The New Republican Populism (personal Trump references not allowed)

[pmward]

If the left had any respect for our founders or the countless icons that made the US what it is, they wouldn't be ripping down statues everywhere trying to erase and rewrite American history. Maybe the Dems you know are moderates and not 'the left'. unfortunately, the left is where the party is headed.

Tearing down a statue is NOT erasing history. It is simply erasing a statue. A statue is not a history lesson, it is a monument to enshrine some person or idea. If a person or idea is not worth enshrining it should be torn down. The history books tell the "history". Germany can rip down a state of Hitler and not "erase history". The history books still tell the tale.

[doodle]

If the left had any respect for our founders or the countless icons that made the US what it is, they wouldn't be ripping down statues everywhere trying to erase and rewrite American history. Maybe the Dems you know are moderates and not 'the left'. unfortunately, the left is where the party is headed.

Tearing down a statue is NOT erasing history. It is simply erasing a statue. A statue is not a history lesson, it is a monument to enshrine some person or idea. If a person or idea is not worth enshrining it should be torn down. The history books tell the "history". Germany can rip down a state of Hitler and not "erase history". The history books still tell the tale.

I can't believe it isn't completely obvious how distasteful it is to have a high school named after Robert Lee with a statue of him out front and have to attend that school as an African American. Is that really controversial? I'm just stunned that people are surprised that might be offensive.

[doodle]

Are these features of the new republican populism...as they are with other forms of populism?




division of society into two camps, “the people” and “the elites”

a proud antagonism toward intellectuals

the rejection of culture and knowledge in favor of instinct

the promotion of polarizing views

demonization of one’s opponent

a contempt for judiciary, military, and political powers

a strong intolerance of free press

[doodle]

In other words how is this new republican populism different from all the other types of populism in history...say 1920s and 30s europe?

[Cortopassi]

Are these features of the new republican populism...as they are with other forms of populism?




division of society into two camps, “the people” and “the elites”

a proud antagonism toward intellectuals

the rejection of culture and knowledge in favor of instinct

the promotion of polarizing views

demonization of one’s opponent

a contempt for judiciary, military, and political powers

a strong intolerance of free press

Goddamn, I do have to post in response to this. I should print this in 128pt font and put it on my cube wall. This is exactly it, isn't it? We are repeating history, but at a much accelerated pace.

[pmward]

In other words how is this new republican populism different from all the other types of populism in history...say 1920s and 30s europe?

Ray Dalio seems to think we are literally repeating the populism of the 20s and 30s (we had populism here as well on both the left and right at this time). I really like reading the papers Dalio regularly releases on LinkedIn. He is one of the few people that actually look at the current trends in our society from a truly non-partisan view (as he should since he's looking for how he can profit from the likely outcome based on historical examples, not what is "right" or "wrong"). He also thinks that just like back then the only thing that will bring both sides together is crisis. Back then it took WWII to get both sides to bury the hatchet and start to work together again. His argument is basically what kind of crisis will it take this time? The COVID crisis wasn't enough, that didn't bring us together it split us apart further. 911 is the only real crisis I can think of in my lifetime that actually brought both sides together. It's sad it really takes crisis for us to learn our lessons. I hope and pray he is not right, but history does tend to rhyme.

[vnatale]

In other words how is this new republican populism different from all the other types of populism in history...say 1920s and 30s europe?

Ray Dalio seems to think we are literally repeating the populism of the 20s and 30s (we had populism here as well on both the left and right at this time). I really like reading the papers Dalio regularly releases on LinkedIn. He is one of the few people that actually look at the current trends in our society from a truly non-partisan view (as he should since he's looking for how he can profit from the likely outcome based on historical examples, not what is "right" or "wrong"). He also thinks that just like back then the only thing that will bring both sides together is crisis. Back then it took WWII to get both sides to bury the hatchet and start to work together again. His argument is basically what kind of crisis will it take this time? The COVID crisis wasn't enough, that didn't bring us together it split us apart further. 911 is the only real crisis I can think of in my lifetime that actually brought both sides together. It's sad it really takes crisis for us to learn our lessons. I hope and pray he is not right, but history does tend to rhyme.

But for an EXTRME brief period of time. For how long do you think it lasted? I'd say no more than a month or so. Then it was back to business, politically. Other than the Democrats being scared for years to oppose Obama's predecessor on anything.

Vinny

[pmward]

In other words how is this new republican populism different from all the other types of populism in history...say 1920s and 30s europe?

Ray Dalio seems to think we are literally repeating the populism of the 20s and 30s (we had populism here as well on both the left and right at this time). I really like reading the papers Dalio regularly releases on LinkedIn. He is one of the few people that actually look at the current trends in our society from a truly non-partisan view (as he should since he's looking for how he can profit from the likely outcome based on historical examples, not what is "right" or "wrong"). He also thinks that just like back then the only thing that will bring both sides together is crisis. Back then it took WWII to get both sides to bury the hatchet and start to work together again. His argument is basically what kind of crisis will it take this time? The COVID crisis wasn't enough, that didn't bring us together it split us apart further. 911 is the only real crisis I can think of in my lifetime that actually brought both sides together. It's sad it really takes crisis for us to learn our lessons. I hope and pray he is not right, but history does tend to rhyme.

But for an EXTRME brief period of time. For how long do you think it lasted? I'd say no more than a month or so. Then it was back to business, politically. Other than the Democrats being scared for years to oppose Obama's predecessor on anything.

Vinny

It seemed longer than a brief period to me. Of course, following 911 I joined the military, so I probably have a bit distorted of a view as the 4 years following were all from the perspective of a young active duty enlisted serviceman.

[SomeDude]

In other words how is this new republican populism different from all the other types of populism in history...say 1920s and 30s europe?

Ray Dalio seems to think we are literally repeating the populism of the 20s and 30s (we had populism here as well on both the left and right at this time). I really like reading the papers Dalio regularly releases on LinkedIn. He is one of the few people that actually look at the current trends in our society from a truly non-partisan view (as he should since he's looking for how he can profit from the likely outcome based on historical examples, not what is "right" or "wrong"). He also thinks that just like back then the only thing that will bring both sides together is crisis. Back then it took WWII to get both sides to bury the hatchet and start to work together again. His argument is basically what kind of crisis will it take this time? The COVID crisis wasn't enough, that didn't bring us together it split us apart further. 911 is the only real crisis I can think of in my lifetime that actually brought both sides together. It's sad it really takes crisis for us to learn our lessons. I hope and pray he is not right, but history does tend to rhyme.

But for an EXTRME brief period of time. For how long do you think it lasted? I'd say no more than a month or so. Then it was back to business, politically. Other than the Democrats being scared for years to oppose Obama's predecessor on anything.

Vinny

It seemed longer than a brief period to me. Of course, following 911 I joined the military, so I probably have a bit distorted of a view as the 4 years following were all from the perspective of a young active duty enlisted serviceman.

I joined in '99, Army. What branch were you in?

[SomeDude]

And I'm from Michigan also

[vnatale]

In other words how is this new republican populism different from all the other types of populism in history...say 1920s and 30s europe?

Ray Dalio seems to think we are literally repeating the populism of the 20s and 30s (we had populism here as well on both the left and right at this time). I really like reading the papers Dalio regularly releases on LinkedIn. He is one of the few people that actually look at the current trends in our society from a truly non-partisan view (as he should since he's looking for how he can profit from the likely outcome based on historical examples, not what is "right" or "wrong"). He also thinks that just like back then the only thing that will bring both sides together is crisis. Back then it took WWII to get both sides to bury the hatchet and start to work together again. His argument is basically what kind of crisis will it take this time? The COVID crisis wasn't enough, that didn't bring us together it split us apart further. 911 is the only real crisis I can think of in my lifetime that actually brought both sides together. It's sad it really takes crisis for us to learn our lessons. I hope and pray he is not right, but history does tend to rhyme.

But for an EXTRME brief period of time. For how long do you think it lasted? I'd say no more than a month or so. Then it was back to business, politically. Other than the Democrats being scared for years to oppose Obama's predecessor on anything.

Vinny

It seemed longer than a brief period to me. Of course, following 911 I joined the military, so I probably have a bit distorted of a view as the 4 years following were all from the perspective of a young active duty enlisted serviceman.

Though not directly related to how long it lasted....this is of interest: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... e-closest/


For the record....on 9/10/01 I had gone to the top of the Statue of Liberty. All the way back on the ferry I was staring at the Twin Towers as I was always fascinated by them. 24 hours later they were no longer.

When 9/11 happened the next morning I was in a motel in Yonkers, 20 miles north. As I was leaving I briefly met someone who had himself been on an airplane and had seen one of the airplanes going into one of the towers. I saw and heard our jets flying above us. Then I came home....about 180 miles away from New York City.

Vinny

[pmward]

we need is organization ( your description of the function of leadership in top down corporations) and i don't disagree..

but organization can be achieved in many ways

So in other words, you're agreeing we need a shade of grey?

meh not sure.. depends on the grey, if you mean that we begin with the premise that individual liberty is the start point, and that authoritarian top down command is a negative that is always dangerous, then working from where we are toward more individual liberty is grey getting lighter.. fine..
I don't present any anarchist libertarian philosophical ideals as a "lets do it all right now" solution (i am well aware half of humanity are idiots ) but if given a choice between organization that is by force and organization that isn't, would you pick the -lets give these humans (half of whom will be idiots) a gun and tell them to point it at us and make us do what they think is right solution, over alternatives? just because humanity hasn't thought its way out of the "government is the only box thinking", doesn't mean we cant..

Yes my main pushback is that it's not realistic in this current point in time. I mean, look at the power struggle between "liberals" and "conservatives" today as an example. I do think that as the human race evolves slowly over time the top down portion likely will be able to shrink. This won't be in our lifetimes though. We simply have not progressed far enough, we are still too animalistic in nature. The population of the world overtime shows a very slow gradual shift over centuries of slowly evolving to being more civilized and less animalistic. We are no longer making animal sacrifices to the gods. We are no longer crucifying people. We are no longer enslaving people. But we are still oppressing people. When/if we reach a point where we are close to fully civilized then yeah we probably could almost entirely get rid of the top down portion. But there's many centuries of evolution to go until we get there. In the meantime, the top down direction is necessary. Obviously not in the extreme like communism or the like. But until society as a whole can be civilized on its own (including taking care of those that are oppressed, needy, sick, old, etc) then we need some top down training wheel "shade of grey" direction towards civility.

This is where it gets complicated though... what is the Goldilocks just right amount of top down direction? I really don't know. All I know is I still see a much larger portion of our population suffering than I feel a truly "civilized" society should have. Not to mention a large portion of our country not only turning a blind eye, but in some ways actively trying to keep these people stuck where they are at permanently. This isn't civility, this is an animalistic alpha dominance battle playing out between some of the "haves" and "have nots" across the population.

[sophie]

Are these features of the new republican populism...as they are with other forms of populism?




division of society into two camps, “the people” and “the elites”

a proud antagonism toward intellectuals

the rejection of culture and knowledge in favor of instinct

the promotion of polarizing views

demonization of one’s opponent

a contempt for judiciary, military, and political powers

a strong intolerance of free press

Goddamn, I do have to post in response to this. I should print this in 128pt font and put it on my cube wall. This is exactly it, isn't it? We are repeating history, but at a much accelerated pace.

Hooray, glad you jumped back in Cortopassi! This thread is definitely a much more civil discussion than past ones have been. If we can all manage to maintain respect for other people's expressed opinions the forum will be a much better place.

Regarding this...I think these points are vast oversimplifications and frankly I totally disagree with many of them. For example:

It's the Democrats who are perverting the free press. The Republicans/conservative voters are the victims, not the instigators.

Polarization is happening on both sides. Takes two to tango.

Antagonism toward intellectuals. I'll give you that one, but I think it is richly deserved. Who the heck made a class of people who are entitled to make rules that everyone else must follow? Cancel culture for example is the most dangerous, anti-democratic development since Stalin. And may I remind you that again, conservatives are victims here not the instigators. A key aspect of NRP is a backlash against cancel culture, political correctness, "thought crimes" etc.

Also, if you start proposing top-down social control you have to acknowledge something that everyone has been dancing around. If you want someone to behave in a way that they don't want to behave, you have two ways to go about it. One is to persuade, if you can. The other is to use force. When you use force against someone who is not physically harming you, you step over a line that every historical document we have was supposed to guard against. And, you should be prepared to acknowledge what you're doing, and state explicitly what forms of force you plan to use and when. If you find yourself unable to stomach that description, that's probably a good sign that what you're proposing is a bad idea.

[SomeDude]

you should be prepared to acknowledge what you're doing, and state explicitly what forms of force you plan to use and when. If you find yourself unable to stomach that description, that's probably a good sign that what you're proposing is a bad idea.

Lots of lefties are very comfortable with stating how they want to hurt people who won't obey. That is the basis for their entire political philosophy so let's hope comfort isn't the only criteria.

[SomeDude]

Looking forward to reading the 8 pages of this and responding...the first page looked awesome. Hopefully pages 2-8 did not degrade in quality and tone.

get used to disappointment. ahahah--kidding

[Cortopassi]

Cancel culture for example is the most dangerous, anti-democratic development since Stalin. And may I remind you that again, conservatives are victims here not the instigators.

I may not be interpreting what cancel culture is, if not excuse me.

But isn't the example of Tucker Carlson being immediately shunned when he pressed Powell on evidence also symbolic of this?

Didn't "he who shall not be named" cancel Kapernick for kneeling, as one limited example?

Didn't conservatives, at least in the recent past cancel gays, interracial marriages, atheists and such?

Didn't conservatives cancel the Dixie Chicks for their war/Bush comments?
----------------

Definition: Cancel culture (or call-out culture) is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles - either online on social media, in the real world, or both. Those who are subject to this ostracism are said to be "canceled."[1] Merriam-Webster defines cancel as "to stop giving support to that person,"[2] and Dictionary.com defines it as "withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive."[3] The expression "cancel culture" has mostly negative connotations and is commonly used in debates on free speech and censorship.

From further in the article: US President Donald Trump criticized cancel-culture in a speech in July 2020, comparing it to totalitarianism and claiming that it is a political weapon used to punish and shame dissenters by driving them from their jobs and demanding submission.

----------------
The bolded above -- he who shall not be named does it ALL the time.

Sorry, I know you're going to say this is off the track again.

I think it works both ways.

[doodle]

I agree...the cancel culture seems stronger on the right to me of late. It used to be a prominent feature of left, but things have changed a bit. Even on this forum there are members blocking and ignoring those they disagree with.

I also see the right devouring itself of late. Everyone in the party seems at each other's throats trying to keep people to hold together.

[doodle]

The latest victim is georgia secretary of state:

By all accounts, Georgia had a wildly successful and smooth election," Brad Raffensperger wrote in a USA Today op-ed. "We finally defeated voting lines and put behind us Fulton County's now notorious reputation for disastrous elections. This should be something for Georgians to celebrate, whether their favored presidential candidate won or lost. For those wondering, mine lost - my family voted for him, donated to him and are now being thrown under the bus by him."

[pmward]

Cancel culture for example is the most dangerous, anti-democratic development since Stalin. And may I remind you that again, conservatives are victims here not the instigators.

I may not be interpreting what cancel culture is, if not excuse me.

But isn't the example of Tucker Carlson being immediately shunned when he pressed Powell on evidence also symbolic of this?

Didn't "he who shall not be named" cancel Kapernick for kneeling, as one limited example?

Didn't conservatives, at least in the recent past cancel gays, interracial marriages, atheists and such?

Didn't conservatives cancel the Dixie Chicks for their war/Bush comments?

Sorry, I know you're going to say this is off the track again.

I think it works both ways.

Yeah. Last week we discussed cancel culture as a form of "tyranny of the majority" that has nothing to do with the government. You're correct that both sides are guilty of it. Both of you are correct that it is a problem... as all forms of tyranny are a problem. But yeah, the right's hands are just as bloody as the lefts. "But he started it" isn't a valid excuse for fighting on the playground in elementary school, and it's not a valid excuse in modern culture.

[Cortopassi]

The latest victim is georgia secretary of state:

By all accounts, Georgia had a wildly successful and smooth election," Brad Raffensperger wrote in a USA Today op-ed. "We finally defeated voting lines and put behind us Fulton County's now notorious reputation for disastrous elections. This should be something for Georgians to celebrate, whether their favored presidential candidate won or lost. For those wondering, mine lost - my family voted for him, donated to him and are now being thrown under the bus by him."

I like that guy.

[SomeDude]

I may not be interpreting what cancel culture is, if not excuse me.

1. But isn't the example of Tucker Carlson being immediately shunned when he pressed Powell on evidence also symbolic of this?

2. Didn't "he who shall not be named" cancel Kapernick for kneeling, as one limited example?

3. Didn't conservatives, at least in the recent past cancel gays, interracial marriages, atheists and such?

4. Didn't conservatives cancel the Dixie Chicks for their war/Bush comments?

1. I don't think anyone is calling for him to be fired and his life ruined, they are just tuning out because he's was repeating Dem talking points. Ruining people's lives, going after their families, trying to make them unemployable, kick them off every media platform....that's cancel culture and it's a leftist tactic.

Many people (myself included) who decided to stop watching the liberal democrat left-leaning establishment activist political network called FOXNEWS were still clinging onto Tucker as someone standing for the truth. His behavior was disappointing, implying that because Sidney wouldn't show him proof she didn't have any. He must have been directly ordered to do it, or he made a serious miscalculation. It was also poor journalism.

2. Not at all. Actually I loved this one personally. It's not that I was in the Army and I was offended by Kapernick being disrespectful. It's not even that he subjected everyone to his opinion while on the job. It's that he even has an opinion to begin with. Just shut up millionaire who catches and throws a ball for a living and kiss the butt of all the white folks you rail against for victim points but are responsible for giving you a chance to play a game for a living. Good luck doing that anywhere else on Earth and insulting the country at the same time.

On a side note, Kaepernick was benched and on his way out already because of poor play. His political stunt to gain notoriety really took off after Trump called him out. Trump is responsible for getting this guy millions from all the woke corporations who want to suck up to the left and attack Trump and conservatives. He owes Trump big.

3. Cancel culture is about ruining the lives of individuals you disagree with. What individuals are you referring to?

4. I don't know if they set out to ruin their lives or just tuned them out. This one was really sad because I LOVE the Dixie Chicks and was completely against the Iraq invasion (despite being in the Army at the time). I'll give you this one.

[Cortopassi]

I may not be interpreting what cancel culture is, if not excuse me.

1. But isn't the example of Tucker Carlson being immediately shunned when he pressed Powell on evidence also symbolic of this?

2. Didn't "he who shall not be named" cancel Kapernick for kneeling, as one limited example?

3. Didn't conservatives, at least in the recent past cancel gays, interracial marriages, atheists and such?

4. Didn't conservatives cancel the Dixie Chicks for their war/Bush comments?

1. I don't think anyone is calling for him to be fired and his life ruined, they are just tuning out because he's was repeating Dem talking points. Ruining people's lives, going after their families, trying to make them unemployable, kick them off every media platform....that's cancel culture and it's a leftist tactic.

Many people (myself included) who decided to stop watching the liberal democrat left-leaning establishment activist political network called FOXNEWS were still clinging onto Tucker as someone standing for the truth. His behavior was disappointing, implying that because Sidney wouldn't show him proof she didn't have any. He must have been directly ordered to do it, or he made a serious miscalculation. It was also poor journalism.

2. Not at all. Actually I loved this one personally. It's not that I was in the Army and I was offended by Kapernick being disrespectful. It's not even that he subjected everyone to his opinion while on the job. It's that he even has an opinion to begin with. Just shut up millionaire who catches and throws a ball for a living and kiss the butt of all the white folks you rail against for victim points but are responsible for giving you a chance to play a game for a living. Good luck doing that anywhere else on Earth and insulting the country at the same time.

On a side note, Kaepernick was benched and on his way out. His political stunt to gain notoriety really took off after Trump called him out. Trump is responsible for getting this guy millions from all the woke corporations who want to suck up to the left and attack Trump and conservatives. He owes Trump big.

3. Cancel culture is about ruining the lives of individuals you disagree with. What individuals are you referring to?

4. I don't know if they set out to ruin their lives or just tuned them out. This one was really sad because I LOVE the Dixie Chicks and was completely against the Iraq invasion (despite being in the Army at the time). I'll give you this one.

I think your answers are equivocating, if I am using that word correctly.

1) Does someone actually have to use specific words against a person to screw with their life? I don't think so. This one is more of, we are going to pounce on anyone who doesn't believe her, even though we aren't sure she's believable ourselves. So whether he gets a short term ratings dip, or is fired, or harassed, he has been targeted.
2) At first, I will openly say I had a similar opinion. Since then, I guess I've been indoctrinated by CNN and the NYT into seeing there is no way us old white dudes can possibly understand what it is like. Especially after all the video instances we've seen over the past 12 months of shit that happens to black people that almost certainly would not happen to you if white.
3) I disagree. While many instances are directed toward individuals and companies, I see no reason cancel culture is not applicable to groups of individuals.
4) Woo Hoo!

[SomeDude]

I think your answers are equivocating, if I am using that word correctly.

e·quiv·o·cate
/əˈkwivəˌkāt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: equivocating
use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself.


They definitely weren't equivocating.

It's possible I used what someone might think is ambiguous language but I can assure it was not to conceal the truth or avoid committing myself. I'm all about committing myself

wait that sounds bad......

[doodle]

Guy getting fired for not participating in company prayer...intolerance on both sides.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakou ... _company/

[SomeDude]

Guy getting fired for not participating in company prayer...intolerance on both sides.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakou ... _company/

Agree, that is not okay and completely illegal. But please tell me where in the video it says the employer is a Republican...you are jumping to that conclusion without any proof.

Exactly. They could have been praying to Moloch.