|
Post by The Cap'n on Jan 30, 2019 9:55:47 GMT -5
I don't anticipate much political discussion here unless it appears people are interested in on-topic, courteous and charitable conversation. But I do want to share some things that strike me as interesting, in the vein of the PSF "An Interesting Read" thread. So I'll post links to articles, videos, and podcasts here sometimes. You can, too. Comment if you'd like, don't comment if you'd like.
Thomas Edsall's piece in NYT today, inflammatory headline aside, has some very interesting data. It also has commentary from The Niskanen Center, a nonpartisan think tank seemingly mostly comprising center-right people (lots of Hoover Institution names, some Stand Up Republic, etc., among the more center-left Brookings Institution types) that I thought was most interesting based not just on what they said, but from what perspective they said it.
The point, in summary, is that because a certain type of movement conservative is predisposed to believe government doesn't work, it intentionally further breaks government, which then causes government not to work, reinforcing the belief. (One of the people quoted goes further into motives, but I don't think that's actually necessary to make the point.) There is also discussion about how when the principle fails economically--such as in the deep red rural states--the only move left to make is that of cultural division. (But also that this is a move you can only make for so long.)
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 31, 2019 8:25:40 GMT -5
I don't anticipate much political discussion here unless it appears people are interested in on-topic, courteous and charitable conversation. But I do want to share some things that strike me as interesting, in the vein of the PSF "An Interesting Read" thread. So I'll post links to articles, videos, and podcasts here sometimes. You can, too. Comment if you'd like, don't comment if you'd like.
Thomas Edsall's piece in NYT today, inflammatory headline aside, has some very interesting data. It also has commentary from The Niskanen Center, a nonpartisan think tank seemingly mostly comprising center-right people (lots of Hoover Institution names, some Stand Up Republic, etc., among the more center-left Brookings Institution types) that I thought was most interesting based not just on what they said, but from what perspective they said it.
The point, in summary, is that because a certain type of movement conservative is predisposed to believe government doesn't work, it intentionally further breaks government, which then causes government not to work, reinforcing the belief. (One of the people quoted goes further into motives, but I don't think that's actually necessary to make the point.) There is also discussion about how when the principle fails economically--such as in the deep red rural states--the only move left to make is that of cultural division. (But also that this is a move you can only make for so long.)
Captain - I'd like to see a section or thread section of moderate conservative (traditional Democrat - the fiscally conservative/responsible socially) where posters can feel free to post without blowback. There is or should be, room for this under the 1st Amendment (USA.)
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Jan 31, 2019 8:57:27 GMT -5
I agree.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 9:57:46 GMT -5
I wish there was a space where we could talk about serious matters like climate change, children separated from their parents by border agents and America's constitutional weaknesses without getting bombarded with conspiracies about elaborate plots to sell sunscreen or accused of being a communist.
Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Jan 31, 2019 21:39:26 GMT -5
That'd be nice, too.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 23:57:14 GMT -5
No joke, I literally wrote an entire multi-paragraph response suggesting some basic, neutral principles which I feel would lead to the most evenhanded, productive discussion possible on a topic as heated as politics. Essentially defining terms and isms clearly before throwing them around (especially as insults), knowing history, sticking to reputable news outlets or scholarly peer reviewed articles as opposed to some no-name conspiracy theorist on YouTube, etc. And I was talking about how I tried (albeit in a misguided way) to foster that kind of atmosphere in PSF by sharing my thoughts on past speeches/debates and a glossary of terms. And then I was sent to an error message telling me the server was down. And I refreshed and the site was back but my long reply was lost to cyber void. And then I remembered the ungodly headache I've dealt with online with regard to these kinds of discussions. And then I wondered why I keep bothering trying to corral cats. It's like that error message and lost post were a sign from above that I was once again wasting my time. It's a shame because history and political science are two of my favorite subjects but it's so impossible to have a respectful, productive conversation about them--especially in today's world. In a more leftwing younger group someone recently called me a bitch, idiot, a shill and even a c*** for questioning the narrative that that Covington kid who smirked was really the devil incarnate. And in this more rightwing, older group I've been called disturbing, brainwashed, snowflake and communist for suggesting that maybe just maybe our 250 year old Constitution might be just a tiny bit in need of some updates. It was clear from my PSF posts that I'd more than done my homework, yet I'd get talked down to all the time for my age (and unironically called "ageist" if I defended myself by pointing out how older doesn't always equal wiser.) I don't think my views are that unreasonable, and some aspects of what I'd like to see ought to appeal to both sides, yet the way people talk to me sometimes you'd think I was a radical insurgent or edgelord troll. What's happened to me isn't an isolated or unusual case either. I firmly believe civil discourse is dead in America, at least when it comes to politics. And nothing good can come from a democracy where people are unable or unwilling to discuss policy in a civilized manner. The more frequent and longer-lasting government shutdowns over the last 25 years are proof that it's not just laypeople either. Our leaders aren't operating in good faith anymore, it's all spite, gridlock, obstructionism and party before country. Meanwhile new up and coming politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are slandered and attacked for the heinous crime of.....dancing in a music video from when they were in college. (And you wanna talk to me about snowflakes and ageism. ) We have congressmen literally yelling at their elected, sitting colleagues to " go back to puerto rico" on the congressional floor. Maybe not as violent as the caining of charles sumner but a sign things have moved past the point of civil discussion nonetheless. I don't know what will happen or how to avert it, but America is driving itself over a cliff.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 1, 2019 8:39:56 GMT -5
I consider myself a moderate conservative, and I 110% agree that, as a country as a whole, both sides of the fence have completely lost the ability to have a civil and respectful conversation about politics.
I made the mistake of posting to some political threads in The Sandbox in the SSMB, and some other parts of the internet and social media, and due to my conservative views, I was called a racist, a bigot, a woman hater, a caveman, ignorant, uneducated, you name it.
I partly blame the lack of civility on the internet because its created a culture where it's so easy to hurl insults from a keyboard or a phone without the risk of being popped in the mouth. So, us conservatives are "racists," "ignorant," "bigots," and liberals are "snowflakes," "communists," and "baby killers."
And, like Leni said, it's extended to politics as evidenced by the childish standoff between President Trump and Speaker Pelosi.
If people cannot have a civil and respectful discussion about issues without resorting to childish name calling, this country will continue to go down the spiral we're on, and things are just going to get worse.
What's the answer? I, frankly, have no idea.
But, I like a line in the Kevin Smith movie Dogma, from Chris Rock, and I'm phrasing here. But he mentioned that people should have ideas instead of beliefs because people won't budge from a belief, people wil die for a belief, but an idea is something that leaves a little wiggle room.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 1, 2019 9:11:09 GMT -5
Maybe this can be the one-in-a-million place where somehow things don't go off the rails, he wistfully daydreamed...
The social psychologist Jonathan Haidt--truly great stuff; I absolutely recommend his books or, if you prefer, many talks on podcasts and YouTube--has helped me understand political disagreements by showing that personality traits often very heavily inform a person's political outlook at a pre-conscious, emotional level, and that much reasoning of those positions is post-hoc reasoning for an already set conclusion. It's not worth banging one's head against the wall with your own supposed "pure reason," and in fact is not only usually your own delusion but unnecessarily confrontational. I think whatever changes are made, are made slowly and through more positive interactions.
Media does play a big part in the problem, though, and of course politicians themselves are strategically served to hype up opposition as well. (Nobody gets excited to vote for the guy who says "she's a pretty solid candidate and we agree on 85% of things, but we have a couple of nuanced disagreements about zoning regulations and property taxes. Vote for me!") So it's wedge issues that are oversimplified into good versus evil.
And once it's good versus evil, it's impossible to talk civilly. The opponent must be the enemy. What's worse, if everyone is evil, then no one is evil. When evil walks through the door, people say "oh, you say EVERYONE is evil."
In the end we have to be able to accept disagreements because we're never going to do away with them. And heated arguments are a waste of time because you can't win one if you intend to maintain the relationship. "Winning" just means planting seeds of resentment, jealousy, humiliation, or other desire for revenge with the loser. (Should I mention the semi-controversial guy from whom I got that idea and have it immediately dismissed by some people because of their distaste for him? Sure, what the heck! It was Jordan Peterson. That idea made sense, whatever you may think of him overall.)
That rant aside, I do plan to use this thread to post things I read, watched, or heard, sometimes with a little commentary, sometimes not. I'll try to be respectful and civil. Anyone else who wants to participate, regardless of your perspective, please feel free to do so. I only ask that you keep it similarly respectful and civil ... and relevant to the topic.
kds - I'd love if you chimed in sometimes. On SS especially prior to the '16 election, I was shitty toward you, but I think I can do better now. iluvleniloud - Ditto on chiming in. On PSF, I overreacted to what I took as a an unfair dig, but I think I can do better now.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 1, 2019 9:14:52 GMT -5
Maybe this can be the one-in-a-million place where somehow things don't go off the rails, he wistfully daydreamed...
The social psychologist Jonathan Haidt--truly great stuff; I absolutely recommend his books or, if you prefer, many talks on podcasts and YouTube--has helped me understand political disagreements by showing that personality traits often very heavily inform a person's political outlook at a pre-conscious, emotional level, and that much reasoning of those positions is post-hoc reasoning for an already set conclusion. It's not worth banging one's head against the wall with your own supposed "pure reason," and in fact is not only usually your own delusion but unnecessarily confrontational. I think whatever changes are made, are made slowly and through more positive interactions.
Media does play a big part in the problem, though, and of course politicians themselves are strategically served to hype up opposition as well. (Nobody gets excited to vote for the guy who says "she's a pretty solid candidate and we agree on 85% of things, but we have a couple of nuanced disagreements about zoning regulations and property taxes. Vote for me!") So it's wedge issues that are oversimplified into good versus evil.
And once it's good versus evil, it's impossible to talk civilly. The opponent must be the enemy. What's worse, if everyone is evil, then no one is evil. When evil walks through the door, people say "oh, you say EVERYONE is evil."
In the end we have to be able to accept disagreements because we're never going to do away with them. And heated arguments are a waste of time because you can't win one if you intend to maintain the relationship. "Winning" just means planting seeds of resentment, jealousy, humiliation, or other desire for revenge with the loser. (Should I mention the semi-controversial guy from whom I got that idea and have it immediately dismissed by some people because of their distaste for him? Sure, what the heck! It was Jordan Peterson. That idea made sense, whatever you may think of him overall.)
That rant aside, I do plan to use this thread to post things I read, watched, or heard, sometimes with a little commentary, sometimes not. I'll try to be respectful and civil. Anyone else who wants to participate, regardless of your perspective, please feel free to do so. I only ask that you keep it similarly respectful and civil ... and relevant to the topic.
kds - I'd love if you chimed in sometimes. On SS especially prior to the '16 election, I was shitty toward you, but I think I can do better now. iluvleniloud - Ditto on chiming in. On PSF, I overreacted to what I took as a an unfair dig, but I think I can do better now.
Cap'n, thanks and I hope I wasn't shitty to you back then, but I have a tendency to get shitty if pushed. So, if I did, I do apologize. The one thing about this board, and the now defunct Pet Sounds Board, is that for the most part we can discuss a band whose fanbase probably has the most all over the map opinions of any band that I follow, and we can talk in a civil and respectful manner. If that can somehow translate to politics, that would be a positive thing.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 1, 2019 9:28:17 GMT -5
Since former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz took the long-anticipated baby step of admitting he's thinking of running for president (which I thought was common knowledge anyway), the backlash from mainstream media and Democrats has been almost overwhelming. Here is a typical example from today's NYT, courtesy of opinion columnist and left-leaning economist Paul Krugman:
I'm not talking about the merits of Schultz or any presumptive candidate in this post. But I find it fascinating how heated the bulk of the response to Schultz's potential candidacy has been. I do understand that for people who think anyone would be better than the current president, the risk of a third-party spoiler is scary. But I also think that everyone has a right to throw the hat in the ring and make his or her arguments for the job. A few reasons beyond the above that I think it's perfectly find for Schultz to enter: - He himself has said he's very anti-Trump, hinting that if he had no clear shot at winning, he would back out. If that's the case, there is no threat of a spoiler. - While I doubt it, he (or some other third-party candidate) could win. If that's what the people choose, so be it. - More likely, if he is running a moderately successful campaign but isn't going to win, he could pull the dialogue toward the center and encourage more compromise, even if he still ends up backing out.
To me, it's the height of righteous condescension to tell other people what they should be thinking and doing with respect to a two-years-away election. Make your own arguments.
And realistically, this thing hasn't even started yet. The more voices, the better for the time being: maybe someone will truly emerge as a popular candidate, truly popular, and able to get a majority of the entire population. In any case, I don't want any pre-ordained finalists. Progressives, conservatives, centrists, hawks, doves, pragmatists, populists, liberals, libertarians: state your cases. Nobody should be shouted down yet.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 1, 2019 10:12:54 GMT -5
Since former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz took the long-anticipated baby step of admitting he's thinking of running for president (which I thought was common knowledge anyway), the backlash from mainstream media and Democrats has been almost overwhelming. Here is a typical example from today's NYT, courtesy of opinion columnist and left-leaning economist Paul Krugman:
I'm not talking about the merits of Schultz or any presumptive candidate in this post. But I find it fascinating how heated the bulk of the response to Schultz's potential candidacy has been. I do understand that for people who think anyone would be better than the current president, the risk of a third-party spoiler is scary. But I also think that everyone has a right to throw the hat in the ring and make his or her arguments for the job. A few reasons beyond the above that I think it's perfectly find for Schultz to enter: - He himself has said he's very anti-Trump, hinting that if he had no clear shot at winning, he would back out. If that's the case, there is no threat of a spoiler. - While I doubt it, he (or some other third-party candidate) could win. If that's what the people choose, so be it. - More likely, if he is running a moderately successful campaign but isn't going to win, he could pull the dialogue toward the center and encourage more compromise, even if he still ends up backing out.
To me, it's the height of righteous condescension to tell other people what they should be thinking and doing with respect to a two-years-away election. Make your own arguments.
And realistically, this thing hasn't even started yet. The more voices, the better for the time being: maybe someone will truly emerge as a popular candidate, truly popular, and able to get a majority of the entire population. In any case, I don't want any pre-ordained finalists. Progressives, conservatives, centrists, hawks, doves, pragmatists, populists, liberals, libertarians: state your cases. Nobody should be shouted down yet.
Now that we have a president who did not come up the ranks - and came up a completely different path, from high profile media personality and brand name - others who have built or continued empires, are emboldened to do the same. Sending a "spoiler" with a similar name or some other name recognition - can pull votes away from other candidates is as old as elections. I think the Libertarian ticket last election was a joke. That looked like an absolute spoiler ticket. It was interesting that Trump ran as a Republican when he had been a Democrat. It is largely now a function of issue and party labeling and the monkey wrench was Sanders - who did come up the line, not as a Socialist but as a Democrat. Hillary was raised Republican so she knew their issues from both sides. She was a terrible campaigner and the know-it-alls who ran it, should have listened to Bill. He was The Comeback Kid. He knew how to turn around a political disaster and in his favor. Whatever else Bill Clinton is - or isn't - he knows how to "press the flesh" (strictly meaning when politicians have to shake hands and kiss babies) and work a crowd without insulting them. Now we have a mess and why someone like Schultz can potentially pull moderate Democrats, who find the whole new AOC deal revolting. She won a seat because her predecessor never got off his butt and took his constituency for granted. Schultz is a threat, has a platform, which he can build out ,on top of his business and media exposure. If Schultz carves out an issues platform that resonates with the millions of moderate disenfranchised Democrats - that could be his winning ticket unless the incumbency is too powerful. It worked for Trump - because the first rule in politics is one of your messaging that can cause a voter to identify with your platform, asking nicely for their support, and not disparaging voters and votes you want. Last election was the perfect storm - for a change. People were sick of all the labels and voted with their middle finger. JMHO
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 1, 2019 10:19:13 GMT -5
There have been rumors that Maryland Governor Larry Hogan might consider running for President as a Republican in 2020, challenging President Trump.
As a Maryland resident, I've been pretty happy with Hogan. He's a popular Republican Governor in a blue state. No easy task.
Here's a question that Leni or Cap'n might be able to answer. Has a sitting President ever lost in the primaries, thus losing the ability to seek re-election?
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 1, 2019 10:26:29 GMT -5
There have been rumors that Maryland Governor Larry Hogan might consider running for President as a Republican in 2020, challenging President Trump. As a Maryland resident, I've been pretty happy with Hogan. He's a popular Republican Governor in a blue state. No easy task. Here's a question that Leni or Cap'n might be able to answer. Has a sitting President ever lost in the primaries, thus losing the ability to seek re-election? Regarding the Republican in a blue state: I am increasingly fond of that idea because to me it implies a certain inherent ability to compromise. Not that every instance is a good situation. But at least it shows its possible, rather than the condescending or hateful spirit that you can see from a blue among blues or red among reds.
Regarding your question: not since the 1800s. Franklin Pierce--often considered one of the worst presidents ever--wasn't nominated to run again. I think he's the only one who was elected and then lost the next nomination. There are others who weren't elected, though, too. Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, John Tyler, and Millard Filmore all became president after the death of the elected president, and then didn't get their nominations.
Lyndon Johnson in 1968 is a similar but unique case: he chose not to pursue the Democratic nomination in '68 because of the controversy over his handling of Vietnam. Had he tried, it's not clear he would have won.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 1, 2019 10:32:29 GMT -5
There have been rumors that Maryland Governor Larry Hogan might consider running for President as a Republican in 2020, challenging President Trump. As a Maryland resident, I've been pretty happy with Hogan. He's a popular Republican Governor in a blue state. No easy task. Here's a question that Leni or Cap'n might be able to answer. Has a sitting President ever lost in the primaries, thus losing the ability to seek re-election? Regarding the Republican in a blue state: I am increasingly fond of that idea because to me it implies a certain inherent ability to compromise. Not that every instance is a good situation. But at least it shows its possible, rather than the condescending or hateful spirit that you can see from a blue among blues or red among reds.
Regarding your question: not since the 1800s. Franklin Pierce--often considered one of the worst presidents ever--wasn't nominated to run again. I think he's the only one who was elected and then lost the next nomination. There are others who weren't elected, though, too. Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, John Tyler, and Millard Filmore all became president after the death of the elected president, and then didn't get their nominations.
Lyndon Johnson in 1968 is a similar but unique case: he chose not to pursue the Democratic nomination in '68 because of the controversy over his handling of Vietnam. Had he tried, it's not clear he would have won.
Hogan was a case where logic prevailed over partisanship. Democrat Governor Martin O Malley's two terms in Maryland were extremely forgetful, and voters on both sides figured Lt. Governor Anthony Brown would've brought on four more years of O Malley esque rises in taxes, tolls, fees, and cost of living in general (the guy taxed the rain, no lie). So, voters on both sides made their voices heard, and it was truly a great moment for the State. I only wish that same logic over partisanship prevailed in Baltimore as the City has crumbled due to 40 years of poor leadership.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 1, 2019 10:40:57 GMT -5
I have a suspicion--and I can't back this up objectively, it's just intuition--that one-party rule regardless of party for too long is a bad idea. It's just too easy to become corrupt (as both parties have done over the years, many, many times), lazy, entitled, and out of touch. Strong minority parties and weak majority parties that flip every term or two are probably a decent thing as long as people keep good intentions about it. (An exception to what I mean by good intentions would be instances like happened in Wisconsin and I think North Carolina where, when the majority parties were voted out of governorships, they quickly passed new legislation to change the rules before the other party could take charge. I think that's dirty pool.)
It's one thing I like about Minnesota, actually. While we're a blue-leaning state overall, we are split internally and as a result have had a state government fully controlled by Democrats, fully controlled by Republicans, and split between the houses of the legislature and/or the governorship. It seems to keep some semblance of sanity, though we do see the special interests and ideologue partisans try their tricks where they can.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2019 10:55:40 GMT -5
The Cap'n I dont remember what was said or what we were disagreeing about but that's probably for the best. No hard feelings; I was really happy to see you'd come back. In regards to your second post, I am angered to see Schultz run if he winds up giving us 4 more years of Trump. However, the real recipient of all our anger should be with the system itself. When the League of Women Voters were removed from organizing the debates and (after Perot in '92) the standard for getting into the debates were changed from like 5% to 15% the democratic process was subverted. There's no good reason to have done those things except to lock in the incumbent parties. First Past the Post voting is far and away the worst method there is. I've researched the alternatives and it seems Range Voting (aka Score Voting) is best. Under this method, you'd give every candidate a rating (usually between 0-5, 1-10, etc) and the one with the highest average is the winner. To prevent some fringe candidate from winning with a small amount of support, usually every candidate has a uniform amount of zeroes averaged into the score as a threshold. There are other voting methods we could go with that would be better than FPTP but not as good as Range Voting. Instant Runoff and other Ranked ballets (where you list candidates from most preferred to least) are getting popular but they're limited by what's called Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. Essentially, each method of ranked voting has some kind of criterion it fails to meet. This is complicated and if you want to read more, you can google it. Cardinal methods, where candidates are graded independently of each other (Range and Approval Voting) are better. As far as making this forum a better place for decent political discussions...Im hopeful but doubtful that will happen. Without beating around the bush, the person whom I consider most responsible for killing or derailing nearly every thread on the PSF is still here and unwilling or unable to admit fault. I've wasted too many hours of my life trying to respond to that person in good faith. Frankly, I was also pretty hurt by some of the things they said to me--disturbing for offering solutions like the one above being the biggest--and all that nonsense played a significant part in my decision to leave PSF.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 1, 2019 11:04:22 GMT -5
As far as making this forum a better place for decent political discussions...Im hopeful but doubtful that will happen. My unsolicited recommendation is each of us do our best, try to be forgiving of grudges, and also importantly related to some of your concerns, pick our battles wisely. But overall, if it's going to cause any real stress, just step away.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2019 11:05:04 GMT -5
There have been rumors that Maryland Governor Larry Hogan might consider running for President as a Republican in 2020, challenging President Trump. As a Maryland resident, I've been pretty happy with Hogan. He's a popular Republican Governor in a blue state. No easy task. Here's a question that Leni or Cap'n might be able to answer. Has a sitting President ever lost in the primaries, thus losing the ability to seek re-election? It has only happened to one president in history--Franklin Pierce--who was actually nominated and elected before. The other four times it happened were to VPs who came to power after the nominated and elected President died. Those being Tyler, Fillmore, Andy Johnson and Chester A. Arthur. LBJ willingly chose not to run again. He would have seen a primary attempt against him by McCarthy had he not willingly stepped aside. Ford also saw a primary attempt against him by Reagan in '76 that was not successful. So did Carter in 1980 and HW Bush in '92--also unsuccessful in their bids for re-election. So while only one President who got nominated before was ever denied nomination again, to be challenged in a primary during your re-election campaign is a kiss of death for your chances of success, if history is any indication.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 4, 2019 20:15:49 GMT -5
A couple of quick things.
First, I want to quote from Haidt's "The Righteous Mind," which I referenced earlier, about what strikes me as a wise way to view liberal and conservative mindsets. It's in the form of a short anecdote from his college years.
"Liberalism seemed so obviously ethical. Liberals marched for peace, workers' rights, civil rights, and secularism. The Republican Party was (as we saw it) the party of war, big business, racism, and evangelical Christianity. I could not understand how any thinking person would voluntarily embrace the party of evil and so I and my fellow liberals looked for psychological explanations of conservatism, but not liberalism. We supported liberal policies because we saw the world clearly and wanted to help people, but they supported conservative policies out of pure self-interest (lower my taxes!) or thinly veiled racism (stop funding welfare programs for minorities!). We never considered the possibility that there were alternative moral worlds ... [and] then we could not believe that conservatives were as sincere in their moral beliefs as we were in ours."
This rang true to me, especially considering near-weekly happy hours I spend with one of my best friends, a very smart person who also seems absolutely blind to the possibility of good-hearted, strong-minded conservatives. They are greedy, they are nasty, they are racist, they are corrupt. The left's failings are well-meaning mistakes, or they are failures to go far enough to the left; while the right's failings are inherent to them, they are any willingness to pursue their own ideology (which must be a cynical ploy, after all). Anyway, I want to recommend "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt again.
Second, there was a little chatter about primaries the other day. So it might be interesting that some of the guys from bloggingheadz.tv in part discussed the possibilities and rumors of a possible GOP primary challenger. (They mentioned Bill Weld, former Republican Gov. of Massachusetts and running mate of Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in '16; and current Republican Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan.) The talk of primaries begins maybe 3 minutes in.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 8, 2019 10:58:53 GMT -5
I thought this was a good opinion piece about how to help anxiety-ridden overachievers find balance throughout their school years and ostensibly better perform professionally afterward. It's by the clinical psychologist Lisa Damour, published in NYT. While it is focused on girls specifically (presumably because girls seem more prone to these personality traits), it does correctly note that this can be the case for both boys and girls. (I personally, as an aside, prefer not to focus on the groups being affected by general traits and instead focus on the traits. To my mind, this helps us avoid sexism, racism, etc., and just get to the point.)
Seems like some good advice to me, anyway: basically saying "All that hyper-obsessive overwork you're doing isn't helpful. So stop it. Take a breath. Focus on what matters and ignore the nonsense." And I really appreciate her approach to the problem, not blaming the system for outcomes, but rather helping people navigate it.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 10, 2019 11:02:49 GMT -5
This is similar to a feature that was in NYT a few months ago: documentation (and some mockery) of the social-media focused "experience" destinations.
It's interesting to me that a generation or two that proclaims they value "experiences over things" seems dedicated mostly to curating exaggerated or fake experiences intended to be used online as a thing to be envied (all the while somehow overlooking their own artificiality and believing others', resulting in an acronym that belongs in the pet peeves thread, the dreaded "fomo").
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 10, 2019 17:42:48 GMT -5
One of my home-state senators, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), formally announced her candidacy for president in '20 today (making her one of maybe forty or fifty bazillion Democratic candidates). Her reputation is as a strong (traditional) liberal who seeks and succeeds with bipartisan opportunities as they present themselves. She has historically been very popular in purple Minnesota, winning all but two counties (85 of 87) in 2012. As the party has shifted since Sen. Sanders's '16 campaign, she is now often considered a moderate.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 12, 2019 16:12:12 GMT -5
This is actually a phrase that's a pet peeve, but because I'm annoyed by it purely in a political context at the moment, I didn't want to risk polluting the apolitical thread.
During the run-up to 2016, Trump supporters complained that Democrats, liberals, and all other non-Trump supporters needed to "take him seriously, but not literally." (You'd also hear it reversed that they "take him literally, but should take him seriously." You get the idea.)
I hated that phrase, even if I understand it on some level. There are areas in civil discourse when that makes sense, but I don't think national politics are among those areas.
Now, within the past few weeks, I've heard left-leaners use the same phrase about a couple of their own recent darlings, Reps. Ilhan Omar and AOC. AOC got it as a defense of her inaccurate statements about unaccounted-for military spending and more recently on her so-called Green New Deal kerfuffle; Omar got it after her most recent tweets that were described as anti-Semitic.
It drives me crazy. Politicians ought to be taken literally (and I suppose seriously ... at least judged seriously). You can't just fuck up or say something stupid and use that idiotic defense. It was stupid when people defended Trump with it, and it's stupid when they defend those freshmen reps with it.
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 15, 2019 9:13:53 GMT -5
There have been rumors that Maryland Governor Larry Hogan might consider running for President as a Republican in 2020, challenging President Trump. As a Maryland resident, I've been pretty happy with Hogan. He's a popular Republican Governor in a blue state. No easy task. Here's a question that Leni or Cap'n might be able to answer. Has a sitting President ever lost in the primaries, thus losing the ability to seek re-election? We have our first primary challenger to Pres. Trump. Former Massachusetts Republican governor (and 2016 Libertarian Party VP candidate) William Weld is officially running for president as a Republican.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 15, 2019 9:56:03 GMT -5
There have been rumors that Maryland Governor Larry Hogan might consider running for President as a Republican in 2020, challenging President Trump. As a Maryland resident, I've been pretty happy with Hogan. He's a popular Republican Governor in a blue state. No easy task. Here's a question that Leni or Cap'n might be able to answer. Has a sitting President ever lost in the primaries, thus losing the ability to seek re-election? We have our first primary challenger to Pres. Trump. Former Massachusetts Republican governor (and 2016 Libertarian Party VP candidate) William Weld is officially running for president as a Republican. Unfortunately, he is the perennial spoiler candidate. Now he is a Republican again? Interesting article with a comment on why he ran early on against a certain incumbent, "I thought it would be fun." Ran for Governor of NY as well where this article is sourced. I could not find a date. Quote from his son, David, "I think my dad might love the campaigns more than governing." nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/newyork/features/15551/
|
|