"No one thought it would come to this..." Isn't that Corn's point? That indeed there was a 70 year history of the GOP playing footsie with Hofstadter's Paranoid America? I haven't read Charlie's book, so I don't know how he reconciles his stint as a conservative talk radio host with current realities, but I'm just a few years younger than him and I've spent the last 50 years arguing with conservatives like Charlie that there were indeed racists and authoritarian elements in the Republican coalition. I was scoffed at and called a commie. Well, here we are. This is NOT a "No one thought it would come to this..." moment for many of us.
"I think it’s fair to say that we have a somewhat different perspective and I have my quibbles."
You were a part of it Charlie--but at least you seem to realize that somewhat now. It's hard to see things from the inside.
I have a severe dislike, bordering on hatred, for conservatism. This isn't because I am progressive--although in some areas I have progressive tendencies.
My dislike/hatred stems from the fact that conservatism is primarily about maintaining a status quo that benefits the group(s) that label themselves conservative.
My dislike/hatred stems from the fact that conservatism naturally tends to racism and sexism and the creation of Real Americans vice simply Americans.
My dislike/hatred stems from the fact that conservatism tends to authoritarianism and ugly alliances with religion that soil both politics and religion.
Even when conservatism pretends to intellectualism and principles, that ugly underside is always there. While WF Buckley tried to quash some of it (at least publicly) he and other "intellectuals" of conservatism still carried that baggage and it still influenced their thought and action. His PR attempt ultimately failed.
The current mess is the result of a LOT of work on the part of the GoP and the embrace of things that (in reality) naturally align with conservatism in the historical tradition. Because of that natural alignment, a lot of work was required to keep that aspect of conservatism at bay--and the work was not only NOT done, the GoP welcomed these people with open arms so long as they brought some votes with them.
The fact is that the party could not and can not actually embrace its supposed classical liberal principles because it started off as a party of business and remained the party of the well-to-do for most of its history. It is still the party of the well-to-do, but they have added the "polish" of populist racism, sexism, and religion to it in order to try and remain relevant
A party that espoused increased Federal power in its beginnings (because business saw that as being an advantage) turned into a party that reviles Federal power because it began to be used to create a better ground for the common man instead of calling out troops to suppress those pesky union organizers and labor unrest.
Back when the GOP encouraged the Tea Party thinking they could use it but control it, I likened it to a guy who wanted to intimidate his neighbor, so he got himself a Bengal Tiger to walk it back and forth in front of his neighbor's home. I predicted that one day the hungry tiger would look up at his owner and think to himself "You're closer. I'll eat you first." That is precisely what happened, and the GOP leadership has no one to blame but themselves.
Well, I admit that I was discouraged in my attempts to light a fire under the pundits at the Bulwark regarding a complete avoidance of the women's Health issue that can likely switch the outcomes of the midterms. I was getting nowhere, so in desperation I called up my old friend in the trenches who has done right by America so much recently, Lindsay Graham.
I asked Lindsay if there was anything he could possibly do to get the Dobbs verdict back in the limelight and he awakened ( like in Woke) and said that maybe a national bill that really nailed down the particulars of the State Bills that seemed awash in their backpedaling. . He seemed to have full grasp of the issue.
"I'll introduce a bill that will piss off my good friends on the right that might have staying power". If the timing is right, it could help galvanize voters everywhere to show up and reject this notion of old white guys telling women how to live their lives."
Next he promised to get legislation going to ban contraception.
I thanked him profusely. It was unexpected help from the crazy corner.
Meanwhile, I take note that Trump supporters are putting up Biden signs in their yards since "Q" told them it would make the FBI not stop at their houses during the great subpoena darkness when Jan 6th raiders cowered by the tribal fire.
So much for “let the state’s decide”. Anybody who paid attention always knew that was a lie. Abortion has always been about power, control and using christian religious beliefs to narrow and eliminate women’s reproductive choices.
Amniocentesis is done between 15-20 weeks of pregnancy. This is when many lethal fetal anomalies are detected. Under Graham’s ban, many women would be forced to carry a lethal pregnancy to term.
I hope that Graham’s ban comes back to bite him and every republican up for election. Perhaps this will ensure a blue wave.
Thank you for linking to the NYT chart. Best graphic in a long time on the issue of why bans before previability are so difficult to implement without causing potential harm to the mother and child. It's important to note that not all the screenings listed are covered either... A lot depends on the mother's age and insurance.
I get extraordinary frustrated when I hear "15 weeks sounds fine" or "IDK the difference between 15 and 20 weeks anyway." It's pretty easy to Google people but this graphic goes a long way in explaining when information is obtained on the development.
The fact is the difference in organ development is high in those 5 weeks and some fatal abnormalities simply cannot be definitively identified until the 20 week high resolution scan (this is what happened to me). The genetic testing comes back with a risk profile for complications but for many complications it is not a diagnosis. Mine as an example said it was possible the fetus had a trisomy but until we could see the organ development, we couldn't get a firm diagnosis.
This is one of many nuances simply lost in the conversation when bans before viability are discussed. I'm once again beyond grateful that Roe was in place and I was able to prevent my child from suffering as it suffocated to death not to mention for my own health after such complications.
Re: the GOP’s long, sick spiral, Charlie Sykes says: No one thought it would come to this.
I did. Which is why I quit the GOP in 1980. Baptized a Catholic and confirmed as a soldier of Christ at age 12, I got my fill of the absurd dogma and the twisted notion of celibate priests, and quit the church at 13; I also learned to recognize a religious nut when I met one. I quit the party at 26, for the same reason I quit the church: nothing is more irrational and dangerous than a religious nut. Reagan “endorsed” Falwell and I moved on. The problem was very obvious to any non-religious nut with an eye on the ball. For trump, apparently, nothing is more profitable than a religious nut.
OH SHIT!!! David Corn *finally* got Charlie to see that MAGA started *at least* back during Reagan, and as David points out on the show, much earlier than that.
The truth is, this shit goes all the way back to our nation's founding with the anti-masonry movement that came to prominence during Jackson in the 1820's if I recall correctly. Then there was the conspiratorial nativism of the "Know-Nothing Party" (think Daniel Day Lewis' people in Gangs of New York) in the 1850's. Then you had the second rise of the klan in the 1920's during the first red scare. THEN you had McCarthyism. THEN you had the Southern Strategy. THEN you had Reaganism. THEN you had Newt Gingrich and the Moral Majority.
This conspiratorial nativism shit has been here all along, and those who ignore it are typically doing so to feel better about themselves because they are actively making Faustian Bargains with the nutjobs just to get their votes. The GOP has been doing exactly that for a very loooonnnnnggggg time, most recently with the white power and antigovernmental militia movements.
Lots of threads to tie together today. Republicans have made proverbial deals with the devil for years because, across time, they refuse to accept on bigger-picture issues the inevitable truth of everything else -- times change and people change and positions change, and nothing survives by standing its ground forever and ignoring all else that happens around it. Graham's abortion proposal reinforces that trying to nudge group think forward is unacceptable because it threatens the established order and its control over others. Gay marriage remains a no-no even though most people recognize that it is no threat to them and their own lives, as with most other matters of personal behavior. And elderly politicians cling to power as they cling to life, not willing to risk change that is unacceptable to them and their generation while at the same time serving themselves by running up those cushy perks and benefits at the expense of others who might like to get in on it all as well. In the end do they represent their constituents or foremost themselves?
Bottom line: in these areas as elsewhere, Father Time is undefeated. Change is inevitable. And eventually a movement that relies on people unwilling to change and evolve will die out because it ultimately will run out of fringe groups and players to tap into. It is just a matter of when, as well as how many other people's lives it makes worse in the stubborn process of imposing my-way-or-no-way upon the masses. Greed and lust for power are amazing forces of nature -- and two more deadly sins that the modern GOP has embraced rather than seeking virtue via the process of growth and evolution. Sad for them, worse for us.
I think you may be looking at this "age" thing -- the percentage of members of Congress over 70 -- from the wrong side of the telescope. First, this is the baby boomers, which is a large percentage of the population to begin with; second, people are working longer, are healthier, and are "in the world" at this age in much higher numbers than previous generations. Many of us (I am 78) were activists in our youth and have remained so our entire lives. I think there may be some subtle ageism going on here. There is nothing intrinsically bad about people over 70 being in Congress just as there is noting intrinsically good about people under 70 being there. Who are they? What do to think? How do they act? That is much more important than how old they are.
So you have quibbles, Charlie? Please, give me a break.
Anyone paying attention could see the GOP really started to hit the skids when it Nixon adopted the Southern Strategy and started playing footsie with the racists. It has only gotten worse from there.
We can forgive you Charlie. But we just won't forget your complicity.
Something that has always bothered me is how the President catches blame for how the stock market does and (especially when they're a Dem) little to no credit if it's doing well. We all know I think the president on their own has little to no ability to influence large swathes of the economy and them getting blamed because a bunch of traders are scared is just asinine.
*sigh* Oh well, at least the Southern Gentleman from South Carolina managed to plant his foot so firmly in his mouth it's coming out the other end
"The modern conservative is not even especially modern. He is engaged, on the contrary, in one of man’s oldest, best financed, most applauded, and, on the whole, least successful exercises in moral philosophy. That is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. It is an exercise which always involves a certain number of internal contradictions and even a few absurdities. The conspicuously wealthy turn up urging the character-building value of privation for the poor. The man who has struck it rich in minerals, oil, or other bounties of nature is found explaining the debilitating effect of unearned income from the state. The corporate executive who is a superlative success as an organization man weighs in on the evils of bureaucracy. Federal aid to education is feared by those who live in suburbs that could easily forgo this danger, and by people whose children are in public schools. Socialized medicine is condemned by men emerging from Walter Reed Hospital. Social Security is viewed with alarm by those who have the comfortable cushion of an inherited income. Those who are immediately threatened by public efforts to meet their needs — whether widows, small farmers, hospitalized veterans, or the unemployed — are almost always oblivious to the danger."
You don’t have to be a genius to see that Lindsey Graham and Donald Trump are both psychologically tormented men. Neither is fit for public office. In my grandparents' day, they would have been locked away in an attic bedroom and slipped food under the door.
Really interesting chronology of the Republicans’ dubious associations. Trying to think of the parallels on the Democrat side and there really isn’t one in degree of crazy, but there is a very real self-sabotage they induce each cycle in their constant quest to pull in large swaths of the forever unreliable youth vote.
Adopting the latest fads in academic language, posturing as psuedo-activists, and not being direct and unified enough about their actual policies reeks of a party that tries to speak to the adults in the room while simultaneously appearing relevant and hip to the kids. It doesn’t work. Be grown-ups and the young people who vote will respect the issues enough in plain language. The very left kids don’t vote anyway, because both sides.
All The GOP’s Faustian Bargains
"No one thought it would come to this..." Isn't that Corn's point? That indeed there was a 70 year history of the GOP playing footsie with Hofstadter's Paranoid America? I haven't read Charlie's book, so I don't know how he reconciles his stint as a conservative talk radio host with current realities, but I'm just a few years younger than him and I've spent the last 50 years arguing with conservatives like Charlie that there were indeed racists and authoritarian elements in the Republican coalition. I was scoffed at and called a commie. Well, here we are. This is NOT a "No one thought it would come to this..." moment for many of us.
"I think it’s fair to say that we have a somewhat different perspective and I have my quibbles."
You were a part of it Charlie--but at least you seem to realize that somewhat now. It's hard to see things from the inside.
I have a severe dislike, bordering on hatred, for conservatism. This isn't because I am progressive--although in some areas I have progressive tendencies.
My dislike/hatred stems from the fact that conservatism is primarily about maintaining a status quo that benefits the group(s) that label themselves conservative.
My dislike/hatred stems from the fact that conservatism naturally tends to racism and sexism and the creation of Real Americans vice simply Americans.
My dislike/hatred stems from the fact that conservatism tends to authoritarianism and ugly alliances with religion that soil both politics and religion.
Even when conservatism pretends to intellectualism and principles, that ugly underside is always there. While WF Buckley tried to quash some of it (at least publicly) he and other "intellectuals" of conservatism still carried that baggage and it still influenced their thought and action. His PR attempt ultimately failed.
The current mess is the result of a LOT of work on the part of the GoP and the embrace of things that (in reality) naturally align with conservatism in the historical tradition. Because of that natural alignment, a lot of work was required to keep that aspect of conservatism at bay--and the work was not only NOT done, the GoP welcomed these people with open arms so long as they brought some votes with them.
The fact is that the party could not and can not actually embrace its supposed classical liberal principles because it started off as a party of business and remained the party of the well-to-do for most of its history. It is still the party of the well-to-do, but they have added the "polish" of populist racism, sexism, and religion to it in order to try and remain relevant
A party that espoused increased Federal power in its beginnings (because business saw that as being an advantage) turned into a party that reviles Federal power because it began to be used to create a better ground for the common man instead of calling out troops to suppress those pesky union organizers and labor unrest.
Back when the GOP encouraged the Tea Party thinking they could use it but control it, I likened it to a guy who wanted to intimidate his neighbor, so he got himself a Bengal Tiger to walk it back and forth in front of his neighbor's home. I predicted that one day the hungry tiger would look up at his owner and think to himself "You're closer. I'll eat you first." That is precisely what happened, and the GOP leadership has no one to blame but themselves.
Well, I admit that I was discouraged in my attempts to light a fire under the pundits at the Bulwark regarding a complete avoidance of the women's Health issue that can likely switch the outcomes of the midterms. I was getting nowhere, so in desperation I called up my old friend in the trenches who has done right by America so much recently, Lindsay Graham.
I asked Lindsay if there was anything he could possibly do to get the Dobbs verdict back in the limelight and he awakened ( like in Woke) and said that maybe a national bill that really nailed down the particulars of the State Bills that seemed awash in their backpedaling. . He seemed to have full grasp of the issue.
"I'll introduce a bill that will piss off my good friends on the right that might have staying power". If the timing is right, it could help galvanize voters everywhere to show up and reject this notion of old white guys telling women how to live their lives."
Next he promised to get legislation going to ban contraception.
I thanked him profusely. It was unexpected help from the crazy corner.
Meanwhile, I take note that Trump supporters are putting up Biden signs in their yards since "Q" told them it would make the FBI not stop at their houses during the great subpoena darkness when Jan 6th raiders cowered by the tribal fire.
Graham’s abortion ban-
So much for “let the state’s decide”. Anybody who paid attention always knew that was a lie. Abortion has always been about power, control and using christian religious beliefs to narrow and eliminate women’s reproductive choices.
Amniocentesis is done between 15-20 weeks of pregnancy. This is when many lethal fetal anomalies are detected. Under Graham’s ban, many women would be forced to carry a lethal pregnancy to term.
I hope that Graham’s ban comes back to bite him and every republican up for election. Perhaps this will ensure a blue wave.
Thank you for linking to the NYT chart. Best graphic in a long time on the issue of why bans before previability are so difficult to implement without causing potential harm to the mother and child. It's important to note that not all the screenings listed are covered either... A lot depends on the mother's age and insurance.
I get extraordinary frustrated when I hear "15 weeks sounds fine" or "IDK the difference between 15 and 20 weeks anyway." It's pretty easy to Google people but this graphic goes a long way in explaining when information is obtained on the development.
The fact is the difference in organ development is high in those 5 weeks and some fatal abnormalities simply cannot be definitively identified until the 20 week high resolution scan (this is what happened to me). The genetic testing comes back with a risk profile for complications but for many complications it is not a diagnosis. Mine as an example said it was possible the fetus had a trisomy but until we could see the organ development, we couldn't get a firm diagnosis.
This is one of many nuances simply lost in the conversation when bans before viability are discussed. I'm once again beyond grateful that Roe was in place and I was able to prevent my child from suffering as it suffocated to death not to mention for my own health after such complications.
Re: the GOP’s long, sick spiral, Charlie Sykes says: No one thought it would come to this.
I did. Which is why I quit the GOP in 1980. Baptized a Catholic and confirmed as a soldier of Christ at age 12, I got my fill of the absurd dogma and the twisted notion of celibate priests, and quit the church at 13; I also learned to recognize a religious nut when I met one. I quit the party at 26, for the same reason I quit the church: nothing is more irrational and dangerous than a religious nut. Reagan “endorsed” Falwell and I moved on. The problem was very obvious to any non-religious nut with an eye on the ball. For trump, apparently, nothing is more profitable than a religious nut.
OH SHIT!!! David Corn *finally* got Charlie to see that MAGA started *at least* back during Reagan, and as David points out on the show, much earlier than that.
The truth is, this shit goes all the way back to our nation's founding with the anti-masonry movement that came to prominence during Jackson in the 1820's if I recall correctly. Then there was the conspiratorial nativism of the "Know-Nothing Party" (think Daniel Day Lewis' people in Gangs of New York) in the 1850's. Then you had the second rise of the klan in the 1920's during the first red scare. THEN you had McCarthyism. THEN you had the Southern Strategy. THEN you had Reaganism. THEN you had Newt Gingrich and the Moral Majority.
This conspiratorial nativism shit has been here all along, and those who ignore it are typically doing so to feel better about themselves because they are actively making Faustian Bargains with the nutjobs just to get their votes. The GOP has been doing exactly that for a very loooonnnnnggggg time, most recently with the white power and antigovernmental militia movements.
Lots of threads to tie together today. Republicans have made proverbial deals with the devil for years because, across time, they refuse to accept on bigger-picture issues the inevitable truth of everything else -- times change and people change and positions change, and nothing survives by standing its ground forever and ignoring all else that happens around it. Graham's abortion proposal reinforces that trying to nudge group think forward is unacceptable because it threatens the established order and its control over others. Gay marriage remains a no-no even though most people recognize that it is no threat to them and their own lives, as with most other matters of personal behavior. And elderly politicians cling to power as they cling to life, not willing to risk change that is unacceptable to them and their generation while at the same time serving themselves by running up those cushy perks and benefits at the expense of others who might like to get in on it all as well. In the end do they represent their constituents or foremost themselves?
Bottom line: in these areas as elsewhere, Father Time is undefeated. Change is inevitable. And eventually a movement that relies on people unwilling to change and evolve will die out because it ultimately will run out of fringe groups and players to tap into. It is just a matter of when, as well as how many other people's lives it makes worse in the stubborn process of imposing my-way-or-no-way upon the masses. Greed and lust for power are amazing forces of nature -- and two more deadly sins that the modern GOP has embraced rather than seeking virtue via the process of growth and evolution. Sad for them, worse for us.
I think you may be looking at this "age" thing -- the percentage of members of Congress over 70 -- from the wrong side of the telescope. First, this is the baby boomers, which is a large percentage of the population to begin with; second, people are working longer, are healthier, and are "in the world" at this age in much higher numbers than previous generations. Many of us (I am 78) were activists in our youth and have remained so our entire lives. I think there may be some subtle ageism going on here. There is nothing intrinsically bad about people over 70 being in Congress just as there is noting intrinsically good about people under 70 being there. Who are they? What do to think? How do they act? That is much more important than how old they are.
So you have quibbles, Charlie? Please, give me a break.
Anyone paying attention could see the GOP really started to hit the skids when it Nixon adopted the Southern Strategy and started playing footsie with the racists. It has only gotten worse from there.
We can forgive you Charlie. But we just won't forget your complicity.
Something that has always bothered me is how the President catches blame for how the stock market does and (especially when they're a Dem) little to no credit if it's doing well. We all know I think the president on their own has little to no ability to influence large swathes of the economy and them getting blamed because a bunch of traders are scared is just asinine.
*sigh* Oh well, at least the Southern Gentleman from South Carolina managed to plant his foot so firmly in his mouth it's coming out the other end
"The modern conservative is not even especially modern. He is engaged, on the contrary, in one of man’s oldest, best financed, most applauded, and, on the whole, least successful exercises in moral philosophy. That is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. It is an exercise which always involves a certain number of internal contradictions and even a few absurdities. The conspicuously wealthy turn up urging the character-building value of privation for the poor. The man who has struck it rich in minerals, oil, or other bounties of nature is found explaining the debilitating effect of unearned income from the state. The corporate executive who is a superlative success as an organization man weighs in on the evils of bureaucracy. Federal aid to education is feared by those who live in suburbs that could easily forgo this danger, and by people whose children are in public schools. Socialized medicine is condemned by men emerging from Walter Reed Hospital. Social Security is viewed with alarm by those who have the comfortable cushion of an inherited income. Those who are immediately threatened by public efforts to meet their needs — whether widows, small farmers, hospitalized veterans, or the unemployed — are almost always oblivious to the danger."
John Kenneth Galbraith, 1963
Some. Things. Never. Change.
You don’t have to be a genius to see that Lindsey Graham and Donald Trump are both psychologically tormented men. Neither is fit for public office. In my grandparents' day, they would have been locked away in an attic bedroom and slipped food under the door.
Really interesting chronology of the Republicans’ dubious associations. Trying to think of the parallels on the Democrat side and there really isn’t one in degree of crazy, but there is a very real self-sabotage they induce each cycle in their constant quest to pull in large swaths of the forever unreliable youth vote.
Adopting the latest fads in academic language, posturing as psuedo-activists, and not being direct and unified enough about their actual policies reeks of a party that tries to speak to the adults in the room while simultaneously appearing relevant and hip to the kids. It doesn’t work. Be grown-ups and the young people who vote will respect the issues enough in plain language. The very left kids don’t vote anyway, because both sides.
Is Lindsey a double agent? If so, good work!