I think you are giving a pass to behavior that would make you apoplectic if the other side were doing it.

Thanks. Just wanted to add this from conservative Peter Wehner, who Ben calls ‘despicable’:

Many of the same people who once fiercely supported Reagan and opposed moral relativism and nihilism have come to embody the ethic of Thrasymachus, the cynical Sophist in Plato’s Republic who insists that justice has no intrinsic meaning. All that matters is the interests of the strongest party. “Injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice,” he argued.

The United States under Trump is dark, aggressive, and lawless. It has become, in the words of Representative Ogles, a predator nation. This period of our history will eventually be judged, and the verdict will be unforgiving—because Thrasymachus was wrong. Justice matters more than injustice. And I have a strong intuition and a settled hope that the moral arc of the universe will eventually bend that way.

Any Democrat politician has to toe the line on certain policies to win the primaries. No matter how telegenic a person is, they're not going to the Democrat nominee if they don't check certain boxes: pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-environment, pro-gun control, pro-immigration, etc. — RogueAI

You'd think so, except that, as I've pointed out, Harris was rhetorically aligned with America's longstanding immigration laws, not against them, not trying to change them. So ... maybe not on immigration.

Also, nobody's anti-environment. But blocking oil pipeline construction just burns more oil to transport the oil. Electric vehicles are just coal-powered cars. Corn based ethanol was idiotic. Wind and solar do not scale. If any of you really believed in any of this climate change alarmism stuff at all then you'd be cheerleading a fast track to a nuclear+hydrogen energy future because that is the only real, scalable answer to it, assuming it is a real problem and not just a scam. But Leftists are so hostile to nuclear and so duplicitous on multiple other issues and so obviously using the same tactics on this one that you should be able to understand why I, not being a scientist, would get suspicious.

You'd think so, except that, as I've pointed out, Harris was rhetorically aligned with America's longstanding immigration laws, not against them, not trying to change them. So ... maybe not on immigration. — BenMcLean

There's some wiggle room a Dem politician has. A lot of old school dems like myself were turned off with Biden's open border policy.

Hey, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions honestly.

I think you are giving a pass to behavior that would make you apoplectic if the other side were doing it. — RogueAI

Except the other side was doing it repeatedly. Politically motivated violent rioting, invading federal buildings, even trying to set them on fire. All of it. And supported by Democrat rhetoric. That was the summer of 2020. That had been going on for the whole season prior to the January 6th incident. That moment was the Right going apoplectic about the Left's behavior.

Many of the same people who once fiercely supported Reagan and opposed moral relativism and nihilism have come to embody the ethic of Thrasymachus, the cynical Sophist in Plato’s Republic who insists that justice has no intrinsic meaning. All that matters is the interests of the strongest party. “Injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice,” he argued.

Yeah, I know the Republic and he's right that Plato was right that this sophistry is bad.

The United States under Trump is dark, aggressive, and lawless. It has become, in the words of Representative Ogles, a predator nation.

Yeah, right. We're a predator nation. Our taxes pay to secure the international shipping of the entire world for free -- which this guy insists we keep on doing forever -- but we're a "predator nation."

There's no philosophy in this discussion. To the Lounge it goes.

What immigrant group are you talking about acting this way? Americans in Latin America or what? I think you confuse those vocal people speaking on the behalf of immigrants, when it comes to Western countries. — ssu

Too many examples to name.

Usually migrants do understand the age old truth of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". — ssu

Yes, there is mimicry and the adoption of what is useful. Sometimes this leads to full-scale assimilation where one group loses its identity and joins the other, but with Abrahamic religions, at least, this sort of thing is tantamount to annihilation. E.g., Jews could adopt Roman technology and dress, but they could never worship the Roman cult.

Who would tolerate cheap vagrants just strolling everywhere eating their own food or worse, just begging for food? — ssu

It's not this that concerns me. It's the foreigners who buy up large plots of land and make large donations to politicians and universities. Everyone notices the poor foreigner; the rich are more subtle but far more dangerous.

It's the foreigners who buy up large plots of land and make large donations to politicians and universities. Everyone notices the poor foreigner; the rich are more subtle but far more dangerous. — BitconnectCarlos

If your politicians can be bought to play the tunes of foreigners, which especially now they surely can be (starting now from Trump himself), you should blame your own people, not the foreigners for this.

If your country is corrupt, don't blame others for it.

No philosophy. Just a lot of special pleading and tu quoque.

It's about more than just politicians. Land. Universities. In any case, our original topic was the role of religion in political discourse, or the use of appeals to God/absolute truth in the political sphere.

There's a parochial madness here that is pretty sad.

No philosophy. Just a lot of special pleading and tu quoque. — Ciceronianus

The supposed "ideological crisis" is a result of dropping any pretensions of acting ethically, in favour of just openly being inconsiderate, narcissistic twats. Trying to rake back any intellectual dignity from the mess that is the GOP is a lost cause. Intellectual dignity is not on the menu. One cannot have such an "ideological crisis" unless one is committed to at least appearing to have a standing commitment to coherence, justification, or ethical self-understanding. Those pretensions have simply been abandoned.

It’s not that the GOP can’t supply a philosophy, so much as that supplying one would be instrumentally pointless given the current incentives. Attempts to reconstruct "Trumpism" (which is not even a "thing", as the kids say) as a coherent doctrine (national conservatism, post-liberalism, etc.) are absurd; trying to smuggle normative seriousness back into a practice that now explicitly disavows it.

But I would say that.

Carry on.

The supposed "ideological crisis" is a result of dropping any pretensions of acting ethically, in favour of just openly being inconsiderate, narcissistic twats. Trying to rake back any intellectual dignity from the mess that is the GOP is a lost cause. Intellectual dignity is not on the menu. One cannot have such an "ideological crisis" unless one is committed to at least appearing to have a standing commitment to coherence, justification, or ethical self-understanding. Those pretensions have simply been abandoned.

Yes, it’s a case of populists exploiting the phenomena of social media gaslighting along with religious fervour and dogmatism. If they can confuse the populist message with religious righteousness it can be smuggled through into mainstream opinion and work as a powerful force to divide and rule. And guess who’s the poster boy for all this. It will descend into chaos, corruption and economic failure.

It's about more than just politicians. Land. Universities. In any case, our original topic was the role of religion in political discourse, or the use of appeals to God/absolute truth in the political sphere. — BitconnectCarlos

The "custom of the land" as often corruption is referred to.

Politics deals also with moral and ethical questions, hence it is no wonder that in religious societies God (and hence absolute truth) would play a part. Yet politics in a democracy is about compromises to get agreements and a consensus. Political polarization makes that very difficult.

Basically every political party and movement should at all times be frightened of losing elections and power. A very entrenched political system where that isn't a problem is one reason (among others) that increases the possibility of corruption. And if the legal system isn't working or itself is corrupt, then corruption is rampant.

Perhaps conservatism might be a problem for the right if those "old values" are things like corruption, yet there's ample ideology in the right to eradicate these problems starting simply with the rights of the individuals and the ever important separation of powers.

Centralization of power, usually to one leader, is a cause for corruption and the destruction of the institutions necessary in a republic. This has been the real problem in leftist ideology (which doesn't care about separation of powers and the necessary institutions), but can also lead the right-wing astray when people want "strong leaders" to fix things.

The supposed "ideological crisis" is a result of dropping any pretensions of acting ethically, in favour of just openly being inconsiderate, narcissistic twats. — Banno

This seems like you're not thinking. Both sides for the most part really believe in what they're doing. Nobody ever sees themselves as the bad guys, or hardly ever. Where they do some things that are morally compromised sometimes, they will usually see it as a necessary compromise. No matter which party they're from. That's a reality I think you're failing to take into account.

There are a few issues where I do doubt that the other side is acting in good faith, where they agitate for causes they know aren't actionable or say they care about reducing emissions while opposing nuclear power. But I think they do see themselves as the good guys in their own story most of the time and understanding that about your opponents is absolutely vital to keeping your views grounded in reality.

It’s not that the GOP can’t supply a philosophy, so much as that supplying one would be instrumentally pointless given the current incentives. — Banno

The problem isn't that the GOP can't supply a philosophy: it's that it can't narrow down the field to just one which is internally consistent! The historical narrative I gave showed how there used to be an ideology that was constructed piecemeal out of the concerns which were most important to each of several factions but then also described how that contract has broken down. It's not that there's a lack of people with ideas or priorities: it's that there's a lack of a unifying synthesis between numerous competing factions and ideas right now. The Trump people don't clarify things, but in order to keep hold of power past 2028, they will need to. The present ambiguity and lack of a unifying ideological synthesis cannot last.

Yet politics in a democracy is about compromises to get agreements and a consensus. Political polarization makes that very difficult. — ssu

Exactly — politics is about compromise, so claims to absolute truth throw a wrench into it. Yet it is also true that religion is simply an inextinguishable part of life and does bear on moral/ethical questions. Previously, we would say things like 'religion is a private matter' or 'religion belongs in the private sphere.' I question the feasibility of this view, yet I remain sympathetic to it.

Centralization of power, usually to one leader, is a cause for corruption and the destruction of the institutions necessary in a republic. This has been the real problem in leftist ideology (which doesn't care about separation of powers and the necessary institutions), but can also lead the right-wing astray when people want "strong leaders" to fix things. — ssu

Any rational person should be cautious against the centralization of power. Yet sometimes it is necessary. FDR circumvented Congress to provide material aid to the UK prior to WWII, when the US public and Congress were largely isolationist. There are many examples of the centralization of power being used in beneficial ways. Of course, it is right to be cautious of such a thing.

Exactly — politics is about compromise, so claims to absolute truth throw a wrench into it. Yet it is also true that religion is simply an inextinguishable part of life and does bear on moral/ethical questions. Previously, we would say things like 'religion is a private matter' or 'religion belongs in the private sphere.' I question the feasibility of this view, yet I remain sympathetic to it. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm sympathetic to it also. For example it's a very reasonable etiquette let's say in a workplace. Yet if we talk about for example Middle East politics and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, not to take into account religion would be an huge error.

Any rational person should be cautious against the centralization of power. Yet sometimes it is necessary. FDR circumvented Congress to provide material aid to the UK prior to WWII, when the US public and Congress were largely isolationist. There are many examples of the centralization of power being used in beneficial ways. Of course, it is right to be cautious of such a thing. — BitconnectCarlos

Politics is many times a complex balancing act.

Lots to think about - but just wanted to say great OP. Thanks.

I'm sympathetic to it also. For example it's a very reasonable etiquette let's say in a workplace. Yet if we talk about for example Middle East politics and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, not to take into account religion would be an huge error. — ssu

I'm talking about claims to absolute truth in the context of a community and its political processes. Connected with that would be the question of the role of outsiders who arrive into a community and claim to possess politically-relevant absolute truth and how that community should view them.

Nobody cares

Developments in the US and in the world in just the two weeks makes in my view the OP even more important.

Where are the libertarians, the neoconservatives and the old republicans? Seems to be that not many are with Trump MAGA crowd. It might be just the algorithm that US policy commentaries that I read from conservatives are highly critical of Trump.

Where are the libertarians, the neoconservatives and the old republicans? Seems to be that not many are with Trump MAGA crowd. It might be just the algorithm that US policy commentaries that I read from conservatives are highly critical of Trump. — ssu

A lot of people, including myself, have changed their views significantly in response to the high tide of Leftist domination that occurred civilization-wide in the 2010s, culminating with the COVID panic measures which were just too far for many. This means that a lot of people were made very unhappy by the evident policy failures of the neoconservative and libertarian factions to have prevented those excesses and are therefore now open to more radical stances than they previously were.

Traditionally, conservatives are happy and progressives are not. Conservatives are conservatives because they are happy (they oppose change) and progressives are progressives because they are not happy. (they support change)

But the radical changes in the 2010s (remember, Obama opposed "gay marriage" both times he ran for President) have made conservatives (or "ex-conservatives" if you prefer) radically unhappy. So what's emerging on the right is a rejection of "conservatism" for some kind of postliberal or neo-reactionary worldview, which is far from settled because the Trump administration really doesn't provide a coherent direction for it and, being populist, tends to instead be trying to get its direction from it.

So what's emerging on the right is a rejection of "conservatism" for some kind of postliberal or neo-reactionary worldview, which is far from settled because the Trump administration really doesn't provide a coherent direction for it and, being populist, tends to instead be trying to get its direction from it. — BenMcLean

Populism is surely not conservatism. Never has been. Populism is a tool of the radicals, for whom the "us" the good and "they" the evil fits nicely to the revolutionary goals. What the problem is that the populist will say clearly what is wrong in the society, but the real issue is what the populist offers to be the solution. Usually it's just a nightmare, but sounds to the ignorant a great idea. Or then he just does like Trump did: declare simply that you will solve it and say nothing else.

But it's interesting how America became divided by COVID, whereas nothing of the sort happened in my country. The inability for the US to come together is actually very alarming. Here it's different: when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, both the opposition and the administration joined ranks and the strange event of administrations in both Sweden and Finland lead by leftist Social Democrats opted to join NATO, which earlier had been the view of only right wing parties. When the shit hit the fan, the politicians become team players, which is very nice to see. Otherwise it's the normal quarreling about taxes and legislation that any democracy is about.

fwiw, that divide happened here and there was not much of a way to tell who was on each side prior to it occurring.

Our "left" cohort is divided fairly sharply into two camps, as is our "right" cohort:

On the left, we have:
1. the "current" standard - what would cartoonishly be illustrated by piercings, blue hair etc.. and all the beliefs and hopes that tend to come along with that caricature (notice, I am not saying this caricature is right - but the expectations that underlie it do seem to be highly, highly relevant to the cohort I'm discussing) - essentially socialism lite with some un-examined social liberality, unexamined "trust the science" type thinking spurred by having never read the science; and

2. the 90s type of lefty - new-agey, hippie, and generally traditionalist in the sense that things like sex and sexual roles/energies are highly important, self-determination is important, skepticism of "big pharma" and similar concepts, skepticism of any government, rather than just right-wing ones among some other stuff.

You can probably see where the divide was. Camp 1 were literally calling for the assault and death of anti-vax or even vax-skeptical people. Camp 2 were basically saying that the government was a fascist propaganda machine visiting chemical warfare on the population.

I see the merits in both, but as we've discussed elsewhere, these radical positions became the norm during that time. The fear people felt caused them to lose their minds.

On the right, it was pretty much the same. True conservatives who saw emergency legislation as illegitimate and a mandated medical procedure to be ultra vires in every possible way - and then "modern" conservatives who called their dads "hateful cunts" for not wanting the vaccine when they live i the same house.

Again, I see the merits of both - but fear had us literally dobbing in neighbours, assaulting each other and calling for the country to basically be seized by a medica-military style dictatorship due to the emergency. Wild times. It wasn't just the US.

But the radical changes in the 2010s (remember, Obama opposed "gay marriage" both times he ran for President) have made conservatives (or "ex-conservatives" if you prefer) radically unhappy. So what's emerging on the right is a rejection of "conservatism" for some kind of postliberal or neo-reactionary worldview, which is far from settled because the Trump administration really doesn't provide a coherent direction for it and, being populist, tends to instead be trying to get its direction from it. — BenMcLean

It's Pagan, that is pre-platonic or non-universalist. Trump doesn't have a coherent direction or principles other than doing or saying what keep him in power. In the West we have trouble getting our heads around that because we are so used to thinking 'platonically', but it was probably the norm for most of history, and still is in large parts of the world.

But as far as the Western tradition goes, it is pretty radical. It's a break from a tradition of more than 2000 years with only a few brief exceptions here and there, like the fascists in the first half of last century (not that I necessarily want to equate Trump with the fascists, but they do have that in common).

Trump doesn't have a coherent direction or principles other than doing or saying what keep him in power. — ChatteringMonkey

That's true, but the ideology that's gathered around him wants to be post-liberal. Sometimes I think about the world Trump came from. It was a morally bankrupt, take no prisoners, greed-is-good NY scene.

Alan Greenspan ran the economy like we're a bunch of apes on the plains, so to predict the future, just look where the pendulum wants to swing next.

That's true, but the ideology that's gathered around him wants to be post-liberal. Sometimes I think about the world Trump came from. It was a morally bankrupt, take no prisoners, greed-is-good NY scene. — frank

I've seen the term used a lot lately, but I'm not sure what post-liberal is supposed to mean exactly.

That NY scene you describe is similar to how things go in other more lawless societies, like for instance Putins Russia... I think that's pretty much the default way things tend to organise at least originally out of disorder... a more tribal structure with hierarchical organisation according to power.

Where does the pendulum want to swing? An idea I've been entertaining is that liberalism or cosmopolitanism is historically a set of 'empire-values', or a set of 'meta-values' to allow different cultures to live together under one larger super-structure. And perhaps it only really works or is useful for such an empire. Should the geo-political balance continue to swing further to the east, on might expect a new order starting to emanate from China, as they have the most to gain from it. If one listened to the different leaders speak at Davos, that was indeed the general trend, the US and other Western countries talking about resilience. self-sufficiency and strength, while China was putting the emphasis on cooperation and maintaining global order.

That NY scene you describe is similar to how things go in other more lawless societies, like for instance Putins Russia... I think that's pretty much the default way things tend to organise at least originally out of disorder... a more tribal structure with hierarchical organisation according to power. — ChatteringMonkey

Very much so. Reverting to a more chaotic economy (starting with the Reagan administration) allowed a new elite to emerge. It crippled American and UK labor, which I think was partly the point of it.

Consider the possibility that anytime things start to become too egalitarian, the economy occasionally falls into stagnation. For a society whose fundamental values orbit around growth, this is unacceptable. Stratification has to be reintroduced to get the ball rolling again. So this was the goal behind prioritizing Wall Street above "Main St." The result was amorality coming from the top down. We're several decades down stream from that.

Where does the pendulum want to swing? An idea I've been entertaining is that liberalism or cosmopolitanism is historically a set of 'empire-values', or a set of 'meta-values' to allow different cultures to live together under one larger super-structure. And perhaps it only really works or is useful for such an empire. Should the geo-political balance continue to swing further to the east, on might expect a new order starting to emanate from China, as they have the most to gain from it. If one listened to the different leaders speak at Davos, that was indeed the general trend, the US and other Western countries talking about resilience. self-sufficiency and strength, while China was putting the emphasis on cooperation and maintaining global order. — ChatteringMonkey

That's interesting. I don't think tolerance has ever been a virtue in Chinese culture. Has it? It will be interesting to see.

Populism is surely not conservatism. — ssu

Yeah, that's what my original post said. Trump is disconnected from conservatism. But also, conservatism itself has proven unable to deal with the problems of the 21st century for the reasons I outlined, resulting in the need for a replacement. Populism can't be that replacement permanently.

I'm surprised that Ukraine has held out as long as it has. I thought the Ukraine war would have resulted in a Russian victory years ago. Not that I wanted that outcome: only that I had predicted that outcome.

1. the "current" standard - what would cartoonishly be illustrated by piercings, blue hair etc.. and all the beliefs and hopes that tend to come along with that caricature (notice, I am not saying this caricature is right - but the expectations that underlie it do seem to be highly, highly relevant to the cohort I'm discussing) - essentially socialism lite with some un-examined social liberality, unexamined "trust the science" type thinking spurred by having never read the science; — AmadeusD

I'm not convinced the wokists actually are socialist at all. I mean, they do support welfare programs, but they infest Big Tech and seem to have no interest in turning Big Tech away from being a profit-seeking private enterprise.

2. the 90s type of lefty - new-agey, hippie, and generally traditionalist in the sense that things like sex and sexual roles/energies are highly important, self-determination is important, skepticism of "big pharma" and similar concepts, skepticism of any government, rather than just right-wing ones among some other stuff. — AmadeusD

Yeah these were the baby boomer liberals. They want the liberty of the sexual revolution for themselves personally without the sexual revelution actually changing society on a large scale. Thsi is less consistent than the wokists but it ends up at the same place, because you can't have everybody doing something for themselves personally without everybody doing it, thus the whole society doing it, thus getting society-wide impact and change.