Ron DeSantis and the Hollow Victory of Outrage
Last week was the week of Ron DeSantis. The Florida governor created a political firestorm last Wednesday when he flew two planes full of migrants to Martha’s Vineyard. This flight ran afoul of numerous legal and ethical strictures. The men and women on the flight were likely lied to, lured by false promises of economic opportunities. DeSantis’s flight echoed an earlier stunt orchestrated by White Citizens’ Councils in the early 1960s, where African Americans were bused to Northern cities in an attempt to identify some sort of racial hypocrisy among white liberals. The most confounding fact of the case was that the migrants were not even in Florida. They were, instead, in Texas, where local authorities have opened a criminal investigation into the stunt.
Ron DeSantis is particularly good at stoking liberal outrage. He has shown skill at creating news headlines and taking symbolic acts that rile up the online left. DeSantis’s executive orders and press conferences create days of headlines and debate, even when they are reversed by courts or pursued by prosecutors. He also seems to be adept at keeping himself in the news for as long as possible. The Florida governor’s stunts are spaced out so he is never allowed to be forgotten by the wider press.
These skills are not insignificant to the Florida governor’s political chances. In our current news ecosystem, standing out from the crowd is enormously difficult. An adeptness with social media and large advertising budgets are the best way to become national political figures. But social media savvy alone does not mean that a candidate can become successful. Ad spending is also not a saving grace. Billionaires with unlimited media resources, like Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg in 2020, are sometimes unable to gain political traction.
DeSantis definitely has political traction and a brand. But gaining fame and notoriety is different from winning a presidential election. In order to do this, DeSantis will have to present a concrete, popular program eventually. He will have to present ideas that he will enact with the help of Congress once he is elected. These ideas have to appeal to a wide swath of the electorate. They must win some legitimacy among mainstream political outlets, since many of the voters necessary to win the presidential election do not watch Fox News all day. A positive political program will also allow Ron DeSantis to win over stakeholders throughout the nation and the Republican Party, since they will involve promises to interest groups and lobbyists who will later advocate on behalf of the candidate.
A DeSantis observer may counter this assessment with the experience of the Donald Trump campaign. According to some of his critics, Trump ran a campaign based on nothing more than hate and vitriol towards women, minorities, and liberals. He wanted to lock up his political opponent. He criticized judges, disabled reporters, and war heroes who attacked him. Pure, unadulterated hate animated his supporters and pushed them towards the polls for his shocking 2016 victory. Why can’t Ron DeSantis stoke up the same outrages to launch a successful campaign of his own?
These observations are the impressions liberals and the media got from the Trump campaign. Independent voters in particular heard something different. They absorbed the many populist ideas that Trump mentioned in most of his speeches. They believed his promises to protect Medicare and Social Security and provide universal healthcare. Many sincerely believed that Trump was not corrupt because he had already made billions in real estate. They thought he could “drain the swamp” and reduce corruption in the national capital.
DeSantis is no Donald Trump. He does not have the 45th president’s personality or sense of humor. He also does not have four decades of celebrity backing his political reputation. Furthermore, running on pure hate would be something that even Trump could not do. Trump had to have a concrete plan. No matter how impractical or ridiculous that plan ended up being, it was a popular plan that spoke to the concerns of millions of Americans. Ron DeSantis must offer something real and concrete if he ever hopes to follow in the 45th president’s footsteps.
This is all very true, but the fact remains that the Republican Party voting base demands Trumpism, even if it is delivered by a poor imitation.
They demand performative displays of cruelty and humiliation inflicted upon the hated Outgroup, they demand that the fires of white grievance be constantly stoked and tended and as we can see from all the elections since 2016, they will reward those who provide it.
Will this be enough for them to take power? I don’t know.Report
You really ought to see a doctor about that log in your eye.Report
I think you should see a doctor for that hole in your heart.Report
Backstreet Boys member Brian Littrell had a congenital heart condition that was fixed in 1998. Like, it’s the main theme of his scenes in “Show me the meaning of being lonely.”
Report
This would be a great place to provide us with examples of the performative cruelties being enacted against conservatives.
Like, liberals forcing conservatives to treat trans people as equals. Or conservatives forced against their will to allow a 10 year old rape victim to terminate her pregnancy.
Or even, forced to watch as liberals welcome immigrants and provide them with shelter and assistance, and be helpless to do anything but whine and sulk.
Oh, the humanity.Report
There was the guy who was run over.
I don’t know if that counts as “performative” or not, though. I mean, maybe that’s the defense. “I asked for examples of *PERFORMATIVE* cruelty. Not murder. Try again!”Report
Liberals communally piled into a car (an EV one presumably) and ran over a conservative guy?Report
Is there any example, anywhere, of anything that could not have this criticism applied?
“Give me an example of X happening.”
“X happened here.”
“So you’re saying that every single person did X?”
I assure you, I was not intending to make a sweeping statement about everybody when I provided the example of a thing.Report
If the response to the systematic oppression and cruelty being inflicted by Republicans is this example, I think my point here about white male grievance is confirmed.Report
No, I’m asking for an actual example? Like.. who exactly is this liberal? Who did he run over? When? Where? Why?
For instance: a Governor for a major republican state and significant contender for the GOP Presidential nod used fraud to lure some migrants in Texas onto a plane to Marthas Vinyard as an act of performative cruelty.
In contrast: An anonymous liberal dude ran over a conservative. (Presumably with a car?)
Can you see the difference?Report
Oh, I meant this story here:
Report
Ok cool, that strikes me as equivalent to this case:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/charlottesville-rally-turns-deadly-one-killed-after-car-strikes-crowd-n792116
or one of these
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/21/880963592/vehicle-attacks-rise-as-extremists-target-protestersReport
Sure, but the argument went from ~Ǝ! to Ǝ to “so are you saying ∀?”
I’m cool with other examples of Ǝ but my quarrel was with ~Ǝ.Report
You’ve already proven my point.
That conservatives actually are motivated by grievance, that they actually see themselves as victims of cruelty and injustice.Report
“See? Since you had an example of someone being a victim, that proves that they see themselves as victims!”
Well, the most important thing you can do to these people who see themselves as victims of cruelty and injustice is neuter them politically and make sure that they don’t have political power beyond voting for which democrat gets in office… the really liberal one or the really, really liberal one.Report
Yeah, the real problem was when the Dems had the temerity to not vote for Romney in 2012. Look at what we made the GOP do. Sometimes I struggle to even look in the mirror when I get up (I’m not a morning person).Report
Right, because we control their actions.
MAGA Republicans, white cishet males who are living life on Easy Mode and control the commanding heights of a world built for them, have somehow convinced themselves they are victims of some cosmic injustice, and further, that every action they take is merely a reaction to something their hated Outgroup does.
And you wonder why we call them “Reactionaries”?Report
Oh, you’re the guys who came up with “reactionary”?
I was wondering who came up with that. Good term.
Right, because we control their actions.
This is one of those weird things.
If you’re going to argue ~Ǝ, that’s fine, but an example of Ǝ refutes it.
That said, I suppose changing the subject in response is probably the best play. “Oh, well, what about this other thing over here?”
Yes. Other things exist as well. But, seriously, Ǝ.Report
First, I can see you’re embarrassed to say “Yes, MAGAs are victims” (and I don’t blame you!) so you fall back to an abstraction of using a symbol (Ǝ)
Second, you’re asserting that an isolated event is equal to systemic persecution, an assertion which is so bizarrely illogical as to actually prove the original claim.
Here, let me restate my original question as an assertion, y’know, to avoid getting sidetracked:
1. MAGAs demand performative acts of cruelty to their hated Outgroups like immigrants and LGBTQ; (Weirdly, no one has bothered to contest this point);
2. MAGAs themselves suffer no comparable types or levels of persecution.Report
And here I was thinking that you asked for examples.Report
I remain perplexed.
Chip observed that the Republican Party indulges in performative cruelty. BB replied, with a world-weary sigh, that both sides do it.
Chip retorted “show me the equivalent to De Santis’ stunt. You alluded vaguely to a guy running over a guy with a car.
I dubiously asked you if your vague allusion was an actual equivalent example. You kindly provided the actual link.
I observed that your example doesn’t appear to be similar or equivalent to De Santis’ stunt but rather appears like some individual left-wing loon being a loon, like these similar examples of individual right-wing loons being loons. You sighed and bemoaned that I’m moving the goal posts.
I do not believe I have moved the goal posts. I just believe the example you provided, now that I know what it is, does not fit the criteria of Chips original challenge.Report
No, Chip retorted: “This would be a great place to provide us with examples of the performative cruelties being enacted against conservatives.”
I suppose that the counter-argument is that this isn’t particularly performative but is an actual murder.
If that’s the case, well… you got me.Report
And the example you provided was neither performative, nor was it committed by a liberal political actor- though I’ll grant it was cruel (and incredibly stupid, fish that supposedly liberal guy in your example- he’s an idiot).Report
I only have an example of a murder, I guess.
I don’t have an example of people engaging in mockery or anything like that.Report
It’s so weird how you guys act like Jaybird represents conservatism.Report
I represent not seeing the moral authority of the left.
Which is automatically conservative, right? I mean, if you understand that this is good versus evil, then “not good” is on the side of evil. By definition.Report
It’s so weird how when we ask for examples from conservative so my bay it’s answers.Report
I kind of see it as an intellectual exercise.
There are people who say stuff like “I cannot imagine X!” and I’m like “man, X is pretty easy to imagine.”
And that turns into “YOU CAN IMAGINE CONSERVATIVE THINGS! THAT MAKES YOU CONSERVATIVE!” and, honestly, I just happen to come from a different intellectual tradition.
Seriously, it used to cherish being able to see multiple perspectives.
You know who got mocked as being unable to do this sort of thing, back in the day?
You wouldn’t believe me if I told you.Report
Native speakers of English are familiar with idiomatic phrases like:
“I can’t imagine X” or
“I can’t understand X,”
which do not always mean what the mindlessly literal, or non-native speakers of English, think they mean. You have to pick up clues from context.
It is rare for someone to announce a deficiency in one’s imagination or understanding, so most of the time the reasonable interpretation of, say, “I can’t understand X” is something like “I’ve listened to what believers in X say, I know what the words they say generally mean, I have thought about the arguments they make, and tried my best to make sense of it, but I still can’t.” Perhaps in the hope that someone will come up with something the speaker hasn’t already thought of and explain it better.Report
Man, lemme tell ya, in the church that I grew up the whole “announcing deficiencies in one’s imagination or understanding” was a competitive sport.
It was important to communicate that certain sins were absolutely unthinkable by the various people communicating how godly they were. They couldn’t imagine committing this or that sin! Couldn’t imagine it!Report
If your bubble is small enough, your grasp of idiomatic English as used by the larger population can be tenuous.Report
Rather than a regional thing?Report
Yes.Report
I’m not entirely certain that your take on how it’s used and my take on how it’s used are incompatible.
Like, it’s not about *NOT* being able to do it, it’s about wanting to communicate that one can’t do it naturally or easily.
Like, I’m sure that Mrs. McGillicuddy could comprehend adultery. She was just really into not being seen as someone who could.
But I’m sure that if you asked her about the doctor on the Love Boat, she’d giggle before waving the question away.Report
They’re not incompatible. They’re just different. Not an uncommon thing in the English language. Think, for example, of the nearly diametrically-opposed meanings of “sanction.” If you pay attention to context, it’s usually clear enough which meaning is intended. And if you pay attention to context, you can usually tell whether someone is speaking literally or not about what they can or cannot understand or imagine.Report
I guess I’d put the emphasis on whether “I can’t imagine” is followed by “give me an example! A single example!”Report
There’s no point in us trying to guess what you guess you would do. We can look at what you’ve done instead.Report
Oh, I’m not asking about me.
I’m asking the Idiomatic English Expert about the difference between “I can’t imagine X” and “I can’t imagine X! This would be a great place to give an example!”
Like, is the former a good example of the idiom and the latter a good example of it being less of an idiom?
Remember: this isn’t about me. It’s about idiomatic English.Report
It’s always about you because you make it about you.Report
I was asking a question about the difference between “I can’t imagine X” and “I can’t imagine X! This would be a great place to give an example!”
You’d think that that question would be answerable in theory without making it about the person asking.Report
So one might think, but experience trumps theory. Best to wait until you do again what you have so often done. Then we can work with a concrete example and a real context.Report
Are the people who frame disagreement by saying “I can’t imagine X!” making it about them in a way similarly worth criticizing?Report
Once someone does it and you react, we’ll be in a position to tell.Report
And now that’s you making this about me.
Weird.Report
I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean.Report
It means Jaybird got auto corrected to something else on the tiny virtual keyboard of my phone.Report
I maintain no delusion that Jaybird is a conservative nor am I aware that anything I wrote implied I did. Jaybird is a former (IIRC) libertarian who’s currently the very lukest of warm market liberals. He’s also a contrarian who likes to present opposing views to what he perceives as the prevailing views of the community he’s commenting in (he once got banned from Redstate). If most of the conservatives and, more recently, most of the libertarians in the comentariate hadn’t fallen to silence or departed then Jay would likely be accused of being an arch liberal, bless him.Report
Back to my original point – its weird how when liberals ask for examples, Jaybird is the one who responds, and not any of our resident self-identified conservatives.Report
“its weird how when liberals ask for examples, Jaybird is the one who responds, and not any of our resident self-identified conservatives.”
for someone who claims to know absolutely nothing about anything happening anywhere, and when given links to news stories replies “pfft, well I didn’t see anything about that,” you seem surprisingly upset that we don’t marinate in this website’s comments 24-7
(that’s assuming I even bothered to answer, which I wouldn’t, because you’d angrily start playing Bring Me A Rock)Report
I marinate in this site’s comments all the time, so I remember us talking about this case in the Ten-Second News thread. Saul, Slade, Chip, and Kazzy discussed it. I threw a Chip accusation back at them: “And when the inevitable violence occurs, how many people will pretend to be shocked, shocked, and insist that this is an aberration, wholly unrelated to anything else?” I guess Philip and North hadn’t been in that discussion, but given that Jaybird is repeating the story, I didn’t feel the need to repeat my point about it.
Either way, you’re right; there’s no engagement with the ideas.Report
What ideas are we NOT engaging with? BSDI? when they demonstrably don’t?Report
“~BSDI.”
“Here’s an example.”
“You’re saying BSDI!”Report
oh come on Jaybird – do you really honestly believe that a single person running over another single person and spouting his political beliefs in the process is equivalent to the dozens and dozens of examples of the opposite? Really?
Because to convince liberals that both sides do it, there has to be proportionality. And there isn’t. one conservative governor rounding up legal immigrants seeking asylum in another conservative governor’s state and shipping them without warning to a liberal town is not equivalent to the Biden Administration moving migrants under a coordinated national plan which various towns and aid groups are active participants in. That one case you cite is not equivalent to the guy in Charlottesville running into the crowd and injuring dozens and killing Heather Hayer.
So no, Both Sides Don’t Do It.Report
I do think that Ǝ is an excellent counter-argument to ~Ǝ, yes.
At the very least, it can result in “well, when I say ~Ǝ, it shouldn’t be taken as *LITERAL*, it’s a quirk of English. Of course SOME Ǝ! But, seriously, your Ǝ are seriously worse than my Ǝ.”
And then someone who just joined the conversation without reading the previous comments can yell “BSDI!”Report
Off topic in the direction of “you can take the boy out of the mathematician but…” I started reading this comment and just automatically inserted the words “there exists” for the Ǝ glyph.Report
The Charlottesville guy was mentally challenged and trying to flee the anti-statue protestors. The North Dakota guy was drunk and ran down a Republican saying he thought the guy was calling for a mob. I wouldn’t want to put either thing on my resume, but I don’t know which is worse / more pathetic.Report
Can you accept that it strains credulity – heavily – to accept that he decided to flee protestors by blowing through police barricades and running down protestors?Report
Yes, they really really do think of themselves as victims of persecution.
And they desperately cling to this, because it gives them permission to inflict pain and suffering on the hated Outgroup.Report
Mmmm actually I’d say Jay would be on decently solid ground comparing his car guy to the car guy who ran down Ms. Hayer. But it’s nonsense to try and claim it’s a left wing equivalent of DeSantis’ stunt.Report
As the guy whose comment kicked this off, what I’m asking for is evidence that liberals persecute conservatives in ways and levels comparable to how conservative persecute their hated Outgroups.
Not “This one time at band camp ” stuff that were seeing.Report
“This would be a great place to provide us with examples of the performative cruelties being enacted against conservatives.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren:
In Massachusetts right now, those crisis pregnancy centers that are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help outnumber true abortion clinics by three to one,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) told NBC 10 Boston. “We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts and we need to shut them down all around the country.”
“You should not be able to torture a pregnant person like that,” she added, referring to the work done by the pro-life charities.”
https://reason.com/2022/07/14/elizabeth-warren-wants-to-shut-down-all-of-the-countrys-crisis-pregnancy-centers/
“At least 72 pregnancy resource centers and offices of pro-life groups have been attacked and vandalized since a draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked in early May. Pro-abortion domestic terrorists have claimed responsibility — and are promising more attacks in a “summer of rage“. ”
https://catholicvote.org/pregnancy-center-attack-tracker/
Since you ask.Report
Interesting take on performative cruelty. After decades of vandalism of abortion clinics, bombings of said clinics, and even the murder of doctors at those clinics vandalism back the other way is performative cruelty?
See me, I’d call that just deserts.
Snark aside – how is it cruel to conservatives?Report
This is why I was asking about definitions. Is indiscriminate cruelty ok?
Oh, and here’s a question for you: were the 50 migrants liberals? They’re the ones we’re supposedly talking about, right. Unless you’re admitting to a worldview that’s so rich, white, and narcissistic that your only compassion is for the residents of Martha’s Vineyard.Report
The migrants political leanings are unknown so far as I can determine. And that’s not really a point germane to the discussion s it?
The political leanings of the person inflicting the cruelty is well known. As are the general voting patterns in Martha’s vineyard. And the actions taken by that well known political actor – to which he admits – were designed to both inflict cruelty on the migrants in question and poke a stick in the proverbial eye of the liberals in Martha’s vineyard. Who, as I would have expected, rallied to meet the needs of the displaced migrants with kindness and compassion.Report
So you’re admitting that all the talk about “cruelty” against the migrants was a cover for outrage at how much the people of Martha’s Vineyard had to endure?Report
Wow. Just Wow. Do you actually read my words? Because statements like this make me believe you don’t.
So I’ll try this again:
Florida Gov. DeSantis rounded up legal migrants who are seeking asylum in the US. He did so in Texas – a state he is not the executive of. He did so by lying to the migrants about what would happen to them when they arrived where ever he was sending them. He also lied to them about where they were going. Once they arrived in Martha’s Vineyard they were left by the Governor’s operatives without any direction, assistance or help. These are performatively cruel acts against legal migrants.
Further, DeSantis appears to have chosen Martha’s Vineyard because its a sanctuary city and he expected howling and wailing and gnashing of teeth and rejection of the migrants. That did not occur – instead various private, religious and government entities there housed, fed and clothed the migrants while working with other state and federal authorities to move them to other places in Massachusetts that possessed appropriate services for them. DeSantis’ deception and cruelty was meant to evoke a response from liberals that he didn’t get.
Frankly I am proud of the Martha’s Vineyard community for what they did to aid these displaced legal migrants. They didn’t suffer as a result of DeSantis disgusting scare mongering and flagrant abuse of his power.
Are you proud of the means and methods that Gov. DeSantis used to get them there?Report
I read your words. Did you? You called the Martha’s Vineyard move a performative cruelty against liberals, then said you didn’t care about the political leanings of the migrants. So you really see your fellow liberals as the victims of the cruelty.Report
NO I didn’t. I said I didn’t know the political leanings of the migrants. And I have consistently said it was performative cruelty against the migrants designed to evoke a response among liberals that DeSantis didn’t get. I was and remain very plain about those things. Your continued reading otherwise reflects on you – poorly.Report
True. I confused you and Chip. Sorry.Report
Apology accepted.Report
“Further, DeSantis appears to have chosen Martha’s Vineyard because its a sanctuary city and he expected howling and wailing and gnashing of teeth and rejection of the migrants.”
I see so many partisan liberals saying this, but it just shows ignorance of your enemy — I’m sure he was quite happy with the outcome. Just 50 immigrants, one time, they were there barely more than 24 hours before being removed by the National Guard, there was a $40,000 GoFundMe set up in minutes, the chorus of mutual pats on the back among the whole crowd — compared to the flood of immigrants hitting border towns every single day, overwhelming the available resources and getting zero attention from people like you until the GOP governors turned it into a hot Twitter battle. The GOP rank and file are very supportive, and that’s who DeSantis is competing for right now. And even some Democrats, while being very critical of DeSantis, are pointing out that there’s a problem here that the Biden admin is failing to address: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-henry-cuellar-biden-border-enforcement-migrants-face-the-nation/Report
Indeed, Florida is so overwhelmed by hordes of immigrants that they just couldn’t pick which ones to expel, so they had to go a couple thousand miles away to San Antonio Texas to find some suitable candidates for purging.Report
I know none of us get paid for this, so no reason for me to expect you to actually exercise your reading comprehension and analytical skills before responding — too much work for your leisure time.Report
Congress can pass all the laws it wants restricting immigration. They’re not going to stop the flow of people fleeing whatever bad situation they have at home, looking for a better one here. It’s probably time for Congress to sit down and figure out a realistic solution.Report
The people deciding whether to attempt to come to the US are paying attention to news and hearsay — the number of migrants is absolutely affected by our border enforcement. Under Trump, all the news about harsh treatment had the effect of reducing the numbers, and under Biden they’ve rocketed up, and there’s nothing at all surprising about this.
It’s not an easy situation — I suppose in a perfect world we would advertise that we treat migrants harshly but actually treat them well, but obviously that’s not practical.
But the easy self-righteousness and grandstanding from people who are themselves far removed from the impact is pretty grating, and that’s what the GOP governors are exploiting.Report
I’m certain it plays well to the audience for which it’s intended. However the full story on this issue needs to account for the GOP being the party that scuttled bipartisan attempts at immigration reform twice, once under W. Bush and once under Obama. Trump then did some performative stuff either as an intentional display of harshness or through incompetence (always hard to tell with him) with the one good policy achievement being the agreement with Mexico to keep people there while their cases are processed. However even then, when the GOP held both the executive branch and Congress, they failed at reform. They couldn’t even accomplish the stupid reform, i.e. building the wall.
In that context I think the only reasonable response to DeSantis and Abbott is to roll our eyes. The reality of the GOP is that they’re willing to troll the de facto open border faction of progressives but are never willing to do anything that might actually solve the problem when the opportunity is there.Report
The impact is probably felt a little more intensely at the border because people are crossing in rural areas (which makes sense. If I’m trying to sneak in, it’s going to be where the people aren’t.)
Here’s an interesting story from NPR about one such crossing point: https://www.npr.org/2022/09/23/1124561261/a-dramatic-shift-at-the-border-as-migrants-converge-on-a-remote-corner-of-south-
InMD makes the point that one side of our political spectrum is ready to deal with the problem, but the other side prefers to charter planes. Who’s the grandstander here?Report
Part of the answer is diplomatic and military and probably covert. The strongest nation in the hemisphere has an obligation to nudge things better.Report
One certainly has to imagine that being a force for stability and economic development in central America would go a long way, albeit over a much longer time period than our collective political attention span. That said my guess is that our abilities on that front are also limited by the weakness of governments in the region. They have bigger problems than controlling this. The same is true for Mexico, that absent our nudging seems perfectly willing to let people cross its territory, which itself is highly cynical on their part and makes them as big a contributor to the humanitarian issues as anyone else.Report
Yes, they have bigger problems than the migrants, but the migrants are an effect of those problems. We help them address those problems, or address them ourselves forcefully, and fewer people will be fleeing those countries.Report
Conservatives can’t exactly propose a solution, but they’re pretty sure it involves inflicting pain and suffering on someone, somewhere.
US vs THEM.Report
Are you saying that I’m a conservative calling for suffering, or that other conservatives are calling for suffering? Neither side is calling for what I am, and I’m calling for making things better in South America. But whatever.Report
Oh really?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/06/07/fact-sheet-vice-president-harris-announces-more-than-1-9-billion-in-new-private-sector-commitments-as-part-of-call-to-action-for-northern-central-america/Report
I’m saying that conservatives are united in their fear and loathing of the hated Outgroups and their primary motivation is spite, not love.
That’s why I keep asking the moderators not to memoryhole the commenter who keeps accusing liberals of being pedophiles.
This is typical of the DeSantis/Abbott/Youngkin Republicans, a fear and hatred and seething desire to hurt.Report
I’m well aware of what you’re saying, and that it’s not connected to any particular topic or comment.Report
Did you see Petro Gustavo’s speech at the UN General Assembly last week?
He basically called out the War on Drugs and explained that it’s a humanitarian disaster.
I wish I had a better link to the speech than Marijuana Moment but I don’t.Report
Most folks here – including me – agree with those sentiments.Report
That’s why I think it was great that he said it to the General Assembly.Report
It’s a valid point and I think as good a starting place as any. Always pick the low hanging fruit.
But I think to really do something permanent about it may require willingness to invest in the region economically as well, which of course is also fraught if that investment is perceived as at the expense of investment in the US. There’s no free lunches after all. But nevertheless my understanding is that once developing countries reach something approximating 1970s standards of living the incentives for mass illegal immigration diminish. It’s why so much of ours is no longer from Mexico but poorer, more dysfunctional countries further south.Report
Hahaha. Our diplomacy means SouthAmerica will starve.Report
I could not agree more. In a nation where a great portion of the populace thinks foreign aid is a gigantic share of the national budget despite actually being a very tiny one this is going to be a really tough sell.Report
I’m probably thinking about military or intelligence budget things more than you are.Report
Oooh. I’m not sure I’d be too keen on adventurism by proxy. In many cases the countries these people are fleeing have militaries/police that are causing the conditions they are running from.Report
That’s funny. Sad, misinformed, but funny. Aside from the fact that border apprehensions are up under Biden – surpassing the peak under Obama which was higher then anything Trump ever accomplished – the Biden Administration is actually processing those it can legally admitted to the US while their cases are pending. His administration actually coordinates with places where migrants are moved by the federal government where California has the highest population of undocumented migrant. Texas and Florida are indeed number 2 and 3 in that statistic, but New York is #4, New Jersey is number 5 and Illinois ties Georgia at #6. And just this week he met with representatives of 19 countries that are bleeding folks to the US to try and develop plans to make those countries worth staying in.
What he’s not doing is mean tweeting about how hell holish a place is (Haiti), nor is he calling immigrant rapists and thugs simply based on their country of origin. More’s the better if you ask me.Report
This exemplifies my point.
The “attacks” are mostly minor and petty, and importantly aren’t depriving anyone of freedom and aren’t under the power of the state.
In other words, nowhere near the equal of what is being done to women and LGBTQ people by Republicans.
But it also shows the desperate attempts to gin up a causus belli, any possible excuse to justify the infliction of pain and suffering on the hated Outgroups.Report
Jaybird is no liberal.Report
If your overton window for what qualifies as “liberal” would go from “supported the school board recall of two out of the three school board members up for recall but not Chesa’s recall” to “supported all three school board members being recalled but not Chesa’s recall”, then you’d be absolutely right.Report
“You alluded vaguely to a guy running over a guy with a car.”
you replied by vaguely alluding to some other people being run over by cars, and you expected us to take you seriously…Report
I never expect anything from you, my dear DD, except peevish disagreeableness- don’t ever change! And Jay did literally refer, in his initial post on the subject with a single sentence description “There was the guy who was run over.” That was it. My matching examples, at least, linked to the actual events I was referring to.
And that is all incidental to my core point. Some loon running over someone with a car, left or right, is not remotely the example that was asked for; which was of a left wing equivalent of DeSantis’ performative stunt. Maybe if Gavin Newsom had been driving the car in question it would have worked- but he wasn’t, so it isn’t.Report
What’s the definition of “performative stunt”?Report
In this case, Governor Ron Desantis using fraudulent pretexts to lure some undocumented migrants in Texas onto a chartered plane and flying them off to dump them on Martha’s Vineyard.Report
in this case – luring legal asylum seekers in another state to board a plane that you intend to send to a different place then you told the people on the plane, so as to force certain people to act how you think they should act in response to your stunt. End of the day, nothing changed in immigration policy, a liberal sanctuary city stepped up, and the people doing the luring are being criminally investigated.Report
The phrase “in this case”, by definition, means that you’re not giving me a definition.Report
So you’re asking for a general definition of the term performative stunt?Report
He’s asking for a definition that fits his priors.Report
Definitions don’t fit or fail to fit priors. That doesn’t make sense.Report
Well, yeah, it’s become a point of contention whether both sides do performative stunts, right? Unless there’s a better category for what we’re talking about.
I mean, I don’t think what DeSantis and Abbott are doing is strictly performative in the sense that it doesn’t accomplish anything. I think it’s a safety valve that matches what the federal government is doing in relocating migrants. I’d say that declaring your jurisdiction a sanctuary location has been, until recently, more of a performative stunt, because it doesn’t appear to be meant to have any impact. Also, I’m not sure that we should be arguing about whether something is “performative”, as if something that has real-world impact is in a different category. But if it’d allow us to proceed in our discussion, then a definition of what we’re talking about would be a good start.Report
Well, the specific question would be can we find Democratic Governors employing force or fraud to use innocent people as props for a political posturing as Governor DeSantis did in this case. Perhaps we can. Certainly Jay’s “guy who hit another guy with a car” doesn’t fit the bill.
The immigration question remains endlessly boring because the solution is obvious and all three sides (Everyone center and left; the nativist right and the voting mass of the right) interest in ignoring that solution means two of the three sides end up barking pointlessly.
The solution: fund immigration courts to more quickly sort the economic immigrants from the asylum immigrants and fund/empower enforcement to pursue -not- the undocumented immigrants but the EMPLOYERS of undocumented immigrants.
Why would it work? Because the economic immigrants, when deported, just start walking here again- they don’t care if they get caught- they have little to lose. If you drop the hammer on employers then they’ll stop employing undocumented immigrants. They have lots to lose and it’d be very easy to hit them with crippling penalties to instantly make employing undocumented immigrants uneconomical.
Why won’t we do it?
For the center and left of center: We like cheap labor, we’re influenced by businesses (who like the cheap labor), we aren’t really bothered by immigrants.
For the right of center: Business interests who hold their leash in an iron grip LOVE the status quos: cheap labor that doesn’t have to be employed humanely and if the labor complains then you sick ICE on them. They like things exactly the way it is. Also, demagoguing about it is one of the few political levers they have left that actually works on their voting masses since social conservativism went belly up.
For the nativist right: They really like hitting immigrants with a stick and they’re culturally unaccustomed to going after the wealthy and corporate interests who benefit from the status quos. Also the right wing media figures make a fortune from the status quos.
For the voting right masses: The GOP has never cared about giving them what they wanted before, they ain’t gonna start now.
For Everyone: going after the employers of undocumented immigrants would exacerbate an already problematic labor shortage. A lot of agriculture would probably have to decamp for Latin America and prices for all kinds of services from fast food to child care would skyrocket with the increasing labor costs. Can’t have that.Report
From the actual left – concur in part and dissent in part. Yes, the left is at best indifferent to immigrants. We generally believe they make our nation stronger and we accept that they play critical economic roles in the US that native born Americans are no longer willing to play.
Where we part ways with your analysis is our willingness to look at the the history that got us to dysfunction and call it what it is – racist. Because the US stance against immigrants from Latin America was mostly open and freely supportive until Blacks began leaving the fields in the 1950’s and 1960’s, we expect any immigration reform to treat immigrants freely, humanely and fairly and in recognition of their importance to our economy. Your proposals about funding the immigration courts and going after employers are part of the solution. So is a defined path to citizenship taht rewards those already here and contributing, and a process that allows freer and easier migration back and forth across the border as market needs and agricultural seasons dictate.Report
Sure but that’s just tinkering around the edges, the frosting on the cake so to speak. If you want to fix the immigration “problem” then targeting the employers is the solution. The problem, of course, is that for a LOT of people the “Problem” of immigration isn’t a problem- it’s a perk. And for the larger right the other elements of the “problem”; replacement theory, voter dilution theory, etc; is a phantasm. And so around and around it goes.
And, really, the lefty-left wants something like open borders with voting rights and welfare benefits available the moment immigrants walk across the border. But that position is so powerless and marginal it doesn’t even bear discussing.Report
This is exactly right. You never read about the owners going to the slammer when a slaughterhouse gets raided, just lots of kids suddenly without parents.Report
SO I agreed on your employer sanction idea. But that’s not all that needs to be done. Frankly I think a modern version of this – accouting for everyone who is here already – would be an excellent solution:
https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/bracero-programReport
Liberal “performative cruelties”, i.e. virtue signaling, is a thing but not limited to “conservatives”.
College Kangaroo courts where accusation equals guilt for sex crimes came out of liberal ideology. Preventing Asians from being ‘too successful’ is another (mostly college) level example. Some crank ups on the war on drugs came from the left as an effort to “help” people. Paying pregnant women to not get married is another example of that. Putting the interests of government unions above those of taxpayers is a problem and has cruel results. Most efforts to view job creation as a privilege come from the left.Report
So your premise is that DeSantis won’t be able to duplicate Trump’s success until he has “real and concrete policy proposals”?
But the only support in your article for Trump having such proposals is “they (his supporters) believed his promises to protect Medicare and Social Security and provide universal healthcare”? To me, promises like that are the exact opposite of concrete proposals.
What I think can be validly concluded from your supporting arguments is that DeSantis needs to mix a few empty grandiose promises with his performative cruelties…Report
Trump’s “Wall” was real and concrete. Gov regulation reform was another thing.Report
I’m hesitant to make any claim to knowing the minds of Republican voters but I think any chance for DeSantis is contingent on there actually being a contest. I’m not sure there is one while Trump remains a possible candidate.Report
It’s tough to game out. I would feel sorry for the right were they not, well, what they are and had they not invited Trump upon themselves through their conscious choices over decades.
To rid themselves of Trump he has to exit the political stage. Easiest way is he up and dies, stranger things have happened, he’s not a young man and if he keels over dead the grateful sigh of relief from the right wing political actors will be liable to blow the roofs off the country.
Otherwise, it gets complicated. Trump can be outvoted- assuredly- but the problem lies in his disaffection. Even a politically defeated Trump will retain the ability to encourage or discourage turnout by his most fanatic followers or even provide a vote splitting presence by running independently. As close as the contests are these days Trump could effortlessly play spoiler and he’s entirely willing to burn the rights political project down if he can’t have it. Worse, the right wingers know it and Trump knows they know it. If there’s one thing the orange buffoon knows it’s how to twist the screws on someone you have over a barrel.Report
I think he could be out voted in theory in a GOP primary but I just struggle to see it happening. My prediction would be the non-Trump vote splits while he wins the rump and turns the momentum into another nomination.
The only way I see him leaving is by death, prison, or choice. Now I do think his presence would diminish in the GOP if he doesn’t run in 2024 just by virtue of another standard bearer having been chosen, especially if (God forbid) that standard bearer then wins the election. But otherwise I think they are on his ride, no matter where it goes.Report
Absolutely Trump can, the game theory problem is that if he is outvoted he retains, in theory, the power to cost the right the game in the general election and has indicated no compunction against doing so.Report
I’d heard about his “worse than Trump” angle, and I guess intellectually I knew it was going to happen, but it’s remarkable to see it starting. I mean, not quite yet, but you can tell what it’s designed to turn into.Report
I mean, the GOP could nominate somebody like Charlie Baker, Phil Scott, or even Larry Hogan. But yes, a competent fascist is worse than a incompetent fascist.Report
The fact that you’d call Trump and DeSantis fascists only demonstrates that you’d call Baker, Scott, or Hogan fascists if you thought they’d win the nomination.Report
As a former Marylander I actually respect Larry Hogan. We’re he the nominee we’d be able to get back to policy debates on the national stage. Would I vote for him? I honestly don’t know. But Larry Hogan remains quite far from a fascist. Hence why he won’t get the nod. Or even close.Report
No point setting up mere facts when Pinky is playing hall monitor of the public discourse.Report
Yet if he got the nomination (or looked like he would), he’d be called a fascist.Report
Politics ain’t beanbag. At least Hogan would be able to refute it.Report
Not by me. We apply that label based on actions, not just party affiliation.Report
Here’s Kevin Roberts, head of the Heritage Foundation, defining
fascismconservatism:If exit polls are right, then conservatives will come to power in Italy, just weeks after conservatives in Sweden won. This can be a trend: conservatives everywhere need to define the choice as what it is—US vs THEM, everyday people vs globalist elites, who’ve shown they hate us
https://twitter.com/KevinRobertsTX/status/1574163411075842050Report
When was the last time you called anyone not labeled “right” a fascist? In your opinion, can you cite someone who isn’t “right” and is a fascist?
I mean, me, I’m going to go out on a limb and say:
Trump — not fascist.
Brothers of Italy — fascist.Report
Are Brothers of Italy fascist? I keep hearing that they have origins in fascist parties, but I think every political party in Italy has origins in fascist or communist parties by those terms.Report
Here’s Kevin Roberts, head of the Hertage Foundation, defining
fascismconservatism:If exit polls are right, then conservatives will come to power in Italy, just weeks after conservatives in Sweden won. This can be a trend: conservatives everywhere need to define the choice as what it is—US vs THEM, everyday people vs globalist elites, who’ve shown they hate us
https://twitter.com/KevinRobertsTX/status/1574163411075842050Report
No, that’s a sentence that contains the word “define”, not a definition.Report
US vs THEM, everyday people versus globalist elites, is what American conservatives stand for.
Now, this is where someone usually asks “who are these hated globalist elites?” But I won’t because Roberts’ statement by itself, regardless of who he means, is fascist thinking.
Even if “globalist elites” is limited to a dozen billionaires at Davos, it is still an awful fascist statement and should be condemned by everyone.
And to beat Jaybird to the punch (I can see him flying sideways thru the air like Apu trying to catch the bullet), this sort of talk among lefties is equally fascist.Report
Nah, that’s more populism than fascism.Report
Populism IS fascism.
Populism draws a line around a certain segment of the population and declares them to be We The People.
And by definition THEM to be UnPeople, not part of the citizenry, not deserving of rights.Report
D’oh!Report
Merriam-Webster defines Fascism as follows:
a political system headed by a dictator in which the government controls business and labor and opposition is not permitted
If we got to wikipedia:
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Fascism rejects assertions that violence is inherently bad and views imperialism, political violence and war as means to national rejuvenation.[11] Fascists often advocate for the establishment of a totalitarian one-party state,[12][13] and for a dirigiste[14][15] economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and economic interventionist policies.[16] Fascism’s extreme authoritarianism and nationalism often manifests as belief in racial purity or a master race, usually blended with some variant of racism or bigotry against a demonized “Other”, such as Jews. These ideas have motivated fascist regimes to commit genocides, massacres, forced sterilizations, mass killings, and forced deportations.[17]
Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist; the term is more often used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions of neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes employed to describe contemporary parties with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th-century fascist movements.[4][18] Some opposition groups have adopted the label anti-fascist or antifa to signify their stance.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FascismReport
Yup. There’s no clear definition of fascism, but it’s worth noting that nothing in your post referred to populism. Fascism in Italy, for example, had a strong populist element, but in Germany it was more elitist. More accurately, fascism is opportunistic in both theory and practice.Report
Here’s Kevin Roberts, head of the Heritage Foundation, defining
sparkling authoritarianismconservatism…ReportHere’s the new prime Minister of Italy, defining
fascismThat Thing Which The Heritage Foundation Admires:https://twitter.com/aginnt/status/1574267766269353984
In the clip, she fiercely insists that she is defending her identity as a woman, mother, Christian from being attacked and destroyed by unnamed enemies.
US vs. THEM.
Of course, a reasonable person might ask for examples of things which are destroying her identity as a woman, mother, Christian.
Her desperate hysterical need to be a victim is shared by American conservatives who consider acceptance of trans people to be an affront, an attack on their own identity.Report
Please see above for demonstration that you don’t know what fascism means.Report
I know that This Person Who American Conservatives Admire wants to ban same sex adoptions and is opposed to same sex marriage and wants to use the power of the state to prevent them from living freely.
If you, like Kevin Roberts, want to call this “conservatism” I will agree with you.Report
I oppose same-sex adoptions and same-sex marriage. I don’t know what you mean by “wants to use the power of the state to prevent them from living freely”. I’m not going to call for the US to break up families, but I think same-sex relationships don’t merit state benefits.
I like the US approach to church-state issues, but I don’t think Italy is duty-bound to follow it. Peoples are free to create their own models. What Europeans call “conservatism” scares me a bit, but I know they’re representing something different than us. I also can tell that the US and European press aren’t interested in issues as much as labels.Report
It’s not fascism, I guess, its just “conservatism that scares me”.
Scares me too.
You know isn’t scared by it?
The Heritage Foundation. They heartily applaud this woman and her plans to destroy peaceful happy families in the name of um, saving families.
The followers of Libs of TikTok who are terrorizing Boston Children’s Hospital couldn’t be reached for comment but I’ll go out on a limb and say they also applaud tearing children away from loving gay parents.
Because they are conservatives. Or “conservatives who scare me”, if you prefer.Report
I’m sure that what I just said could also be considered applauding Meloni, so I’m not going to get angry at Heritage without having read their position.Report
US vs THEM is found in virtually every Republican message.
I know you’re trying to take cover behind pedantry, but I invite everyone here to look at the Republican messaging and see how often the US vs THEM message is found.
The idea that the hated THEM are not fellow citizens deserving of rights and compromise and fair treatment, but destruction and elimination.Report
US vs THEM is found in virtually every campaign ad, and virtually every comment you’ve ever posted.Report
Are there technical issues here? I got 508 error messages, comments listed in the sidebar aren’t where they’re supposed to be, and there have been other problems.Report
According to Devcat the site crashed and is being put back together. apparently the matrix is very glitchy.Report
TPTB are doing excellent work. They recovered State of the Discussion without my having to reinstall it from scratch.Report
As if things weren’t bad enough, now black women are playing flutes!Report
Founding Father’s crystal flutes no less. And from the Library!Report