Well?

[millring]

Jul 12, 2024 14:51:46 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

By the way, I write these well-argued and (if I say so myself) well-written posts as I approach 80.

They're not bad.

[TKennedy]

Jul 12, 2024 14:48:52 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

All of which challenges the notion of the sole importance of the President--at least, if there's effective staff work (which there has to be even if the Prez is fully in charge of his mind and body).

Right! And who in their right mind would work for Trump. Few have come out the better for it. That worries me much more than Donald himself.

[howard lee]

Jul 12, 2024 14:45:52 GMT -5 Marshall said:

Also this from NY Times

The scandal is almost as old as the United States itself: The president has a health problem that he and his aides try to shroud from the public. Only later — years later, in some cases — does the severity become clear.

The list of cover-ups is remarkably long. After a mysterious illness caused James Madison to miss meetings with senators in 1813, he blamed a watch malfunction. During Chester Arthur’s only term as president, he hid a kidney ailment that likely contributed to his death a year after he left office. Grover Cleveland’s aides lied about a surgery in 1893 — performed on a friend’s yacht — to excise a tumor in his mouth.

Woodrow Wilson spent his last year and a half as president debilitated by strokes while his wife and doctor secretly carried out some presidential duties. Franklin D. Roosevelt concealed the ailments that led to his death months after he won the 1944 election. Dwight Eisenhower’s doctor initially described his heart attack in 1955 as “a digestive upset.” John F. Kennedy’s aides lied about his Addison’s disease. Ronald Reagan’s administration hid the extent of his injuries after he was shot in 1981 and the signs of his dementia in later years. Donald Trump misled the public about the severity of his Covid illness.

No Presidential administration wants to be perceived as weak and vulnerable. And there's a big difference between being seen as weak and vulnerable versus being perceived as a big, fat, lying, felonious, grifting piece of sh*t (which I am positing hypothetically for the sake of replying to Marshall's quote from the Times).

[Russell Letson]

I guess most of my fellow citizens have forgotten (or never saw) "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister." Let alone "Veep."

[billhammond]

From an Onion list of things Biden can do to reinvigorate his campaign:

End his campaign: This would provide him with such a huge surge in his approval rating that he would have no choice but to immediately restart his campaign.

[Cornflake]

I read that Trump is preparing for a landslide victory. I'm not much of a prophet but Trump is not going to win a landslide victory.

[millring]

...or any other kind of victory.

[aquaduct]

Jul 12, 2024 20:32:39 GMT -5 Cornflake said:

I read that Trump is preparing for a landslide victory. I'm not much of a prophet but Trump is not going to win a landslide victory.

Considering that 2020 wasn't a huge margin for Biden when he wasn't obviously a vegetable and considering how badly Biden's actually been at the job, I wouldn't be surprised by a landslide.

[millring]

I would guess that without exaggeration, every fifth post on my facebook feed is something about Project 2025. In the past two days they've morphed from mere claims of what the "project" is about, to citing the page and quoting directly from the project.

Still, having read, watched, and listened to conservatives my whole life, I have my doubts that the characterizations are accurate. In some cases when I've tracked it down I find: 1. skewed context, or 2. rephrasing, or 3. drawing a conclusion that doesn't necessarily follow from the text.

On the rarest of occasions (once) I witnessed a friend being called on the mischaracterization. To my friend's credit he did admit that the document doesn't actually say what he claimed it did ... but he thought that's where it would lead.

All that to say that I suppose that the fears ignited by the thought that the Republicans would be influenced by Project 2025 are the mirror image of the fears ignited by the claim that the Democrats are being influenced by the Socialists and other extremists in its party. That is to say: It's there. It does influence the party. But it's also in check by the necessary compromise of coalitions required to get elected. It's also held in check by the pragmatic workings of government -- the government's obligations and the government's very reason for being. And similarly, it is held in check by the un-elected but necessary government that is already in place and is too big and too integral to be swayed toward any extreme (except, perhaps, the extreme in which it might already be engaged).

That's why the typical Democrat isn't the least bit swayed away from their voting by examples of the extreme left side of their party. They know they're there. They might even somewhat agree in part or in principle with those extremes. But they just know that: 1. It's not what they themselves believe, 2. it's not going to take over the entire party because if it did, the coalition necessary to succeed as a party would disintegrate, 3. it's fear-mongering from the right to continually point it out (especially in election years). The right's characterization of those extremes is often out of context, slightly mischaracterizing the intent of the left, exaggerating the extent of the influence, or otherwise drawing conclusions that don't necessarily follow the premise.

So we'll talk past each other and end up with Trump vs Biden.

Good luck.

[epaul]

You need a different Facebook feed. Mine is filled with photos of lovely ladies who want to be friends. You can't have too many friends.

[Marshall]

Jul 12, 2024 15:24:17 GMT -5 millring said:

Jul 12, 2024 14:51:46 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

By the way, I write these well-argued and (if I say so myself) well-written posts as I approach 80.

They're not bad.

Except you keep calling millring, "Putin."

[Russell Letson]

Jul 13, 2024 9:08:06 GMT -5 Marshall said:

Except you keep calling millring, "Putin."

You're ignoring crucial context. The entire line is "Your pipe put in that and smoke it."

[John B]

Jul 13, 2024 5:33:24 GMT -5 millring said:

I would guess that without exaggeration, every fifth post on my facebook feed is something about Project 2025. In the past two days they've morphed from mere claims of what the "project" is about, to citing the page and quoting directly from the project.

Still, having read, watched, and listened to conservatives my whole life, I have my doubts that the characterizations are accurate. In some cases when I've tracked it down I find: 1. skewed context, or 2. rephrasing, or 3. drawing a conclusion that doesn't necessarily follow from the text.

On the rarest of occasions (once) I witnessed a friend being called on the mischaracterization. To my friend's credit he did admit that the document doesn't actually say what he claimed it did ... but he thought that's where it would lead.

All that to say that I suppose that the fears ignited by the thought that the Republicans would be influenced by Project 2025 are the mirror image of the fears ignited by the claim that the Democrats are being influenced by the Socialists and other extremists in its party. That is to say: It's there. It does influence the party. But it's also in check by the necessary compromise of coalitions required to get elected. It's also held in check by the pragmatic workings of government -- the government's obligations and the government's very reason for being. And similarly, it is held in check by the un-elected but necessary government that is already in place and is too big and too integral to be swayed toward any extreme (except, perhaps, the extreme in which it might already be engaged).

That's why the typical Democrat isn't the least bit swayed away from their voting by examples of the extreme left side of their party. They know they're there. They might even somewhat agree in part or in principle with those extremes. But they just know that: 1. It's not what they themselves believe, 2. it's not going to take over the entire party because if it did, the coalition necessary to succeed as a party would disintegrate, 3. it's fear-mongering from the right to continually point it out (especially in election years). The right's characterization of those extremes is often out of context, slightly mischaracterizing the intent of the left, exaggerating the extent of the influence, or otherwise drawing conclusions that don't necessarily follow the premise.

So we'll talk past each other and end up with Trump vs Biden.

Good luck.

To be fair, Larry posts with such frequency that pretty much every fifth post in my feed is Larry, Larry reposting Karla, Larry reposting Heather Cox Richardson, etc. It's not a failure on your part or his part (or whoever's part) if you just snooze them for 30 days, or until after the election. Unless your goal is to continually expose yourself to other viewpoints, which is admirable if not exhausting. My point is, if it bothers you, you can snooze or unfollow.

My knee-jerk reaction is, this is different. But I admit it's a knee-jerk reaction. Further thought is that "conservatives" are really, really good at the long game, laser-focus over the long game and not giving up. "Conservatives" could build a house on land-filled wetlands (not one I would like in the same time "liberals" would still be arguing about how equity enters into a group Ikea build. And "liberals" wouldn't notice the conservative's house until after people had been living in it for some time, and then would be up in arms about it.

BUT I've looked at the "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise" (subtitled Project 2025) and frankly it scares the crap out of me. I have not read all 920 pages of the PDF. The page and a half of the advisory board reads like a who's who of serious-as-fuck, my-way-or-leave conservative thought leadership. And frankly, it should appeal greatly to your "Compromise is Failure" attitude.

[Russell Letson]

I'm bothered by the posts and memes that exaggerate or miss the details (and the dodges and buried assumptions) of the P2025 proposals--but then, I'm inclined to analysis rather than propaganda, and nuance and precision get trampled in the alley-fighting of a political campaign.

On the other hand, P2025 is absolutely a detailed instruction manual for an ideological and practical takeover of the government, and it goes far beyond the scattered ambitions and policy proposals on offer by the not-very-organized left end of our political spectrum. So this take on the situation strikes me as just a bit both-siderish:

the fears ignited by the thought that the Republicans would be influenced by Project 2025 are the mirror image of the fears ignited by the claim that the Democrats are being influenced by the Socialists and other extremists in its party. That is to say: It's there. It does influence the party. But it's also in check by the necessary compromise of coalitions required to get elected. It's also held in check by the pragmatic workings of government. . . .

The fundamental flaw in this analysis is that P2025 is precisely designed to alter the "pragmatic workings of government" by replacing swathes of the civil service with something like an ideological spoils system (yeah, that's an emotively-charged comparison). Parts of the implementation of this ambition are called out in Pillars II and III of the P2025 document itself (p. xiv): a database of potential employees and a "Presidential Administration Academy to train them*. I am unaware of anything like this on the "left," even among its more systematic proponents.

The devil is always in the details, and P2025 is 800+ pages of devilish details.

* These are the only mentions in the P2025 document itself, but the Heritage Foundation site has already set up a PPD--Presidential Personnel Database and a Presidential Administration Academy subsite. See the application questionnaire here: static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/4b021d162587d4df/9179320d-full.pdf

[Cornflake]

Will there be reeducation camps? Asking for a friend.

[millring]

Jul 13, 2024 14:09:46 GMT -5 Cornflake said:

Will there be reeducation camps? Asking for a friend.

Exactly the mirror I'm talking about. You have to be aware that people on the right fear (and spread that fear -- just as here) exactly that of the left. In fact, the right sees it as a current reality. Say the wrong thing at work or school and it's off to reeducation.

[epaul]

I'm good. Wife works with the oil and coal industry and I sing in a church choir.

[Russell Letson]

Well, not exactly exactly. For example, the right-wing-radio/FB-culture end of things promulgated as fact that there were FEMA prison camps (some of them disused Wal-Marts) waiting to be filled. And that Covid vaccines contained nanotech/5G communication capability. And that Covid vaccines change the recipient's DNA. And, of course, Pizzagate.

On the left, "training" sessions aimed at a range of workplace behaviors, standards, and practices certainly exist--Cezarija has had to endure them. (They're incredibly badly designed and really, really boring.) And employees found to have violated various workplace rules are routinely required to endure additional retraining sessions. But characterizing these annoying and probably useless practices as "reeducation" is just a tad manipulative. Not unlike the practice (not John's) of slapping the "Marxist" or "redistributionist" labels on any social program that the Cato Institute or Chamber of Commerce finds objectionable. These are not quite up to the standards set by Pol Pot or Stalin. (More than fifty years ago, segments on "purr words and snarl words" were commonplace in undergrad English courses. No longer, I guess.)

[millring]

Jul 13, 2024 11:27:57 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

I am unaware of anything like this on the "left," even among its more systematic proponents.

That's quite possibly because you believe in the progressive philosophy and the changes it intends to continue carrying out. When you are that binary that you see the right as evil and the left as good, you're probably not going to see a parallel.

[Russell Letson]

I'm not sure exactly what the "progressive philosophy" is these days--though I've been called a "liberal" since high school and never been bothered by most of the political company I've found myself keeping. On the other hand, I'm inclined to treat my politics more like a Chinese-restaurant menu than, say, the Catholic Church or the Minnesota GOP--that is, I only order what I find to my taste. And while binary logic is a fundamental analytical tool, I'm not all that fond of it as a mapper of ideas or policies. Nor do I find "the right" as evil--though many who locate themselves there strike me as assholes. Not that my Marxist grad-school friends were immune to that condition. And I find many of my left-of-center friends and acquaintances infected by sentimentality, middle-class guilt, and fuzzy thinking. But at least they're not devising roadmaps to Total Governmental Reconstruction and hanging out with Stephen Miller and banging on about "the toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading . . . school libraries" (Mandate for Leadership, p. 1).