Drewbahr's recent activity
-
Comment on David Brooks: I should have seen this coming - I feel moral shame in ~society
-
Comment on David Brooks: I should have seen this coming - I feel moral shame in ~society
Drewbahr Link ParentElon Musk, I suspect. One would think that the right's hatred towards experts/expertise would be controversial among trained professionals, but if I've learned anything it's that "trained...I don't know who conservative engineers and computer devs and geologists in mining follow.
Elon Musk, I suspect.
One would think that the right's hatred towards experts/expertise would be controversial among trained professionals, but if I've learned anything it's that "trained professionals" are simply people who learned a particular skill set. In my opinion, the only thing that truly separates doctors, engineers, scientists, and other such people ... from others like librarians, social workers, and the like ... are simply what they learned.
I say this as a chemical engineer. I'm no smarter, no more skilled, no more an "expert" in my field than anyone else. I just differ by my coursework.
If that point is taken, then it can be understood why people like Ben Carson and Dr. Oz are/were right-wing conservatives despite being doctors. Their skill set does not reflect their political leanings or intentions; it just represents what they are trained to do. Not what they believe.
-
Comment on David Brooks: I should have seen this coming - I feel moral shame in ~society
Drewbahr Link ParentOh he's 100% playing to his audience, I agree completely. I think "giving concessions to soften the message" is being quite generous though. Then again, I do not think highly of Conservative...Oh he's 100% playing to his audience, I agree completely. I think "giving concessions to soften the message" is being quite generous though. Then again, I do not think highly of Conservative thinkers, considering where they've landed us.
-
Comment on David Brooks: I should have seen this coming - I feel moral shame in ~society
Drewbahr Link ParentInsert "they're the same picture" meme from The Office.Reactionaries might be a flavor of conservative. However when I look at Maga with Trump getting what he wants, I see a fascist movement.
Insert "they're the same picture" meme from The Office.
-
Comment on David Brooks: I should have seen this coming - I feel moral shame in ~society
Drewbahr Link ParentMAGA is the inevitable result of modern American Conservatism.MAGA is the inevitable result of modern American Conservatism.
-
Comment on David Brooks: I should have seen this coming - I feel moral shame in ~society
Drewbahr Link ParentOr using reader mode on Firefox. I've read the whole article, and I find it ... fascinating, in a sort of "wow, that's a train wreck" fashion. I agree with a lot of his points, so far as they go;...- Exemplary
Or using reader mode on Firefox.
I've read the whole article, and I find it ... fascinating, in a sort of "wow, that's a train wreck" fashion. I agree with a lot of his points, so far as they go; we need to build coalitions, locally and nationally, to fight against Trump's regime. There's something here in the USA worth preserving. But David seems to have really, really heavy blinders on. He seems to think that part of the Conservative project has been led astray, thanks to the efforts of "the Progressive Left". By inference, he seems to think that if only the "true Conservatives" like him had had power all along, we'd be in a better place. He doesn't seem to recognize that we are where we are because of modern Conservative ideology, in no small part because of people like G. Gordon Liddy, Richard Nixon, the "Southern Strategy", and the like.
He also seems strangely okay with a whole lot of people going through and enduring the evils of Trump, believing that it will necessarily be better on the other side. He places a lot of faith in people realizing that Trump is evil and working to rectify it, without acknowledging that at least a third of the electorate is 100% on board with Trump. If he'd learned anything from Trump 1.0, it's that things can always get worse, no matter how bad they are. Black, Indigenous, and other "not White" people in this country have been experiencing the worst of it for centuries; they've been telling this to us (white people) for centuries, and "we" haven't been listening.
On the whole, I'm having a hard time taking the author all that seriously, because of statements like these (emphasis mine):
The pathetic thing is that I didn’t see this coming even though I’ve been living around these people my whole adult life. I joined the conservative movement in the 1980s, when I worked in turn at National Review, The Washington Times, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page. There were two kinds of people in our movement back then, the conservatives and the reactionaries. We conservatives earnestly read Milton Friedman, James Burnham, Whittaker Chambers, and Edmund Burke. The reactionaries just wanted to shock the left. We conservatives oriented our lives around writing for intellectual magazines; the reactionaries were attracted to TV and radio. We were on the political right but had many liberal friends; they had contempt for anyone not on the anti-establishment right. They were not pro-conservative—they were anti-left. I have come to appreciate that this is an important difference.
Juxtaposed, a few lines down, with:
[...] Owning the libs became a lucrative strategy.
Of course, the left made it easy for them. The left really did purge conservatives from universities and other cultural power centers. The left really did valorize a “meritocratic” caste system that privileged the children of the affluent and screwed the working class. The left really did pontificate to their unenlightened moral inferiors on everything from gender to the environment. The left really did create a stifling orthodoxy that stamped out dissent. If you tell half the country that their voices don’t matter, then the voiceless are going to flip over the table.
According to David Brooks, it's bad to be a reactionary - they aren't "true Conservatives" - but also, "the left" totally had it coming, what choice did we Conservatives have? Clearly, the reason we have Donald Trump is because of "the Left", according to David Brooks. No, there's no way that someone like Donald Trump is the inevitable result of decades of right-wing Christian Nationalism - the kind that David himself claims to have witnessed (or, rather, claims to have overlooked).
Trumpian nihilism has eviscerated conservatism. The people in this administration are not conservatives. They are the opposite of conservatives. Conservatives once believed in steady but incremental reform; Elon Musk believes in rash and instantaneous disruption.
I honestly did not want to be a "fallacy" guy, but David here is No True Scotsmanning so hard throughout the piece. The people in Trump's administration are the result of the efforts of people like David Brooks. They are the children borne of "conservatives". To claim that conservatism - which, at its core, is *definitionally about preserving certain values and maintaining a sort of status quo - is about making incremental progress ... he's adopting the language of Liberalism and twisting it to suit his article.
The true conservatives used metaphors of growth or spiritual recovery.
No True Scotsman, again.
When I look at Trump acolytes, I see a swarm of Neville Chamberlains who think they’re Winston Churchill.
It's an interesting choice of words, considering Winston Churchill was an incredibly racist person whose decisions led to the deaths of millions of people in what is now Bangladesh. Trump's acolytes are no different than Churchill in that regard - they are willing to kill millions if it means getting what they want.
David goes on a long run of examples of past events and points of turmoil, which I won't recount here as this post is already quite long. But he ends the screed with:
To begin its recovery from Trumpism, America needs its next Whig moment.
Framed against it context, he's saying that we need a new political party/movement to rise up in direct opposition to that of the President - in essence, David Brooks, whether intentionally or not, has just advocated for the uprising against, and elimination of, the modern Republican Party. I agree with David!
When listing the sorts of changes that David mentions will be necessary following the end of Trump's reign (whenever that may be), he mentions:
Finally, economic expansion. Economic growth can salve many wounds. Pursuing a so-called abundance agenda—a set of policies aimed at reducing government regulation and increasing investment in innovation, and expanding the supply of housing, energy, and health care—is the most promising way to achieve that expansion.
How, after having been a "true Conservative" for the past 45 years, can David say this with a straight face? In previous paragraphs he cites the positive things wrought by Progressivism in early 20th-Century - things which were only possible via government regulation! How does David square the circle with both reducing regulation and increasing investment in other fields? If the government increases funding in housing/energy/health care, it won't do so with no strings attached - there will be requirements to meet in order to receive that funding, which is necessarily regulation.
But history doesn’t stop moving. Even now, as I travel around the country, I see the forces of repair gathering in neighborhoods and communities. If you’re part of an organization that builds trust across class, you’re fighting Trumpism. If you’re a Democrat jettisoning insular faculty-lounge progressivism in favor of a Whig-like working-class abundance agenda, you’re fighting Trumpism. If you are standing up for a moral code of tolerance and pluralism that can hold America together, you’re fighting Trumpism.
David can't help but take pot shots at "the Left"/Democrats. I don't think he's earnest in wanting to build a coalition against Trump and the "not true Conservatives". I think he just wants to lay the blame at the feet of the modern Democratic Party, who somehow made the Conservatives become reactionary and evil.
-
Comment on When can we call this a dictatorship? in ~society
Drewbahr Link Parent... what's the difference? Is there a real, tangible difference between an "authoritarian" and a "dictator"? I'm a believer of dictionary descriptivism - that the dictionary describes how words...He is authoritarian, not a dictator.
... what's the difference? Is there a real, tangible difference between an "authoritarian" and a "dictator"? I'm a believer of dictionary descriptivism - that the dictionary describes how words are actually used, rather than describing the "true meaning" of a word (prescriptivism). Merriam Webster says, of Authoritarian and Dictator (emphasis mine):
Authoritarian
-
of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority
-
of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
Dictator
1a. a person granted absolute emergency power, especially, history : one appointed by the senate (see senate sense 1b) of ancient Rome
1b. one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited governmental power
1c. one ruling in an absolute (see absolute sense 2) and often oppressive way
- one who says or reads something for a person to transcribe or for a machine to record : one that dictates
Trump may not have absolute authority, sure - but when he makes an executive order, people in government, people in Congress, are seemingly bending over and accepting it. Even when those executive orders aren't actually binding and cross the lines into the powers of Congress themselves. As others have pointed out, not all autocrats/dictators in history have wielded "true" absolute power - but when the power is concentrated enough into one person, they are still considered an autocrat/dictator. Hell, one of Europe's first examples of an autocratic, dare I say dictatorial ruler ... is Augustus. The Roman Senate continued to exist, continued to "function", during his reign - but they had no real power; this is being somewhat emulated today, as Trump continues to make executive orders which rob Congress of their power, and Congress is not stopping him.
So, are we as far along into authoritarianism or dictatorship or whatever you want to say, as the Romans were under Augustus? Maybe; probably not! But are we far enough along that it's fair to point out that we are under the rule of a tyrant, who is robbing the other branches of government of their power, shelling out institutions that could stop him, and what branches he hasn't destroyed are either not stopping him, or are actively working with him? Absolutely.
-
-
Comment on When can we call this a dictatorship? in ~society
Drewbahr Link ParentIt always does seem clearer in hindsight. I agree.It always does seem clearer in hindsight. I agree.
-
Comment on When can we call this a dictatorship? in ~society
Drewbahr Link ParentI mean, we're talking about a President utilizing powers not granted to him by the constitution, without substantive pushback from at least one side of the US political spectrum (the Republican...I mean, we're talking about a President utilizing powers not granted to him by the constitution, without substantive pushback from at least one side of the US political spectrum (the Republican Party and those that side with it), along with a Supreme Court that is willingly defying decades of "settled law". I say we need to call a spade a spade - when our government is controlled by, and enforced for, the whims of a single person ... I think it's fair to call it a dictatorship.
Sometimes vocabulary use gets pretty political. It isn't purely descriptive. It's used as a form of political expression. And I don't like the vibes.
I agree, when we're talking politics it makes sense to use political vocabulary, particularly as a form of political expression! You don't have to like the vibes for the description to fit. I feel like if "we" continue to let the situation slip - to say that "it's not really dictatorship/autocracy/fascism/etc yet, because of <insert disqualifying reason>" - is to miss the forest for the trees. It is always a continual slide downwards of varying degrees, but we're well along the path into - not toward - a dictatorship. It didn't even start with Donald Trump!
When scholars on fascism start fleeing a country due to its increasing fascism, maybe it's time to start acknowledging that reality.
-
Comment on When can we call this a dictatorship? in ~society
Drewbahr Link ParentCalling something what it is, is not the same as giving in to despair.Calling something what it is, is not the same as giving in to despair.
-
Comment on Those dire wolves aren’t an amazing scientific breakthrough. They’re a disturbing symbol of where we’re heading. in ~science
Drewbahr LinkWell, that's a horrifying thought. What lives and dies at the behest of the direct and immediate whims of just one billionaire.Well, that's a horrifying thought. What lives and dies at the behest of the direct and immediate whims of just one billionaire.
-
Comment on Looking for games you can play on a laptop with a trackpad in ~games
-
Comment on US says it is now monitoring immigrants' social media for antisemitism in ~society
Drewbahr Link ParentIt isn't dog whistling anymore. It's dog bull horning. Trump and the people serving with and supporting him in office are Nazis.It isn't dog whistling anymore. It's dog bull horning.
Trump and the people serving with and supporting him in office are Nazis.
-
Comment on Disney faces US investigation over Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion practices in ~society
-
Comment on Disney faces US investigation over Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion practices in ~society
-
Comment on What keeps you up at night? in ~talk
Drewbahr LinkMy country's leadership, if you want to call it that, and what it means for my children and for the world.My country's leadership, if you want to call it that, and what it means for my children and for the world.
-
Comment on What quotes inspire you? in ~talk
Drewbahr (edited )LinkI just remembered one other quote that continues to influence me. It's from The Hagakure by Yamamoto Tsunetomo. For me, it relates to identifying what's coming and understanding that regardless of...I just remembered one other quote that continues to influence me. It's from The Hagakure by Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
There is something to be learned from a rainstorm. When meeting with a sudden shower, you try not to get wet and run quickly along the road. But doing such things as passing under the eaves of houses, you still get wet. When you are resolved from the beginning, you will not be perplexed, though you will still get the same soaking. This understanding extends to everything.
For me, it relates to identifying what's coming and understanding that regardless of what happens, you're about to be in it. Even with your best preparations and plans, you're going to find yourself in that rainstorm, in that coming situation. Instead of lamenting how nice it would be to be dry, or how nice it would have been for things to have turned out differently ... you're still going to get soaked, you're still going to be in that situation. So identify it, understand it, and accept it.
You don't necessarily have to like where you're at, what you're experiencing. But you should be clear-eyed about it.
-
Comment on What quotes inspire you? in ~talk
Drewbahr LinkJason Kay, lead singer of Jamiroquai I may have more to share later, but that one's stuck with me for decades.Know which side you're standing on, don't let people tell you you're wrong when you know you're right.
- Jason Kay, lead singer of Jamiroquai
I may have more to share later, but that one's stuck with me for decades.
-
Comment on Moonlight: Open source game streaming client in ~games
Drewbahr Link ParentIn my experience Moonlight is much better than Steam Remote Play.In my experience Moonlight is much better than Steam Remote Play.
-
Comment on US Social Security to require millions to make claims in person rather than by phone in ~society
Drewbahr Link ParentThey're already doing illegal and unconstitutional things. They aren't in jail.They're already doing illegal and unconstitutional things. They aren't in jail.
He is disavowing fascist dictatorship, I agree. I just found the comparison to be interesting, particularly if one were to take British India's view of who Churchill was.
To us (western Europeans) he represents a staunch defender of democracy against fascism. To the millions of families torn apart by his treatment of British India/Bangladesh ... they likely don't have a positive view of the man.
People contain multitudes - Churchill and Brooks included.