On the weekend shows, Republicans, who are the party with members that would abandon Ukraine to the tender mercies of the Russians, are irate that the Biden Administration is withholding some munitions from Israel, and asking Israel not to go into Rafah.
Eh?
And Trump is making it clear that he'll support Israel even more than Biden is, which makes the protests here and there over the current administration's policies even stranger.
From Twitter.
First:
Larry Wolfe@WYWolfe
So Barrasso and Lummis have joined the Pro Putin camp. Lummis makes the same tired argument that we can’t afford it. What is Barrasso’s excuse for abandoning his boss McConnell and instead lining up with the far right fringe of Senate crackpots?
8:51 PM · Apr 24, 2024
It is an excellent question, although probably rhetorical, as we all know why Sen. Barrasso did this, he's running to the right of himself to keep his job. The Wyoming GOP has fallen to the populists, who are not conservatives, and who are definitely isolationist without a grasp on foreign policy. We all know that. And a lot of us know that Barrasso doesn't believe a lot of the things he claims to, which makes this situation, frankly, sad, but for the fact that when Russia quits bleeding Ukraine, if Ukraine doesn't win, American and European blood will flow next.
Barrasso knows that, too.
I used to see Barrasso frequently as a passenger in airplanes. When I did, I always left him alone, even though I slightly know him, and knew his late wife a bit better. I've wanted to speak to him, however, as I frankly can't believe that he believes a lot of the things he states, and I've wanted to tell him that.
Somebody did just that, however.
Cleaned up to take out the awkward nature of Twitter:
Replying to @WYWolfe
drew@drew53430308
Was lucky enough to fly DEN-CPR with JB back in February, the VERY day they failed to move the bill. We were seated close to each other, and had to wait on the jetway in Casper for our carry-ons. So I introduce myself as “Lt Col so-and-so” and offer condolences about his wife’s passing, but then I mentioned the day’s failure, and how the rest of the week was a work session, hard to do from home…
I told him that the innocent civilians in Ukraine needed help, they needed our help to end the rapes and murders. I explained that America doesn’t abandon her allies on the battlefield. I explained that then, that very night, with a few phone calls he could fix it…
I looked him in the eye and told him he was one of the most powerful men on Earth, and that he alone could save lives, starting right then. I told him millions of innocents were counting on him, that this was his moment…
JB thanked me for my service, explained this was all JD Vance’s fault, and there was nothing he could do. Told me I didn’t understand how things work. I replied that I’d flown back enough dead and maimed kids to learn a lifetime’s worth of foreign policy.
Well, good for Lt. Col. Drew.
Postscript:
There's good reason to believe that Barrasso is fighting for his political career this election against a surprisingly strong Reid Rasner. Barrasso has had those in the electorate who were vaguely discontent with him for some time. In retrospect, a lot of that opposition came from people who believe the "Uni Party" brand of nonsense in which anything the government spends is evidence that you are a RINO, unless of course the money is spent subsidizing highways, which is good. The same people, of course, are hugely opposed to balancing the budget, although they don't realize it, as they'd have to be taxed at a fair rate, which they aren't in favor of.
Anyhow, with the strong rise of populism in the state Barrasso is in surprising trouble as he has a track records that isn't populist, but conservative. Those who didn't like him in the first place trend that way, and the overall state GOP is now on a populist warpath, the fall of Liz Cheney being evidence of that. So Barrasso is now campaigning as a populist.
The thing he might be missing is that for a long time there have been Republican moderates and true conservatives, the people that populists, who aren't real Republicans but rather are Dixiecrats, who weren't hugely fond of Barrasso either. Dr. Barrasso also knew that, which was why he was pretty careful, usually, but not always, to take carefully thought out conservative positions. Many in this same class weren't hugely satisfied with Barrasso, if not outright dissatisfied with him, and were held back from voting for a Democratic candidate only due to certain issues, such as right to life issues. Irrespective of that, in 2018, the last time he ran, Barrasso take at the pools declined from a 2012 76% to 67%, which is the same percentage that Donald Trump took in 2016. Democrat Gary Trauner took 30%.
Trauner ran for elective office several times and failed to win, but he was respected and stuck around in the public eye for a while after the 2018 election. He's not involved in politics anymore, but his race is illustrative. Barrasso had no real opposition in the primary, although some gadfly entrants did run. This time he has real opposition. Most of the old moderate Democrats became Republicans in the state long ago and by this time may be too disgusted by these recent developments to even vote in the primary, and those who do may abstain from voting in this race. That might push things over the top for Rasner, as at the end of the day, Barrasso is at least partially counting on conservatives and moderate Republicans who aren't thrilled with him right now to vote for him.
And while the winner of that race will win, whomever it is may not have the level of support that they have in the past. 30% of the electorate was voting against him already, which was worse than Cheney did in 2020 and worse than Hageman did in 2022.
Related thread:
April 10, 2024
Donald Trump released a four-minute video attempting to thread the needle on abortion, and largely failed.
Abortion is proving to be an odd issue in this election. Following 1973's Roe v. Wade decision, the Democratic Party became increasingly pro death, with left the GOP as the pro-life default party. It was generally pro-life, as a conservative party, but it was more vague about it for many years than a person might suppose. This paid off for pro-life forces when the decision, which even informed left wing legal thinkers felt impossible to really defend, fell due to a Mitch McConnell influenced Supreme Court, appointed by Donald Trump. That was a long wished for conservative result, which Trump claimed credit for, not without some justification, but largely due to Trump giving McConnell free rein on Supreme Court appointments.
This has ended up being a hot election issue ever since, but it's still very poorly understood as to its impact. Various conservative states have enacted laws restricting or banning abortion (some old laws have just come back into operation) and it's ended up a ballot issue elsewhere. Democrats believe that the issue works in their favor, although how that squares with elected legislatures restricting it isn't very clear. Added to that, right wing Republicans began to push for a Federal nationwise restriction on abortion, which is something they haven't really fleshed out, thinking wise. A Federal law, while universal, seems to suggest a compromise on the topic, which is a topic that can't really be compromised on, at least on the pro-life side. That is, unless its just a nationwide ban, which seems to have little chance of passing. The various proposals make just about 0 intellectual sense whatsoever. A person either believes that all life has value, in which case it does from the first instance, or they believe it really doesn't, and should only be protected at an arbitrary point at which its too icky to admit to killing.
Enter the candidates on the issue. . .
Joe Biden, who is a Catholic and morally obligated to believe that all life is sacred, instead has opted for an apparent state of personal mortal sin and is for allowing the killing, with his campaign featuring that position, and he is still being allowed to receive Communion for some reason that's hard to grasp. Donald Trump, who has a predatory relationship with women to at least some degree, and who has been pretty keen on bedding women of a certain type, kept his views secret until earlier this week when, in a four-minute video, he came out for no Federal law at all.
No Federal law is the position of some conservative, but politically savvy, Republicans who aren't Trumpers. It is, for example, Chris Christie's position's was that the states should decide the issue for their states. But the concept of a nationwise ban has received increasing support in conservative camps due to some states enacting broad permissive abortion laws. It should be noted, others have enacted restrictive ones, like Wyoming (whose law is gummed up in court due to an incredibly dim witted paranoid law that enshrines personal medical choices as its supporters were rampaging paranoid about imaginary Obamacare "death panels".
This raises a lot of interesting questions, one being what does Trump actually think? Frankly, Trump doesn't appear to be a deep thinker on anything, but on this issue it's known that he's run the gambit in views, originally being in the pro death camp. His coming out the way he did appears to be in hopes of avoiding the issue, stating that it's a state rights issue. After giving his four-minute flat affect speech, he came out again today on the Arizona Supreme Court finding a territorial era statute banning abortion was constitutional and revised, which makes perfect sense legally. Noting that it was his appointees that brought the reversal of Roe finally around, he stated that the Arizona action, which again makes perfect legal sense, "went too far", which makes no legal sense but which reflects the view that most people have on courts which is that they're a policy legislature, which they aren't.
Life or death being a state's rights issue is lame in more ways than one. A person could argue it on a practical basis, that being that leaving it up to states is the only way for any peace on the issue at all, which is more or less Christie's position. Trump's view came out like a rambling mish mash of a confused intellect, which is a bit surprising as somebody must have written his statement for him.
Indeed, the fact that he read it brings up the issue of his mental status. Statements that he reads tend to come out with a very flat affect, which has yet to be explained. People continue to ignore the question of what's going on, organically, in his head.
All this has left some interesting fallout. Serious pro lifers are left wondering about who to support, with some having supported Trump in the past solely because of this issue. "He's better than Biden" seems to be the common reaction. But some are really upset. By the same token, Biden's designation of Easter as Transgender Visibility Day disgusted some who are fellow travelers on this issue. Pro lifers have been major supporters of the GOP since 1973, and now they have reason to question the party's loyalty to them.
And it all shows how compromised the values of politicians are in general.
April 12, 2024
The Trump campaign, which avoided debates in the primaries, wants more debates in the general election and wants them to start soon.
Trump is likely worried that a lot of his speaking coming up will be in the form of testimony, and wants to distract from that. Also, Trump no doubt feels he's a better speaker than Biden.
In actuality, neither of them are good speakers. Biden has had a lifelong stuttering problem which makes his speech a bit odd, and Trump's speech suggests that he's in the early to early-mid stage of the onset of dementia. Absent a spectacular performance, or spectacular failure, by either candidate, debates probably aren't going to matter much, but contrary to common belief, Trump, who really goes off the rail if he departs from the teleprompter, is more likely to say something extraordinarily off the mark, weird, or incoherent.*
Cont:
Governor Gordon rightly rejected Secretary of State Gray's new voting rules.
April 13, 2024
Secretary of State Gray has an op ed in today's Trib entitled "Only Wyomingites Must Vote In Wyoming's Election".
It's a crime not to be a resident and vote in Wyoming's election, so this is a bit silly, but it's part of the Gray effort to whip up a frenzy in the populist right in part of his aim to run for Governor in 2026. It's also more than a little ironic, as Gray is not a Wyomingite, and most of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus isn't either. Jeanette Ward barely qualified to run for office when she ran for the seat Gray abandoned, as he tried first for the House and then for the SoS office.
Of course, "only Wyomingites" isn't what Gray means.
As always, Gray cited "radical left wing" activists as being his opponents.
Wyoming Democrats will caucus for the President today, not that it's going to matter. They'll choose Biden, and Biden will lose in Wyoming.
A Park County representative still wants all ballot counting in the county to be done by hand, but is being ignored as its a phenomenally bad idea.
Republican Dale Zwonitzer, a major House member from Cheyenne, is facing a run from Steve Johnson, Populist. Zwonitzer has faced open hostility from the Populist right the last several years.
Colorado will have an abortion ballot initiative in the fall.
April 15, 2024
While hardly newsworthy, Joe Biden won the Wyoming Caucus Saturday.
April 16, 2024
Donald Trump's criminal trial regarded to the paying of hush money to three people, two of them pornographic personages, began yesterday in New York.
The favorite of the Evangelical right is accused of paying Stormy Daniels, a pornographic actress, and another person, a former Playboy playmate, hush money prior to the 2016 election so they'd keep their mouths shut abut his fucking them. The third person is a doorman. The crime is asserted to be election interference, I guess, which is frankly a little hard to grasp in this context.
A jury has not yet been selected.
April 18, 2024
Senator Barrasso announced yesterday that he's running for reelection to the Senate.
I frankly thought he'd already announced, as he was obviously running for reelection. He has an opponent in the primary, Reid Rasner, who is running from the populist right.
I've mentioned the primary contest before, but I dismissed Rasner's campaign. Frankly, I was in error to do so as at this point I think Rasner has a serious chance of beating Barrasso, and Barrasso obviously fears that as well. Barrasso has been putting out hardcore populist, Trumpite, messages now for weeks. I strongly suspect that he doesn't believe in what he's tweeting, but he's taking this position, like almost every Republican political figure, in order to hang on to their jobs, even though it's killed the GOP.
Therefore, at the primary election, Wyoming will be presented with a contesnt between a genuine populist and a fake one. Actual conservatives will vote for Barrasso, not for what he's saying, but what they suspect he actually believes. Some populists will as well.
April 19, 2020
The GOP state convention defeated a bylaw proposal that would have provided a mechanism, probably ineffectively and illegally given the way party affiliation actually works, to kick actual Republicans out of the party.
One populists commented:
There was a group of citizens in Weston County very, very concerned about Liz Cheney and the way she tried to infiltrate and change our party,
Eh?
It's the populists who infilatrated the GOP, not the other way around. Cheney is a real Republican. Her opponents are largley Dixiecrats, but don't know it.
Natrona County voters will have a ballot item on the fall to create a Senior Service District consisting of the entire county. This will add 2 mills to people's taxes to fund senior services.
It's hugely unpopular to say so, but in an era in which Wyomingites are unhappy about all the growth they encouraged causing property values to rise (d'uh!) this will pass anyhow, and shouldn't. The current generation of seniors has had the best breaks of any generation in history, continues to basically control the country, and is fairly wealthy overall, even if individual members of the generation are not. A 2 mill tax effectively takes cash out of everyone's pockets to fulfill a need that people should have filled on their own, or that their families should.
Footnotes:
*Something you'll sometimes hear from Trump supporters is that "he talks like us". I fear that might be true, which is we're beginning to sound mildly demented and addled as a society.
Last prior edition:
April 17, 2024.
9.4 million illegal aliens have entered this country under President Biden, 1 million more than the population of New York City and more than 16x the population of Wyoming.
The unprecedented invasion is a direct result of the open borders agenda of
@POTUS
and Alejandro Mayorkas.
From a Twitter post of Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis.
Alejandro Mayorkas is not going to be removed from office.
Moreover, everyone with any political savvy knows this. Sen. Lummis knows this, as do the other members of Wyoming's Washington representation, one of whom will be a prosecutor in the impeachment trial, if an impeachment trial actually occurs, which I very much doubt.
Rather, the Senate Republicans will screw around with this until the Democrats dismiss it.
The validity of the impeachment process will be tarnished even more than it has been since the ill-advised GOP effort to impeach Bill Clinton brought us into the modern political impeachment era, and the border won't get address, in no small part because Donald Trump, who is in the first of what will be several trials, would rather have it as issue than address it.
Congress, of course, could have addressed this, but for following the Trump directive to the GOP. There's utterly no excuse for the GOP failure to act. If the bill wasn't prefect, it was much better than any others for years, and if they take a two house and Oval Office majority in November, which I doubt they will, they could have improved it. Indeed, their failure to act not only makes this look incredibly hypocritical, but puts them in jeopardy of losing the House.
We will see a Twitter storm of GOP tweets. Most will be ignored. The worshiping spectrum of the GOP, the ignorant populists masses, will swoon over every word while the now purifying corpse of the GOP elephant starts to stink even more, actual Republicans and conservatives not knowing how to remove it.
Indeed, on the Twitter Storm, populist far right Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer took to twitter to demand that Mayorkas receive a full trial in the Senate as, she suggested, the Constitution demands, while at least one of her critics noted she didn't feel that way when Trump was up for impeachment.
All this while very little gets done and Americans lose faith in their government, save for a tiny sliver who somehow feel the dissolution of a 200+ year old institution is serving democracy, when in fact it's destroying it.
April 18, 2024
And the Senate dismissed the articles of impeachment, making my prediction of no trial accurate. I thought there would be a motion to dismiss, and there was.
The motion came up immediately, and Chuck Schumer offered debate time, but Republicans, who apparently have no sense of procedure, rejected that, demanding a full trial, and thereby demonstrating the sort of hubris, ignorance and stupidity that criminal defendants sometimes do. Schumer replied and went right to the vote.
The vote was down the party line, Republicans who know better not having the guts to vote in favor of the motion.
By this point, the dysfunctional circus that Congress has become now attracts so little attention for even extraordinary events, which this fits into as it's an extraordinary dereliction of duty and common sense by those who voted for it in the House, that it doesn't even make the primary headlines.
No doubt Wyoming's Senators went home and breathed a sigh of relief, being spared acting on this absurdity, and also being spared the pangs of acting in contravention to their conscience. And the issue is preserved for red meat tweets, texts and speeches, so attacking the Democrats on an issue that Republicans refused to act on, when they had the chance, can still be done.
And hence this circus closed.
Political cartoonists were making fun of it, but the Japanese were both measured and enraged by the passage of the Japanese Exclusion Act. On this day, Japanese businesses in Japan began cancelling orders from the US in reaction.
Regarding the Chicago Tribune cartoon from above, one of the most remarkable things about it is that the cartoonist included five political parties. One wouldn't do that today.
Wyoming's Senator F. E. Warrren was already urging reconsideration of the act, and urging meetings to consider its impact.
The All-India Yadav Mahasabha was formed to promote equal treatment of and rights for Yadav people, the poorest people in India's caste system.
Metro Pictures, Goldwyn Pictures Corporation and Louis B. Mayer Pictures were merged by Marcus Loew to form Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
In baseball:
Last prior edition:
That post isn't limited to the left or the right, although right now, invectives are coming more loudly from the Populist right. They do come from the Progressive left as well.
I note that, as people may misinterpret the post below as being solely aimed at Populists. Indeed, Populists are likely to look at it that way, as they tend to be very shallow in their political analysis. All their opponents are members of "the Radical Left", they believe. Even Conservatives who oppose them are members of the "Radical Left".
Not hardly.
The actual Radical Left is in the news today through its capture of much of the Democratic Party, which started before the Populists became as influential as they currently are in the GOP. Indeed, as we discussed last week, the Progressives, which are not the same as the Liberals, have roots in the Democratic Party that go back at least as far as the collapse of the Progressive Party in 1912-1914.
I've often said here that Democrats don't lose elections, they throw them away.
When future historians go back and find the point at which Conservatives who were teetering on the edge of supporting Joe Biden determined to reluctantly give their votes to Donald Trump, they'll cite the issuance of this proclamation:
A Proclamation on Transgender Day of Visibility, 2024
On Transgender Day of Visibility, we honor the extraordinary courage and contributions of transgender Americans and reaffirm our Nation’s commitment to forming a more perfect Union — where all people are created equal and treated equally throughout their lives.
I am proud that my Administration has stood for justice from the start, working to ensure that the LGBTQI+ community can live openly, in safety, with dignity and respect. I am proud to have appointed transgender leaders to my Administration and to have ended the ban on transgender Americans serving openly in our military. I am proud to have signed historic Executive Orders that strengthen civil rights protections in housing, employment, health care, education, the justice system, and more. I am proud to have signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law, ensuring that every American can marry the person they love.
Transgender Americans are part of the fabric of our Nation. Whether serving their communities or in the military, raising families or running businesses, they help America thrive. They deserve, and are entitled to, the same rights and freedoms as every other American, including the most fundamental freedom to be their true selves. But extremists are proposing hundreds of hateful laws that target and terrify transgender kids and their families — silencing teachers; banning books; and even threatening parents, doctors, and nurses with prison for helping parents get care for their children. These bills attack our most basic American values: the freedom to be yourself, the freedom to make your own health care decisions, and even the right to raise your own child. It is no surprise that the bullying and discrimination that transgender Americans face is worsening our Nation’s mental health crisis, leading half of transgender youth to consider suicide in the past year. At the same time, an epidemic of violence against transgender women and girls, especially women and girls of color, continues to take too many lives. Let me be clear: All of these attacks are un-American and must end. No one should have to be brave just to be themselves.
At the same time, my Administration is working to stop the bullying and harassment of transgender children and their families. The Department of Justice has taken action to push back against extreme and un-American State laws targeting transgender youth and their families and the Department of Justice is partnering with law enforcement and community groups to combat hate and violence. My Administration is also providing dedicated emergency mental health support through our nationwide suicide and crisis lifeline — any LGBTQI+ young person in need can call “988” and press “3” to speak with a counselor trained to support them. We are making public services more accessible for transgender Americans, including with more inclusive passports and easier access to Social Security benefits. There is much more to do. I continue to call on the Congress to pass the Equality Act, to codify civil rights protections for all LGBTQI+ Americans.
Today, we send a message to all transgender Americans: You are loved. You are heard. You are understood. You belong. You are America, and my entire Administration and I have your back.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 31, 2024, as Transgender Day of Visibility. I call upon all Americans to join us in lifting up the lives and voices of transgender people throughout our Nation and to work toward eliminating violence and discrimination based on gender identity.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-eighth.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
Defenders of this will no doubt state that Joe is just honoring the "right to be yourself". Maybe he thinks of it that way. Indeed, the statement is sufficiently bland enought to nearly be calculated to attempt not to really offend.
This isn't how many will take it. Many will take it as "you are forcing me to accept a radical fraud about yourself and pretend it's okay".
And frankly, they're right. Words actually do have meaning, and not only the spoken ones, but what they suggest.
This comes down, in a way, to the essential difference between how conservatives, liberals and progressives see the world (yes I've left populists out of this intentionally). Only Progressives believe in the Existential Me, or the Isolated Absolute. Everyone else believes that you are part of a community. Indeed, Progressivism is, ironically, the ultimate extension of a belief that Progressives claim to hate, that being American Individualism written large. You can' be just what you want to be, and ignore everyone else.
In reality, Homo sapiens are a community animal with a fixed nature, and you can't.
I'd normally be reluctant to cite Jordan Peterson, the right wing Canadian pundit, but he is a psychologist and he and a reporter have an interesting podcast episode entitled The Biggest Medical Scandal Of Our Time. I'm not going to link it in, people can simply look it up, but it does a good job of pointing out the degree to which the entire transgender thing is simply a fraud. Peterson spends much of the podcast being outraged, as he's a very poor interviewer, but what you'd basically learn is that in the extraordinary rare instances in which gender confusion arises, it's confusion and nothing else. The basic proper course for minors is not to treat it, with most who are generally afflicted, according to Peterson, coming into adulthood comfortable with their genders, but being homosexuals.
I'm no doubt more radical yet, as I don't believe that transgenderism actually even exists, but is rather a psychological affliction that is limited to the Western world and expresses something else going on in our culture. It's deeply contrary to nature, as much of our society is in general. It's a reaction to some sort of unnatural stress, not an expression of nature.
There's utterly no reason whatsoever for the Federal Government to recognize transgenderism and the fact that it does, and that it's even crept into surgeries being allowed within the Armed Forces, is in fact evidence of how deeply woke some elements of our society have become. There's no reason to oppress people who express this, but going the next 100 miles and pretending everything about it is okay about it is frankly going a bridge too far, and most people instinctively know this.
People have become used to various months being declared to represent the history of one group of people or another. Originally, it was a few definable groups who deserved to have their history brought forward. Black History Month was a good example. March is National Women's History Month, which was as well.
November has become Transgender Awareness Month according to some, or there's a month in November that's been declared Transgender Awareness Week. Now we're all learning that March 31, the last day of National Women's History Month, is Transgender Day of Visibility.
Some time ago I heard a podcast by somebody, I can't recall who, who discussed how transgender mutilation of men into women goes an extra level in being an existential insult to women. That it's a fraud is self-evident. You cannot change your gender, you can only surgically and chemically attempt to partially mask your actual gender.
But what hadn't occured to me is that actual women go through, due to their natures, something that men can barely understand. To experience in your youthful prime an event in which your young healthy body suddenly starts bleeding monthly and your hormonal system subjects you to a raging hormonal cyclonic storm is something men do not experience and cannot grasp. To take pills and subject yourself to surgical butchery doesn't mimic that in any fashion. Women's entire bodies, after a certain point in their teens, remind them of our species elemental genetic roles. Boys have things turn on, but not in a way that can result in them bearing another human being, and in fact monthly demanding that they do so.
To have the Oval Office recognize something that, at this point, is basically hurled in everyone's face, and which all humans know at an elemental level to be existentially wrong, is insulting.
Do declare it on Easter Sunday is an insult beyond that.
That Biden did this is tone-deaf beyond belief. His defenders are pointing out that this day is "always Transgender Day of Visibility", which is absurd on its face, as it hasn't "always" existed. It's new, and it's misdirected. Noting those who fall into this self-declared group is worthwhile, but to sympathize with their plight and seek to address it honestly, rather than to verify that their condition is a dandy one. But this is what we do now since the Progressive Left has become so inserted in our society. We honor the afflicted in their affliction rather than seek to help.
Recently, an insulting event occured at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, in which a funeral that openly insulted conservative beliefs in general and the beliefs of the Catholic Church occured. The tone-deaf appearance by those whose duty it is to protect the beliefs of the Church were widely discussed on the Catholic Blogosphere. This, however, is wider yet.
No matter how imperfectly understood, a major element fueling Populist rage (and there are multiple ones, not just one) and horrifying genuine conservatives is the forced demand of acceptance of certain things that actually are part of somebody's "radical left agenda". While much of the invectives that cite that are baloney, this much is in fact true. When Justice Kennedy and his fellow robbed travelers insisted that Obergell didn't mean the onset of a societal revolution, they were obviously wrong at the time, and they set off the inevitable counter revolution. We noted then:
These justices have perhaps assumed too much if they've assumed that they can now act so far that Marshall would be horrified, and I'd be surprised if, long term, this decision doesn't either mark the beginning of a Cesarian court and a retreat of American democracy, or the point at which the roles of the Court began to massively erode in favor of a more Athenian democracy.
Either result is really scary.
Well here we are.
So, with Joe Biden, who supposedly is an adherent Catholic (which based on his public positions, he obviously is not), having signed a proclamation that places a day honoring something that repels conservatives and enrages Populists, and which actually does offer insult to Christian tenants in general, and which places the honoring on Easter Sunday in an election year, he's sealed his doom in the Fall. Those defending him that this "always" occurs on this day are essentially noting that Joe was too distracted to take note, which only fuels the fire that he doesn't know what he is doing. Never mind that Trump either doesn't know what he is doing either, his adherents already know that the Führerprinzip means he'll follow their lead, as it gets him attention. And indeed, they are already.
And this points out once again the tragedy of a moronic "two party system". There's no reason that real conservatives, or real liberals, should have to vote for these two fallen parties and their ancient, unappealing candidates.
Indeed, there's a good argument that thinking people shouldn't.
Related threads:
People who do this routinely are not speaking intelligently, and in fact are attempting to distract from intelligent debate.
You should consider that when listening to public figures.
We live in an age in which intelligent debate has declined to an all-time low. In its place, we have now what the Nazis and the Communist had, insulters who scream, while saying very little that's intelligent or worth considering. Their goal is to inspire hatred, as if love for an idea won't be forthcoming, hatred of a demonized class will do.
Politicians and figures who routinely insert words like "radical", "leftist", "fascist", "Marxist", and "Communist" into their speech are not arguing points, they're trying to inspire hatred and avoiding thought.
For days, I've been getting emails from a figure I at least somewhat respected, and have voted for in the past, accusing the current administration of being "radical", sometimes in the most absurd ways. One such missive asserts the Democrats are intentionally out to make things worse for Americans, which is flat out absurd. It's constant. The contest locally, right now, is in the GOP itself, and given that, as I'm still reluctantly registered as a Republican, I'll be struggling in regard to my vote in the primary, with the question being whether I should cast a vote at all. I likely will, but come the general election, I'm going to weigh this behavior.
A current state office holder who is a co religious cannot speak without speaking of his opponents as "Radical leftists and liberal elites", whipping up ire towards imagined categories that simply really aren't here. There are no Red bands roaming the prairies around Cheyenne.
For that matter, being an "elite" is a good thing. In this context, "elite" implies highly educated and successful. If the highly educated and successful think your position is dimwitted, it probably is.
More than one Populist, who are not Conservatives, now run around constantly accusing Governor Gordon of being a Democrat, by which they mean not a Populist. We're teetering on the brink of RINO meaning "not a fascist". It already darned near means that the speaker is a Southern Populist with ideas that are not native to this state, and which are being spouted in an unthinking manner.
Taking it nationally, the former President, who apparently has so little grasp of political categories that he doesn't understand the difference between communism and fascism (Wharton School of Business. . . why are you respected?) recently stated “We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections”.
A person who links all those categories together is, frankly, is either ignorant or bizarrely deluded. People who swallow this up, are really ignorant.
Now, let's be honest. At one time, particularly in the 60s and 70s, the far left did the same thing. Everyone who opposed them or who wasn't with them was a "fascist". And in more modern times, the far left progressives have done the same, often with really bizarro accusations that everyone who isn't with them is part of a widespread "white" and "male" conspiracy.
But that's the point. To a large degree, nobody really take the far left in the United States seriously, usually, because they are clowns. Recently they have been successful, however, in a gender bending effort, which is helping to give rise to the Populist far right.
But both sides are anti-natural, anti-scientific, swimming in the toddler section movements. They're unthinking.
And as we have real problems, we need real thought, now.
And at any rate, running around that your opponent must be a Communist, Marxist, Monarchist, Anarchist, Pedophile, Audiophile, Anglophile, RINO is not dignified.
And for those who claim to be Christian, well you should reconsider your presentation.
You might want to reconsider your personal lives also, particularly if you are one of the numerous members of the Christian Nationalist camp whom St. Paul might have a few things to address them about.
Conservatives are not Populists.
Far from it.
Liberals aren't Progressives.
Liberals and Conservatives have more in common, than they do to the other categories noted above
Populists and Progressives share many common traits.
Confused?
We hope to clear that up. But let's start with this. A lot of commentary, particularly of an uneducated type, keeps referring to Donald Trump as "a conservative", and sadly, a lot of true conservatives fall right into line with that fallacy. Populists right now continually refer to themselves as conservatives, which is because they don't know what conservatives actually are.
They'd likely be horrified if they did. And indeed, occasionally they are.
Donald Trump is not a conservative. He's a populist, or is appealing to them. There's a world of difference. People who figure he stands for conservative values are deeply misguided on this point. He doesn't. But in the right/left thin gruel political world we live in, it's slightly understandable how people could be misguided on this linguistic point.
But it's wrong.
Let's take a look at it. More particularly, what are conservatives, liberals, populists and progressives, the four main branches of what we have around in terms of political philosophies right now.
Let's start with this. What is a conservative?
What is a conservative?
At the core of their Weltanschauung, conservatives believe that human nature is essentially fixed, and that it's been fixed by an existential external. Religious conservatives believe that the existential external is God, but not all conservatives are religious conservatives.1 Those who aren't, like George F. Will for example, would hold that the existential external is essentially our evolution.2
Because this is the core belief of conservatives, conservatives are strong advocates for the application of Chesterton's Fence, which holds:
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
This is why people tend to think that what conservatives stand for is not changing anything. This isn't really true, but they are very cautious about it. Conservatives do not have any real faith that human nature is set to improve, and therefore have a large degree of caution regarding the changing of anything that's substantial until it can be determined why that thing came into existence in the first place.
And they believe that certain things, human nature, as noted, is essentially unchanging. Given this, they hope we all do as well as we can, but they don't have any view of remaking humanity or creating Heaven on Earth.
I'll note, I am, on most things, a conservative.
In most societies overall, except in cultures that are deeply conservative, conservatives are a minority. They may be a large minority, but they are usually a minority. The reason for this is that conservatism is, by its nature, somewhat pessimistic. Conservatives hope things get better, but more than that hope they don't get worse, and often hope that the better is a return to some status quo ante that was less messed up.
Conservatives are nearly always a minority, which is one of their weaknesses, but they are also generally intellectual by nature, which is part of the reason that they are a minority and are comfortable being one. Conservatives suspect most people instinctively agree with them, but don't know why, and they're comfortable with that as a rule.
A strength and weakness of conservatives is that they are reluctant to change things until its proven they need to be. Conservatives believe that Chesterton's fence should have a pretty strong latch, or maybe even a keyed lock on it. That's also a strength, however, as they're much less prone than others to whims of any kind.
Because conservatives do not feel that humans are in control of their natures, conservatives tend to be somewhat pessimistic as a rule, but they also don't except a lot of humankind in general. They generally feel that people are left best to their own devices, but they are not anarchists or libertarians, as they believe that order is necessary and a good.
To give a few examples of recent, more or less, conservatives, we have the following. Probably, William F. Buckley is the supreme example of a post World War Two conservatives. George F. Will would be a close second. George Weigel, must less well known, would be a third.
In terms of politicians, we have, currently, Mitt Romney. Ronald Reagan was a conservative, but imperfectly so. Margaret Thatcher was another. Herbert Hoover, who was a much better President than he is credited as being, was a conservative. Winston Churchill was a conservative, as was his nemesis Éamon de Valera.
To look at some illustrative issues, in the abstract, as politicians and individuals both vary and compromise, we'll take some more or less contemporary examples, and carry them through.
Abortion. Conservatives oppose abortion as they believe in an external, and therefore don't have the right to destroy a human life without just cause. This view, I'd note, is not limited to religious conservatives.
Death Penalty. As a rule, conservatives have tended to support the death penalty, as it's always existed. They are clearly capable of having their minds changed on the topic, slowly.
Gender issues. I'm lumping this all into one category, but conservatives as a rule feel that homosexuality is a person's own business, but it shouldn't change institutions like marriage. They don't believe transgenderism is real, as the science isn't there.
Climate Change. Early on a lot of conservatives were skeptical on climate change, but few would outright dismiss it. Many were cautious in accepting it, however, consistent with their general reluctance to immediately accept something new.
Economics. As a rule, conservatives tend to be in favor of a free market, with as little government interference in the economy as possible, basically taking the view that the best economy is one in which people get to decide things for themselves and that overall, the economy is really too complicated for human micromanaging.
Immigration. Conservatives have been for restricted immigration, believing that excessive rates damage the economy, impact national culture too rapidly, and impact sovereignty.
Defense. Conservatives are for a strong national defense, as they support sovereignty. Prior to World War Two they were opposed to that extending overseas, but since the war they've applied the lessons of history and are very much in favor of extending defense beyond the seas, if not necessarily always intervening in foreign wars. Two give to contemporary examples of this:
William F. Buckley, who intellectually defined the modern conservative movement.
What, then, are liberals?
What is a liberal?
We don't hear much about liberals anymore. Progressives, which we will deal with below, have sort of taken over the political "left" in recent years, and liberalism, in a modern context, has weakened, which is a tragedy.
Liberals actually hold the essential core value that conservatives do, that being that there is an existential external that has set human nature. They believe, however, that human nature can be improved, and that it requires collective effort to do that. Unlike conservatives, who hope we all do as well as we can, liberals feel that we can all be made better. That's the real difference between traditional conservatives and traditional liberals.
Liberals see the world much the way that conservatives do, but have a very optimistic view of human nature and are certain that it can be improved. The early GOP was a liberal party and therefore, when you consider that, Lincoln appealing to "the better angels of our mercy" makes a lot of sense. Conservatives would appeal to angels as well, but not "ours", and for help.
Right now, however, real liberals and real conservatives are few and far between. That's because we have populists and progressives dominating the field.
In most societies, liberals are the majority. To some extent, that's because they are optimistic, and tend to believe they can make everything better than it currently is.
Looking at our issues, we have the following.
Abortion. Liberals generally support allowing abortion up to a certain number of weeks, although this isn't universally true. The intellectual underpinning of this is weak, but is based on the concept that by doing this they're supporting the rights of women.
Death Penalty. Liberals are pretty uniformly opposed to the death penalty, believing that it achieves no real purpose and is inherently barbaric.
Gender issues. Liberals, like conservatives, generally used to hold that homosexuality was a person's own matter, if they were subject to it. They've come to support regarding homosexuality as equating with heterosexuality in recent years on the belief that this improves the living standards of everyone.
Transgenderism is a new thing, but generally liberals lean towards supporting transgender "rights" on the concept that as it seems to occur, it must be natural, and society shouldn't hurt people who express it.
Climate Change. Liberals fully accept that this is occurring and is a grave crisis, and they want governmental action on it.
Economics. Contrary to what people like to imagine, conservatives and liberals really have very similar views of the economy. The difference is really at the margin in how much governmental action there should be in the economy, and what the tax rates are. If viewed from the abstract, however, tehir views are essentially the same.
Immigration. Liberals generally believe that all people are the same or can be the same, so they dismiss cultural issues regarding immigration. They are for controls, but having a desire to improve things for everyone, they're generally in support of a much higher immigration rate than conservatives.
Defense. Traditionally, contrary to what people like to imagine, liberals have been in favor of a strong defense and also have been quite interventionist. There are exceptions, but the "improve things for everyone" viewpoint resulted, throughout the 20th Century, in a much higher inclination by liberals to intervene in foreign wars than conservatives have had. Since Vietnam, this has been much less the case, however.
In terms, again, of recent examples, Robert Reich, who teeters on the edge of progressivism, is one. Bill Clinton was another. Nancy Pelosi is another example, as is Chuck Schumer. Going back a bit further, both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were liberals. Frankly, Richard Nixon was as well.
A controversial example would be Theodore Roosevelt. While his breakaway political party was The Progressives, he was a pretty far left political liberal, as was his cousin Franklin Roosevelt.
Franklin Roosevelt, arguably the most clearly Liberal of American Presidents.
What is a populist?
This has certainly been the Age of Populism.
Populists believe that the good is determined by the collective wisdom of the masses. So unlike conservatism and liberalism which believe that an existential external had defined what human nature is, populists believe that the collective common sense of the people defines that, and that's an existential collective internal.
Because populists believe that, it's a particularly shallow political theory and particularly subject to the storms of the time. Populist can be, and have been, on the radical "left" and the radical "right". Indeed, when Trump was coming up in 2016 so was Bernie Sanders, and they both appealed equally to populists. A lot of the same people who now worship Trump, worshiped Sanders.
Right now, people confuse populism with conservatism as populism in the US stands, as it often has in the past, for an Evangelical variant of the American Civil Religion. Protestant in its view, it basically holds a very shallow version of Christianity which is mostly focused on sex, and mostly focused on homosexual sex being bad. Beyond that, it longs, just as it had in the mid to late 20th Century in the South, for a mythic version of American history in which everyone supposedly did really well economically and there were no problems (no drugs, no alcoholics, no mentally ill, no violence, etc.).
Populism has been an occasionally strong current in the American political stream from time to time. There was, at the turn of the prior century, a Populist Party that existed from 1892 until 1909, and which we should note did very well in Wyoming's elections of the period. It was, we might note, regarded as a left wing party.
Populism is only popular in a society during times of extreme economic or social distress. Massively pessimistic in its outlook, Populist always have the belief that they are under siege and are therefore extremely given to conspiracy theories of all type. They are, accordingly, very easy to manipulate. They also tend to be given to ignorance, which plays into this, as they believe folk wisdom is the ultimate source of knowledge on everything. And what it says, is that they're swimming in the shallow end of the pool, quite frankly.
Because of this populists are very easily led by other movements, when a savvy leader comes along and can manipulate them. And often, but not always, those leaders are quasi populists themselves. Both Lenin and Hitler were. Franco was not. Nor was Mussolini. All were able to lead the masses.
Turning to our set of issues, we have the following.
Abortion. This is actually hard to say as Populists vary on this to a fair degree. They all, right now, oppose abortion, but are prepared to compromise on some vague number of weeks if for no other reason that makes it easy.
Death Penalty. Populists are for it, as its always existed, and for its extension, as the people who get executed seem to be part of an evil "them".
Gender issues. Populists are very much opposed to homosexuality and transgenderism as they sense its not party of the collective norm. They share this view with Conservatives, but tend to be nasty and virulent about it, rather than thoughtful.
Climate Change. Populists just don't believe its real. The collective group of them doesn't, and therefore individual ones don't, evidence to the contrary aside. As populists engage in a sort of group think, that's what they think.
Economics. Populists say they are for a free market economy but have no real understanding of economic issues. They're for protectionism as that protects us against a foreign them.
Immigration. Populists are radically opposed to immigration as the people who come in are part of a foreign them, and are not part of us. They believe that immigration problems are the result, in some instances, of a conspiracy.
Defense. Populists support our troops, but appear to have the old William Jennings Bryan view of things, and he was a populist, that troops shouldn't leave our shores. They are radically opposed to intervention in any war overseas in the belief that none of them matter to us, almost.
Giving really outstanding example of populists is a bit hard to do, to some extent, as they tend to fail over time, and then be forgotten. But there are some notable examples. Louisiana's Huey Long was a populist. Fr. Charles Coughlin was as well. George Wallace was for much of his life, but he became a conservative in his final years.
What is a progressive.
Like populism, progressivism has existed in the United States for a long time, and perhaps just about as long as populism.
Progressives believe, like populists, that human nature is controlled by an internal existential, but in their case they radically believe that it's controlled by an internal individual existential. So, unlike progressives who believe in a sort of mystical will of the people, progressives believe that each and every individual has a radically individual reality that's a supreme existential good.
Progressives are convinced of radical individualism while at the same time having very low faith in people in general.
Because of their world outlook, progressives tend to share some odd traits with populists, and indeed historically they are both left wing in their political, and they tend to exist at the same time. Progressives tend to be radically opposed to human nature, and therefore given to conspiracy theories of a type. They tend to be anarchic in their expressed views, just as populists tend to be, but they favor autocracy in reality, just as populists ultimately tend to be. Societies that essentially degrade to a struggle between populism and progressivism, usually spectacularly fail, with late Republican Spain and late Weimar Germany being distressing examples.
In terms of Progressives, for reasons that we'll explain below, popular examples are often associated with other movements. Having said that, figures like Noam Chomsky, AoC, Henry Wallace, are good examples. Much of current academia, for peculiar reasons, is made up of Progressives. There aren't, however, any countries current governed by them, unlike Populists.
Progressives in recent decades have tended to lurk under the surface of liberals, so they don't erupt into existence the way Populists do. Being opportunistic, however, they've done so very much since the Obergefell decision, and then in reaction to Trump.
On our issues, we find the following:
Abortion. Progressives are radically in favor of abortion as they are radically in favor of any one human deciding their own fate, and the fate of an unborn person doesn't matter, as they are not yet born.
Death Penalty. Progressives are opposed to it, but mostly on a knee-jerk level. This is borrowed from the Liberals, and it's been adopted without much thinking. Having said that, termination of a life does radically end that person's ability to decide anything, so this is overall consistent with their views.
Gender issues. Progressives believe that this can and should be radically determined by the individuals, so basically they don't really believe that genders, science notwithstanding, really exist.
Climate Change. Climate Change impacts everyone, so Progressives are for immediate government action to address it.
Economics. Progressives lean towards radical economics, so concepts like Universal Basic Income and whatnot, that seem to be capable of individual use, are heavily favored. They like state intervention in the economy and society, to the extent it seems to free up anyone individual.
Immigration. Progressives, like liberals, don't believe that culture really matters, so they're heavily opposed to restrictions of significance.
Defense. Prior to the recent wars it would have been hard to say what a Progressive position was on defense, other than that Progressives like to use the Armed Forces as a petrie dish for social change. Given the various world crises right now, however, things have become clearer.
How these categories bleed into each other, creating confusion.
In no small part due to the adoption of the French Revolution "right wing/left wing" political map, we tend to think of all political categories as existing as a scaled line, when in fact their world more closely resembles a box, or perhaps intersecting circles. This confuses people in general, including those who fit any one category. For example, a lot of populists right now genuinely believe that they are conservatives, when in fact they are anything but. Put another way, a lot of members of the Freedom Caucus would actually feel a lot more comfortable at a Bernie Sanders Coffee Klatch than they would at a William F. Buckley Society cocktail party, and by leagues.
To start with conservatives again, as conservatives apply Chesterton's Fence to all sorts of things as a philosophical principle, they may see populists who arise due to social stress as members of the same group. To give an example, conservatives are rightly horrified by the gender nonsense that's going on right now, and more than that look back to male/female social roles that seem more solidly grounded in an existential other. Populists take the same outward approach, but that's because the collective mass of them tells them that what is going on is weird. Conservatives tend to support strong border and immigration policies as they believe in the principal of sovereignty, which has long existed, and they fear they value national culture and fear that uncontrolled immigration can damage it. Populists tend to support the same, but because the people coming across the border are part of some mysterious other, who are almost not real people, or at least not equal people.
On other issues, however the differences begin to become more apparent. Conservatives have always tended to support a strong national defense on sovereignty grounds, although that doesn't always take the same expression. Therefore, while conservatives of the 1930s were isolationist, they were also more than willing to build a strong Navy that projected power well beyond the United States. In recent years, they've been strong proponents of collective security, often aggravating liberals by being willing to see authoritarian regimes as potential defense partners. Populists are universally strict isolationist, as they feel anything beyond our borders doesn't matter.
Economically, conservatives generally tend to be fiscally restrained, but not unwilling to apply the American system where it will seem to work. They believe in balanced finances. Populists believe in balanced finances, but take a hyper stingy view of expenditures, virtually never seeing any expenditure as benefiting the populist mass. Therefore, funding for schools, something conservatives have long supported, becomes sort of an anathema to some populists. Strong education in science, math and history as a conservative position degrades into limited education on the populist end, as they have watched populist raised children evolve into conservatives, liberals or progressives.
Western conservatives (but not European conservatives) had tended to be in favor of limiting government, as they basically feel, in a pessimistic sort of way, that people are generally better off figuring out things for themselves rather than having the government do it, or do things for them. Populists are for a limited government as they hate the government, seeing it as the conspiratorial "they" that's out to destroy them and the culture they believe in.
For this reason, conservatives and populists confuse each other as being part of their ranks. Populists continually claim they are conservatives, when in fact they are not. Populists have been told that the Republican Party is the home of conservatives, which after 1912 it came to be, and as they believe that they are conservative, they believe anyone in the GOP who doesn't think the way they do is a Republican In Name Only. Ironically, populists were in the Populist Party at the turn of the last century in the US, and then in the Democratic Party for decades. What they are complaining about is the traditional positions of the Republican Party.
The same is true of liberals and progressives.
Liberals tend to be basically in favor of social liberty for the same reason that conservatives are in favor of limited government, they feel that people are best left to figure those things out for themselves and will ultimately figure the right thing out. Progressives want to force a brave new social world view on everyone. Liberals are more willing to use the government and government money for what they think the common good is than conservatives are, but progressives are willing to use both to force their view on what the good is on people who disagree with it. Liberals (like many conservatives) are supportive of preservation of the common good, through public and environmental policies. Progressives are as well, but they're more much willing to dictate an extra view on how people should generally behave. Liberals, like conservatives, have traditionally been in favor of a strong national defense, but have been, since the Vietnam War, very careful about using it beyond our shores unless absolutely necessary. Progressives, like populists, never see it as necessary as a rule.
Because liberals and progressives overlap, they confuse each other as being on the same scale on the left, which in fact, they're in different circles or boxes. Liberal inability to see the distinction has been to the benefit of Progressives, who have come to increasingly dominate the Democratic Party in recent years.
Liberals and conservatives tend to have a lot in common, but not be able to realize it, in part because liberals feel they need to make camp with the progressives, and the conservatives do make camp with the progressives.
A warning
And here we get, in a way, to where we are now.
Conservatives in the modern West, and always in the English-speaking West, have democracy as a primary virtue, in spite of being aware that they're never in the majority, although the National Conservative movement, which is reactionary in the true sense of the word (it's reacting to something) is weakening that and looking to a pre Second World War model of European conservatism.
Liberals are always in favor of democracy.
Progressives and Populists really aren't quite often. Sometimes they are, but often they are not.
And Progressives and Populists only are in the forefront of politics in odd, and dangerous, times.
We are in odd and dangerous times.
Footnotes:
1. Hindu conservatives, and there are millions, would say "gods", or some variant of it, we should note.
2. Evolutionary biology is almost an elemental fixture of conservatism. Indeed, scientists who are evolutioanry biologist have been rebuked, in recent years, by progressives simply for stating scientific truths.
