It explains a lot about what appeals to voters and what they value as essential. It also suggests why strongarm types like to invoke "common sense" and make with the expletives and epithets in the name of "telling it like it is."
The biggest benefit of reading the CSPI piece was getting past the ALL CAPS megaphoning and bare-knuckle posturing of populists, and understanding the motivations of people drawn to them. Are some of those drawn to populists the ones Hillary dismissed as deplorables and belong to The Order of the 17th Letter? Definitely. Do some of them have the same moderate and pragmatic streak that Zaid observes in NYC's minority voters and the national Democratic Party? I think so.
I'm speaking as a JFK Democrat, as my conservative friends call me. I see an opportunity to re-connect with people who who aren't among The Woke but still acknowledge incidents of inequality and disparity. They don't want coastal Establishment elites shoving everything down their throat, but they're open to having a small taste if they get to help in the kitchen. Specifically regarding crime, my guess is that moderate pragmatists don't want to defund the police but at the same time don't want a modern-day Stasi.
I'd go so far as to say these folks also want equality of opportunity without crippling student debt, border enforcement without cages, and reliable public services without complete privatization. That's why I think a great approach would be to reconcile the originalist intent of promoting the general welfare with the progressive goal of serving the common good. It seems attainable. It just takes the right person to get there, regardless of party.
The privatization bit is off the table in my opinion. In a nation that valued capitalism, but also was possessed of ethics and a sense of responsibility, it might be an option. The private sector is broken.
Chui, you summed up what I was trying to say about originalism/progressivism that got right to the heart of my long-windedness. Capitalism + Ethics + Responsibility = The American Solution.
Assuming that it has existed, odds are you'll sooner find it at the local level than on the national scale.
Re: the arc of progress - I see it the same way as Martin Luther King Jr's arc of the moral universe. It will take much longer than we like, and it isn't meant to be a smooth shiny rainbow. There's been a fair share of bumps and bruises along the way, and there will continue to be. Still, I think humanity will get there. I get pessimistic a lot of the time, but like Jonathan Haidt was quoted in ABR Religion and Ethics, I stop short of being 100% pessimistic.
If it is at the local level then the premise has already been rejected. Postmodernism at a very core level requires its adherents to frame oppression holistically, not as a targeted exercise.
The whole of the Enlightenment and everything that followed must be wiped from the board.
An arc is only an arc if it continues to the desired endpoint. I would argue that it is 95% severed. In any case, its recovery will add decades onto an already century + long exercise.
In the other direction, it won't take more than 10=15 years for the arc to be fully severed.
Much easier to tear down than to put up.
Also, King was a meritocracy proponent. This is the first concept to be rejected by PM and CRT. Only by the color of one's skin will one be judged. The content of your character is a secondary consideration and is only allowed at the group level. It is forbidden, explicitly at the individual level.
Chui, are you speaking as an observer or an advocate?
Understand I'm not framing this as a "gotcha" question. We have nothing to gain in a good-faith discussion by leading the witness. It's just hard for me to distinguish whether or not you're arguing for/against PM, CRT, and the Age of Humanism.
I'm only asking as a way of getting a little more context in support of your viewpoints.
Recently I read an essay on the CSPI website about the cultural roots of populism:
https://cspicenter.org/reports/the-national-populist-illusion-why-culture-not-economics-drives-american-politics/
It explains a lot about what appeals to voters and what they value as essential. It also suggests why strongarm types like to invoke "common sense" and make with the expletives and epithets in the name of "telling it like it is."
The biggest benefit of reading the CSPI piece was getting past the ALL CAPS megaphoning and bare-knuckle posturing of populists, and understanding the motivations of people drawn to them. Are some of those drawn to populists the ones Hillary dismissed as deplorables and belong to The Order of the 17th Letter? Definitely. Do some of them have the same moderate and pragmatic streak that Zaid observes in NYC's minority voters and the national Democratic Party? I think so.
I'm speaking as a JFK Democrat, as my conservative friends call me. I see an opportunity to re-connect with people who who aren't among The Woke but still acknowledge incidents of inequality and disparity. They don't want coastal Establishment elites shoving everything down their throat, but they're open to having a small taste if they get to help in the kitchen. Specifically regarding crime, my guess is that moderate pragmatists don't want to defund the police but at the same time don't want a modern-day Stasi.
I'd go so far as to say these folks also want equality of opportunity without crippling student debt, border enforcement without cages, and reliable public services without complete privatization. That's why I think a great approach would be to reconcile the originalist intent of promoting the general welfare with the progressive goal of serving the common good. It seems attainable. It just takes the right person to get there, regardless of party.
The privatization bit is off the table in my opinion. In a nation that valued capitalism, but also was possessed of ethics and a sense of responsibility, it might be an option. The private sector is broken.
Chui, you summed up what I was trying to say about originalism/progressivism that got right to the heart of my long-windedness. Capitalism + Ethics + Responsibility = The American Solution.
Has it ever existed?
Or is it that there was an arc of progress toward it that has been interrupted?
Assuming that it has existed, odds are you'll sooner find it at the local level than on the national scale.
Re: the arc of progress - I see it the same way as Martin Luther King Jr's arc of the moral universe. It will take much longer than we like, and it isn't meant to be a smooth shiny rainbow. There's been a fair share of bumps and bruises along the way, and there will continue to be. Still, I think humanity will get there. I get pessimistic a lot of the time, but like Jonathan Haidt was quoted in ABR Religion and Ethics, I stop short of being 100% pessimistic.
If it is at the local level then the premise has already been rejected. Postmodernism at a very core level requires its adherents to frame oppression holistically, not as a targeted exercise.
The whole of the Enlightenment and everything that followed must be wiped from the board.
An arc is only an arc if it continues to the desired endpoint. I would argue that it is 95% severed. In any case, its recovery will add decades onto an already century + long exercise.
In the other direction, it won't take more than 10=15 years for the arc to be fully severed.
Much easier to tear down than to put up.
Also, King was a meritocracy proponent. This is the first concept to be rejected by PM and CRT. Only by the color of one's skin will one be judged. The content of your character is a secondary consideration and is only allowed at the group level. It is forbidden, explicitly at the individual level.
Chui, are you speaking as an observer or an advocate?
Understand I'm not framing this as a "gotcha" question. We have nothing to gain in a good-faith discussion by leading the witness. It's just hard for me to distinguish whether or not you're arguing for/against PM, CRT, and the Age of Humanism.
I'm only asking as a way of getting a little more context in support of your viewpoints.
*ABC Religion and Ethics