What do you think Brown and company "think conservatism" means?
I admit to not knowing too many people my age (31) who are conservatives. As explained before, this is largely a fate of growing up in the NYC-Metro area and now living in San Francisco. I know three people in Gen X or younger who have "liked" Mitt Romney on facebook. One is a woman who does Wall Street work, the other two seem to be standard variety conservatives.
I don't see the people you mentioned as becoming more socially liberal or really distinguishing themselves in anyway from the current social conservatism that is part and parcel of the Republican Party. They might not be as rah-rah about the culture war as Santorum but there do seem to be large chunks of the party that don't realize how far away they are from modernity. This includes youngish people like James O'Keefe and Breitbart. I saw plenty of super-young looking people at the GOP convention were just as enthusiastic about the culture wars as the Robertson section.
In a more sane world, a place like Silicon Valley should be a natural home for a somewhat fiscally conservative but socially liberal Rockefeller Republican. However, the GOP has made this brand unacceptable and I think that the Christie or Brown type is still too conservative on social issues for Silicon Valley.
By charity, I meant acknowledging the validity of their definition. I will follow what Michael said below.
I was not talking about compassion or aide through hard times.
For my reasoning, I think they come from a position of bad faith. As a Jewish person, I don't like being a necessary pawn in their apocalyptic world view and find that their support for Israel is dangerous. With friends like Michelle Bachmann, the Israelis do not need Hamas as enemies.
The writer's argument is "This is how we view marriage. It is right. You are wrong." Why should I grant charity to that?
I suppose I just don't see the people you mentioned as being a new generation of moderate Republicans in the mode of Jacob Javits or even Olympia Snowe.
We shall see how Scott Brown's reelection campaign turns out. I think there are too many naysayer's on the left who want to beat down and cry doom for Elizabeth Warren. I've heard her speak in person. She is smart and able and I don't really care for the persona that Brown puts on. He is a rather successful real estate lawyer and Ms. Warren's background is just as humble. Ms. Warren went to undergrad and law school at public universities. Her dad was a janitor. She was a mother while in law school. She is just as "authentic" as Mr. Brown in this regard and too many people are trying to make it look like she is from the manor born just because she seems a bit more professorial and upper-middle class now. So what if Scott Brown still goes around in a pick-up truck. The tarring of Ms. Warren (not by you) smacks a lot of sexism to me.
I am also not certain that McMahaon will win again this time around. She is going against a more obscure Democratic candidate and this heightens her odds. But if she could not win in 2010, the year of the Tea Party; why should she win in 2012 when Obama is almost certain to carry Connecticut and help Democrats down ticket?
The question is "Why did they come down against Todd Aiken?"
I'm a cynic and don't think that they had any pure motives. They wanted Aiken out because his stupid statement turned a once safe-Senate seat into play. He also became fundraising gold for the Democratic Party. The establishment never wanted him anyway. He is another Tea Party candidate pushed to be a standard-bearer by doubling down reactionaries.
That being said, Aiken's stance on abortion is the same as the Republican party platform. The GOP just does not want to advertise this very much.
There are people in the GOP who realize that they don't have enough "Angry White Men" to continue winning forever but this has not caused any social liberalization from happening yet.
I question whether we are seeing the reemergence of a national GOP.
Rather, I think we are seeing the doubling down of the Tea Party set.
Connecticut and California are both very blue states with some red pockets. As was noted in a post by Burt a few weeks ago, the red parts of California have more in common with Alabama than they do with the rest of California.
I think this going to be true nationally. Red counties and part are going to have a lot in common and blue parts are going to be in common. This is why Salt Lake City can elect a very liberal mayor even though it is in one of the most Republican states of all. The mayors of Salt Lake City and Austin probably have much more in common with Sam Adams of Portland than they would with other mayors in their state that happen to be Republican.
1. What does the writer mean by "our young people"? Does he mean people raised as conservative Christians or who choose to stay instead of flee or is there a subtext? This is a religion that believes in conversion. I often find with many Conservative Christians that there is a subtext of "You might claim to be really against us but in your deepest unconscious you know that we are right and want what we are selling". I find this attitude appalling.
2. Even if the writer means Conservative Christians by "our young people", why should the Conservative Christian view of marriage dominate how the rest of society views marriage? There are a lot of Conservative Christians but they are not a majority of the world or even a majority of the United States. And I am sure that a lot of them could not stand up to a serious grilling. How many Evangelicals really practice this Master-Submissive variant in all aspects of their marriage? How many women really submit to "Christian Discipline". My guess is not as many as the writer believes and that many Conservative Christian marriages form on very secular and modern grounds of love and affirmation and being a "partner".
3. As Sam said above, I see no reason to offer charity to those who think people who disagree with them or are not part of the "elect" are going to burn in hell for all of eternity after death.
I wonder who gives. Seriously. Everyone I know just says "No thank you" and moves on. Almost everyone I observe says No thanks and moves on as well but I have seen people engaged in conversation from time to time. So I guess some people might give.
Interestingly, I was not thinking of Nader and his public research group which goes door to door but I guess they were the original chuggers.
I was thinking of the legions of idealistic 20-somethings who seem to descend on to city streets as soon as the weather gets warm and say "Do you have a moment for the environment?" or a whole bunch of other lefty charities.
In some ways, the idealistic chuggers perplex and fascinate me. By now it has been well-reported that the groups outsource their fundraising to for-profit companies. The charities only receive X amount of the money raised and it might be less than half. There is a high rate of rejection and turn-over. Most chuggers last a week or less.
Yet you still see the chuggers out every spring and summer with full-throttle optimism. I would think that the practice proved useless by now and disreputable but I guess not. Perhaps there are just sincerely idealistic people in the world.
The big problem is not that we are partisan but the Congressional system as mandated by the Constitution is not really meant to handle this kind of extreme partisanship.
Maybe a lot of people cheer this kind of gridlock but I do not and from what I know about your politics, you probably do not as well.
Parisan-oriented government works in Parliamentary system because the minority has no option but to complain on the media (without being able to gum up anything in the legislature). And Parliaments lend more towards multi-party systems that will form coalition governments.
Congress lends itself to having two parties. I am not sure how it would work with four or five parties without anyone having a clear majority.
1. You will start seeing a lot of political and litigation fights over what is a recognized charity. Perhaps Republicans will try to deligitmatize charities like The ACLU, Legal Aid, Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, Acorn, Arts Charities, etc. Atheist groups will claim that donating to any religious group or charity would violate the Establishment cause.
2. I think you would have an accountability problem. The issue with the chuggers (those idealistic 20-somethings who constantly stop you on the street for lefty charities) is that a lot of the money raised does not go to the the cause. It goes to overhead and such.
3. People will game the system. Who will make sure that doctors are really being pro-bono with their ten percent of time? Even if a doctor does diagnosis for free, who will pay for the medicine if needed? Also you will need rules to prevent people from being left high and dry. Say a doctor works 2000 hours a year and makes 200 of these pro-bono. Does a very sick and poor patient get cut off if they have the luck of just getting the last hour but needing 40 more for care?
4. There is a lot of controversy over pro-bono hours with lawyers especially considering the glut of the legal market right now. A lot of higher-ups in the legal world are suggesting that young lawyers make their mark by taking pro bono cases. However, these young lawyers also have a lot of school debt and still need to eat and pay rent. Who pays for the court fees, the evidence, the discovery, etc? The 10 percent of services can be damning to young professionals during recessions.
I have no doubt that it was very stressful and painful for Ann Romney to deal with cancer and MS. She has my sympathy here.
However, the treatment and care is where most of my concern is especially because we can't ever seem to have honest conversations about this stuff in the United States ever.
On “The Return of the GOP as a National Party”
Perhaps we have different definitions of what will make the GOP sane again.
"
What do you think Brown and company "think conservatism" means?
I admit to not knowing too many people my age (31) who are conservatives. As explained before, this is largely a fate of growing up in the NYC-Metro area and now living in San Francisco. I know three people in Gen X or younger who have "liked" Mitt Romney on facebook. One is a woman who does Wall Street work, the other two seem to be standard variety conservatives.
I don't see the people you mentioned as becoming more socially liberal or really distinguishing themselves in anyway from the current social conservatism that is part and parcel of the Republican Party. They might not be as rah-rah about the culture war as Santorum but there do seem to be large chunks of the party that don't realize how far away they are from modernity. This includes youngish people like James O'Keefe and Breitbart. I saw plenty of super-young looking people at the GOP convention were just as enthusiastic about the culture wars as the Robertson section.
In a more sane world, a place like Silicon Valley should be a natural home for a somewhat fiscally conservative but socially liberal Rockefeller Republican. However, the GOP has made this brand unacceptable and I think that the Christie or Brown type is still too conservative on social issues for Silicon Valley.
On “Marriage as Leadership and Submission”
By charity, I meant acknowledging the validity of their definition. I will follow what Michael said below.
I was not talking about compassion or aide through hard times.
For my reasoning, I think they come from a position of bad faith. As a Jewish person, I don't like being a necessary pawn in their apocalyptic world view and find that their support for Israel is dangerous. With friends like Michelle Bachmann, the Israelis do not need Hamas as enemies.
The writer's argument is "This is how we view marriage. It is right. You are wrong." Why should I grant charity to that?
On “The Excellent Foppery of the World: Clint Eastwood in Tampa”
You still have to admit it would be rather amusing to see Clint Eastwood as our variant of a fop.
On “The Return of the GOP as a National Party”
I suppose I just don't see the people you mentioned as being a new generation of moderate Republicans in the mode of Jacob Javits or even Olympia Snowe.
We shall see how Scott Brown's reelection campaign turns out. I think there are too many naysayer's on the left who want to beat down and cry doom for Elizabeth Warren. I've heard her speak in person. She is smart and able and I don't really care for the persona that Brown puts on. He is a rather successful real estate lawyer and Ms. Warren's background is just as humble. Ms. Warren went to undergrad and law school at public universities. Her dad was a janitor. She was a mother while in law school. She is just as "authentic" as Mr. Brown in this regard and too many people are trying to make it look like she is from the manor born just because she seems a bit more professorial and upper-middle class now. So what if Scott Brown still goes around in a pick-up truck. The tarring of Ms. Warren (not by you) smacks a lot of sexism to me.
I am also not certain that McMahaon will win again this time around. She is going against a more obscure Democratic candidate and this heightens her odds. But if she could not win in 2010, the year of the Tea Party; why should she win in 2012 when Obama is almost certain to carry Connecticut and help Democrats down ticket?
On “The Excellent Foppery of the World: Clint Eastwood in Tampa”
Now I want to see Hugh Laurie imitate Clint Eastwood as a Fop.
No one does Fop better than Hugh Laurie
On “The Return of the GOP as a National Party”
The question is "Why did they come down against Todd Aiken?"
I'm a cynic and don't think that they had any pure motives. They wanted Aiken out because his stupid statement turned a once safe-Senate seat into play. He also became fundraising gold for the Democratic Party. The establishment never wanted him anyway. He is another Tea Party candidate pushed to be a standard-bearer by doubling down reactionaries.
That being said, Aiken's stance on abortion is the same as the Republican party platform. The GOP just does not want to advertise this very much.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/who-takes-over-if-romney-loses.html
There are people in the GOP who realize that they don't have enough "Angry White Men" to continue winning forever but this has not caused any social liberalization from happening yet.
On “Marriage as Leadership and Submission”
Damn it, I wanted to make this joke.
On “The Return of the GOP as a National Party”
I question whether we are seeing the reemergence of a national GOP.
Rather, I think we are seeing the doubling down of the Tea Party set.
Connecticut and California are both very blue states with some red pockets. As was noted in a post by Burt a few weeks ago, the red parts of California have more in common with Alabama than they do with the rest of California.
I think this going to be true nationally. Red counties and part are going to have a lot in common and blue parts are going to be in common. This is why Salt Lake City can elect a very liberal mayor even though it is in one of the most Republican states of all. The mayors of Salt Lake City and Austin probably have much more in common with Sam Adams of Portland than they would with other mayors in their state that happen to be Republican.
On “Marriage as Leadership and Submission”
I have some questions and thoughts:
1. What does the writer mean by "our young people"? Does he mean people raised as conservative Christians or who choose to stay instead of flee or is there a subtext? This is a religion that believes in conversion. I often find with many Conservative Christians that there is a subtext of "You might claim to be really against us but in your deepest unconscious you know that we are right and want what we are selling". I find this attitude appalling.
2. Even if the writer means Conservative Christians by "our young people", why should the Conservative Christian view of marriage dominate how the rest of society views marriage? There are a lot of Conservative Christians but they are not a majority of the world or even a majority of the United States. And I am sure that a lot of them could not stand up to a serious grilling. How many Evangelicals really practice this Master-Submissive variant in all aspects of their marriage? How many women really submit to "Christian Discipline". My guess is not as many as the writer believes and that many Conservative Christian marriages form on very secular and modern grounds of love and affirmation and being a "partner".
3. As Sam said above, I see no reason to offer charity to those who think people who disagree with them or are not part of the "elect" are going to burn in hell for all of eternity after death.
"
"1) What kind of woman would want to take a subservient role?"
Not a Jewish woman.
"
Isn't it simply the human condition to be a selective disciple of anyone or anything?
This is why Conor's "cognitive dissonance" cons are so galling and annoying. They want to have it both ways.
Disclaimer to avoid hypocrisy: I am pretty much a selective follower of many things as well.
On “A Welfare State Libertarians and Fiscal Conservatives Can Get Behind”
Hm.
I wonder who gives. Seriously. Everyone I know just says "No thank you" and moves on. Almost everyone I observe says No thanks and moves on as well but I have seen people engaged in conversation from time to time. So I guess some people might give.
"
Maybe but I am doubtful. There will be creative accounting and reasoning but some groups might be nudged/guilt-tripped into being honest.
Katherine still points out an obvious problem.
"
Interestingly, I was not thinking of Nader and his public research group which goes door to door but I guess they were the original chuggers.
I was thinking of the legions of idealistic 20-somethings who seem to descend on to city streets as soon as the weather gets warm and say "Do you have a moment for the environment?" or a whole bunch of other lefty charities.
In some ways, the idealistic chuggers perplex and fascinate me. By now it has been well-reported that the groups outsource their fundraising to for-profit companies. The charities only receive X amount of the money raised and it might be less than half. There is a high rate of rejection and turn-over. Most chuggers last a week or less.
Yet you still see the chuggers out every spring and summer with full-throttle optimism. I would think that the practice proved useless by now and disreputable but I guess not. Perhaps there are just sincerely idealistic people in the world.
On “The Plan Behind the Rhetoric…”
The big problem is not that we are partisan but the Congressional system as mandated by the Constitution is not really meant to handle this kind of extreme partisanship.
Maybe a lot of people cheer this kind of gridlock but I do not and from what I know about your politics, you probably do not as well.
Parisan-oriented government works in Parliamentary system because the minority has no option but to complain on the media (without being able to gum up anything in the legislature). And Parliaments lend more towards multi-party systems that will form coalition governments.
Congress lends itself to having two parties. I am not sure how it would work with four or five parties without anyone having a clear majority.
On “A Welfare State Libertarians and Fiscal Conservatives Can Get Behind”
All very good points. I should have just signed on here. Especially the drug addicts v. puppies and kittens
"
1. You will start seeing a lot of political and litigation fights over what is a recognized charity. Perhaps Republicans will try to deligitmatize charities like The ACLU, Legal Aid, Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, Acorn, Arts Charities, etc. Atheist groups will claim that donating to any religious group or charity would violate the Establishment cause.
2. I think you would have an accountability problem. The issue with the chuggers (those idealistic 20-somethings who constantly stop you on the street for lefty charities) is that a lot of the money raised does not go to the the cause. It goes to overhead and such.
3. People will game the system. Who will make sure that doctors are really being pro-bono with their ten percent of time? Even if a doctor does diagnosis for free, who will pay for the medicine if needed? Also you will need rules to prevent people from being left high and dry. Say a doctor works 2000 hours a year and makes 200 of these pro-bono. Does a very sick and poor patient get cut off if they have the luck of just getting the last hour but needing 40 more for care?
4. There is a lot of controversy over pro-bono hours with lawyers especially considering the glut of the legal market right now. A lot of higher-ups in the legal world are suggesting that young lawyers make their mark by taking pro bono cases. However, these young lawyers also have a lot of school debt and still need to eat and pay rent. Who pays for the court fees, the evidence, the discovery, etc? The 10 percent of services can be damning to young professionals during recessions.
On “Signaling”
When I get home from my work.
On “The Most Interesting Congressional Race In 2012…”
Mea Culpa
On “Signaling”
Especially during pratt falls
On “The Most Interesting Congressional Race In 2012…”
I have nothing to add except that I think ASU is in Tuscon and Tuscon is not mentioned on your map. So I don't think it is part of the new district.
I am fully expecting to need to make a mea culpa within a half hour of pressing post.
On “Signaling”
I know a really a joke on this subject but it is NSFW.
"
I care more about the later than the former.
I have no doubt that it was very stressful and painful for Ann Romney to deal with cancer and MS. She has my sympathy here.
However, the treatment and care is where most of my concern is especially because we can't ever seem to have honest conversations about this stuff in the United States ever.
"
The stock came from Mitt's dad and was worth 60,000 then and 377,000 in 2012 money:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106700/ann-romney-the-asset-everyone-assumes
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.