Why have conservatives lost hope in the future?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

WolvDragon:
The title of this topic should be "Why have liberals lost hope in the future." Because let's face it, liberalism is dead. The GOP controls all branches of government, there are more red states than blue states, and once all those red state dems are gone from the senate, the gop will have a super majority. The GOP might lose a few seats in the mid terms, but they'll keep the house and the dems won't ever win back the senate for a long time if ever.

The GOP is doing great right now. However, the GOP's problem, in the mid to long term is that its' voter base is not replenishing at the same rate that the Democrats voter base is. What we are essentially seeing right now is the last hurrah of the conservative voters of the baby boom generation, who are now swerving hard right to prevent reforms that younger voters are massively in favor of. In 10 to 20 years, when the baby boomers start dying off at much higher rates than now, the GOP will face a very serious problem in renewing itself and remaining relevant. Their problem is that they'd need to start that renewing process right now so that they'd have a solid mid-level party organization that can move on to the top when the current generation of top republicans retire.

The Democrats are facing sort of the same problem. But as we've seen in the last 3 elections, the Democrats have a much easier time mobilizing their younger voters and getting them to organize for the party. This means that even if the Democrats are also facing the problem of their top level being mostly baby boomers who are now quickly reaching retirement age, they also have the advantage of already having the nominal support of lots of younger people. Young people that can be enrolled in the party and groomed to take over.

Gethsemani:

WolvDragon:
The title of this topic should be "Why have liberals lost hope in the future." Because let's face it, liberalism is dead. The GOP controls all branches of government, there are more red states than blue states, and once all those red state dems are gone from the senate, the gop will have a super majority. The GOP might lose a few seats in the mid terms, but they'll keep the house and the dems won't ever win back the senate for a long time if ever.

The GOP is doing great right now. However, the GOP's problem, in the mid to long term is that its' voter base is not replenishing at the same rate that the Democrats voter base is. What we are essentially seeing right now is the last hurrah of the conservative voters of the baby boom generation, who are now swerving hard right to prevent reforms that younger voters are massively in favor of. In 10 to 20 years, when the baby boomers start dying off at much higher rates than now, the GOP will face a very serious problem in renewing itself and remaining relevant. Their problem is that they'd need to start that renewing process right now so that they'd have a solid mid-level party organization that can move on to the top when the current generation of top republicans retire.

The Democrats are facing sort of the same problem. But as we've seen in the last 3 elections, the Democrats have a much easier time mobilizing their younger voters and getting them to organize for the party. This means that even if the Democrats are also facing the problem of their top level being mostly baby boomers who are now quickly reaching retirement age, they also have the advantage of already having the nominal support of lots of younger people. Young people that can be enrolled in the party and groomed to take over.

With the rise of the ALT right, GOP is starting to grow among young, white males:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/21/a-bright-spot-for-republicans-among-millennials-young-white-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a0a6a4144f1c

Sadly, I think these guys just may be right here:
https://splinternews.com/charlottesville-was-a-preview-of-the-future-of-the-repu-1797988745

Lil devils x:

With the rise of the ALT right, GOP is starting to grow among young, white males:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/21/a-bright-spot-for-republicans-among-millennials-young-white-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a0a6a4144f1c

Sadly, I think these guys just may be right here:
https://splinternews.com/charlottesville-was-a-preview-of-the-future-of-the-repu-1797988745

Sure, but look at the Pew numbers from the WP: Among millenials, almost 60% of voters trend Democrat with white men in that age group being the only group that trends Republican (and even then only with a 7% difference). By all metrics, the Republicans party is dying a slow death as demographics slide away from them.

That being said, a radicalization towards the alt-right might give the GOP a second lease on life. What is unclear is whether such a radicalization would be enough to keep the Republican party as a serious contender against a democratic party that has the demographics with them. By going full alt-right the Republicans would alienate many of its old swing voters and would make itself impossible for most voters that are not white men (or their allies). It is an especially precarious gamble because Pew numbers show that young republican voters are the most likely to swing towards the Democrats, which might in turn suggest that a reactionary, alt-right Republican party might not be the solution to the GOPs problem of having been caught out of time.

A meaner analysis would be that during Obama's presidency the GOP showed its' hand and revealed the latent racism and sexism at the party's core. This would explain why current young republicans trend so disturbingly towards the alt-right, because the GOP spent more time fearing muslims, Mexicans and women and being vocal about the turmoil of a black president then it did making sure it had a solid political platform to win voters with. The Tea Party brought out the worst in the GOP and the party brass decided to acquiesce them, when it should have been taking a long hard look on the future proofing of Republican policies. It also, conveniently, explains why Trump was able to sweep the GOP nomination: His campaign was the only one which understood the change at the heart of the GOP grass roots, the other candidates tried to campaign as if the GOP wasn't changing rapidly at its' core.

Gethsemani:

Lil devils x:

With the rise of the ALT right, GOP is starting to grow among young, white males:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/21/a-bright-spot-for-republicans-among-millennials-young-white-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a0a6a4144f1c

Sadly, I think these guys just may be right here:
https://splinternews.com/charlottesville-was-a-preview-of-the-future-of-the-repu-1797988745

Sure, but look at the Pew numbers from the WP: Among millenials, almost 60% of voters trend Democrat with white men in that age group being the only group that trends Republican (and even then only with a 7% difference). By all metrics, the Republicans party is dying a slow death as demographics slide away from them.

That being said, a radicalization towards the alt-right might give the GOP a second lease on life. What is unclear is whether such a radicalization would be enough to keep the Republican party as a serious contender against a democratic party that has the demographics with them. By going full alt-right the Republicans would alienate many of its old swing voters and would make itself impossible for most voters that are not white men (or their allies). It is an especially precarious gamble because Pew numbers show that young republican voters are the most likely to swing towards the Democrats, which might in turn suggest that a reactionary, alt-right Republican party might not be the solution to the GOPs problem of having been caught out of time.

A meaner analysis would be that during Obama's presidency the GOP showed its' hand and revealed the latent racism and sexism at the party's core. This would explain why current young republicans trend so disturbingly towards the alt-right, because the GOP spent more time fearing muslims, Mexicans and women and being vocal about the turmoil of a black president then it did making sure it had a solid political platform to win voters with. The Tea Party brought out the worst in the GOP and the party brass decided to acquiesce them, when it should have been taking a long hard look on the future proofing of Republican policies. It also, conveniently, explains why Trump was able to sweep the GOP nomination: His campaign was the only one which understood the change at the heart of the GOP grass roots, the other candidates tried to campaign as if the GOP wasn't changing rapidly at its' core.

The core is what is so scary considering they do not have to actually win the majority of votes in many regions to win regardless due to the GOP using software to draw the electoral maps and the imbalance between populated and rural areas in regards to representation. They can obtain a majority in congress by targeting rural areas and still not actually having the majority of people overall due to the imbalance in representation.

https://www.wired.com/2016/12/electoral-college-great-whiter-states-lousy-cities/
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7xkmag/gerrymandering-algorithms
http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/07/19/gerrymandering-republicans-redmap

Some of the maps have been deemed unconstitutional, however, they would have to redraw them in time to make an impact, and if they delay it long enough it still may work in their favor. With the GOP stacking the courts, in addition to their attempt to use the DOJ as a weapon, rather than impartial, it may help them hold out longer with rulings in their favor allowing them to sustain their position. The GOP choosing to abandon all ethics in favor of creating their own "reality" and news networks resulting in bubbles where their base does not even have to come into contact with actual " facts" or truth ensures they will be able to continue their disinformation.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-packing-courts-ultra-conservative-judges-777117
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/local-news-anchors-now-have-to-read-pro-trump-propaganda.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/07/trump-tvs-real-news-sounds-more-like-real-propaganda/?noredirect=on

Due to how successful it was for them to run disinformation while at the same time win elections while losing the popular vote and take the majority in legislators without actually having the majority of people overall, I would expect them to attempt to continue to push that by trying to seize control over the governing bodies that enforce the gerrymandering rules so that there will be no one willing to stop them from continuing their plans.

When you look at Nunes actions, for example on the House Intelligence committee, instead of actually trying to do his designated job in service of he people, he chose to instead use his position as a line of defense against justice. IF they are able to stack the position that enforce these laws, there will be no one willing to do so and they will be able to retain control without actually needing a majority of voters to do so. How long they can continue to do so before their scheme implodes, and how much damage they will cause in the meantime though is the question.

Gethsemani:

WolvDragon:
The title of this topic should be "Why have liberals lost hope in the future." Because let's face it, liberalism is dead. The GOP controls all branches of government, there are more red states than blue states, and once all those red state dems are gone from the senate, the gop will have a super majority. The GOP might lose a few seats in the mid terms, but they'll keep the house and the dems won't ever win back the senate for a long time if ever.

The GOP is doing great right now. However, the GOP's problem, in the mid to long term is that its' voter base is not replenishing at the same rate that the Democrats voter base is. What we are essentially seeing right now is the last hurrah of the conservative voters of the baby boom generation, who are now swerving hard right to prevent reforms that younger voters are massively in favor of. In 10 to 20 years, when the baby boomers start dying off at much higher rates than now, the GOP will face a very serious problem in renewing itself and remaining relevant. Their problem is that they'd need to start that renewing process right now so that they'd have a solid mid-level party organization that can move on to the top when the current generation of top republicans retire.

The Democrats are facing sort of the same problem. But as we've seen in the last 3 elections, the Democrats have a much easier time mobilizing their younger voters and getting them to organize for the party. This means that even if the Democrats are also facing the problem of their top level being mostly baby boomers who are now quickly reaching retirement age, they also have the advantage of already having the nominal support of lots of younger people. Young people that can be enrolled in the party and groomed to take over.

You tend to forget that Generation Z is much more conservative then millenials, they're probrably replace the Baby Boomers for the GOP.

WolvDragon:

You tend to forget that Generation Z is much more conservative then millenials, they're probrably replace the Baby Boomers for the GOP.

They will, they currently are. That's not the problem. The problem is that when they leave the middle section of the party organization where most of them are now, they are leaving a void that the millenials are supposed to fill. That void will be a serious problem in 10 to 20 years when the GOP won't have enough mid and low tier party functionaries to keep a smooth party organization running. It is, if you excuse an ironic comparison, the very same problem that the Swedish military has today, with loads of majors, lt. colonels and colonels, but struggling to get enough lieutenants to fill out the vital but plentiful platoon CO roles.

Gethsemani:

WolvDragon:

You tend to forget that Generation Z is much more conservative then millenials, they're probrably replace the Baby Boomers for the GOP.

They will, they currently are. That's not the problem. The problem is that when they leave the middle section of the party organization where most of them are now, they are leaving a void that the millenials are supposed to fill. That void will be a serious problem in 10 to 20 years when the GOP won't have enough mid and low tier party functionaries to keep a smooth party organization running. It is, if you excuse an ironic comparison, the very same problem that the Swedish military has today, with loads of majors, lt. colonels and colonels, but struggling to get enough lieutenants to fill out the vital but plentiful platoon CO roles.

After the 2008 elections many people wrote the GOP off because they couldn't appeal well to minority and millenial voters. Now they control all branches of government. I don't think they'll be in serious trouble even in 10 to 20 years, because their donors and the way things are rigged will make sure the GOP won't die off.Sure they might modernize a bit on social issues to attract millenials, but when it comes to economic policy, they won't ever change.

WolvDragon:

After the 2008 elections many people wrote the GOP off because they couldn't appeal well to minority and millenial voters. Now they control all branches of government. I don't think they'll be in serious trouble even in 10 to 20 years, because their donors and the way things are rigged will make sure the GOP won't die off.Sure they might modernize a bit on social issues to attract millenials, but when it comes to economic policy, they won't ever change.

I think I was pretty explicit in saying that this is not a problem now. It is a problem that will hit them in 10 to 20 years, but the groundwork for it is being laid right now and has been ever since 2008 really. The GOP 'fixed' its' problem with attracting millenials and minorities by radicalizing and mobilizing its' most extreme grassroots, which is why they are having success now. As the Pew Research pools show though, their voters are aging quickly. Without an influx of new party members to take over, the GOP will be facing serious issues in a decade or two, no matter how much money their donors pump in.

If you will, it is the difference between maintaining a healthy diet and exercising regularly to stay healthy and vital and just taking a whole lot of amphetamines to ignore the symptoms right now and feel as if you are invincible. Sooner or later the drugs wear off and you are worse off then before because you didn't deal with your health issues in time and you decided to do hard drugs.

"So how do we plan on winning back our traditional core vote that we lost to either fatalist apathy in the wake of our failure to hit the banks ala FDR and Republican media controlled outrage after we fumbled what we promised back in 2008?"

"Call em racists, that'll work. Get a bunch of celebrities too."

Can I get a source on the gen z is conservative claims? The only one I?ve serm came from a propaganda site

erttheking:
Can I get a source on the gen z is conservative claims? The only one I?ve serm came from a propaga site

I;m guessing it's based on viewing criticisms of the DNC or distaste of certain trends as an implicit embrace of Reactionary values for the sake of acting as if their nonsense actually carries more weight than it does.

For example, if I (non-American but you get the idea) criticise an article in The Guardian or disagree with John Oliver that must mean I'm right wing, right?

Ninjamedic:

erttheking:
Can I get a source on the gen z is conservative claims? The only one I?ve serm came from a propaga site

I;m guessing it's based on viewing criticisms of the DNC or distaste of certain trends as an implicit embrace of Reactionary values for the sake of acting as if their nonsense actually carries more weight than it does.

For example, if I (non-American but you get the idea) criticise an article in The Guardian or disagree with John Oliver that must mean I'm right wing, right?

But how is that related to gen z?

erttheking:

But how is that related to gen z?

Well look at their rhetoric, as I said they want to pretend their brand of idiocy has more influence than it actually does. Then you have the current attitude from the DNC of "We don;t have to change at all!", so along comes the contrarians to say that a kid thinking someone at a college is a bit daft suddenly must mean they're gonna start believing everything FOX says.

Ninjamedic:

erttheking:

But how is that related to gen z?

Well look at their rhetoric, as I said they want to pretend their brand of idiocy has more influence than it actually does. Then you have the current attitude from the DNC of "We don;t have to change at all!", so along comes the contrarians to say that a kid thinking someone at a college is a bit daft suddenly must mean they're gonna start believing everything FOX says.

1. That seems more like a symptom of a highly polarized political system than one party's tactic and 2. How is it affecting gen z more than Millennials? Gen z is barely in college.

The idea that conservatives will dissapear is wrong. Its part of human nature. It will simply change. Being conservative is part of human nature as much as progressives. Some want to change things, some want things to stay the same. It will simply always change. I think a big thing is that a lot of conservatives tended to be religious in the past, but now we are seeing a shift where conservatism is becoming far less religious in Gen Z. But I dont have any proof of that.

Fieldy409:
The idea that conservatives will dissapear is wrong. Its part of human nature. It will simply change. Being conservative is part of human nature as much as progressives.

Isn't that a pretty pointless statement? If being "conservative" will change, then conservativism as we know it is doomed to extinction. The fact that some people in the future will be invested in whatever the status quo of their society is or nostalgic about the societies of the past will not mean that our conservatism, our present day conservatism, will have survived. It won't.

What is conservative today was radical and progressive in the past. Likewise, it makes sense that what is radical and progressive today will be conservative in the future. That's reductive, in a sense, but it also overwhelmingly bears out.

If conservatism is a part of human nature, then it's the part that constantly, constantly loses, even as the social change conservatives railed against becomes part of the foundation of a new status quo which future generations of conservatives will try to defend at all costs.. and fail. That's what conservatives do, in historical perspective. They fail.

erttheking:
Can I get a source on the gen z is conservative claims? The only one I?ve serm came from a propaganda site

Essentially, it's the kind of thing you can statistically spin but doesn't really hold up.

Generation Z are the kids who grew up during a massive economic downturn. Because of this, a whole bunch of studies have found that they tend to be more money-oriented, fiscally pragmatic and cynical about their own opportunities than milennials. In this sense, we might see them as a successor to generation X.

Everything else is far, far more questionable.

Some conservatives have claimed that gen Z have more conservative social attitudes than millennials, and some have gone so far as to claim that they will lead to some kind of resurgence in conservative values or lead to revival in traditional conservatism. When we actually start to break down and poll attitudes, however, it becomes clear that these conservatives are probably in for a very nasty surprise..

It's the most ethnically diverse generation in history (and the most likely to have ethnically mixed friendship groups), it's the least heterosexual and least cis generation in history (and again, is far more likely to have queer, trans or non-binary friends or acquaintances). It's the most pro-gun-control generation in US history. It's the most atheist generation in history.

So basically, we're all going to need to adapt to them because they're probably going to fuck up our political binary as we know it, and that may well be a good thing.

WolvDragon:
The title of this topic should be "Why have liberals lost hope in the future."

Liberalism will persist, in one form or another.

The problem is more generally one of the centre-left, spanning a chunk of liberalism and various stripes of leftists (particularly social democrats). They evidently cannot get their shit together to provide a convincing case to electorates; and are steadily dwindling into impotence. The funny thing is, many left-leaning policies appear to be popular, but centre-left parties are somehow incapable of harnessing that into votes.

To an extent, that's really about bridging the ever-growing chasm between the generally content centre and the increasingly dissatisfied left. My take on the 1990s and 2000s was that the intent of the centre-left was to surrender to letting the rich become vastly richer via capitalism and redistributing a chunk of it as welfare to satisfy the poor. Unfortunately, that fundamentally failed to consider a lot of what the left-leaning poor really wanted. What they want is inimical to the cosy status quo, and so if the centre-left go there they run into a huge amount of opposition from the rest of society.

Saelune:
The right regularly wrongfully demonizes political opponents. Why is it ok when they do it?

Where did I ever make the claim it was?

I called out someone claiming a modern political viewpoint was legitimate nazi's. That in no way was a claim as you pretend it was here.

Agema:

WolvDragon:
The title of this topic should be "Why have liberals lost hope in the future."

Liberalism will persist, in one form or another.

The problem is more generally one of the centre-left, spanning a chunk of liberalism and various stripes of leftists (particularly social democrats). They evidently cannot get their shit together to provide a convincing case to electorates; and are steadily dwindling into impotence. The funny thing is, many left-leaning policies appear to be popular, but centre-left parties are somehow incapable of harnessing that into votes.

To an extent, that's really about bridging the ever-growing chasm between the generally content centre and the increasingly dissatisfied left. My take on the 1990s and 2000s was that the intent of the centre-left was to surrender to letting the rich become vastly richer via capitalism and redistributing a chunk of it as welfare to satisfy the poor. Unfortunately, that fundamentally failed to consider a lot of what the left-leaning poor really wanted. What they want is inimical to the cosy status quo, and so if the centre-left go there they run into a huge amount of opposition from the rest of society.

Liberalism isn't as popular as it used to be back in the 20th century. There's a reason Democrats and other left leaning parties had to moderate to the center otherwise they'll be blown back to political irrelevance. Ronald Reagan and today's Republican party made sure of that. Also, most of Europe is dominated by center-right parties, and the social democrats or other left leaning parties in Europe don't hold as much sway as they used to.

Call me a pessismist, but liberalism won't ever make a huge comeback like so many lefties think.

WolvDragon:

Liberalism isn't as popular as it used to be back in the 20th century. There's a reason Democrats and other left leaning parties had to moderate to the center otherwise they'll be blown back to political irrelevance. Ronald Reagan and today's Republican party made sure of that.

Ronald Reagan's and Margaret Thatcher's economic models were not massively successful, or massively convincing to the electorate. Monetarism is generally regarded as a failure.

The left-leaning parties themselves, the Democrats and Labour, shifted to the centre (or centre-right) in a rather short-sighted response. This was far from an electoral necessity: Reagan and Thatcher did not create unstoppable election-winning machines.

WolvDragon:

Call me a pessismist, but liberalism won't ever make a huge comeback like so many lefties think.

Most European left-wingers wouldn't identify with the term "liberalism" anyway.

Silvanus:

WolvDragon:

Liberalism isn't as popular as it used to be back in the 20th century. There's a reason Democrats and other left leaning parties had to moderate to the center otherwise they'll be blown back to political irrelevance. Ronald Reagan and today's Republican party made sure of that.

Ronald Reagan's and Margaret Thatcher's economic models were not massively successful, or massively convincing to the electorate. Monetarism is generally regarded as a failure.

The left-leaning parties themselves, the Democrats and Labour, shifted to the centre (or centre-right) in a rather short-sighted response. This was far from an electoral necessity: Reagan and Thatcher did not create unstoppable election-winning machines.

WolvDragon:

Call me a pessismist, but liberalism won't ever make a huge comeback like so many lefties think.

Most European left-wingers wouldn't identify with the term "liberalism" anyway.

Correct, that term isn't the same as the one we Americans tend to identiy with. But the point still stands, the left won't see a huge resuregence for a long time.

WolvDragon:

Call me a pessismist, but liberalism won't ever make a huge comeback like so many lefties think.

I dunno about "liberalism", but considering how popular most Left-leaning positions are (Healthcare as a right, legalized pot, a living wage, ending the expensive and deadly wars, extending respect to LGBT people, doing something about corruption in politics)...

Well, I think the only reason the left might not make a huge comeback is because the current established powerbase (The GOP, democrats, and corporate-run media) is trying its best to strangle it in the crib so it can't threaten their profits.

Like, when progressive candidates with popular positions can be raising record amounts of money in small donations, but still get no coverage at all in the media (and all coverage goes to their opponents), and established politicians can tell them in secret (and caught on tape) that "A decision was made early on by the party to support the other guy, so you should drop out", and potentially rig things against them... Clearly those in power are doing everything they can to kill it before it threatens them.

Now, I do agree that if the left was able to GET all their more reasonable and popular demands, things would slow down a whole bunch. I doubt you'd see them pushing successfully for AI to be considered a person, or for communism to be the new economic model, or for guns to be outright mass-destroyed in the US and winning. But that's the thing, progressivism is cyclical. Whenever rights haven't caught up with the modern age, it shows up and starts roaring angrily to get them caught up. That's what fueled the labor union movements in the US that ended child labor and won us all the weekend, as well as the civil rights movement and the suffragette movement.

It might slow down eventually and give ground to a newly-moved conservative party who have begun to begrudgingly accept the new rights at some point...But trying to say it'll never have a day to shine and get what the people want only makes sense if you consider the current people-crushing corrupt oligarchy that the US has turned into.

runic knight:

Saelune:
The right regularly wrongfully demonizes political opponents. Why is it ok when they do it?

Where did I ever make the claim it was?

I called out someone claiming a modern political viewpoint was legitimate nazi's. That in no way was a claim as you pretend it was here.

You did not claim it, you just do not seem to evenly apply this line of thinking.

A lot of people seem to have strong opinions of something, yet seem to not apply that evenly to both sides.

aegix drakan:

WolvDragon:

Call me a pessismist, but liberalism won't ever make a huge comeback like so many lefties think.

I dunno about "liberalism", but considering how popular most Left-leaning positions are (Healthcare as a right, legalized pot, a living wage, ending the expensive and deadly wars, extending respect to LGBT people, doing something about corruption in politics)...

Well, I think the only reason the left might not make a huge comeback is because the current established powerbase (The GOP, democrats, and corporate-run media) is trying its best to strangle it in the crib so it can't threaten their profits.

Like, when progressive candidates with popular positions can be raising record amounts of money in small donations, but still get no coverage at all in the media (and all coverage goes to their opponents), and established politicians can tell them in secret (and caught on tape) that "A decision was made early on by the party to support the other guy, so you should drop out", and potentially rig things against them... Clearly those in power are doing everything they can to kill it before it threatens them.

Now, I do agree that if the left was able to GET all their more reasonable and popular demands, things would slow down a whole bunch. I doubt you'd see them pushing successfully for AI to be considered a person, or for communism to be the new economic model, or for guns to be outright mass-destroyed in the US and winning. But that's the thing, progressivism is cyclical. Whenever rights haven't caught up with the modern age, it shows up and starts roaring angrily to get them caught up. That's what fueled the labor union movements in the US that ended child labor and won us all the weekend, as well as the civil rights movement and the suffragette movement.

It might slow down eventually and give ground to a newly-moved conservative party who have begun to begrudgingly accept the new rights at some point...But trying to say it'll never have a day to shine and get what the people want only makes sense if you consider the current people-crushing corrupt oligarchy that the US has turned into.

Exactly my point though, the establishment will fight tooth and nail to make sure the left keeps losing. The left may have the popular positions, but establishment will make sure they lose. It'll take a huge movement, heck a political revolution(A non violent one of course) to overcome this huge obstacle and finally implement progressive changes.

evilthecat:

Fieldy409:
The idea that conservatives will dissapear is wrong. Its part of human nature. It will simply change. Being conservative is part of human nature as much as progressives.

Isn't that a pretty pointless statement? If being "conservative" will change, then conservativism as we know it is doomed to extinction. The fact that some people in the future will be invested in whatever the status quo of their society is or nostalgic about the societies of the past will not mean that our conservatism, our present day conservatism, will have survived. It won't.

What is conservative today was radical and progressive in the past. Likewise, it makes sense that what is radical and progressive today will be conservative in the future. That's reductive, in a sense, but it also overwhelmingly bears out.

If conservatism is a part of human nature, then it's the part that constantly, constantly loses, even as the social change conservatives railed against becomes part of the foundation of a new status quo which future generations of conservatives will try to defend at all costs.. and fail. That's what conservatives do, in historical perspective. They fail.

Well, I do not know if its pointless, if you consider a little change in ideology over time to be extinction then sure I guess modern conservatives may go extinct. The guys who think homosexuals should be executed dissapear to be replaced by the guys who think homosexuals should practice 'dont ask dont tell'. That also would mean progressives will go extinct too if they win all their battles right? But just saying conservatives will no longer exist as a thing as soon as everybody over 50 or so dies as some say is also misleading I think.

I do think even if we were to get rid of social conservatives, the fiscal conservatives wont go anywhere. Theres always somebody crying over taxs and immigration costs.

Something else to consider, do you ever look at history and wonder why everything started going well for social progressives so recently? It was only like the 1900s Women started getting to vote after all. A lot of things changed very fast, maybe Nazis showed everyone how fucked bigotry and racism is, or maybe its because of modern science, or is it just societies maturing culturally or what? Most religions and societies oppressed women and homosexuals for most of history, and sure you can cite exceptions but overall its all oppressive. So I do wonder when this wave of change that is a tiny blip in history will end. For most of history, it seems the conservatives won over and over. but maybe I am wrong and my opinions of history are stereotypes.

WolvDragon:

Correct, that term isn't the same as the one we Americans tend to identiy with. But the point still stands, the left won't see a huge resuregence for a long time.

You didn't really offer a reason for that to be the case, though; you gave symptoms rather than causes ("most of Europe is dominated by center-right parties, and the social democrats or other left leaning parties in Europe don't hold as much sway as they used to"-- this doesn't explain it, or offer reason to believe how long the situation will last).

Is there any reason to believe this is a long-lasting phenomenon? Look at any country's electoral history, and you'll be able to identify fairly long periods in which one party dominates over multiple electoral cycles... but they still usually only last 3 cycles or so.

Silvanus:

WolvDragon:

Correct, that term isn't the same as the one we Americans tend to identiy with. But the point still stands, the left won't see a huge resuregence for a long time.

You didn't really offer a reason for that to be the case, though; you gave symptoms rather than causes ("most of Europe is dominated by center-right parties, and the social democrats or other left leaning parties in Europe don't hold as much sway as they used to"-- this doesn't explain it, or offer reason to believe how long the situation will last).

Is there any reason to believe this is a long-lasting phenomenon? Look at any country's electoral history, and you'll be able to identify fairly long periods in which one party dominates over multiple electoral cycles... but they still usually only last 3 cycles or so.

I just did in my last post at least concerning the U.S. the establishment in the United States is hell bent on making sure progressives aren't elected into the federal, state or local governments. As for Europe, well I'm not entirely sure what is the "cause," but the left in Europe hasn't been doing well across the board right? Most countries in Europe are either run by center-right parties, fringe nationalist parties that lean right (Poland and Hungary come to mind), only a few countries are run by left leaning parties like Sweden and Portugal, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were wiped out in their next elections.

This is only speculation on my part, but I figure the left leaning parties are losing ground to the anti-immigrant populist parties who are slowly taking power across Europe. There could be many other variables as to why the left in Europe isn't doing so well, I don't know I can't tell you because I'm not well verse as to their decline, but if you look up who controls most European countries it ain't the left.

I'm also guessing that since most European nations have a better social safety net, then the U.S. and were enacted years ago upon years ago, the left in Europe really don't have much to offer in terms of new ideas. Again just baseless speculation.

Now if you know the cause as to why their on the decline, please share. I would like to know myself.

WolvDragon:
Liberalism isn't as popular as it used to be back in the 20th century.

If we mean liberalism in the sloppy US form that roughly equates to a certain type of progressive Democratic Party voter, then liberalism maybe doesn't look so good. And there's a rise in various stripes of illiberalism - particularly those around authoritarian nationalism. However, in liberalism's broader political and ideological sense of belief in economic and social freedom, it's doing okay. The reality is that all mainstream - left or right - parties in the West are heavily liberal to a certain degree. And quite a few of the non-mainstream ones, too.

Agema:

WolvDragon:
Liberalism isn't as popular as it used to be back in the 20th century.

If we mean liberalism in the sloppy US form that roughly equates to a certain type of progressive Democratic Party voter, then liberalism maybe doesn't look so good. And there's a rise in various stripes of illiberalism - particularly those around authoritarian nationalism. However, in liberalism's broader political and ideological sense of belief in economic and social freedom, it's doing okay. The reality is that all mainstream - left or right - parties in the West are heavily liberal to a certain degree. And quite a few of the non-mainstream ones, too.

Well I mean the progressive leftie stuff.

Saelune:

runic knight:

Saelune:
The right regularly wrongfully demonizes political opponents. Why is it ok when they do it?

Where did I ever make the claim it was?

I called out someone claiming a modern political viewpoint was legitimate nazi's. That in no way was a claim as you pretend it was here.

You did not claim it, you just do not seem to evenly apply this line of thinking.

A lot of people seem to have strong opinions of something, yet seem to not apply that evenly to both sides.

Why would I have to "apply it evenly" when calling out a user in this thread for doing it? Why would I have to apply it evenly at all when it is a complaint on the actions of someone directly in front of me? I don't listen to an arsonist telling me his friend burned a tire two nights ago when I catch them trying to set a tree on fire.

You do not justify bad actions by saying "but this person does this". You still are doing the bad action, you are still personally responsible for your own actions, you don't get to excuse them because some nebulous "others" out there.

It is the action that is bad. If you have a complaint about other people doing it, call them out yourself. If you do it though and pretend you are entitled to, then you are a hypocrite and have no right to complain when others do the same thing you do, because they can use your exact argument and go "but they did it too" just like playground children.

A lot of people can have strong opinions, but that doesn't excuse YOUR actions any more than if they justified their own by making you their example of a "but they did it".

That is not how adults behave. This isn't even an argument about what party or politician is worse where things devolve into whataboutism, this is literally you doing something horrible right here and trying to justify it because of some handwave to a vague excuse of "but other people".

No.

And doubly no for trying to imply I think it is ok when others do the same thing. Saying an entire established majority political group is literally the fucking nazi party because you disagree with them is childish.

runic knight:

Saelune:

runic knight:

Where did I ever make the claim it was?

I called out someone claiming a modern political viewpoint was legitimate nazi's. That in no way was a claim as you pretend it was here.

You did not claim it, you just do not seem to evenly apply this line of thinking.

A lot of people seem to have strong opinions of something, yet seem to not apply that evenly to both sides.

Why would I have to "apply it evenly" when calling out a user in this thread for doing it? Why would I have to apply it evenly at all when it is a complaint on the actions of someone directly in front of me? I don't listen to an arsonist telling me his friend burned a tire two nights ago when I catch them trying to set a tree on fire.

You do not justify bad actions by saying "but this person does this". You still are doing the bad action, you are still personally responsible for your own actions, you don't get to excuse them because some nebulous "others" out there.

It is the action that is bad. If you have a complaint about other people doing it, call them out yourself. If you do it though and pretend you are entitled to, then you are a hypocrite and have no right to complain when others do the same thing you do, because they can use your exact argument and go "but they did it too" just like playground children.

A lot of people can have strong opinions, but that doesn't excuse YOUR actions any more than if they justified their own by making you their example of a "but they did it".

That is not how adults behave. This isn't even an argument about what party or politician is worse where things devolve into whataboutism, this is literally you doing something horrible right here and trying to justify it because of some handwave to a vague excuse of "but other people".

No.

And doubly no for trying to imply I think it is ok when others do the same thing. Saying an entire established majority political group is literally the fucking nazi party because you disagree with them is childish.

You have to evenly apply it because to not to would be hypocritical.

If you oppose wrongful demonization of political parties, then it should bother you when Republicans do it too because they do it extremely frequently. Trump's election campaign was majority of that.

I mean, if you believe in the stuff you are saying, great, but you tend to defend the right very heavily and do not tend to criticize them for doing all these things you claim upset you.

Saelune:

runic knight:

Saelune:
You did not claim it, you just do not seem to evenly apply this line of thinking.

A lot of people seem to have strong opinions of something, yet seem to not apply that evenly to both sides.

Why would I have to "apply it evenly" when calling out a user in this thread for doing it? Why would I have to apply it evenly at all when it is a complaint on the actions of someone directly in front of me? I don't listen to an arsonist telling me his friend burned a tire two nights ago when I catch them trying to set a tree on fire.

You do not justify bad actions by saying "but this person does this". You still are doing the bad action, you are still personally responsible for your own actions, you don't get to excuse them because some nebulous "others" out there.

It is the action that is bad. If you have a complaint about other people doing it, call them out yourself. If you do it though and pretend you are entitled to, then you are a hypocrite and have no right to complain when others do the same thing you do, because they can use your exact argument and go "but they did it too" just like playground children.

A lot of people can have strong opinions, but that doesn't excuse YOUR actions any more than if they justified their own by making you their example of a "but they did it".

That is not how adults behave. This isn't even an argument about what party or politician is worse where things devolve into whataboutism, this is literally you doing something horrible right here and trying to justify it because of some handwave to a vague excuse of "but other people".

No.

And doubly no for trying to imply I think it is ok when others do the same thing. Saying an entire established majority political group is literally the fucking nazi party because you disagree with them is childish.

You have to evenly apply it because to not to would be hypocritical.

If you oppose wrongful demonization of political parties, then it should bother you when Republicans do it too because they do it extremely frequently. Trump's election campaign was majority of that.

I mean, if you believe in the stuff you are saying, great, but you tend to defend the right very heavily and do not tend to criticize them for doing all these things you claim upset you.

Aren't the republicans tend to be the ones who call Democrats "lazy," "communists, "Hates America,"socialists," etc?

Saelune:

runic knight:

Saelune:
You did not claim it, you just do not seem to evenly apply this line of thinking.

A lot of people seem to have strong opinions of something, yet seem to not apply that evenly to both sides.

Why would I have to "apply it evenly" when calling out a user in this thread for doing it? Why would I have to apply it evenly at all when it is a complaint on the actions of someone directly in front of me? I don't listen to an arsonist telling me his friend burned a tire two nights ago when I catch them trying to set a tree on fire.

You do not justify bad actions by saying "but this person does this". You still are doing the bad action, you are still personally responsible for your own actions, you don't get to excuse them because some nebulous "others" out there.

It is the action that is bad. If you have a complaint about other people doing it, call them out yourself. If you do it though and pretend you are entitled to, then you are a hypocrite and have no right to complain when others do the same thing you do, because they can use your exact argument and go "but they did it too" just like playground children.

A lot of people can have strong opinions, but that doesn't excuse YOUR actions any more than if they justified their own by making you their example of a "but they did it".

That is not how adults behave. This isn't even an argument about what party or politician is worse where things devolve into whataboutism, this is literally you doing something horrible right here and trying to justify it because of some handwave to a vague excuse of "but other people".

No.

And doubly no for trying to imply I think it is ok when others do the same thing. Saying an entire established majority political group is literally the fucking nazi party because you disagree with them is childish.

You have to evenly apply it because to not to would be hypocritical.

If you oppose wrongful demonization of political parties, then it should bother you when Republicans do it too because they do it extremely frequently. Trump's election campaign was majority of that.

I mean, if you believe in the stuff you are saying, great, but you tend to defend the right very heavily and do not tend to criticize them for doing all these things you claim upset you.

Where in this thread has anyone else said an entire political party is literally the nazi?

You ignore my point here, YOU were the only one here making such horrible claims, and YOU are the only one trying to justify those claims as acceptable because of what someone else somewhere else did while you also try to hypocritically condemn them for doing it.

You do what you argue others should be condemned for with no self-awareness and a child-like sense of gross entitlement to be allowed to do it.

You again try to imply I accept or am happy when republicans do the same, but no, I do not and am not. There is a world of difference between arguing something is similar to and saying something outright is as well, a distinction that changes a comparison made from an outright insult and demonizing accusation.

I tend to defend concepts, not the right or left. The problem is, in these forums, there is few right-wings, and no extreme ones I see. But on the left, we have more than a few radical idealists like yourself, so I tend to argue against you and yours a lot more often.

Perhaps rather than presuming that is because of my political lean (the assumptions about which never cease to make me laugh in how wrong they are on average), it would be better to realize that you are so radicalized in your view that they affront even a leftist like myself, the sort who was so left he actively railed against the like of Bush even right after the 9/11 blowback of popular culture towards more right-wing tendencies.

And it is things like you have done here, the actively claiming people are nazi based entirely on your own warped political spectrum and your rejection of any notion of complexity, nuance, or common sense in order to do so.

To you, everyone who disagrees is a nazi.

To mean, that behavior is exactly the sort of extremist drivel that the nazi utilized to get into power in the first place.

Not every republican is a racist, nationalistic nazi. Not ever leftist is a sexual deviant, authoritarian commie.

The fact this needs to be said, let alone explained to you like this...

That is why I argue against you so often.

runic knight:

Saelune:

runic knight:

Why would I have to "apply it evenly" when calling out a user in this thread for doing it? Why would I have to apply it evenly at all when it is a complaint on the actions of someone directly in front of me? I don't listen to an arsonist telling me his friend burned a tire two nights ago when I catch them trying to set a tree on fire.

You do not justify bad actions by saying "but this person does this". You still are doing the bad action, you are still personally responsible for your own actions, you don't get to excuse them because some nebulous "others" out there.

It is the action that is bad. If you have a complaint about other people doing it, call them out yourself. If you do it though and pretend you are entitled to, then you are a hypocrite and have no right to complain when others do the same thing you do, because they can use your exact argument and go "but they did it too" just like playground children.

A lot of people can have strong opinions, but that doesn't excuse YOUR actions any more than if they justified their own by making you their example of a "but they did it".

That is not how adults behave. This isn't even an argument about what party or politician is worse where things devolve into whataboutism, this is literally you doing something horrible right here and trying to justify it because of some handwave to a vague excuse of "but other people".

No.

And doubly no for trying to imply I think it is ok when others do the same thing. Saying an entire established majority political group is literally the fucking nazi party because you disagree with them is childish.

You have to evenly apply it because to not to would be hypocritical.

If you oppose wrongful demonization of political parties, then it should bother you when Republicans do it too because they do it extremely frequently. Trump's election campaign was majority of that.

I mean, if you believe in the stuff you are saying, great, but you tend to defend the right very heavily and do not tend to criticize them for doing all these things you claim upset you.

Where in this thread has anyone else said an entire political party is literally the nazi?

You ignore my point here, YOU were the only one here making such horrible claims, and YOU are the only one trying to justify those claims as acceptable because of what someone else somewhere else did while you also try to hypocritically condemn them for doing it.

You do what you argue others should be condemned for with no self-awareness and a child-like sense of gross entitlement to be allowed to do it.

You again try to imply I accept or am happy when republicans do the same, but no, I do not and am not. There is a world of difference between arguing something is similar to and saying something outright is as well, a distinction that changes a comparison made from an outright insult and demonizing accusation.

I tend to defend concepts, not the right or left. The problem is, in these forums, there is few right-wings, and no extreme ones I see. But on the left, we have more than a few radical idealists like yourself, so I tend to argue against you and yours a lot more often.

Perhaps rather than presuming that is because of my political lean (the assumptions about which never cease to make me laugh in how wrong they are on average), it would be better to realize that you are so radicalized in your view that they affront even a leftist like myself, the sort who was so left he actively railed against the like of Bush even right after the 9/11 blowback of popular culture towards more right-wing tendencies.

And it is things like you have done here, the actively claiming people are nazi based entirely on your own warped political spectrum and your rejection of any notion of complexity, nuance, or common sense in order to do so.

To you, everyone who disagrees is a nazi.

To mean, that behavior is exactly the sort of extremist drivel that the nazi utilized to get into power in the first place.

Not every republican is a racist, nationalistic nazi. Not ever leftist is a sexual deviant, authoritarian commie.

The fact this needs to be said, let alone explained to you like this...

That is why I argue against you so often.

I am not the one arguing against demonizing an entire political party. You are the one saying that demonizing an entire political party is bad, BUT only when the left does it. If you think it is not ok for anyone to demonize an entire political party, then you have to hold the right accountable too. Do you? I mean, you defend Nazis demonizing the Jews, you defend the KKK demonizing black people, why can they do it?

You argue against me because my left wing values oppose yours.

Saelune:

runic knight:

Saelune:
You have to evenly apply it because to not to would be hypocritical.

If you oppose wrongful demonization of political parties, then it should bother you when Republicans do it too because they do it extremely frequently. Trump's election campaign was majority of that.

I mean, if you believe in the stuff you are saying, great, but you tend to defend the right very heavily and do not tend to criticize them for doing all these things you claim upset you.

Where in this thread has anyone else said an entire political party is literally the nazi?

You ignore my point here, YOU were the only one here making such horrible claims, and YOU are the only one trying to justify those claims as acceptable because of what someone else somewhere else did while you also try to hypocritically condemn them for doing it.

You do what you argue others should be condemned for with no self-awareness and a child-like sense of gross entitlement to be allowed to do it.

You again try to imply I accept or am happy when republicans do the same, but no, I do not and am not. There is a world of difference between arguing something is similar to and saying something outright is as well, a distinction that changes a comparison made from an outright insult and demonizing accusation.

I tend to defend concepts, not the right or left. The problem is, in these forums, there is few right-wings, and no extreme ones I see. But on the left, we have more than a few radical idealists like yourself, so I tend to argue against you and yours a lot more often.

Perhaps rather than presuming that is because of my political lean (the assumptions about which never cease to make me laugh in how wrong they are on average), it would be better to realize that you are so radicalized in your view that they affront even a leftist like myself, the sort who was so left he actively railed against the like of Bush even right after the 9/11 blowback of popular culture towards more right-wing tendencies.

And it is things like you have done here, the actively claiming people are nazi based entirely on your own warped political spectrum and your rejection of any notion of complexity, nuance, or common sense in order to do so.

To you, everyone who disagrees is a nazi.

To mean, that behavior is exactly the sort of extremist drivel that the nazi utilized to get into power in the first place.

Not every republican is a racist, nationalistic nazi. Not ever leftist is a sexual deviant, authoritarian commie.

The fact this needs to be said, let alone explained to you like this...

That is why I argue against you so often.

I am not the one arguing against demonizing an entire political party. You are the one saying that demonizing an entire political party is bad, BUT only when the left does it. If you think it is not ok for anyone to demonize an entire political party, then you have to hold the right accountable too. Do you? I mean, you defend Nazis demonizing the Jews, you defend the KKK demonizing black people, why can they do it?

You argue against me because my left wing values oppose yours.

He did not. People call you out in these forums Saelune because you tend to be the person doing these things IN THESE FORUMS. When Zontar gets uppity with his factless arguments and tacky, nonsensical comparisons everyone piles up on him too. Why are you assuming this guy doesn't oppose the Republicans just because he opposes you in particular?

I'm a good example of this. I keep up with American news and everything the Republicans do makes my stomach turn. Had I been an American Citizen at the time, I'd have voted for Hillary against my wishes, and I'm probably farther to the left than you'll ever be, and I still think your arguments are pointless, confrontational trife that rely on extremist, near-satirical comparisons to Nazism, passive-aggressive ad-hominens that are just passive enough to avoid a banhammer falling on you, and an arrogant declaration of moral high ground when you yourself engage in the symmetrical versions of the acts you condemn.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here