ilovefuzz.com

It will probably be something similar to 2002-2006, but without (fingers crossed) a massive terror attack or another invasion.

But if it's in any way similar to how Maine's had operated under LePage it'll be a lot of folks on both sides exhaustedly sighing while he says/does stupid things and attempting to operate as business as usual in spite of the loudmouthed/"shoot from the hip" figurehead... Of course there will be much larger stakes falling on the shoulders of the national bureaucracy.

D.o.S. wrote:It will probably be something similar to 2002-2006, but without (fingers crossed) a massive terror attack or another invasion.

But if it's in any way similar to how Maine's had operated under LePage it'll be a lot of folks on both sides exhaustedly sighing while he says/does stupid things and attempting to operate as business as usual in spite of the loudmouthed/"shoot from the hip" figurehead... Of course there will be much larger stakes falling on the shoulders of the national bureaucracy.

Do you think large jump to the right in Western democracies can be catalysts for events such as those?


I mean, invasions aside (and tin foil hats as well), does Western conservatism begin an escalation game of fundamentalism/conservatism in other cultures?

I mean, I'm pretty sure from a social-psychological school of thought, you'll find there's an ingroup-outgroup ethos being created on both sides (which in turn drives policies and actions, which in turn escalate the other side and so it goes), but I'd love to put this one up for discussion and hear other thoughts.

It's pretty much the political agenda of the new US right wing conservatism which dates back to Huntington's clash of civilizations. This book was pretty much their manifesto, and the right hand side of the political spectrum has evolved under it's influence. For exemple, that statist/bonapartist right was pretty much swept under the rug by the libertarian right. While the statist right had been dominant since the end of WW2, around the figure of General de Gaulle in France, they're now a minority, trying to fund a voice in the dominant right wing party or through smaller independent parties. Corelatively, it's the new libertarian right, that has the lead. They achieved it by flanking the statist right on the right and legitimating the themes that are commonly exploited by the far right (immigration = Muslims = terrorism ; foreigners = delinquants = danger for the good samaritans with white skin ; gays marrying = messing with marriage as a religious institution = destroying family life). While that dynamic contained the far right for a while by draining their pool of voters, it's dangerous because legitimating these concerns and not obtaining results in terms (terrorism still occurs, crime too, gays too) means people will prefer the original to the ersatz. I'm actually curious how thing should will fare on the right hand side now that they have an overtly Christian and conservative candidate, who is also a libertarian that clearly has an agenda to destroy public service in the name of competition as it is (to him) a source of performance.

Disarm D'arcy wrote: They achieved it by flanking the statist right on the right and legitimating the themes that are commonly exploited by the far right (immigration = Muslims = terrorism ; foreigners = delinquants = danger for the good samaritans with white skin ; gays marrying = messing with marriage as a religious institution = destroying family life). While that dynamic contained the far right for a while by draining their pool of voters, it's dangerous because legitimating these concerns and not obtaining results in terms (terrorism still occurs, crime too, gays too) means people will prefer the original to the ersatz.

Yeah, they're interesting devices, and constantly in employ, ever changing to suit the needs of whomever is employing them. That's a really interesting point about investing in the rhetoric around those concepts and then creating a legitimate fear of them but not ever being able to "solve those problems", as it were.
The logician in me sort of thinks that people would have lived lives and had experiences enough to see through these as mere devices by now, or at least, see that the outcome is the same, rabid rhetoric or no.
But I know that there are social mechanisms in place that work against that as well.
So where does humanism go from here?

Disarm D'arcy wrote: I'm actually curious how thing should will fare on the right hand side now that they have an overtly Christian and conservative candidate, who is also a libertarian that clearly has an agenda to destroy public service in the name of competition as it is (to him) a source of performance.

I'm imagining that the hypocrisy is going to be off the fucking charts, basically.

Well, humanism has no play in there. Because that's where the real danger lies. It is being replaced as the scope we collectively use to look at ourselves and the rest of the world, hence embracing the clash of the civilization theories. And the pressure to do so is multidirectional which makes it hard to tackle. It's a worldwide shift that we have to deal with when facing the US/Nato, the EU, our partners within the EU, our partners or former partners in the third world, our own nation (separation of church and state is slightly becoming the discrimination against those who are not some kind of christians, preferably muslims because you know, terror; libertarianism is pretty much embraced by the dominant parties equally, no matter if right or left, while our national solidarity is built on taxes and public services, that are weakened as well by the competition principle that comes with European treaties and the worldwide cultural pressure to embrace a freer market). So yeah. Difficult. A lot to address. In every direction.

But if we look at nations which have been through these ills recently, there's a way out. Actually, the candidate I support theorized it. He calls it the "populist moment", where people first try to nuke the homogeneity of the political spectrum and the depossession of democracy that comes with modern technocracy by voting for a loudmouth that will "drain the swamp", "give France back to the French", "take back control", whatever it is. It went left with Kirschner, Chavez and the "morenos" such as Evo Morales in Latin America pretty naturally because they've all just come out of years of right wing dictatorship. While in Latin America it was enough to find a long term answer, because electing these individuels led to institutional reform that actually gave the people a sense of actually having a choice. In the US, the commonwealth and the old EU, it's another story. Electing a Trump or a Farrage will not bring any long term solution. And I'm pretty sure both of these people will achieve nothing, and probably will just do business as usual, because they have no interest in actual change.

Where we're at in the EU, there's no saying what will prevail. What is certain, is that the two main EU parties (people's right and social libertarians) we have today will either dramatically renovate or fall into oblivion. In the EU, I see social libertarians, center, and libertarian right uniting into a democratic party, statist right becoming inexistant and for the righter part of it, merging with the far right. The left will recompose in varying degrees of green/red parties and citizen's movements such as Spain's Podemo, depending on who was quicker and the most consistent in affirming independence from the left wing fraction that will merge into a large democratic party. There's also, for sure institutional reform to come, and in European policies, a shift away from libertarianism (on the left hand side, because environment and public services, on the right hand side because sovereignty and borders control). When all of this will come I don't know, the sooner the better, the most peaceful the better. But there's of course a great possibility everything will turn to shit. It's human affairs and chaos is the natural state of everything.

#noideahowtoleadasuperpower

Faldoe wrote:The social justice left and the alt right.

I'm interested to see how the left may perpetually react to a Trump administration. I'm frankly a little excited to see it all unfold.

One of the best colloquialisms to emerge from 2016 is The Control-Left & The Alt-Right

Is everyone here familiar with The Horseshoe Effect?

"Almost" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades (& ICBMs).

Iommic Pope wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:It will probably be something similar to 2002-2006, but without (fingers crossed) a massive terror attack or another invasion.

But if it's in any way similar to how Maine's had operated under LePage it'll be a lot of folks on both sides exhaustedly sighing while he says/does stupid things and attempting to operate as business as usual in spite of the loudmouthed/"shoot from the hip" figurehead... Of course there will be much larger stakes falling on the shoulders of the national bureaucracy.

Do you think large jump to the right in Western democracies can be catalysts for events such as those?


I mean, invasions aside (and tin foil hats as well), does Western conservatism begin an escalation game of fundamentalism/conservatism in other cultures?

I mean, I'm pretty sure from a social-psychological school of thought, you'll find there's an ingroup-outgroup ethos being created on both sides (which in turn drives policies and actions, which in turn escalate the other side and so it goes), but I'd love to put this one up for discussion and hear other thoughts.

I would say this is a very risky correlation as causation way of thinking, particularly if you consider that the US of the late 90's and (very) early 00's wasn't engaged in this sort of Huntington-esque rhetoric on a large scale. They were greedily neoliberal in their foreign policy for sure, but that's been the de facto position of the globe's superpowers for all of human history: endorse the economic system that benefits those already in power.

I think the first time most people my age heard about the Taliban it was when they blew up those Buddhist statues, and while that was a dick move to be sure it wasn't particularly egregious behavior internationally.

Which is to say that there's a wonderful bit I can't quote right now about how the Clinton and Bush administrations ignored the 9/11 security briefings because they were operating under the "old model of terrorism", bomb things by day, drink wine by night sort of Euro stereotype from the 70's and 80's. More Carlos the Jackal than Khalid Shiek Mohammed.

rustywire wrote:

Faldoe wrote:The social justice left and the alt right.

I'm interested to see how the left may perpetually react to a Trump administration. I'm frankly a little excited to see it all unfold.

One of the best colloquialisms to emerge from 2016 is The Control-Left & The Alt-Right

Is everyone here familiar with The Horseshoe Effect?

That would make most of us, what, the Del-everything?

I think the Horseshoe effect applies much more socially than, say, economically, but yeah, I can appreciate the similarities in rhetoric and enforced behavior.

Hella

Y'all the elctorate is voting today. BERNIE COULD STILL WIN

For anyone that doesn't know -- in the extremely rare case no one comes out with an electoral majority, it goes to the House, who will (probably) pick between Trump, Clinton, and Kasich.

If the House (which is quite Republican because reasons [gerrymandering, etc.] ) doesn't elect a clear cut President, it goes to the Senate (which is also Republican, but narrower).

D.o.S. wrote:

For anyone that doesn't know -- in the extremely rare case no one comes out with an electoral majority, it goes to the House, who will (probably) pick between Trump, Clinton, and Kasich.

If the House (which is quite Republican because reasons [gerrymandering, etc.] ) doesn't elect a clear cut President, it goes to the Senate (which is also Republican, but narrower).

That's why I find the whole "fuck up the elector system" thing stupid.
Trump's getting in one way or another. So just shut the fuck up and start preparing for 2020.

Based on how the Democrats are setting the tone for the next four-to-eight years (bitch, whine, moan, spread bullshit as much as possible), I find it highly probable that we're gonna have a solidly Republican government (barring any truly massive scandals, but that didn't affect Obama, so I wouldn't bet on it) for the next decade.

great. it'll be Reagan all over again. i lived through the Reagan era, and believe me, it was no fun.

Don't forget about 2003-2005. Also filed nicely under "not fun."