The Race Is On, And It’s Getting Weird

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

54 Responses

  1. joe
    Ignored
    says:

    The only things Leftists enjoy more than supporting Open Borders is lying about it.Report

  2. joe
    Ignored
    says:

    Imagine believing that Democrats want to fix the border chaos and it’s only those mean Republicans blocking them. LOL.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to joe
      Ignored
      says:

      So you think it’s NOT true that a bipartisan border security bill collapsed when Republicans withdrew support?Report

      • joe in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m not sure if your serious, but the bill was a total joke like every other “comprehensive” reform. Just thrown up so the Democrats could whip up their feral supporters into blaming Republicans for their non belief in governance.Report

  3. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    In general polls were sticky for a while and remain sticky but I think there is real momentum towards Harris and it will only continue but for a while the polls will remain in the margin of error.Report

  4. Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    “Weird” should prove as effective as “basket of deplorables”, or “fake news”.Report

    • North in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      Interesting comparisons considering that Hill lost, and Trump won in the election where those two other terms were used which seems to suggest you think Weird will also be effective?

      Personally, I think most of the weird thing, and also the furniture erotica, is just summer doldrum stuff.Report

      • Pinky in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        I meant that both terms were introduced by the D side and united the R side.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        As someone who was weird before weird was cool, I’m pleased to see that weird is weird again.

        That said, I’m not sure that introducing high school mean girls tools to the election is to the benefit of Harris (assuming 3 groups of voters).Report

        • DavidTC in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          I’m not sure weird is the best word, the best word would actually be something like creepy or lunatic.

          But no matter how much people pretend the word weird always means the same thing, there’s a fundamentally different weird between ‘guy talking about how kids should be able to vote but their parents get to do it for them’ and ‘person who sometimes wears a really dumb hat’.

          A lot of things that Republicans have been saying for a while are just batsh*t crazy, and weird seems to be a way that that actually gets pointed out. I don’t know why that’s working, but it is.

          And, in the case of Trump, there’s also the ‘weirdo who hangs around the teen girl dressing room’, or even the ‘guy who wanders around the debate stage stalking his opponent’, which is actually one of the places that it came from, Harris’s response to how she would behave if she had been in Hillary Clinton’s place during that debate.

          And a good chunk of the reason it’s working is that Republicans actually have this mental image of themselves as normal, and actually start flipping out when you point out that a lot of Republican views are pretty far outside of mainstream.Report

          • Pinky in reply to DavidTC
            Ignored
            says:

            The right is less afraid of engaging with weird ideas.Report

            • CJColucci in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              If anything, it’s addicted to it.Report

            • DavidTC in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              No, the left has equally ‘weird’ ideas, ideas that are equally as far outside the mainstream.

              But the _Democrats_ don’t.

              The Republicans are running their weird little gremlin people with wackadoodle ideas that the mainstream does not like…for major office.

              The Democrats just tried to run Biden.

              The Republicans have tried, for years, to pretend that Democratic politicians are the same as the far left, that’s basically been their only line of attack ever against Nancy Pelosi. (Along with pretending that all of San Francisco is the far left)

              Meanwhile, they’re running people (like, on the actual ballot) who will say dubious things about whether we should have legal _contraceptives_ and question if women voting has been a good thing. At least, they’ll say it in private.Report

              • Pinky in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                The left is afraid of ideas. The left insulates itself from ideas, even as it declares itself to be open. It’s open to lack of ideas, and to the idea that there are no norms. And some 19th century superstitions about the means of production. The right will engage with ideas and ask, are they any good? The left will propose another item on its old agenda and ask, are the people ready for this yet?

                Healthy minds engage with weird ideas. Unhealthy minds lead to disordered lives.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                That must explain why almost everything I have heard from the right in recent years is only minor variations on what I heard in dorm room bull sessions 50 years ago.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                You are gonna need to show your work sir.

                Take healthcare – the left still believes in universal healthcare as a right, but it implemented the right’s market based solutions in the ACA. And the right – instead of taking the win, spent years trying to repeal its own ideas.

                Or abortion? Know what a great way to lower abortion demand is? Help people (particularly young people) have sex using birth control. But rather then take the easy path (supported by both data and the left), the right spent 40 years stacking the judiciary to eliminate body autonomy for women. Which is having some disastrous consequences.

                I could go on …Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                You just cited two very old leftist priorities.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m citing examples of the right rejecting ideas – including their own. You continue to whistle past the proverbial graveyard.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                The ACA wasn’t a Republican plan for the country. It was a plan for a state. Republicans like plans, and they like experimenting with them at the state or local level.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Well they spent 13 months talking to President Obama about how to make that plan more to their liking at the federal level after its wild success in Massachusetts. They got Democrats to support 72 amendments to that plan to make i more to their liking. Then they voted against it as a block all the while preening about how they were just trying to hand Obama a defeat.

                So yeah, I remain unconvinced, and you have yet to show your work otherwise.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                “They passed it without a single Republican vote. So why does it suck?”
                “The Republicans.”Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Slight quibble- the masses generally think that the ACA is aces now. Just took Trump and his party actually coming close to taking it away and Biden polishing it up again once he got into office. To find the “ACA sucks” contingents you gotta go to republicans or medicare for all leftists now.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s a weird parallax.

                “I’ve got someone outside saying that Obamacare sucks.”
                “Who is it?”
                “A republican.”
                “THAT DISHONEST MOTHERFATHER I WILL RIP HIM A NEW ONE!”
                “Okay, your second meeting is with someone who says that Obamacare sucks… but it’s a Democrat.”
                “Sigh… let me get my hair shirt…”Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Eh that’s just partisanship. A wealthy libertarian coming to a Republican to complain that a given Republican tax cut was bad will get a much different (and more tongue bathy) reception than a Dem or a leftist coming to say the same thing.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                We don’t know whether it’s good or whether it’s bad. We just know that criticizing it is only justified if you have the right opinions on something else entirely.Report

          • Brandon Berg in reply to DavidTC
            Ignored
            says:

            there’s a fundamentally different weird between ‘guy talking about how kids should be able to vote but their parents get to do it for them’

            I don’t endorse this policy, but it does not strike me as any crazier than the status quo, where, e.g., people who have no understanding of economics are presumed competent to choose who will be setting economic policy, and a person who pays net zero taxes has just as much input into how taxes are spent as someone who pays millions of dollars per year in taxes.

            I understand that “one adult, one vote” is the central dogma of our civic religion, but it’s not like there’s any rational basis for it.Report

            • DavidTC in reply to Brandon Berg
              Ignored
              says:

              No one who paid zero net taxes has as much input into how taxes are spent as someone who pays millions of dollars per year in taxes.

              And if you think that, you don’t understand how the political system in this country works, because voting for people is not what determines how money is spent.

              Studies show that more than 95% (I think it was 98% but to be safe let’s say over 95%) of the time when the policy preferences of the rich and the poor come into conflict, when they want different things, the lawmakers pick the rich people’s position. We actually only get policies that help the poor because enough rich people want to help the poor, no poor person could actually vote themselves more money.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Brandon Berg
              Ignored
              says:

              Imagine the consequences of letting only educated people to vote.

              I for one, welcome our new childless cat lady overlords!Report

            • rexknobus in reply to Brandon Berg
              Ignored
              says:

              Think what happens if you switch out some nouns in there: “People who haven’t been to war can’t…” “People who haven’t had kids can’t…” “People who haven’t taught classrooms full of kids can’t…” “People who don’t understand programming language can’t…” I don’t have an understanding of economics…or physics…or border patrolling…or most everything in the world, really, outside of my own narrow experiences. The thought that only experts experienced in a field get to vote on anything that has to do with that field is a bit…hmmm, what is the word I’m looking for?Report

            • Philip H in reply to Brandon Berg
              Ignored
              says:

              I understand that “one adult, one vote” is the central dogma of our civic religion, but it’s not like there’s any rational basis for it.

              There was no rational basis for excluding women or people of color from voting and yet . . .Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                A few years ago, a philosophy professor no one had ever heard of, for excellent reasons, got his 15 minutes with a book that combined a Classic Comics Illustrated version of economics 101 and freshman philosophy to prove that democracy was a bad idea and advocated a not very well worked out notion of epistocracy — rule of the wise, knowledgeable, and informed — instead.
                The basic flaw in his argument was assuming that the case for democracy rested on the plainly false belief that it was the best method for enacting “correct” policies, as defined by the particular experts he preferred. In effect, he was criticizing automobiles for not being able to let you drive from San Francisco to Tokyo — true, but irrelevant.
                The first, and essential, feature of a system of government is that it be broadly acceptable to the governed. If the system is not broadly acceptable, the masses will, unless effectually repressed (which can, of course, be done, and has been many times), slaughter the rulers in their beds. In our time, the only form of government the governed will broadly accept is some form of democracy. They simply will not accept rule by self-certified, even objectively qualified, experts. Hell, we have had many discussions here about how they resent even being informed that, according to experts, their views on such things as crime, unemployment, and inflation, are just plain factually wrong.
                That basic flaw aside, although some large classes of people are demonstrably better informed than the mass of voters on a wide variety of issues, experts themselves often disagree (You cite Friedman and Hayek, I cite Krugman and DeLong. Each of them knows far more than any of us on economics, and who are we to adjudicate between them?), and no one, no matter how smart and well-informed, can possibly have expertise, or even the ability to judge expertise, on the wide variety of policy issues that we face. So who makes up our “epistocracy,” and why should the rest of us listen to them?
                The “rational basis” for one adult, one vote is that the adults and voters will accept it, and will not willingly accept alternatives. That is all the basis it needs.Report

              • Philip H in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                You and I are not in disagreement. I was just trying to point out that our nation spent a lot of its history excluding a lot of its citizens from voting for irrational reasons. We’ve been there and done that – and there’s no reason to go back.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                This. ^

                Rights are not something that we have logically, through math, decided should exist. They also are not things that have actually been granted by God or a higher power, despite the fact that we pretend to believe that sometimes.

                Rights are things that people demand at gunpoint, and if taken away, demand at gunpoint again.

                Or, perhaps more relevantly, even if someone isn’t going to resort to violence, the right to vote is the thing that causes people to think the government is legitimate, that it has the right to behave like it behaves. Or at least maintains a social consensus that this is true, not every single individual person has to believe it, but we all vaguely mostly agree with the concept of government because we all, hypothetically, control the government.

                Even though, as I pointed out, the government actually functions almost entirely to enact policies that the wealthy want, and not policies that anyone else wants if they conflict with those.Report

  5. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Some Kreliminology but today’s prisoner swap news might indicate that Putin thinks Trump is unlikely to win in November: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/08/01/world/russia-prisoner-swap-usReport

  6. DavidTC
    Ignored
    says:

    That clip of Trump talking about how Christians won’t have to vote again didn’t just sort of maybe have him saying he wasn’t a Christian, the whole thing is about him talking to Christians as a non-Christian, and it’s kind of obvious, and honestly a little bit shocking that he is completely forgotten that he is supposed to be pretending that he is one.

    The funny thing is, if we take him at his word, or his campaign’s word, or the political pundits trying to come up with excuses for things he says, what he says makes sense, if he was actually talking about Evangelical Christians who traditionally, 60 years ago, did not bother voting. Of course, the reason they started voting was segregation, so promising they won’t have to vote anymore is…iffy. but whatever. And considering how much evangelicalism has changed, and no longer operates itself separately from society, it’s very unlikely that we’ll ever go back to it, but it is kind of funny what he said makes sense, and would have actually worked if he had said evangelicals, but he said Christians like he thinks all Christians are evangelicals and also that he is not one of either of those groups.Report

    • CJColucci in reply to DavidTC
      Ignored
      says:

      That makes sense if you assume that Trump was trying to make sense.Report

      • Brandon Berg in reply to CJColucci
        Ignored
        says:

        An assumption that makes no sense.Report

      • DavidTC in reply to CJColucci
        Ignored
        says:

        Yeah, I’m not sure that that was what Trump was trying to say, mostly because I don’t think Trump tries to say things and is just sort of a mouth hooked up to a grievance brain.

        I was just saying that there is some hypothetical universe where a certain _subset_ of Christians don’t vote, and we know that because it used to be this universe. We’re not going back to that, and it’s not what Trump was trying to say, but it is hypothetically possible that whoever he talked to about this sort of kind of mentioned it, like that might be the origin of what he was talking about even if he’s too dumb to know it.

        Because there was indeed a somewhat large group of Christians who would run around quoting John 15:18-19: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”

        “In the world, not of it.” (Which I think is actually from a different verse but I can’t be bothered to find it) It’s a belief that Christianity exists seperate from the world, and a large chunk of them did not do things in politics, at all. Not even vote. You pay taxes (render unto Caesar), you followed the laws unless they were manifestly unjust, but you didn’t really concern yourself with anything past that. You didn’t try to enforce morality, you didn’t even particularly try to make the world better via the government.

        I’m not sure that group of Christians exists anymore at all. I think enough political pressure has resulted in them thinking, at minimum, the world is horrifically corrupt and withdrawing from it even more, but turning around and voting. If that strain of Christianity has turned into anything, it’s homeschoolers, I suspect.

        Weirdly, I’m not sure if this group has a name, theologically. Because it’s not so much a set of beliefs about religion, it’s a set of beliefs about the world. I think about them as linked with Evangelicals, but I’m not sure that’s correct or relevant.

        Anyway, it’s very stupid to generalize that group to all Christians, that group was never all or even most Christians and might literally no longer exist at all, but there’s no way in hell Trump has any distinction in his head between kinds of Christians.

        That has not stopped some political pundits from pretending that was what he was talking about norhas it stopped them from lying their ass off and claiming that the reason those Christians started voting was because they ‘needed’ to, when in fact that was one of the major pushes of the right since the seventies, it’s why they made abortion a huge issue, to pull in those Christian voters who stayed out of politics.Report

        • Pinky in reply to DavidTC
          Ignored
          says:

          <i."when in fact that was one of the major pushes of the right since the seventies, it’s why they made abortion a huge issue, to pull in those Christian voters who stayed out of politics"

          Heh. Heh he ha ha hah ha ha! AH HA HA (etc.)Report

          • DavidTC in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            Here’s where Pinky pretends he knows something that proves me wrong but doesn’t actually.

            The history of Christian voting patterns is actually pretty well documented, how abortion (and, slightly before that, segregation) drew out a lot of Christians who had peviously considered themselves not part of politics and had not voted at all. This isn’t actually up for debate, it’s very well documented, and I am someone who was actually inside the very tail end of that and knows the actual Christian philosophy. My mother literally has a stitching on her wall that says ‘In the world, not of it’, even though she isn’t really in that group, but, again, I don’t think that group really exists anymore. But it sure as hell did.

            About the only thing you can debate is whether or not the Republicans hyper focus on abortion was honest or not… Except you can’t really do that, cuz we actually have a pretty clear history of the start of the incredibly cynical origins of the pro-life movement, and how it sort of replaced the previous attempt ‘pro-segregation movement’ which also tried to appeal to the same people but didn’t as much and started faltering by the ’70s. There are plenty of people who do honestly believe in the pro-life movement, but we know how it started.

            And I have paid attention to the conman Ralph Reed my entire life. (In fact, I’ve probably mentioned his name in my comments more on this site than everyone else put together)Report

            • Pinky in reply to DavidTC
              Ignored
              says:

              You’re skimming the surface though. For one thing, the story doesn’t make sense unless you look at the interplay between the various Christian denominations. Even within Catholicism, there was a demographic shift from the staid Irish and German to the more emotional Hispanic culture. The abortion issue and other aspects of sexual morality were where the mainstream Protestant denominations destroyed themselves and the Evangelical movement took off.

              There was plenty of regional difference as well. The pro-life activism in the South drew from the segregationists, although you have to include the school prayer fight and the question of gay teachers if you want to make sense of that. The pro-lifers up North were likely to have been civil rights activists. A lot of the pro-life movement was from black preachers, back before the big sort.

              I think the “in the world but not of the world” impulse you’re talking about was found more in the Northeast among low-church denominations.

              You were right to ask the question of whether the movement was sincere. I think your assumption of cynicism was what made me laugh the most at your initial comment. I’m sure there was some cynicism, or at least deliberation, among a few of the people who turned conservatism into a money-making machine. But it wasn’t astroturf – that costs money, rather than making money. It was organic among the population, and the availability of ultrasounds just made it moreso. And while the pro-life and political conservative movements aren’t contradictory, they’re not necessarily the same thing.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *