Does Anybody on the Right Try to Understand the Left?

[Hammster]

As I mentioned in another thread, I’m a big fan of the Know Your Enemy podcast, which is a long-running deep dive in the history of the intellectual wing of the Right, particularly in the US post WW1. Through them I’ve become aware of another podcast, In Bed with the Right, which covers similar ground but with an academically-minded focus on issues related to gender and sex. Others focus on legal theory and the supreme court.

Numerous columnists and writers have published pieces, especially in the wake of the 2016 election, from the Left pondering what the Left doesn’t understand about the Right. These writers aren’t merely dismissive of the Right; many (and most of the ones I find interesting) take the Right seriously even though the authors may not agree with them.

This material is common enough that I don’t even have to try to find new stuff; it just falls into my lap now. But I can’t think of a single counterpart on the Right who tries to understand the Left in the same way, and I’m wondering why that is. Do they not exist? Do they exist and I’m just not familiar with them? If they do exist, can anybody give me any recommendations?

I read scripture, so I understand the sone of the left is doing the work of the enemy. The official Democratic Party platform supports this in many areas. Not much more I need to know.

 

[Valletta]

Agreed. One other thing that I might note is how personal experience affects a person's perception on given problems . Back in the late 1980s, I was extremely right wing as in Pat Buchanan was not extreme enough for me. However, life experiences drew me back to a moderate position. In 2006 I sold my home and moved my family to Boston to pursue a seminary degree. Unfortunately, we had a lot of family issues and I was told to leave. I was under employed and on welfare from 2007 to 2010. While I deeply appreciated the welfare system, I also realized that the structure of welfare makes it VERY difficult to climb out of. The biggest problem is that you lose benefits faster than standard 3-5% raises will cover. So for example, I once received a raise of $500 per month. However, I would lose $750 per month in benefits. I sat down and realized that for a family of 5, the worst spot to be was making $38K to $50K per year. Welfare benefits cut out in this range but you weren't making enough to replace those benefits. So to get off of welfare you have to make a $10-15K leap, which is not a easy thing to do.

So from my personal experience, when conservatives complain about the multi-generational welfare recipients, I get it. However, until we, as people, take a deeper look into systemic issues, we have a tendency to jump to, "they're lazy" or some other "it's THEIR problem". I would also say that the left does the same thing to conservative issues.

The income problem you describe has got a lot of attention from conservatives and little from the left. What we are facing today is a takeover by the hard left. And as Ana said, a large portion of the older crowd is quite oblivious to this fact. New York City and San Francisco are good examples where they keep on voting Democrat no matter how bad it gets. The hard left leaders will treat the immigrants better than citizens for a as long as they can get away with it so they can exploit the immigrants for votes. I so think we need a third party or at least more outsiders to shake things up. If successful the hard left will eliminate the middle class and then be able to rule the majority of the people by government mandates.

 

[NxNW]

IMO to the left - the ends justify the means ... this has pushed them to violent extremes.

The left didn't try to overthrow the government on Jan 6.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

The left didn't try to overthrow the government on Jan 6.

No one did, well except maybe Antifa, its all propaganda staged by the left.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The left didn't try to overthrow the government on Jan 6.

No one did, well except maybe Antifa, its all propaganda staged by the left.

off topic

 

[Wings like Eagles]

If the left wanted to educate themselves on who they are, the late Great Rush Limbaugh can tell you all about yourselves.

Rush Home

RUSH: No longer is this just gonna be a long list of stories that I might mention on the program. Now, you will get specifically the stories that I talk about on the program and a select list of a few others that I intended to get to but ran out of time. It's going to be more of a real-time base...

www.rushlimbaugh.com

 

[Ana the Ist]

Has it?

Yeah, I'm struggling to find the exact study that showed the left was more likely to not understand the right....than vice versa....although misunderstanding was of course a symptom of both sides. This article in the Atlantic contains a passage that probably helps explain the problem though...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/

"Perhaps because institutions of higher learning tend to be dominated by liberals, Republicans who have gone to college are not more likely to caricature their ideological adversaries than those who dropped out of high school. But among Democrats, education seems to make the problem much worse. Democrats who have a high-school degree suffer from a greater perception gap than those who don’t. Democrats who went to college harbor greater misunderstandings than those who didn’t. And those with a postgrad degree have a way more skewed view of Republicans than anybody else."



That's odd to imagine isn't it? A Democrat voter who dropped out of high school and never went to college has a more accurate view of Republicans than a Democratic voter with a PhD. A Republican who graduates from college however understands the Democrats much better than the Republican high school dropout.


I think part of the problem is political language as well. Most Republicans understand the phrase "open borders" to mean either a policy of allowing free crossing of the border (which most Democrats would agree is the meaning of the phrase) but Republicans also understand that having no real or minimal enforcement of immigration laws is also open borders....which for some reason Democrats disagree with (although I'm not sure what they call this situation).

So if you ask a question like "are Democrats in favor of open borders?" You get very different answers whereas I think if you asked "are Democrats in favor of open borders or minimal border enforcement?" You'll get very different answers from the above.

For all of your proclamations about the right understanding the left, you seem to have failed pretty hard on this point, even after I explained that the title is a joke and that their conservative guests are in on the joke.

I didn't read the whole thread...just the OP. There's no mention of any conservative guests so I assumed that like most left wing podcasts....it's considered heresy to debate or "platform" anyone on the right. The left wing echo chamber must be kept tightly sealed lest anyone be exposed to a different idea.

You're saying this podcast platforms the right? I'm genuinely curious. Anytime I see even lightweight political discourse between the right and left it goes so badly that the left gets furious at whoever tries it and then demands it never happens again.

Can you give me an example of a podcast where they invite on a person from the political right (preferably a political commentator at least) and discuss political views/policy/or issues or really anything other than just trying to attack their character or otherwise ad hominem them or other right wing figures? Just pick an episode # and I swear I'll give it a listen.

Because to try and come up with examples of the opposite is extremely difficult. Nearly all discourse between the two sides tend to go like this...

Right- "Here's my critique of your views/ideas/policies"

Left- "Here's my critique you (insert ad hominem)."

If your podcast is substantially different, I'd like to hear it. Pick a good example for me to check out.

Okay. Does anybody on the right write about this or talk about it in an intelligent and sincere way and in a media format I can easily consume? If so, who?

The New Discourses website and podcast by James Lindsey breaks down literally every modern left wing political idea to its origin, explains its genesis, and expands upon it all the way up to its modern form. He's a classical liberal, an atheist, and has a degree in physics or engineering i think. He isn't particularly liked by the right...but they use him all the time because he cites and sources everything in obsessive detail. I wouldn't recommend it though, because it's probably way over the heads of the average left wing voter. The left despises him...because he's literally giving it all away. He explains, for example, who came up with the "modern left wing definition of racism" that includes "power and privilege" by citing its original source and reason for inventing it.

The problem with what you're asking for is that nobody on the left wants anyone to examine their ideas too closely. Consider this honest example of Ibrahim X Kendi trying to define "racism"....a question from an audience member who probably paid to hear him speak....

That's one bafflingly circular definition that makes no sense at all.

Here's a rhetoric analyst explaining the subtleties of a discussion between an intellectual lightweight (Matt Walsh) and a college professor of Gender Studies.

Here's a famous opening statement on an Oxford debate on....something (veganism) that is pretty jaw dropping...

Now...there's endless deconstruction and exploration of the positions that the left takes...but it's extremely difficult to engage them in any real discussion. This is why I asked you about NPCs. If you don't understand what that term means politically....you should look into it. When one side demands they have "safe spaces" which are analogous to echo chambers, when that side refuses to engage the other in debate and insists on silencing their opposition (cancel culture, deplatforming) then you end up with the political environment we have now....a bunch of lightweight intellectuals and former left wing intellectuals (or liberal intellectuals) desperate trying to get onto a college campus to engage in discussion or debate....but unable to....so they dissect and critique left wing ideas without anyone on the left actively defending them. On the left, it's just an echo chamber, where leftists try to signal to each other which amongst them is the most leftist....and they never engage any ideas outside the bubble. They simply call anyone outside the bubble a bigot of some kind or a "fascist" and that's the depth of their criticism.

So honestly, if you've got an example of anyone on the left (doesn't have to be a intellectual giant) engaging in a real life discussion of views with anyone from the mainstream right (not some past historical figures or some fringe Twitch streamer) then I'd love to see it. It's probably been 10 years since I've seen the left engage in any serious debate with anyone but themselves.

Sincerely awaiting your recommendation.

 

[JustOneWay]

As I mentioned in another thread, I’m a big fan of the Know Your Enemy podcast, which is a long-running deep dive in the history of the intellectual wing of the Right, particularly in the US post WW1. Through them I’ve become aware of another podcast, In Bed with the Right, which covers similar ground but with an academically-minded focus on issues related to gender and sex. Others focus on legal theory and the supreme court.

Numerous columnists and writers have published pieces, especially in the wake of the 2016 election, from the Left pondering what the Left doesn’t understand about the Right. These writers aren’t merely dismissive of the Right; many (and most of the ones I find interesting) take the Right seriously even though the authors may not agree with them.

This material is common enough that I don’t even have to try to find new stuff; it just falls into my lap now. But I can’t think of a single counterpart on the Right who tries to understand the Left in the same way, and I’m wondering why that is. Do they not exist? Do they exist and I’m just not familiar with them? If they do exist, can anybody give me any recommendations?

There is no intellectual wing of the right today. Intellectual thought was abandoned and populism, nationalism and anti-intellectualism filled the void.

They do not want to understand the left and they've never tried. They want to take the control from the left and reverse all progressive actions of the last century.


Case in point" The enemy is the left....
"I read scripture, so I understand the left is doing the work of the enemy. Not much more I need to know."

​

 

[JustOneWay]

If the left wanted to educate themselves on who they are,

You missed the point of the thread.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That's odd to imagine isn't it? A Democrat voter who dropped out of high school and never went to college has a more accurate view of Republicans than a Democratic voter with a PhD. A Republican who graduates from college however understands the Democrats much better than the Republican high school dropout.

It's not hard to imagine if the major contributor is lack of exposure to other viewpoints. More education for a Dem == more time in a bubble of other Democrats, whereas more education for a Republican == more time with people who aren't Republicans

I didn't read the whole thread...just the OP. There's no mention of any conservative guests so I assumed that like most left wing podcasts....it's considered heresy to debate or "platform" anyone on the right. The left wing echo chamber must be kept tightly sealed lest anyone be exposed to a different idea.

You're saying this podcast platforms the right? I'm genuinely curious. Anytime I see even lightweight political discourse between the right and left it goes so badly that the left gets furious at whoever tries it and then demands it never happens again.

It's not a debate show; it's not even primarily a current events show, though they do get into current events at times. It's primarily historiographic, so they talk a lot about different people who've written influential books and papers, who've founded and funded various think tanks, and otherwise shaped things somewhat outside of the headlines. They've had episodes on Bill Buckley and Rush Limbaugh, but media hounds aren't their focus.

As such, guests they have tend to be historians and other academic subject matter experts, not conservatives they wish to debate. When the do have conservatives on, the subject of platforming does come up - mostly in response to reader questions - and it's something they kind of dance around, but given the types of conservatives they typically have on (e.g. Ross Douthat) that's not usually too much of an issue.

NYT did a write up on the show, which included a blurb about their selection of conservative guests.

Two ‘Leftist Bros’ Dive Into Conservatism to ‘Know Your Enemy’ (Published 2022)

The podcast hosted by Matthew Sitman and Sam Adler-Bell offers history lessons that middle-aged liberals, young socialists and even some conservatives can love.

www.nytimes.com

That said, I'm partway through an episode they did a couple weeks ago about Nate Hochman, who was an up-and-coming conservative writer they had on the show in 2021 and who recently got fired from his Desantis speechwriting job for making and posting videos with nazi imagery. And platforming, along with how they conduct interviews, is one of the things they're talking about.

Can you give me an example of a podcast where they invite on a person from the political right (preferably a political commentator at least) and discuss political views/policy/or issues or really anything other than just trying to attack their character or otherwise ad hominem them or other right wing figures? Just pick an episode # and I swear I'll give it a listen.

Because to try and come up with examples of the opposite is extremely difficult. Nearly all discourse between the two sides tend to go like this...

Right- "Here's my critique of your views/ideas/policies"

Left- "Here's my critique you (insert ad hominem)."

If your podcast is substantially different, I'd like to hear it. Pick a good example for me to check out.

Again, it's not a debate show and they don't spend time attacking their guests. I hate debate shows. I used to listen to Ezra Klein's show pretty frequently and there's an infamous debate he had with Sam Harris from before I started listening that I've never been able to bring myself to listen to because every description I've heard of it sounds painful.

Anyways, to answer your question, Ross Douthat:

Know Your Enemy #14: Morbid Symptoms, with Ross Douthat - Dissent Magazine

Matt and Sam welcome their first "enemy" onto the show—Ross Douthat, New York Times columnist and author of the new book The Decadent Society—to talk about the state of conservatism.

www.dissentmagazine.org

Sam Goldman:

Know Your Enemy: After Nationalism, with Samuel Goldman - Dissent Magazine

An interview with political theorist Samuel Goldman on “being American in an age of division.”

www.dissentmagazine.org

Sam Tanenhaus (not really conservative, but was Buckley's handpicked biographer, and has been on a few times):

Know Your Enemy: Buckley for Mayor, with Sam Tanenhaus - Dissent Magazine

William F. Buckley Jr. biographer Sam Tanenhaus digs into the National Review founder's 1965 run for mayor of New York City.

www.dissentmagazine.org

Nate Hochman (probably the closest they get to having an "opponent" on):

Know Your Enemy: Young, Radical, and on the Right, with Nate Hochman - Dissent Magazine

A rising star on the intellectual right joins Matt and Sam for a conversation on where the right and left might agree, and—especially—where they do not.

www.dissentmagazine.org

Nate Hochman revisited:

Know Your Enemy: The Hochman Affair - Dissent Magazine

Nate Hochman was fired from Ron DeSantis’s presidential campaign after producing a video containing a Nazi symbol. Matt and Sam reflect on why they invited him on the show in 2021—and on what his trajectory tells us about the young right today.

www.dissentmagazine.org

I won't necessarily put these up as the best episodes - I seem to recall the Douthat episode as being bland and I don't remember Goldman at all. But I remember liking Buckley and Hochman pt 1.

So honestly, if you've got an example of anyone on the left (doesn't have to be a intellectual giant) engaging in a real life discussion of views with anyone from the mainstream right (not some past historical figures or some fringe Twitch streamer) then I'd love to see it. It's probably been 10 years since I've seen the left engage in any serious debate with anyone but themselves.

Sincerely awaiting your recommendation.

Ezra Klein does this. Off the top of my head, he's done episodes with Ross Douthat, David Brooks, David French, George Will, and Yuval Levin. I'm sure there have been others I'm forgetting. I remember particularly liking the George Will and Yuval Levin episode(s).

Honestly, if you only have an hour to give to this, I'd listen to any one of these Ezra Klein back episodes over KYE.

I want to say that there are probably some older episodes of Vox's The Weeds that would've qualified, too, but I'm drawing a blank on specific ones. I haven't listened since the original Vox crew left, but if you're in the mood to hear some leftists excoriate their own, dig up some episodes with Jerusalem Demsas and housing policy.

 

[iluvatar5150]

There is no intellectual wing of the right today.

That isn't true, but it has largely been overshadowed by the populists.

 

[Bradskii]

Interesting to me the terminology used by the left. They pretend to "try to undersand" the right...

I don't think that they do. At least at the level we see it. Which is generally the extremes of one side reacting (and I mean reacting) against what they see as the excesses of the other.

I'm keen to listen to some of the podcasts that @iluvatar5150 has mentioned. Hopefully it's going to consist of reasonable people having sensible discussions about matters with which they disagree, rather than the 'Oh, yes it is' 'Oh, no it's not!' schoolyard type of arguments that we normally get. See posts upstream for examples...

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm keen to listen to some of the podcasts that @iluvatar5150 has mentioned. Hopefully it's going to consist of reasonable people having sensible discussions about matters with which they disagree, rather than the 'Oh, yes it is' 'Oh, no it's not!' schoolyard type of arguments that we normally get. See posts upstream for examples...

One thing that's common to a lot of hosts that I absolutely cannot stand is that they don't do their homework. They'll have a guest on, or broach a subject with their cohosts, and not have read anything. Why on earth would I want to spend my time listening to somebody yammer on ignorantly like that?

With the ones I've mentioned so far, the hosts put in the time to read the material, take notes on it, and develop a conversional familiarity with it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's not hard to imagine if the major contributor is lack of exposure to other viewpoints. More education for a Dem == more time in a bubble of other Democrats, whereas more education for a Republican == more time with people who aren't Republicans

That's certainly part of it, but it can't just be that. The description wasn't merely that there's more Democrats than Republicans in college so Republicans come out of college with more exposure to left wing ideas....

It's that Democrats who don't go to college have a more accurate description of Republicans in general. It's as if a bias in the education process has distorted the view of the right from the left...but anyway....

It's not a debate show; it's not even primarily a current events show, though they do get into current events at times. It's primarily historiographic, so they talk a lot about different people who've written influential books and papers, who've founded and funded various think tanks, and otherwise shaped things somewhat outside of the headlines.

I listened to about 45 minutes of Nate Hochman one. It's a lot of nerdy theory stuff. Reminds me of why I slept through most of my Poli Sci degree.

They've had episodes on Bill Buckley and Rush Limbaugh, but media hounds aren't their focus.

As such, guests they have tend to be historians and other academic subject matter experts, not conservatives they wish to debate. When the do have conservatives on, the subject of platforming does come up - mostly in response to reader questions - and it's something they kind of dance around, but given the types of conservatives they typically have on (e.g. Ross Douthat) that's not usually too much of an issue.

Well there's nothing dangerous about Ross Douthat since he doesn't any real skin in the game. I'm not familiar with his 2008 book, but what I've read of his articles he comes off as a rather traditional neoconservative. I didn't read much though.

NYT did a write up on the show, which included a blurb about their selection of conservative guests.

Two ‘Leftist Bros’ Dive Into Conservatism to ‘Know Your Enemy’ (Published 2022)

The podcast hosted by Matthew Sitman and Sam Adler-Bell offers history lessons that middle-aged liberals, young socialists and even some conservatives can love.

www.nytimes.com

That said, I'm partway through an episode they did a couple weeks ago about Nate Hochman, who was an up-and-coming conservative writer they had on the show in 2021 and who recently got fired from his Desantis speechwriting job for making and posting videos with nazi imagery. And platforming, along with how they conduct interviews, is one of the things they're talking about.

It's a snoozer for me. I didn't get into politics because I had some deep love of politics. It's just one of several subjects I had an easy time understanding.

Again, it's not a debate show and they don't spend time attacking their guests. I hate debate shows. I used to listen to Ezra Klein's show pretty frequently and there's an infamous debate he had with Sam Harris from before I started listening that I've never been able to bring myself to listen to because every description I've heard of it sounds painful.

Haven't heard of that debate. Sam Harris appears to have gone off the deep end.

Anyways, to answer your question, Ross Douthat:

Know Your Enemy #14: Morbid Symptoms, with Ross Douthat - Dissent Magazine

Matt and Sam welcome their first "enemy" onto the show—Ross Douthat, New York Times columnist and author of the new book The Decadent Society—to talk about the state of conservatism.

www.dissentmagazine.org

I skipped this one. I read a couple of his articles and in fairness, you said it was a bit boring.

Sam Goldman:

Know Your Enemy: After Nationalism, with Samuel Goldman - Dissent Magazine

An interview with political theorist Samuel Goldman on “being American in an age of division.”

www.dissentmagazine.org

Sam Tanenhaus (not really conservative, but was Buckley's handpicked biographer, and has been on a few times):

Know Your Enemy: Buckley for Mayor, with Sam Tanenhaus - Dissent Magazine

William F. Buckley Jr. biographer Sam Tanenhaus digs into the National Review founder's 1965 run for mayor of New York City.

www.dissentmagazine.org

Skipped.

Nate Hochman (probably the closest they get to having an "opponent" on):

Know Your Enemy: Young, Radical, and on the Right, with Nate Hochman - Dissent Magazine

A rising star on the intellectual right joins Matt and Sam for a conversation on where the right and left might agree, and—especially—where they do not.

www.dissentmagazine.org

Ok...this one I tried. It was interesting to see how Nate went to the right after the typical introspection that happens to so many on the left and the disillusionment that follows. I thought there was going to be a possibility of an interesting discussion on "the status quo" and what's actually maintaining it....then about 45 minutes in they started discussing the relative value in a "trans day of inclusion" and decided that they're idiots and gave up. Do they continue on with various "culture war" topics for the next 45 minutes? They alluded to getting into the things they disagreed on so when that came up as the first example...I decided they were hopeless lol.

Nate Hochman revisited:

Know Your Enemy: The Hochman Affair - Dissent Magazine

Nate Hochman was fired from Ron DeSantis’s presidential campaign after producing a video containing a Nazi symbol. Matt and Sam reflect on why they invited him on the show in 2021—and on what his trajectory tells us about the young right today.

www.dissentmagazine.org

I won't necessarily put these up as the best episodes - I seem to recall the Douthat episode as being bland and I don't remember Goldman at all. But I remember liking Buckley and Hochman pt 1.

Well thats why I gave Hochman a try.

Ezra Klein does this. Off the top of my head, he's done episodes with Ross Douthat, David Brooks, David French, George Will, and Yuval Levin. I'm sure there have been others I'm forgetting. I remember particularly liking the George Will and Yuval Levin episode(s).

So there's a reason why political theory/philosophy tends to be downplayed in thought circles as something dirty and cheap as opposed to the high minded pure philosophers.

I think it's because most people don't have anything of value to add to most political philosophy. They simply have the ability to regurgitate other arguments they've heard in a way that the current generation can relate to.

With the exception of Yuval Levin, all those guys you just listed are typically billed as "conservative contributors" that write columns and opinion pieces for left wing media outlets.

Just out of curiosity...do you think any of them are representative of current right wing political thought? Or are they sort of the equivalent of Ana Navarro on The View....a sort of window dressing to merely give the appearance of those particular media outlets being anything but left wing echo chambers?

Honestly, if you only have an hour to give to this, I'd listen to any one of these Ezra Klein back episodes over KYE.

I must have misread your impression of Klein. I don't know anything about him except Vox.

I want to say that there are probably some older episodes of Vox's The Weeds that would've qualified, too, but I'm drawing a blank on specific ones. I haven't listened since the original Vox crew left, but if you're in the mood to hear some leftists excoriate their own, dig up some episodes with Jerusalem Demsas and housing policy.

This is what starts to happen within these bubbles that exclude outside opinions....they inevitably eat their own. I think this, in part, leads to the fringe voices emerging from both left and right. The thing is....it's easy to critique with no solutions or expectations about any. I actually watched a couple of YouTubers or perhaps Twitch streamers (yes, I know those aren't platforms for discussion) that are left/center left and simply because they try hard to think rationally....they can shred apart most mainstream left wing discourse.

I think the most important criticism of the left, arguably what hurts them the most, is the inability to engage with the actual ideas and political opponents on the right. If your criticism of them is almost entirely their moral character....then very few people will openly admit how they are voting.

I think it was the Obama years that Nate Silver was able to accurately predict all but less than 10 districts. By 2016, all ability to predict winners was gone. What happened? Well if you go after people's jobs, reputations, call them racists and bigots and xenophobes...and then CNN shoves a mic in their face or WaPo calls about a survey....nobody will tell you what they really think.

Only....

1. People with nothing to lose, the unemployed, disenfranchised, etc.
2. People who are independently wealthy enough to not be canceled. Jk Rowling. Elon Musk. Joe Rogan. Etc.

That's a big problem when it comes to winning elections. You may frequently end up in a space where you can't figure out why that landslide victory was a loss, or why that blue tsunami was barely a tropical storm.

The first 45 minutes of that podcast I listened to was very little substance. It was mostly two guys congratulating each other's successes, self aggrandizing their accomplishments, and talking about their backstories like anyone should care. The one host's inspirational professor that got him to move left was a Marxist. I'm shocked lol.

James Lindsey will explain what a "thought terminating cliche" is, where it comes from, how it's used, and it's basically all substance....no filler. He has a tendency to catastrophize a bit...but he's deeply concerned about Marxists and I can at least understand why. There's actual Marxist teachers and tankies with big audiences. I've yet to find a avowed white supremacist teacher or white supremacist with more than a tiny audience.

Thought-Terminating Clichés

A powerful tool in the Woke Marxist toolbox is something called a "thought-terminating cliché." These are short, pithy statements, demands, or slogans that are designed to stifle thought in their targets as well as in those saying them.

newdiscourses.com

 

[Ana the Ist]

Think about that...

You say overshadowed by the populists.
I say, put in a time-out, muzzled and left virtually silent as if they are not there. If a tree falls in a forest...
At one time log cabin republicans also thought they had a place in the conservative movement....LOL those poor folks did not realize they were used, then discarded.

No, for all intents and purposes, they are gone and they will not be returning until after the right totally fails and realizes there is only one way forward into the future which is to leave the past in the past. On second thought, they are gone forever. There can be only one way forward, and the future is to look towards a better way to live, not look backwards and keep trying everything which is obsolete or already failed.

I do appreciate your optimism....

I don't think any mainstream conservatives are getting their views from David French or David Brooks...

The sentiment you just expressed here is nothing new...it's the same sentiment from the earlier progressive movement in the US (you know, the one responsible for eugenics programs and sterilized children) and Marxists alike.

The problem with this view, if you give it half a second to think about, is even if you succeed and end democracy and usher in the new norm....it will eventually become the status quo that this sentiment insists should be rebelled against for a better future. It's a cycle of tearing down your own society ad nauseum.

Now, as for your "better way to live"...it's also been tried, by us, in the past. Anti-racist discrimination is just racist discrimination with a new name. "Representation" is the same old "tokenism" of the late 90s and early 2000s....with the same problems. The anti-war candidates are now republicans....and the left mirrors the neoconservative warmongers of 2001...and wants to force us all to use electric cars then tell us to avoid charging them up because the electric grid can't handle it. Maybe your media has buried a popular left wing documentarian's latest work because sustainability is a scam and the only cheap, long term energy is nuclear and no energy company wants that.

Maybe the Democrats were finished being bought out by corporate donors between Obama term 1 and Obama term 2 and that's why they fixed the DNC nomination. Maybe they now align so closely with their political opponents that the only difference left to highlight were the various defunct and unnecessary activist movements to convince you that your morals and politics are the same. Maybe they don't see any profit in fixing healthcare, education, or social safety nets. Maybe they want endless war because our military and tech sectors are deeply intertwined with the federal bureaucracy. Maybe they want open borders and child labor to import all those poor laborers they don't want to pay a living wage that they can't export overseas. Maybe the media just supports political narratives and no longer sells the truth because no one is buying. Maybe candidates wealthy enough to fund their own campaigns are the last thing corporate donors want because they can impede the money from flowing....or those wealthy candidates have exactly the same interests as those corporate donors. Maybe globalization had some downsides because capitalism needs regulation to work properly and since no global superstructure exists to regulate international conglomerates they're openly colluding to end competition so they can drain the middle class wealth of western democratic civilizations. Maybe those ESG scores aren't in your best interest at all....and they don't care if this nation becomes a cesspool because they have homes across the globe. Maybe we used to deal with the problem of late stage capitalism with reformers like Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and a guy who got assassinated in Dallas. Maybe globalization was seen as a way out of this cycle and that is why big economic forums like the WEF plan out our futures in the open because they know most people are too dumb to stop them. Saudi Arabia dealt with late stage capitalism with an event called "the night of the beatings" where they tortured anyone wealthy enough to threaten the Saudi family. Maybe China throws capitalists who don't obey the state by throwing them in a hole like Jack Ma....and they're lucky to see daylight ever again. Maybe Russia deals with rogue oligarchs by chucking them out the windows of tall buildings and calling it an accident.

These are all just ideas though. They definitely aren't based on facts or a clear understanding of our current political climate. I would suggest trying to convince the black vote they weren't just being used by the left to win an election. I doubt they'll keep falling for the old reparations line....so maybe admitting BLM was a scam that was pumped up by an outsized media focus on rare police shootings and that the food deserts aren't caused by racism as much as they are a combination of bad policy, bail reform, demoralized police, and predictable economic consequences to endless theft and looting. Tell them you'll fix those mistakes and bring law and order back to streets and deport the illegals their taxes are putting in hotels and feeding and they can get a decent wage to work those jobs with some dignity....and they might not defect entirely.

Who do you think won that first Republican debate? The establishment left wants people believe it was the lone female birthing person. The establishment right wants people to think it was Desantis. I think everyone knows it was Ramaswamy.


Any chance you're being encouraged to argue about "race" and "sex" and "gender" and cultural wars is because these aren't important things?

 

[RileyG]

They have a "live and let live" which I do not accept as a traditional, conservative, Christian. I respect them, just not thier ideals.
Blessings

 

[Truth7t7]

Donald Trump has made conspiracy theories much more popular. Demonizing and building straw men are the rage of the day. Hopefully it's just a temporary fad.

Sounds like a very clear description of the leadership in the democratic party, and the MSM that's their cheerleaders

The Trump Russia Hoax, bought and paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton in a fictional Christopher Steele dossier, as they tried desperately for 2 years to remove a duly elected president in Donal J. Trump, holding America hostage, with the outcome being the dossier was a fabricated "Lie"!

 

[Truth7t7]

They have a "live and let live" which I do not accept as a traditional, conservative, Christian. I respect them, just not thier ideals.
Blessings

Fact is the progressive liberals don't have a live and let live agenda any longer, that was 30-40 years ago

They want complete control of the elementary schools, media, and the Christian Colorado cake baker (Jack Phillips) is a prime example

Jack wouldn't bake a cake depicting homosexuality, and he was taken to court like 3-4 times over a 6 year period, costing untold $Money$ in his defense, it was intended, targeted, "persecution" of the conservative Christian, and the liberal media and its support "cheered the persecution of Jack Phillips

Live and let live?

 

[iluvatar5150]

That's certainly part of it, but it can't just be that. The description wasn't merely that there's more Democrats than Republicans in college so Republicans come out of college with more exposure to left wing ideas....

It's that Democrats who don't go to college have a more accurate description of Republicans in general. It's as if a bias in the education process has distorted the view of the right from the left...but anyway....

I didn’t say it had to do with exposure to ideas. I said it had to do with exposure to people, which is what the question was about.

I listened to about 45 minutes of Nate Hochman one. It's a lot of nerdy theory stuff. Reminds me of why I slept through most of my Poli Sci degree.

I never said it was exciting. I like nerdy history and wonky policy shows.

Do they continue on with various "culture war" topics for the next 45 minutes? They alluded to getting into the things they disagreed on so when that came up as the first example...I decided they were hopeless lol.

I honestly don’t remember. It’s been probably a year since I listened to it. I seem to recall nobody being converted (which wasn’t their goal anyways).

With the exception of Yuval Levin, all those guys you just listed are typically billed as "conservative contributors" that write columns and opinion pieces for left wing media outlets.

French only recently went to the NYT. Prior to that, he wrote mainly for conservative outlets, but otherwise that’s fair.

Just out of curiosity...do you think any of them are representative of current right wing political thought?

I honestly don’t know what to make of current right wing political thought or who’s shaping it - when I look at the people making waves at the top of the movement (not necessarily the thinkers), I see a lot of trolls, grifters, and unabashed hatemongers, so I question how much “thought” is behind it. But OTOH I know there are still people shaping, say, long term legal strategies to push things through SCOTUS, so somebody is obviously still doing that work.

I’m familiar with a couple names like Sohrab Ahmari and Patrick Deneen, but haven’t read any of their stuff. Do you have any suggestions?

I must have misread your impression of Klein. I don't know anything about him except Vox.

I like EK quite a bit and I think his approach towards people with whom he disagrees is exactly what you said you hadn’t seen. He’s definitely among the top hosts I’ve ever heard (not that that list is huge).

Relative to KYE, I think his show is more listenable and has a broader appeal. However, it’s gotten less interesting for me personally since he moved to NYT, because the focus has shifted somewhat from the wonky policy subjects I prefer.

This is what starts to happen within these bubbles that exclude outside opinions....they inevitably eat their own.

The example I gave was not of people eating their own. It was of people policing problems in their own ranks - in that case, of big city NIMBYs enacting housing and zoning policies that undermine some of the progressive values (re: workers and the poor) they claim to espouse.

I think the most important criticism of the left, arguably what hurts them the most, is the inability to engage with the actual ideas and political opponents on the right. If your criticism of them is almost entirely their moral character....then very few people will openly admit how they are voting.

At least in the media I consume, that sort of engagement is commonplace.

 

[ozso]

Someone on left trying to understand the right by critiquing it and vice versa is likely to be skewed by bias.

I think someone less partisan like Bill Maher is a better source when it comes to critiques of both parties.