"NatCons" are purely a DC/Internet phenomenon. They have next to no base in the real world of voters. And the majority of people claiming NatCon identity are grifters riding what they perceive as the hot new thing.
The values-neutral sanity that you remember fondly may simply not have been a stable equilibrium. Or maybe it only worked when the USSR was around as a cautionary fable about the excessive power of the state.
I think more people are recognizing that you can't defeat your passionate idealistic opponent (as wok-ists no doubt are) by appearing to believe in nothing. A positive vision is required.
1) Said he "never supported BLM" and "its the antithesis of everything we believe in"
2) Is anti-mask
3) Is anti-vaccine mandate
4) Accepted Donald Trumps endorsement
5) Supports qualified immunity for cops
6) Believe that CRT should be banned from schools by legislation and that parents should be able to ban books
Would say a "centrist classical liberal" like Tyler Cowen stand behind these statements? Would he fight for them in the electoral arena?
Glenn said these things *politely*, but he didn't pull punches or water down his views. According to the #NEVERTRUMP crowd all of these things should be disqualifying.
I want a candidate that will let people show their faces again. Tyler can't even be moved to say that masks are wrong, and always says that he personally thinks they are righteous and that good people should wear them and those that don't like it should stop complaining.
I want my K-12 schooling for be boring 3Rs and babysitting. I don't want to have a knock down drag out fight with unelected administrators over ideological school content as my full time job. I think kids in purple and blue areas shouldn't be forced into CRT indoctrination against their will. Just take it off the table. They are children and we are forced into the public schools against our will. This isn't the place for "debate".
I think that when the left burned down our cities someone that went and tried to stop it is a *hero*. What did the classical liberals do? Bitch on the internet while it all burned down.
I'm reminded of this passage when reading classical liberals horror at the idea of a coalition with Trumpists and their ilk. It's Rufo, the guy who has had the most success opposing wokism.
"You can’t persuade zealots with logic, facts, and clever argumentation; they only understand the language of power. That’s why the campaign to prove that you’re “the real liberal” or “more antiracist than the antiracists” is doomed to failure. Like it or not, Critical Race Theory is the driving force of the modern intellectual Left; they’re not going back to the philosophy of FDR, LBJ, or MLK. And they scrupulously follow the old dictum of “no enemies to the left”—they will dispatch the centrist liberals with even more vitriol and brutality than they dispatch the conservatives. This is also the core dilemma of the IDW crowd: many of them cannot imagine aligning with political conservatives; they operate under the delusion that they can “recapture the centre” and convince the planet of the virtue of Enlightenment values. That’s not how politics works. We live in a polarized political system—one winner, one loser. You’ll remember that the Girondins went to the guillotine. If, metaphorically speaking, the centrist liberals want to avoid the same fate, they will have to make an alliance with Trump-loving, truck-driving, gun-toting Middle Americans. That’s reality. We’ll see if they heed it."
I am also convinced by Indian Bronson here. His point is that wokism and CRT is the logical conclusion of liberalism which a) cares most about oppression and inequality and b) denies sub group differences can exist if not caused by oppression. Given that reality seems to disagree with b, what other outcome to liberalism than wokism could there possibly be?
I think the idea that there's a some massive block of socially conservative people ready to throw out free speech and impose a "virtuous" society is a massive Turing test fail.
Like, I'm sure the few remaining Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan types might like this idea, generally speaking the social conservative movement looks completely spent. The abortion laws that have been passed lately have the definite whiff of "last stand" about them.
Otherwise sensible conservatives have being polite to them for years, but my guess is that they're looking to the Supreme Court right now to bail them out of their toleration and servicing this small interest group. Because if the Court doesn't, and suddenly outlaws abortion, it will be a political disaster for the Republicans.
And that's how you know you've failed the Turing test. You're picturing support for social conservatism as something that might have a huge, untapped reservoir of support. But in practice, it takes about three seconds to realize that a social conservative victory would be met with much more protest and consternation than praise.
Freedom is built on traditional values, if by traditional values Tracisnski means (as I do) the prohibition and punishment of murder, bodily harm, theft, and fraud, and taking personal responsibility for one's fate. This country is where it is today because transgressions haven't been swiftly, certainly, and consistently punished, and because personal responsibility has been cast aside for the (supposed) benefit of certain groups. There are two for the effective rejection of traditional values by those in a position to inculcate and enforce them (elected officials, political leaders, the media and entertainment industry, and educators). One is the ascendancy of sob-sisters who believe that poverty is the root of all bad deeds and punishment should be replaced by "reform" (hah!). The other, overlapping, impetus for leniency is the knowledge (which one dare not be expressed openly) that certain groups are more likely than others to transgress traditional values.
"NatCons" are purely a DC/Internet phenomenon. They have next to no base in the real world of voters. And the majority of people claiming NatCon identity are grifters riding what they perceive as the hot new thing.
The values-neutral sanity that you remember fondly may simply not have been a stable equilibrium. Or maybe it only worked when the USSR was around as a cautionary fable about the excessive power of the state.
I think more people are recognizing that you can't defeat your passionate idealistic opponent (as wok-ists no doubt are) by appearing to believe in nothing. A positive vision is required.
Glenn Youngkin:
1) Said he "never supported BLM" and "its the antithesis of everything we believe in"
2) Is anti-mask
3) Is anti-vaccine mandate
4) Accepted Donald Trumps endorsement
5) Supports qualified immunity for cops
6) Believe that CRT should be banned from schools by legislation and that parents should be able to ban books
Would say a "centrist classical liberal" like Tyler Cowen stand behind these statements? Would he fight for them in the electoral arena?
Glenn said these things *politely*, but he didn't pull punches or water down his views. According to the #NEVERTRUMP crowd all of these things should be disqualifying.
I want a candidate that will let people show their faces again. Tyler can't even be moved to say that masks are wrong, and always says that he personally thinks they are righteous and that good people should wear them and those that don't like it should stop complaining.
I want my K-12 schooling for be boring 3Rs and babysitting. I don't want to have a knock down drag out fight with unelected administrators over ideological school content as my full time job. I think kids in purple and blue areas shouldn't be forced into CRT indoctrination against their will. Just take it off the table. They are children and we are forced into the public schools against our will. This isn't the place for "debate".
I think that when the left burned down our cities someone that went and tried to stop it is a *hero*. What did the classical liberals do? Bitch on the internet while it all burned down.
I'm reminded of this passage when reading classical liberals horror at the idea of a coalition with Trumpists and their ilk. It's Rufo, the guy who has had the most success opposing wokism.
"You can’t persuade zealots with logic, facts, and clever argumentation; they only understand the language of power. That’s why the campaign to prove that you’re “the real liberal” or “more antiracist than the antiracists” is doomed to failure. Like it or not, Critical Race Theory is the driving force of the modern intellectual Left; they’re not going back to the philosophy of FDR, LBJ, or MLK. And they scrupulously follow the old dictum of “no enemies to the left”—they will dispatch the centrist liberals with even more vitriol and brutality than they dispatch the conservatives. This is also the core dilemma of the IDW crowd: many of them cannot imagine aligning with political conservatives; they operate under the delusion that they can “recapture the centre” and convince the planet of the virtue of Enlightenment values. That’s not how politics works. We live in a polarized political system—one winner, one loser. You’ll remember that the Girondins went to the guillotine. If, metaphorically speaking, the centrist liberals want to avoid the same fate, they will have to make an alliance with Trump-loving, truck-driving, gun-toting Middle Americans. That’s reality. We’ll see if they heed it."
https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-dushanbe-interviews-christopher
I am also convinced by Indian Bronson here. His point is that wokism and CRT is the logical conclusion of liberalism which a) cares most about oppression and inequality and b) denies sub group differences can exist if not caused by oppression. Given that reality seems to disagree with b, what other outcome to liberalism than wokism could there possibly be?
https://indianbronson.substack.com/p/critical-race-theory-and-its-discontents
I think the idea that there's a some massive block of socially conservative people ready to throw out free speech and impose a "virtuous" society is a massive Turing test fail.
Like, I'm sure the few remaining Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan types might like this idea, generally speaking the social conservative movement looks completely spent. The abortion laws that have been passed lately have the definite whiff of "last stand" about them.
Otherwise sensible conservatives have being polite to them for years, but my guess is that they're looking to the Supreme Court right now to bail them out of their toleration and servicing this small interest group. Because if the Court doesn't, and suddenly outlaws abortion, it will be a political disaster for the Republicans.
And that's how you know you've failed the Turing test. You're picturing support for social conservatism as something that might have a huge, untapped reservoir of support. But in practice, it takes about three seconds to realize that a social conservative victory would be met with much more protest and consternation than praise.
Freedom is built on traditional values, if by traditional values Tracisnski means (as I do) the prohibition and punishment of murder, bodily harm, theft, and fraud, and taking personal responsibility for one's fate. This country is where it is today because transgressions haven't been swiftly, certainly, and consistently punished, and because personal responsibility has been cast aside for the (supposed) benefit of certain groups. There are two for the effective rejection of traditional values by those in a position to inculcate and enforce them (elected officials, political leaders, the media and entertainment industry, and educators). One is the ascendancy of sob-sisters who believe that poverty is the root of all bad deeds and punishment should be replaced by "reform" (hah!). The other, overlapping, impetus for leniency is the knowledge (which one dare not be expressed openly) that certain groups are more likely than others to transgress traditional values.