What Finally Allowed Me To Understand The GOP

[Deep Dive Devin]

On 11/10/2021 at 6:11 AM, Im_Unemployed said:

I heard they also eat babies and many profess to such things.

The difference between your statement and mine is that mine is true.

[dashofweak]

On 11/10/2021 at 3:52 PM, Shaddy said:

The difference between your statement and mine is that mine is true.

It's actually worse than what you describe, because if you ask why they're being so cruel they'll feign offense and whine about how they aren't cruel, and "you're just being mean because you don't agree with me".

Edited November 11, 2021 by dashofweak (see edit history)

[Im_CIA]

On 11/10/2021 at 9:22 AM, dashofweak said:

You didn't address any of the three points I made towards the end. Some crucial points. Big one. Ones that, if I thought were wrong or questioned my credibility, I would want to address right away.

 

Instead you want to get bogged down in the tiny technical stuff, trying as hard as you can to not talk about how the GOP is a vehicle for manifesting a white supremacist system with the very wealthy on top.

 

That seems like something much more worth talking about AND is actually very relevant to the entire point of this thread. Rather than the semantics argument you so desperately want to have instead.

 

What is very telling is the things you DON'T respond to, at all.

 

Almost like you really really don't want to talk about them. Instead you're more interested in a rhetorical shell game. 

 

Why is that?

 

With that in mind, let me ask for a 2nd time: what is YOUR source for what fascism is. So far all you've posted is people talking about if Trump is fascist or not instead of what you would consider fascism to be.

 

 

I was questioning the framing of your arguments. I already said that I can concede that Trump is facist and it won't change the underlying  problem with you argument, which is creating absolutes in a context where none can exist (by the way, bigots reason among similar lines). You're also making hot takes while pretending that your own shit doesn't stink with that Republicans are sexual predators portion.  If you're jumping in with shaky logic supported on preconceptions("Conservatives are literally Satan, but why?") then there is nothing to discuss except for the meta.

 

On 11/10/2021 at 9:26 AM, dashofweak said:

 

But I'm very specifically talking about the GOP and why they appear to be such blatant hypocrites and liars to the outsider.

 

"Why are you a Satan worshiper?"

Edited November 11, 2021 by Im_Unemployed (see edit history)

[Im_CIA]

On 11/10/2021 at 4:52 PM, Shaddy said:

The difference between your statement and mine is that mine is true.

No it's not. I won't hurt anyone unless they are threatening me with injury inside my home or in a stand your ground state. Outside is a lot different from twitter and the youtube comment section.

[dashofweak]

On 11/10/2021 at 9:02 PM, Im_Unemployed said:

I was questioning the framing of your arguments. I already said that I can concede that Trump is facist and it won't change the underlying  problem with you argument, which is creating absolutes in a context where none can exist (by the way, bigots reason among similar lines). You're also making hot takes while pretending that your own shit doesn't stink with that Republicans are sexual predators portion.  If you're jumping in with shaky logic supported on preconceptions("Conservatives are literally Satan, but why?") then there is nothing to discuss except for the meta.

 

"Why are you a Satan worshiper?"

 

Sure buddy, whatever you say.

[Deep Dive Devin]

On 11/10/2021 at 7:07 PM, Im_Unemployed said:

No it's not. I won't hurt anyone unless they are threatening me with injury inside my home or in a stand your ground state.

 I didn't say anything about what an individual will or will not do, only what the group as a body wants.

On 11/10/2021 at 7:07 PM, Im_Unemployed said:

Outside is a lot different from twitter and the youtube comment section.

Outside is where the mask comes off the most, you think it will reflect better on them?

Edited November 11, 2021 by Shaddy (see edit history)

[Im_CIA]

On 11/11/2021 at 4:06 AM, Shaddy said:

 I didn't say anything about what an individual will or will not do, only what the group as a body wants.

 

I see *a gap* with white republicans compared to white democrats in holding racist views.

 

 

 

Again, this shows that Republicans are more likely to have extremist views. But I don't know where you are getting the majority from.

 

On 11/11/2021 at 4:06 AM, Shaddy said:

Outside is where the mask comes off the most, you think it will reflect better on them?

 

If the mask is on in discord and 4chan, then outside must be alternate hill valley by now.

 

P.S I like how the graphs are arranged to show the Republican bar as a giant middle finger

Edited November 11, 2021 by Im_Unemployed (see edit history)

[Deep Dive Devin]

On 11/11/2021 at 3:39 PM, Im_Unemployed said:

I see *a gap* with white republicans compared to white democrats in holding racist views.

 

Again, this shows that Republicans are more likely to have extremist views. But I don't know where you are getting the majority from.

I didn't say the majority. You don't think the group is collectively in the control of or has its ideology collectively determined by the people in it, do you?

 

I also didn't say they were all extremists. They don't all need to be, after all.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Shaddy (see edit history)

[dashofweak]

On 11/11/2021 at 9:20 PM, Shaddy said:

I also didn't say they were all extremists. They don't all need to be, after all.

 

Agreed, all the republican party has to do to become an extremist party is never stop, apologize for, or hold accountable the extremists in their ranks. If no one stops them, then that means they have the approval of the GOP to do whatever they want.

[kerdios]

On 11/21/2021 at 6:26 PM, dashofweak said:

Agreed, all the republican party has to do to become an extremist party is never stop, apologize for, or hold accountable the extremists in their ranks. If no one stops them, then that means they have the approval of the GOP to do whatever they want.

That's an interesting claim.
The same can be applied to the Republic of Ireland and the IRA
or The Muslim Brotherhood and HAMAS
don't you think?

[Deep Dive Devin]

On 11/21/2021 at 8:26 AM, dashofweak said:

Agreed, all the republican party has to do to become an extremist party is never stop, apologize for, or hold accountable the extremists in their ranks. If no one stops them, then that means they have the approval of the GOP to do whatever they want.

Not really my point. The beneficiaries and victims of conservative policy will benefit and be hurt respectively whether the extremism happens or not. Radical policy is designed to make individual radicals unnecessary. Even if there were zero extremists, it would still be a horrible ideology with disastrous effects. Conservatives who know what their ideology is and always has been about realize this, and thus understand that there's no reason to put in the effort.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Shaddy (see edit history)

[dashofweak]

On 11/22/2021 at 7:55 PM, kerdios said:

That's an interesting claim.
The same can be applied to the Republic of Ireland and the IRA
or The Muslim Brotherhood and HAMAS
don't you think?

All of those are (relative to population anyways) small groups that act on their own.

 

Rather than one of two entire political parties for an entire country. I'm not responsible for the actions of The Three Percenters or the Proud Boyz and the people of Quebec aren't responsible for the Front de libération du Québec.

 

But even if you were to increase the scale your point wouldn't work. For example as a leftist I'm not responsible for the actions of the GOP or the extremists that aren't being held accountable by the GOP. But you don't even need to be opposed to not be held responsible: the Church of Mormon isn't responsible for the actions of the GOP or their extremists as a whole even if a lot of their members are part of the GOP. They would be responsible for any extremists within the Church of Mormon itself however, see how that works? However, they wouldn't be responsible for anyone claiming to be part of the Church of Mormon if they had been (sincerely) disinvited from official gatherings, were told they can't associate with the church anymore, whenever those committed extremists acts they said they don't agree and wish they'd stop saying they're a part of their church.

 

But what the GOP is doing is REFUSING to call out their own side's extremist behavior, making it clear that they don't mind those people being associated with the GOP, maybe repeating false to flimsy statements that aren't direct statements of support but give credence to the batshit things the extremists say (ex. I'm not anti-vaccine, but...).

 

It's about voluntary groups holding their own members accountable.

 

And I shouldn't need all of that to explain to you (or let's be real anyone reading this because we both know what you're really trying to do) that general associations like "Part of the Muslim Brotherhood" or "Part of the Republic of Ireland" aren't the same as "The political party you identify with".

[rairii]

On 11/9/2021 at 9:07 PM, Im_Unemployed said:

 I found a pretty good article that mulls over this issue after the capitol riots. Many pundits don't seem to think that Trump falls into the traditional defenition of the word. 

https://www.vox.com/22225472/fascism-definition-trump-fascist-examples

 

>We should reserve the term “fascism” for leaders or movements that are not merely authoritarian. Fascists were revolutionaries, they aspired to control the state, economy and society (totalitarian vs authoritarian), had large, organized mass movements behind them (which included institutionalized paramilitaries alongside control of the military as well as extensive secret police and intelligence services) and of course came to power after democracy had largely failed. So to my mind Trump (and the Republican party) remain better characterized as pseudo-authoritarian rather than fascist — both because of their particular features/characteristics and because for all its weaknesses and flaws, American democracy (at least thus far) has not deteriorated to the point where constraining institutions no longer operate.

 

If you examine Trump in a broader sense then you'll notice that he fits rather snugly into the populist peg. Given that trust in the government is at an all time low, it doesn't take much to explain why people would support an political outsider with radical ideas and common man bluster. 

Populism doesn't exclude fascism, the latter is a political ideology whereas the former is mostly marketing. 

That said, Trump is a proto-fascist. Not necessarily a fascist himself, but you'd have to be blind to not see how his administration lays the groundwork for fascism to grow in the future. His base is insanely cult-like and practically worship him, are willing to deny simple reality for their own comfort, and as mentioned previously, don't REALLY have much of a grasp on consequences. Racial tensions are growing in no small part due to conservative agitprop which has largely been littered with white nationalist talking points the past half decade. Theocratic policy aiming to restrict the rights of women and queer people are gaining increasing levels of support. The fact that peoples' immediate response to the notion that fascism is growing in this country is to act like fascism is too strong a word is extremely troubling, fascism doesn't happen overnight, it has warning signs and people are ignoring them. If any of this "seems normal" then that's a fucking problem.

[kerdios]

 

 

Edited February 9, 2022 by kerdios (see edit history)

[polymerize-finale]

So I think it should be obvious to everyone that OP doesn't really understand the GOP or the right. Often when people say "here's what's really going on with the GOP" or some other entity, they're not really trying to understand the subject. They're trying to refine their criticism of the subject. They're engaging in politics, not actual inquiry. I'm going to assume that the OP is ultimately seeking understanding (even if in his confusion he's going about it in a politics-laden way), if only because if he's seeking politics, that's boring.

 

To begin with, if you think you've come up with One Weird Trick to understand some person or group, you've already failed. The first rule of psychology is nobody ever does anything for just one simple and easy-to-explain reason. People do things for lots of different reasons at the same time. These can be complicated, and they can even contradict one another. Any explanatory theory will always be a piece of the puzzle, not the whole thing.

 

If you want to understand the GOP, you should begin by asking yourself: how do they understand themselves? What sorts of outcomes do they believe they are seeking? What sorts of values do they explicitly hold? In trying to answer this question, in my opinion you should seek out the opinions of a relatively small number of relatively high-quality thinkers, ideally those who are in the business of serious thinking rather than mass-market propaganda (or at least not JUST mass-market propaganda). Unfortunately, the only really good example I can think to recommend offhand is Thomas Sowell (although if you try you can probably find others in the same clade). I can recommend his book "Knowledge and Decisions" just in general. He also has two books on the whole how-left-vs-right-thinks (although they both cover a lot of the same ground), "A Conflict of Visions" and "The Vision of the Anointed." I don't think they're as high-quality as "Knowledge and Decisions", but insofar as the whole point of the exercise is to examine the GOP from the GOP's perspective, at least one of "Conflict" and "Anointed" would be worth reading. Probably "Anointed" since it's the later one. Helpfully all 3 are available via LibGen, although you could also probably buy them too.

 

Now you probably think that there are some differences between how the GOP understand themselves and how they actually act (although this obviously isn't limited to them), and some patterns of consistent self-blindness on these points. I agree, but you won't really understand them unless you start out by asking yourself how these appear from the perspective of the GOP themselves. I'm not suggesting you actually adopt their perspective, just that unless you make a real effort to look at things from their perspective you aren't really doing understanding. If you look at what's involved in actually doing understanding and decide it's not worth the trouble, I understand completely. Just be aware of what you're actually doing.

 

Another possible source of real understanding would be Johnathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind", which is often recommended on the how-left-vs-right-thinks question. I can't really recommend it myself since I haven't yet finished it, but odds that it's worth reading are pretty good.

 

OP brings up the case of Jason Miller. Now, I don't know the facts of the Jason Miller Incident, but OP suggests that he expected the GOP to turn on Miller due to his actions conflicting with their values, but he didn't. I think it's important to keep in mind in cases like this that Jason Miller was (is? I don't care enough to check) a politician who (I assume) was otherwise, in the opinion of the GOP constituency, successfully fighting for their goals and interests in the public arena. This is obviously going to bias people. And I imagine that the attempt to publicize whatever discrediting information about him came from media sources loyal to his opponents (because of course it would), which would trigger his supporters to distrust it, deny it, and defend him.

 

Which, if you think about it for a second, makes sense, and is in fact the correct thing for them to do. Like personally, I'm not friends with any politicians, and frankly I don't want to be. I figure that they're probably unpleasant people personally, and likely don't have the highest standards of personal morality, but this doesn't really affect me. The people who suffer from these things are their own friends and family. To me, a politician has value insofar as he promotes my views and interests in politics, and as for what he does in private, I just try not to think about it. Like, imagine having sex with Joe Biden. Do you regret imagining this already? See what I mean? Just focus on his policy agenda and effectiveness as a leader and you'll have a better time.

 

To conclude, one of my favorite right-vs-left psychology points was something a friend of mine told me from some kind of study about political reasoning. As you probably know, support for housing vouchers is a left-wing policy, and support for school vouchers is a right-wing policy. The study found that rather than having notably different thought processes, members of both sides used essentially the same reasoning to argue for their preferred policy and to oppose the enemy policy as the other side did, just directed towards different targets. So if they reason about these things the same way, why are their positions so different? Well, one obvious possibility is that construction companies and (to a lesser extent) construction workers are a right-wing constituency and donation source, whereas teachers, school administrators, and teachers unions are a left-wing constituency. Sometimes it's just about which side you're on.

[polymerize-finale]

Just an addendum: I briefly reviewed Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" and "The Vision of the Anointed." For the purposes of forming an understanding of the GOP as they see themselves, I would definitely recommend "Conflict" rather than "Anointed". "Conflict" is much more concerned with identifying and contrasting the worldviews of "us versus them", so it's much more valuable in understanding the GOP's self-image. "Anointed" by contrast, is a lot more concerned with "Here are ways that the other side's vision/worldview causes them to make mistakes" and actual discussion of how that worldview works is more limited.

[kerdios]

I think the consensus among the american left is that there is no GOP left, only trump-MAGA (you can give chris christy as a counter example, but you can see by the way the MAGAs have nearly run him out of the party that he's in the minority). Which are considered cultists and therefore any kind of discussion with them is impossible without first removing them from their MAGA environment.
(I am not from the US and therefore you may freely ignore my opinion)

Edited October 18, 2023 by kerdios (see edit history)

[Deep Dive Devin]

I don't think there's a ton of use distinguishing between "the GOP" and so-called "Trump MAGA". Certainly a lot of former-republicans have become disillusioned, but it's not like that caused them to move left, or indeed vote any differently at all, as far as I can tell. There's nothing in particular that MAGA says or believes that is a break with tradition for conservatism, it's just more than before (an escalation which I fear is going to hurt us when the democrats have absolutely not matched it in any way).

 

You're right that discussion is impossible with them, but I mean. The strat before was to shift the conversation to something so abstract that it was impossible to reach an agreement anyway. That's "protect American jobs", "war on terror", "lower taxes". It's not like most of the voters changed their minds when that became "keep the Mexicans out", "Muslim registry" and "obliterate the middle class". It's harder to stay friends with people who are always saying the quiet part loud, but the quiet part hasn't changed much. Pundits and politicians are riding the reactionary wave because it gets them money and power, and that's what they've always done. It's certainly become scarier, but that's as much as anything because the Democrats are not fit to match them. At-best they're pretending all the old euphemisms are still what's being fought, and at worst they're moving further right themselves.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Shaddy (see edit history)

[polymerize-finale]

@kerdios and @Shaddy both suggest that "discussion is impossible" with MAGA supporters, which I think implies more of lack of perspective than anything else. Like it's pretty standard for discussion on highly partisan topics across the partisan divide to be extremely unproductive. This is just a normal feature of political divisions. Also, it takes two to have the impossibility of discussion; it's not that _one_ cannot have a discussion with MAGA people, but rather that _you_ cannot have a discussion with them, at least when it comes to highly partisan topics. You'll find they have discussions with one another about those topics just fine. In other words, they're not special people immune to discussion, but that the relationship between them and you (namely that of political opposition) makes discussion ineffective. If you were to lurk forums on which MAGA people congregated you would find plenty of them lamenting that people like you were immune to reason when it comes to beliefs which were politically important to them. 

 

 

Also, @Shaddy mentions:

 

Quote

 That's "protect American jobs", "war on terror", "lower taxes". It's not like most of the voters changed their minds when that became "keep the Mexicans out", "Muslim registry" and "obliterate the middle class".

 

It's that last point which makes me go all "wait, what?" I agree that the MAGA-tide has been accompanied with more explicit calls for keeping the Mexicans out or greater scrutiny of Muslims (I don't recall a registry specifically, but it sounds plausible), but are you really suggesting that "obliterate the middle class" has been an explicit policy position of any MAGA-aligned politician or other leader ever? Let alone a sufficiently common policy position that it bears mentioning alongside the other two? 

 

I don't pretend to have an encyclopedic knowledge of MAGA policy and propaganda, but my experience suggests that at least explicitly they are in favor of strengthening and increasing the middle class. In other words, this is the same old disagreement about the best means of achieving a shared goal that we've always had. When Trump would talk about improving our trade position with China, or enthusiastically announce the creation of more jobs, he was clearly playing to an audience for whom the health of the middle class was important.

 

What this actually suggests to me is someone who is not really primarily seeing the world as it is, but filtering it too much through their own biases. It's common to believe that the 3 aforementioned positions are "really" about the 3 latter goals. I'm not suggesting that there's no basis for believing this subterfuge. But rather, to have brought up "obliterate the middle class" makes it seem like the writer is not paying attention to actual MAGA positions as his starting point. Instead, being aware that MAGA are now explicitly supporting what he previously took to be the secret agenda of the right, he just completes the pattern. 

 

Look, I understand that accurately following the policy positions of your political opponents is an unpleasant task at best (hell, following the policy of your preferred politicians is still way less fun than playing video games). I'm not suggesting that you should make an effort to have accurate and well-informed beliefs about what is and is not the MAGA line. But if you don't care enough to get it right, maybe just recognize this rather than assuming you can intuit what their positions would be, since you're demonstrably making major errors trying to do this.

[Deep Dive Devin]

You're missing my point. Kerdios said that the US right has become "impossible to discuss with". This isn't literally true, yes, but nobody who says it means it that way. Obviously people can talk to each other, but you shouldn't be surprised that people rarely agree to the caveat of "just agree to their framing of politics and treat their opinions as more legitimate than they are".

 

What I am saying is that there hasn't been a significant change in position that made this divide larger, just a more toxic attitude that's harder for moderates to ignore. My example of how they obfuscated this before was to bring up which political euphemisms they've historically covered their asses with. The things they actually want have not changed that much.

 

Yes, the Muslim registry thing was a real promise Trump made, though it was early in his presidency and obviously didn't come to pass.

 

I admit "destroy the middle class" is exaggerated. Both of this country's parties are corporate-controlled, neither of them have working class interests in mind (it was Clinton who dealt the biggest blow to welfare, after all), but it does not take a genius to look at "lower taxes" being implemented as "rich people paying less taxes for social programs that benefit non-rich people" and see that that was always the point.

 

It's not unfounded to say these things, though. I honestly don't know what to think if you're just going to tell me the concept of political euphemism has completely passed you by.

 

Like, when Republicans say "gay marriage should be decided on by individual states", they say it because they know many states would never legalize it on their own, but there's not a lot of political viability in trying to ban it nationwide (currently). This is how they approach abortion, how they previously approached segregation, et cetera. If you're honestly telling me that they'd still believe in "states' rights" to decide these things when the conservative position was federally-mandated, that's extremely naive.

 

If you want to cite good reasons to believe not every euphemism is sound or wholly accurate to what people say it means, I guess we can have that discussion, but I'm not interested in being told I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't simply take people who constantly lie about things at their own word.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Shaddy (see edit history)