You write "The Hamiltonian neoliberals demonize those who disagree with them as siding with government coercion." That comes just after your quote of Colby writing: "The Hamiltonians tend to represent the standard ideology of the Republican party: economic growth, prosperity signaled by consumer choice, drill baby drill, don’t tread on me. In some senses the Hamiltonians represent the uni-party, a class of ruling elite who guard their own interests while the civic fabric continues to unravel. It’s Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Pete Buttigieg, or Liz Cheney."
I am not sure what to make of a claim that Clinton, Romney, Buttigieg or Cheney are heavily against government coercion. Are you disagreeing with Colby's definition?
"the last fifty years of expansion of college education has not gone well," <<
This.
But it is because the colleges have clearly been discriminating against Republicans, against pro-life ideas, against Christians.
Dishonestly (they claim to NOT discriminate), and possibly illegally.
80% of 40% is 32% - all colleges with less than 30% Republicans as Professors and administrators should lose their tax exempt status, and probably Fed loans to students and Fed research.
The political demonization has come from social acceptance of discrimination.
Could it also be that pre 1970 we were not a “developed” country yet and so higher growth rates (5%+) placated these arguments as people were getting so much richer. Post 1970 as a “developed” nation growth rates hover at 2-3% people are only becoming slightly richer, so part of the economy becomes more zero-sum (college admissions being a big example). As a result theses differences can no longer be placated and come to the forefront
You're missing one of the obvious contributors, which is that several different English subcultures are still pretty similar to each other, unlike the vast array of groups making up the modern US. The differences are much bigger today.
You write "The Hamiltonian neoliberals demonize those who disagree with them as siding with government coercion." That comes just after your quote of Colby writing: "The Hamiltonians tend to represent the standard ideology of the Republican party: economic growth, prosperity signaled by consumer choice, drill baby drill, don’t tread on me. In some senses the Hamiltonians represent the uni-party, a class of ruling elite who guard their own interests while the civic fabric continues to unravel. It’s Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Pete Buttigieg, or Liz Cheney."
I am not sure what to make of a claim that Clinton, Romney, Buttigieg or Cheney are heavily against government coercion. Are you disagreeing with Colby's definition?
"the last fifty years of expansion of college education has not gone well," <<
This.
But it is because the colleges have clearly been discriminating against Republicans, against pro-life ideas, against Christians.
Dishonestly (they claim to NOT discriminate), and possibly illegally.
80% of 40% is 32% - all colleges with less than 30% Republicans as Professors and administrators should lose their tax exempt status, and probably Fed loans to students and Fed research.
The political demonization has come from social acceptance of discrimination.
Could it also be that pre 1970 we were not a “developed” country yet and so higher growth rates (5%+) placated these arguments as people were getting so much richer. Post 1970 as a “developed” nation growth rates hover at 2-3% people are only becoming slightly richer, so part of the economy becomes more zero-sum (college admissions being a big example). As a result theses differences can no longer be placated and come to the forefront
You're missing one of the obvious contributors, which is that several different English subcultures are still pretty similar to each other, unlike the vast array of groups making up the modern US. The differences are much bigger today.