like. One of the reasons they love Trump is that he gets so close to a more honest statement of naked greed and hate. It reassures them that they aren’t the pieces of shit they really are.
Incidentally, Daughter #1 is reporting that Trans passports may be being deliberately held up.
@Gavin:
Missouri, the Rush Limbaugh and Show Me state.
Post WWII, under Soviet rule, East Germany and their Stasi operation, had an extensive network that involved constant surveillance and citizens ratting out and informing on fellow citizens.
@Beth:
Because they are a plutocratic party with a populist facade. Their only platform is tax cuts and regulatory relief for big corporations and wealthy individuals. But they need a majority, or at least a big enough plurality to get by on the unrepresentative Senate, the filibuster, gerrymandering, and Rent-a-Scotus. What else can they do but lie?
I hope Democrats aren’t buying into the narrative that we are on an inevitable path to an enduring fascism. Nothing is inevitable. Gallup shows Trump, after a brief honeymoon, sitting on approval of about 47%, with 48% disapproving. Other polls – ignoring the GOP house polls – have him up 3 points at best.
He is vulnerable to a class-based, anti-oligarch attack, as well as ridicule for his incompetence and ignorance. When Trump walks back his inflation claims, we should not shrug it off. That’s him throwing MAGA under Elon’s bus.
@Beth:
So. Here is my inflammatory take that many people will find very offensive:
My view is that conservatism is heavily influenced by Christianity, especially traditionalist (Catholic) or southern (“Evangelical”) flavors. People grow up in that environment where a whole lot of lying is going on, people become accustomed to it.
It is, just in my opinion, pretty obvious that the 4 canonical gospels are pretty much entirely fabricated legend from beginning to end, a lot of stuff that never happened. So people get trained from an early age to make peace with a totally alternate reality.
Then too, there is a whole lot of contemporary lying going in, for example, many megachurchs. People just get accustomed to living with an alternate reality.
ETA: Note, also, that belief is demanded. It is not enough to behave in a Christian manner, you are required to believe it all happened as related too, resurrection, afterlife, the whole nine yards.
@gVOR10:
That is a large part of the motivation. It is not an explanation of why people are receptive to believing their lies.
@Beth: Could you pick one issue and list the 3-4 key conservative positions?
@Beth:
Because contemporary conservatives are amoral. No integrity. Unethical, and not good people.
That’s it. That’s the tweet.
Fortune, the job of being specific is on you. That’s right: Others get to sharpshoot the conservative “position,” and you’re defending it.
All the conservative wanna-be trolls can’t handle that smoke — even with the “benefit” of cherry-picking the content.
Of course, there is no content to conservative “positions” other than owning the libz that live rent-free in their heads.
@charontwo:
While I agree with your larger point, biblical inerrancy is an Evangelical thing and has no part in either the Roman Catholic Church or the mainline Protestant faiths. In fact there are only three doctrines that have received the imprimatur of Papal Infalliblity and none of them could be proven or disproven. (Mary was born without original sin; an undefined miracle takes place when the priest raises the host above his head during mass; I forget the third)
@Beth:
What ahs been answered, and if propaganda were honest it would not be needed.
@Michael Reynolds: Washington like many other large metropolitan areas is what is known in FAA parlance is class B airspace, the most highly regulated and controlled flying area in the country. In class B airspace all aircraft must at all times have a transponder and must be in two way radio communication with the controllers. VFR (visual flight rules) flight although highly restricted is permitted. That exception is almost always for helicopter flight. Many helicopters are fully equipped for instrument flight. the UH-60 is one such aircraft, none the less helicopters most often fly under visual flight rules. Because areas like Washington have a very high volume of helicopter traffic, special helicopter routes are mapped out in the class A. These routes are planned to avoid IFR routes and approach corridors and are all low level, usually 200 feet, but unavoidably they will be close to IFR routes or approach and departure corridors. Helicopter pilots are trained and briefed to fly the helicopter routes as charted and by necessity train flying these routes in conditions, they are expected to fly on missions including nighttime. So, it was not unusual for the helicopter to flying at night. The question to be answered is whether the helo was on the route or did it deviate, and were the controllers aware of its location prior to the collision.
I randomly checked OTB posts all the way back to a year ago when OTB turned 21.
Can’t find any timestamps.
Yet somehow I think that we’ve all got time enough to cry.
@Mister Bluster:
They all seem to have vanished.
@CSK, @Mister Bluster, anyone else:
OTB HQ made the decision to remove the time stamp. Removing that trailing “at” is surprisingly more difficult than expected and it will go at some point.
@Gavin: No, I’m not going to claim the conservative position is right. Just that it’s not solely lies. I’ve never hear the Civil War was solely about tariffs and I don’t think that’s essential to anyone’s position on reparations, so what am I supposed to say. I need to know what Beth thinks conservatives believe before I can answer.
@Mister Bluster:
Did the same a few days ago (checked old postings).
They had timestamps when first posted (only know that because I printed the screen at the time)
but those same posting no longer have the time of posting.
@Gavin, @Fortune, & @Beth:
(Start unsolicited advice)
Before getting to examples, I’d suggest that everyone first jump to the “No Good Scotsman” phase of the argument and try to define what/who you are talking about when you talk about “conservative.” Trust me, the discussion will end up there.
Or just jump to the personal attacks phase, because, also trust me, it will end up there as well.
(Closes unsolicited advice)
@Fortune:
Serious note: thank you for posting that clarification. It helps a lot in understanding your approach to questioning.
@charontwo:
I get your general thrust, and I think the point about mega churches is interesting, but Christianity, including the unique American Evangelical Christianity, has existed for millennia. The swing to reactionary conservatism is a relatively new phenomenon popping up in the last 30 years, and is a global phenomenon.
Where it has been most acute–America–we’ve seen both church attendance and self-identification as Christian fall of pretty drastically during this same time period. If it’s “Christianity” that’s causing American right wing reactionary movement, why is it happening during a decline in Christianity, and what explains the rest of the world?
Was in the car when Trump had his press conference today, it was sickening from so many standpoints.
How many people now believe that severely psychologically impaired, (and the deaf dumb and blind) are qualified to be Air Traffic controllers under Biden’s policy?
My first reaction is to just ignore Trump’s BS ( for my personal sanity), but if he’s not challenged on things like this —- what is the likelihood that such BS becomes prevailing “common knowledge”
BTW: IF Trump’s BS about the quality of controllers is (even somewhat accurate), WHY would anyone feel safe flying before he replaces the whole staff of controllers.
Remember a million years ago yesterday when I said that rescind of no rescind we are not done wit the Republican shitshow?
My SIL, who volunteers for a group that resettles refugees in her area, including Afghanis who assisted and worked for the US military in Afghanistan and whose lives are now in danger, had signed contracts with the US government and so they started the process of relocation, incurring massive (for them), expenses.
Yesterday, 12:48 PM – Text from here in a whirlwind because they had just been informed they would not get the funds. This was followed up by a text from my wife, who works at a small non-profit revolving around child-abuse prevention and recovery, saying that the heads of the whole network of similar organizations were now in frantic phone calls as many of them had significant federal grants and they will not be able to make payroll.
Yesterday, 1:10 PM – SIL texts “Sounds like they rescinded the order. Boneheads.
Today, 1:03 PM SIL reports that the funds are still stopped. She (and I) requests that everyone contact their political reps (especially Republican ones) and let them know in no uncertain terms this is not acceptable
@charontwo: I suppose you’re right that that’s a part of it, but I think a more direct explanation is that the right (not “conservative”) saw the opportunity to go from merely spinning reality a few decades ago to outright propaganda. If you’re not actually invested in truth and decency, like so many of the leaders on the right anymore, then it’s not a huge leap. They have the money and widespread media (social and traditional) now to make it effective.
And, add the boiled frog phenomenon, where the slow pressure over time causes the window to continuously, gradually move right, absorbing more and more people. They played the long, long game.
Regarding Beth’s question, though, I would say it’s because lying works to get them what they want and now they can’t stop. And it works because of stupid people with shitty values….
@Matt Bernius: It’d be too much on a daily thread to defend all of conservatism. We might not even get to the personal attacks. Beth wanted an answer, so I’m trying.
Testing my status…. (please delete)
@Neil Hudelson:
That’s precisely why. Roman Catholics didn’t go around burning people on the regular. . . unless there were competitors. Cathars, Jews, Muslims, Lutherans, etc… Oppression is the reaction to perceived threat. It’s about downward mobility, a sense of loss of status, a threat. See also: Christian freak-outs over Communism.
The threat to Christianity in the US is quite clear, and felt most profoundly by evangelical denominations since they are meant to be attracting converts.
In Europe you have largely secular populations, so the fear of lost status centers more on ethnicity. It’s not the Christians losing steam, it’s the native-born Italians, or French, or Swedes, fearing a loss of status, mostly to Muslims, in part because first-gen Muslims still have babies and Europeans don’t. American conservatives are widely racist but it’s harder in such a diverse nation to get as much unity behind racial paranoia.
Well, I’ve learned something today.
The left is pure, not engaging in political dirty tricks, or propaganda like, oh, peeing on beds or paid for “dossiers” proving Russian collusion. Or that Wuhan was not the source of a virus that killed millions, all for the lefts hero, Fauci, and his gain of function dreams. Or that Joe Biden wasn’t a vegetable the last three years. Or that Obama didn’t sic the IRS on disfavored organizations Or you can keep your doctor. Or……
Well, I don’t think we really need to go to the real pros: Bill and Hill.
Good to know.
@Fortune: Then your job is even easier. Finding one thing that conservatives believe that is demonstrably true will deconstruct Beth’s argument.
And no, you don’t have to know what Beth believes to perform this task. Don’t dissemble, it shames Derrida. 🙁
@Matt Bernius:..OTB HQ made the decision to remove the time stamp.
What time did you do this?
@Bobert: I’m not sure the raw numbers are as important as the fact that people who will believe that will believe whatever fuels their bigotry and contempt for others. What percentage of the population this group represents is probably more important, but, as always, YMMV.
@Connor: You certainly drew a lousy assignment, trying to trick anyone here with your pathetic illogic.
@Fortune:
In case my remark came across as snarky, it wasn’t intended. This is exactly the way I interpreted it. And like I said, understanding that was what was guiding your comment helps me understand our interactions more.
@Michael Reynolds: Honestly, I think blaming religion is aiming at the wrong target. Do people commit atrocities in the name of religion? Sure, but people who want to commit atrocities have done so in the name of nationality, ethnicity, regional affiliation, race, gender and even atheism. It’s about achieving and maintaining power by setting groups against each other and leading the charge. Or it’s about doing the same just because you love chaos, i.e. “We have to tear it all down so we can rebuild it!”.
When the Catholic Church had earthly political power they behaved as an entity with earthly political power, i.e. badly. And when King Henry VIII founded Episcopalism and put himself at the head of the church it wasn’t because of his religious fervor, and it wasn’t because the Pope wouldn’t let him divorce his wives. It was because the Catholic Church in England was rich and Henry was bankrupting the country with his ill conceived wars. The goal wasn’t really correcting some religious doctrines, it was confiscating that land. Bottom line, almost every large scale, organized religious atrocity is, at it’s heart, the result of power or money seeking. As is nationalism and all that other stuff. It just turns out that shouting, “OTHER! GET THEM!!” is still a very effective way to get people to do what you want them to do.
Marianne Faithfull, 78, has died. RIP.
@Michael Reynolds:
Yours is a good explanation as to why Christianity is becoming more reactionary. I am reading Charontwo as saying Christianity is responsible for voters becoming more reactionary. But fewer and fewer voters identify or have anything to do with Christianity, and Christianity’s influence is much weaker in the US culturally than it ever has been. So how is a weakening, less present Church responsible (at least in part–I realize no one is claiming 100% causal relationship) for a major shift in voters–even non Christian voters–to back reactionary conservatism?
@MarkedMan:
Sometimes it’s religion, sometimes it’s ideology, sometimes it’s ethnic identity, yes, all can be tools of oppression. That does not excuse religion, ideology or ethnic identity politics. It tells us that religion is useless when it comes to improving human behavior. Given that religion does claim to improve human behavior by virtue of talking to God, religion is a con game, selling a cure that does nothing for the disease. IOW, religion is quack medicine. A con.
Further, Christians are conditioned to accept huge doses of nonsense without critical thinking. Why, even if God is the creator, should we have to worship Him? The question is fundamental and never really addressed, indeed addressing it at all is often interpreted by religions as an attack. So we get an a priori assumption that power deserves obedience, and that this obedience should be compelled by threat.
Christianity infantilizes. Christians are constantly referred to as lambs or sheep to be tended by a divine shepherd. A shepherd whose actions are self-justifying. Above our pay grade as simple humans. Don’t ask Daddy why he’s hitting Mommy, it’s all part of a divine plan that we are not competent to question. Shut up and submit blindly.
The comparison between a god who may not be second-guessed, who may not be criticized, a god to whom obedience is demanded under threat, a contradictory god spewing utter nonsense onto the page, and Trump, is obvious. Con men wearing crosses pave the way for con men who’ll wave a bible they’ve never read.
Evangelicals are overwhelmingly MAGA, atheists and agnostics are overwhelmingly not. That is not an accident. Christians are taught obedience and credulity; agnostics and atheists are by definition, skeptics.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. The Evangelical Christian tree has brought forth evil fruit.
@Neil Hudelson:
Not at all the sole cause, as seems it should be obvious …
Michael Reynolds upthread answers that.
@reid:
Describing the leaders, funders and beneficiaries. And, they have sealed themselves into an information bubble and avoid conflicting information.
It works because of how people have been trained, and because confirmation bias makes people gullible. Also, various bubbles, conservative media etc.
@MarkedMan:
Henry, with good reason, felt insecure on the throne without the succession secured by recognized and accepted heir (i.e., a son). There was big fear in play here over that, it was not just needing money.
(As an aside, Henry carried a genetic defect that caused his wives to have problem pregnancies after their first).
@Neil Hudelson:
Reduction of a group by a percentage does not mean the group ceases to exist. IOW, the fact that there are very slightly fewer Christians does not suggest that there are no Christians. You might as well wonder why native Frenchmen are more anti-immigrant as their numbers decline relative to immigrants. By your logic there should be less anti-immigrant sentiment in places where the native population has declined, which is clearly not the case. It’s precisely the relative decline that causes to fear which leads to the hate.
Christians react to perceived threat, especially when the threat is real, as is the threat to religion in the US. It’s the fear that makes them turn mean. And because they are, in their own usage, sheep, they are easily led astray.
@Michael Reynolds:
Not necessarily – it affects behavior, which can be and often is abused. But it can inspire good behavior too.
@charontwo:
In a small and weak element. It’s not some lovely bunch of charitable nuns running the RC, it’s corrupt old men. The good ones are shills.
@charontwo:
I didn’t know about Henry’s genetic problem; thanks for mentioning it.
There’s more on the subject here, if anyone’s interested:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110303153114.htm
@CSK: there’s also a really good documentary on YouTube called something like “The health of Henry VIII” which goes into all his health vicissitudes. The real flip in his behavior started after a serious accident during a jousting tournament and the consensus is that he likely suffered brain damage.
@Fortune: OK, Beth, I don’t usually look at the daily fora, but if you’d like to talk to a conservative about your question maybe I’ll see you on the site.
A stellar collection of law-abiding peaceful patriots:
http://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5276336/jan-6-donald-trump-rape-assault-pardons-rioters
This is really sickening to read.
@Beth:
@Matt Bernius:
@reid:
As I think I’ve opined before hereabouts, American “conservatism” is a bit of an odd duck,in its historical and philosophical bases.
Republicanism was in many respects rather similar to 19th century “radical liberalism”: key doctrines included suspicion of state activity, market-orientation, constitutionalism, general male suffrage democracy, formal legal equality, no single established church”, freedom of the press and speech, etc.
Then adopted Spencerian/Sumnerian concepts of social progress via competition, and a focus on enabling business interests. Plus a growing inclination to “WASP”-ism.
But still, at base, a “liberal” doctrine.
Contrast with most European “conservatism” in the 19th century (though all of this has many exceptions to prove the rule): monarchic, aristocratic, “established church”, somewhat agrarian, suspicious of free markets, hierarchic, “privileged estate” advocates, often anti-democratic and anti-constitutional, pro-censorship, often statist but dubious about nationalism, sometimes rather in favour of state-based welfare.
In general, rather reactionary.
And European “modern conservatism” post-ww2, which has tried to balance traditionalism, social welfare, community cohesion, elite interest, market capitalism, democracy, national as opposed to sectional interest, etc.
See the massive difference between eg contemporary German Christian Democrats and US Republicans. Withe British Conservatives falling rather between the two, but arguably closer to the European mode than the American.
The problem of US “Conservatism” is that its has been based on a forced marriage between the “Old Republican” quasi-liberal tradition, and the imperatives of forming an electoral coalition that includes the former “right-wing Democrats”: economic populism, racism, “welfare for me but not for thee”, politicized evangelicalism and Catholic “ultras”.
Given the basic incompatibility of fundamentalist market-capitalist liberalism and populism in economics and social measures, the obvious fall-back is on shared paranoia’s about “progressive elites”, and “culture war” based on race and vulgarized religion.
And becoming detached from reality in favour of publicity.
I continue to think that as a project for government, this is likely to collapse due to its internal contradictions.
See the incipient “tech-bro” vs “MAGA populist” tensions.
Any politics so beset by contradiction and the need for conflict to enable its coalition adhesion, is obviously inclined to fall back on falsity.
@Michael Reynolds:
You know my question to you was considerate and polite and you’ve chosen to be an asshole… Why?
Has anyone even come close to indicating a claim that Christians no longer exist? I certainly didn’t.
Beat that straw man, Michael! Beat it good!
And wait which is it? A decline significant enough to make not only them reactionary, but a good portion of the non Christian voters as well? Or just a miniscule decline? Let’s just have it both ways logic be damned!
I was pretty clear in my polite question to you. I even addressed this very point but let me help:
@Neil Hudelson:
I think it’s because qualitatively he’s the same type of person as the evangelicals he criticizes. YMMV.
I’ll try a different way.
In 2016 and 2020 Trump got roughly 90% of the Evangelical/right wing Christian vote. In 2024 he got roughly 90% of the evangelical/Right wing Christian voters.
During this time the number of people in right wing/Evangelical Christianity declined. Trumps support among all voters grew.
So did these right wing Christian voters just vote extra hard? No? Ok then the growth in support for Trump grew someplace else. He kinda had that group locked up tight.
My question is what grew the support from these non-Christian voters, which data and simple math says exist in large numbers? “Christians being extra Christian-y” doesn’t make much logical sense to me, though I know ‘my logic’ isn’t palatable to all.
@Beth:
Because the ends justify the means.
Democrats care far more about process, respecting norms, and the like. To a fault, I would add. Obama and the Senate Democrats bent over backwards trying to get a Republican vote for the ACA so it would be “bipartisan” and watered down the bill as a result — because a major program should be bipartisan (spoiler: he never got that Republican vote). And right now, as I tap this into my iPad, there is some Democratic elected representative uttering the word “comity”.
Republicans don’t give a shit about process. Every person I have known who has said anything along the lines of “everyone cheats, and if you don’t you’re just a sucker” has consistently voted Republican.
Lies and fear mongering are just a means to an end. Does the average Republican really believe Haitians were eating pets in Ohio? That depends on what you mean by believe.
Are trans people forcing second graders to use litter boxes before taking them to the school nurse to get a sex change operation performed with a protractor, a compass and safety scissors? No, but it speaks to a higher truth and isn’t the real problem that the radical left is so radical that this is so believable?
For normal people, “believe” is a fairly passive verb — it is used to describe the steady state of things in a persons understanding of truth. For a lot of Republicans, “believe” is a very active verb and a conscious choice. And it doesn’t have much to do with facts.
Señor Reynolds will say that it all ties into religion, and the very active choice to believe in a god that tells you what you want to hear (there is a loving creator, helping people makes the world a better place, or you can tell gods favorites because they have all the riches so you better cheat on your taxes).
I think he misses a bit of nuance, as there are a whole lot of lefties who are religious and who don’t fall down that path. That lefty active belief is a belief without evidence, but that right-wing ends-justify-the-means active belief is a belief ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
A lefty isn’t going to read the Bible and start talking about the sin of empathy.
@Kathy:
That sounds like an excellent idea. Maybe the cephalopods will do better. Or the crows. We should create shelters to protect the crows.
@Gustopher:
The idea is not to let it hit Earth, then alter its trajectory so it moves away from our orbit in the future. I’d say get it to impact the Moon, because then we’d have most of one whole asteroid nearby for study, but if we miss we may hit our planet.
@Michael Reynolds:
Why the public is convinced that nuns=good, priests=bad is beyond me. Even if you accept the right side of that comma, you have to be living in a dream world to believe the left side.
One of the major causes of the priesthood falling into ruin is that so many gave them automatic sainthood. That’s well recognized now, but so many don’t take it as a cautionary tale on not doing it with other groups.
@Michael Reynolds:
@Michael Reynolds:
@ Michael Reynolds:
Well, there’s a lot to unpack in these.
As often, you are largely right (though not Right 🙂 ), but also a bit over-generalising.
Christianity could sometimes be pretty damn oppressive when expanding and clearly the “coming thing”: see Late Roman Christian emperors vs the Classical pagans, Charlemagne vs the pagan Saxons, Otto vs the Magyars.
Though often for sensible reasons: neither Saxons nor Magyars were fun neighbours.
Early medieval Christianity tended to be less paranoid about internal heresy than later. Partly because the heresy hunts were driven by Papal supremacy politics, and related to competition with royal interests in suppressing dissent. The Church could hardly come down hard on the Arian heresy when the Arian Germans (note NOT Aryan, lol) were rulers of much of Europe, and the East Romans aka Byzantines had little patience with uppity Popes.
Europe is perhaps less “secular” than you might think: it’s not “devout” in the US “voluntaristic religion” sense. More based on community and tradition. Americans often tend to “choose a church”. That’s not how it generally works in Europe or most of the world. As imho much of “religion” through much of history has been.
As I’ve said before: being an “agnostic Anglican” is a perfectly possible thing, in practice.
Sentiments in Europe regarding Muslim immigrants have multiple drivers: racism, community cohesion issues, and the particular response of a minority of second/third generation Muslims to issues of inequality leading to overt rejection of “host culture” norms.
Also, as an agnostic, I’m inclined to argue that on a mass level, as opposed to among the intellectual elite of Classical civilisations, Christianity was, by and large a beneficial factor. It generalized concepts of equality and compassion that were rather alien to the old Romans, for instance. See the Christian objections (CAVEATS!) to chattel slavery, gladiatorial games, or (in the pagan North) sacrifice.
Christianity ceased to be a generally benign factor only, imo, when faced with the challenges of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolutions. When it faced a choice: accept the new reality of understanding, and social change, or try to oppose it.
Some chose accommodation (Anglicanism, Unitarianism, Lutheranism), some were dragged reluctantly in that direction (Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Presbyterianism).
And some continue to fight against it (Southern Baptists, “more Catholic than the Pope” ultras).
@MarkedMan:
See the recent Irish investigations into the behaviors of nuns in the “homes for wayward women”.
Absolutely appalling abuse.
@Matt Bernius:
@Fortune:
Matt, I meant to do that and kinda jumped the gun on myself, partly because right now sometimes I just have to blurt stuff out and clean up later, and partly because I thought I was going going to have time to come back to this today. For what it’s worth, I do take Fortunes question/argument as being in good faith, if a little, lets say aggressive.
But, like, in comparison, this is a good example of what I’m getting at:
Like, that’s the kinda of nonsense that I’m talking about. Fortune may or may not be trying for some sort of gotcha, but at least they are putting some effort into it.
So, ok, I am going to come back to this with some examples and clarifications because I think it’s useful and interesting to talk about. However, in light of a bunch of stuff I am hearing today and getting swamped with, I’d like to get in touch with a couple of people here, I guess in some sort of near future, lets say specifically to start maybe @Michael Reynolds: and @Matt Bernius: to start. If either or both of you are willing to spend 5 minutes talking on a zoom call or email. I can’t believe it’s only been 10 days. Matt you might see my email address or I can post one here that we can delete later.
@Mister Bluster: Well, it’s 25 or 26 minutes to 4 pm
@Connor:
Here’s a perfect example of what Beth is reacting to. I happen to be fairly familiar with the gory details of what happened at the Cincinnati office with regard to 501(c)(4) organizations, and there is no universe in which it could be accurately described as “Obama sicced the IRS on disfavored organizations.” That’s just a plain old lie, clearly revealed as such by the endless investigations and the discovery process that followed. In fact, it’s several lies — one about Obama’s involvement (hint: none), one about how the IRS was triaging applications, one about political motivation. It’s not hard to speculate about why Republicans are so very fond of those lies… but they’re still lies.
@CSK:
Is anyone surprised Donald Trump, a rapist who publicly sexualized his own daughter, pardoned a bunch of rapists and wife beaters? Trump conservatives wanted crackhead pedo Matt Gaetz as attorney general, and just made abusive alcoholic Pete Hegseth the Pentagon head. These clowns are the reason DEI and affirmative action exists. When given power, rich Republican men cannot be trusted to ignore merit and instead hire their unqualified, mediocre friends.
Thugs of a feather flock together. Doubtful the right releasing these criminals back onto America’s streets will reduce crime.
@Beth:
I will follow up with an email! Definitely happy to chat!
@Michael Reynolds: It’s not really odd as helicopters tend to do their own thing at relatively low altitude over water. It’s FAA policy that helicopters are required to avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft. It’s on the PIC to ensure that at least someone in the helicopter is updating local traffic/atc on location/altitude/direction etc. The helicopter is required to listen in to ATC and modify the flight path if needed. ATC will generally assign an altitude range for the helicopter to follow. Helicopters in cities are generally required to maintain flight over bodies of water.
As for military helicopters on training missions? I figure most of those requirements still stand. The people in the helicopter really fucked this one up.
@Kathy:
I would be extremely surprised if the blackhawk had TCAS but they do have transponders for traffic control reasons. The TCAS system wouldn’t of worked well if at all anyway because of the low altitude involved.
Military aircraft do NOT turn off transponders over the continental USA when near airports. The fact that the flight path of the helicopter was tracked shows the transponder was on.
@everyone
THe ASR-11 system is replacing the old ASR-9 system if you’re interested in reading up on the radar systems.
@Beth: Some would argue that lies are the very foundation of the Christian religion (and most religions).
The requirement of priests to “interpret” what is plainly written in the bible adds another layer of lies. I’ve run into this when using quotes directly from the bible in “discussions”. If the quote runs counter to the statements of the Christian they will generally say I’m not allowed to quote the bible since I’m a non believer. I’ve never said I was a non believer but if you dare go against what their preacher says then you are instantly a non believer. If the preacher says something the Christian doesn’t agree with well it’s time to find another preacher (see the bishop recently with Trump). Church rivalries in a small town can be both pathetic and hilarious as an outside observer.
So you have “religious” beliefs that are based on lies and fantasy being interpreted by people who want to justify their inherent belief/desires. It’s a recipe for lies in all aspects of your life.
@Matt Bernius:
Awesome, thanks.
@gVOR10: You should look up “wind shear escape maneuver”. You basically pull back 10-25 degrees and apply full power to escape. Looking at flightaware the aircraft should of been fairly light on fuel after flying from kansas. Most CRJ7 series planes use CF34-8c5 engines (some older ones have the original CF34-8C1 engines). They are rated at 14,500 lbs of thrust each and they are quick spooling. I doubt anyone in the airplane saw the helicopter. Coming in for a landing on the flight path, the position of the cockpits, and the night time conditions would of made it difficult to spot the helicopter. ATC transmissions give no indication of anyone spotting the helicopter.
I don’t remember ever seeing our new Defense Secretary on TV until trump nominated him in November. But today I watched the beginning of his presentation at the WH press conference, and good grief… he is a most unimpressive individual.
After thanking the trump for his leadership and offering condolences to the victims, he started talking about what the Army helicopter crew was doing, and then said,
Nearly all of those five sentences struck me as inappropriate, clumsy, or incorrectly worded. He seems, not surprisingly, like a guy who’s not used to being in the spotlight and not well-versed on the subject matter.
@Fortune:
Ok, so let’s see if I can get this jello brain working. So, first, thank you everyone that responded, it’s been helpful. Second, while I think there are almost certainly better sources or definitions, where I started was here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
Ok, all good. That seems to me to be value neutral. The institution, custom or value may be good or bad, but I don’t necessarily think that one must axiomatically lie about it to preserve something, that’s a choice. For example, one could say that slavery is necessary and good and should be preserved because that’s how we’ve done it before, the work needs to get done and someone has to do it. I could probably come up with some other value neutral arguments. I don’t think they are good arguments. But that’s a whole world of difference from Black people are a different species and that species enjoys being slaves cause that’s the natural order. That’s a whole bunch of lies to set up, what, a hierarchy? Think of anything and you can probably come up with an argument that it should be preserved and you can probably do it without lying.
I do think that general, value neutral statement breaks down as you delve further in to that Wikipedia article in to more access to lying, but I don’t think it’s axiomatic. In each of those, someone has to choose lies and lying over the truth.
I think, and I’m willing to be wrong, but in every conservative position, we have gotten to the point where we have objectively better information about that position, and a conservative has a choice to make: accept the new information and change, or start lying to preserve the old order.
For example, women and abortion. The idea that life begins at conception is inherently unverifiable, and thus isn’t true or false. I think one could take a conservative position and say that life begins and conception and life is so important that women’s rights to control their bodies should be curtailed. I think it’s an abhorrent argument, but it’s not a whole bunch of lies. Saying that abortion should be banned because of a baby has a heartbeat, fingernails and feels pain at 6 weeks, is just a whole bunch of demonstrable lies. That’s a choice.
Look at the Anti-trans EOs. They are packed full of lies. If you were to take an objective survey of history and the current state of scientific and medical knowledge, you either have to accept that we are a normative part of humanity and that we should have access to appropriate care and respect. Or you can lie about it.
Or look at some of the economic stuff. If supply side economics were true and not an outhouse of fetid lies, they we absolutely drop all taxes on rich people cause the rich will spend money and we will all get richer. Except that’s garbage, the rich hoard their wealth like dragons and scheme of ways to extract more wealth from everyone else.
I think, and please work with me to shoot this down, but I suspect the issue is: doubt. I think for conservative minded people, doubt is so psychologically painful that it must be avoided at all costs. Lemme be super bold for a second, I’ve been reading Drs. Joyner and Taylor since around 06ish. I think. I’m pretty sure I found this place while I was in law school. If I remember correctly, both of you were much more staunchly Conservative. I might be wrong. Now, it seems to me (and I say this playfully) Dr. Taylor seems like a screaming leftist and Dr. Joyner seems waaaay less conservative, compared to back then. Dr. Joyner, you strike me as a scrupulously honest man and it seems to me on some level the sheer amount of lying from conservatives has changed you. I think you are fighting to choose honesty, even if the doubt is uncomfortable.
Take something I know a lot about: being trans. I can’t give you any concrete answers as to why we exist or the best medical or political practices for us. One of the biggest issues about trans kids is the cis belief that all doubt must be eliminated before a kid (or anyone) should be “allowed” to transition. You hear it all the time, what if you regret it, what if you’re wrong. As a trans activist I can’t honestly say that some kid won’t get it wrong or regret it. I have to accept that doubt and do my best with it honestly. Like, we could have an honest debate about when and how we should believe and support trans kids. If things were different I’d welcome that discussion. Instead we have surgeries and litter boxes in school and banning care for kids because they are trans but the cis kids get that same exact care. It’s a choice to lie.
Mother this is long and I’ve typed it on my phone.
@JohnSF:
I just want to pop you out in particular because I somewhat agree with you that conservativism differs from place to place. But I still guess the underlying issue is the avoidance of doubt. Look at Brexit, that whole nightmare that came about because of lies. The conservatives lied like crazy.
Also, I don’t think this is a religious thing. It seems to me that the more conservative a religious person is the more they are willing to lie about so that they don’t have to feel doubt while a more liberal religious person should accept that doubt and be honest that they don’t presume to know the mind if their god.
@Beth:
I started a reply earlier today, but gave up when I thought I was not being clear. I was making essentially the same claim, though I used the word “uncertainty” rather than “doubt”.
Conservatives want to know where they fit, what is right, and who to obey. They want hierarchy, because hierarchy makes these things clear. They want stability, because stability eliminates uncertainty. They want there to be a “natural order” that is unchanging. And they are willing to convince themselves not only that these things are true, but that they are good — regardless of the actual evidence. And if they aren’t actually good… well, they’re still better than chaos, which is how conservatives characterize any kind of fluid situation that calls for adaptation and creativity.
It’s easier to live with oligarchy if you can believe in trickle-down. It’s easier to live with homophobia if you can believe that sexual preference is a choice, like hairstyle. It’s easier to live with bigotry if you can believe that some races are inherently inferior. And so conservatives believe these things — because it would be uncomfortable not to, and conservatism is at root about feeling comfortable.
@DrDaveT: Ooh! Good observation! Thanks for hanging in until it formed fully.
@Beth:
I think that once the first cell divides it is definitively life, with conception being equally plausible.
But my yogurt is also alive. As is a cancerous tumor. And a fully grown adult human living below the poverty line. They’re all alive, but we don’t restructure our entire society to preserve those lives because yogurt is food, tumors kill their hosts, and we hate poor people.
The fertilized egg, or tiny cluster of cells, is not viable, and does not have any central nervous system let alone consciousness.
The lie, and it really is a lie is that this life of a zygote is worth the same as the life of anyone else (above the poverty line), and to slide all of those moral judgements back to the moment that life begins.
The texts of their religion doesn’t even support it — the quickening (first kicks) was traditionally the very earliest anyone would consider the lump of cells to be remotely a person, and there are passages that would place it on birth.
@DrDaveT:
I don’t think this is true. There’s seldom an appeal to foundational principles that brings them along en mass. “All man are created equal” is a very American principle, foundational to this nation’s creation myths, but it was tossed aside to support Jim Crow laws.
I actually think @Comrade Reynolds has it closer when he writes “It’s precisely the relative decline that causes to fear which leads to the hate.”
Conservativism is perpetually in decline by its very nature. It’s a desire to maintain old power structures where they were the favored class, despite changes in the world that threaten it.
There weren’t a whole lot of Black conservatives in the South during the Reconstruction Era, but there were lots of conservatives whites. Even poor whites could rest assured they higher status than a n-clang, and they wanted to hold onto that.
And going back to Beth’s question of why so much of their arguments are based on lies — it’s because they have no good arguments beyond “it’s always been this way” and when facts collide with a desire to hold onto privilege, the facts are usually the losers.
Leftists are also prone to lies and conspiracy theories, but at lesser numbers, and generally in service of core principles like “all men are created equal.” The left has always wanted to create a more fair and equitable society, whether it is Sojourner Truth, FDR, Marxist revolutionaries, or all sorts of fine people in the French Revolution. Or Pol Pot. (The left has struggled with building that more fair and equitable society at times — incrementalism usually leads to fewer reigns of terror, which is why I would refer to myself as an incrementalist socialist)
As an aside to the above — one of the most accurate complaints people have about Bernie Sanders is that he treats everything through a lens of class. And he does.
He doesn’t seem to be willing to accept that race has as much to do with class in the United States as wealth does. (Or maybe he thinks that if he doesn’t acknowledge this, that he can lead the world past race.)
AOC bothers me a whole lot less than Bernie does.
@Beth:
In part.
But that was driven by political competition: the ambitions of Boris Johnson, the Conservatives fear of Farage and UKIP gnawing away at their vote on the right, and the long-standing animus to the EU of the Thatcherite ultras.
It should not be forgotten that before the referendum, much of the core of the Conservative Party was against Brexit, and campaigned against it: Cameron, Osbourne, Clarke, Heseltine, Major etc etc
And many such were purged by Johnson; whose ambitions ended up wrecking his party.
Possibly terminally.
@Beth: Great post! I appreciate hearing your thoughts on a lot of subjects, and wish you all the best.
@Beth:
Breaking it down:
life begins at conception – objectively true or false, and I’d say true
life is important – I’d phrase it that human life has rights but either way it’s a moral judgment
abortion laws curtail women’s rights to their body – objectively true or false, and it’s false, except in the way that anti-suicide bombing laws curtail a woman’s right to blow herself up and take others with her. That is to say, your framing isn’t one any conservative would use, and it looks just like a way to backdoor your argument into the conversation.
As I said I’m not going to try to argue each conservative position, only that they’re not based on lies. As for your theories about what’s wrong in our brains that makes us act the way we do, maybe you’re getting ahead of yourself. Every day Outside the Beltway documents liberal hatred and inability to handle doubt.