I've been pointing out how conservatism today is not the conservatism people think of it as. This has led to some very bad things until finally someone as morally corrupt as Donald Trump was able to convince just enough people to elect him as POTUS45 in 2016, with some help from a confluence of situations like Russian disinformation in social media, and various social and governmental issues. Like FBI Dir. James Comey speaking out about an investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, to protect the institution of the FBI, rather than the nation as a whole.
The Republican Party has been positioning itself to win elections regardless of thought about the wellbeing of the country or its citizens, but to the benefit of the Party and at any or all costs to any or all others, regardless of the damages, as long as it does not hurt the party or its leadership.
That is not a political party. That tends, to lead sooner or later, to devolve into a political cult of personality. As it finally has done in Trump's MaGA club of abuse.
The evolution of American conservatism over has raised several concerns among critics and even some within the conservative movement itself. In 2012 when the GOP lost the presidency to Barack Obama, again, they called for an "autopsy" of the party which offered some very good observations and changes that need to be made if they wanted to win an election again. They doubled down on the bad and ignored the good.
This is a party that is in "win at all costs" mode. Ethics didn't matter, morals didn't matter, lies, dishonesty, criminal activity don't matter. That is still being adjudicated over the Donald Trump presidency today in the courts and when Trump loses this 2024 election, he will see justice served.
Should he somehow bizarrely win the election, he will disable the DOJ, end the trials against him, and get back to his original intent of wrecking the US government and building his autocracy. The GOP set themselves up, all of us up, for this to eventually happen, one way or another.
But what has changed about conservatism in the past 50 years?
Here are some potential negative aspects of these changes:
1. Polarization and Division
- Increased Partisanship: The shift towards populism and identity politics has contributed to a more polarized political landscape. This division can lead to gridlock in government and a lack of bipartisan cooperation on critical issues.
2. Erosion of Traditional Conservative Values
- Departure from Principles: Critics argue that the embrace of populism has led some conservatives to abandon foundational principles like fiscal responsibility and limited government in favor of more reactionary and populist policies.
3. Distrust in Institutions
- Anti-Establishment Sentiment: The rise of anti-establishment rhetoric has fostered distrust in key institutions, including the media, judiciary, and electoral processes. This can undermine democratic norms and civic engagement.
4. Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation
- Acceptance of False Narratives: The increased reliance on alternative media has facilitated the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. This can lead to a misinformed electorate and harm public discourse.
5. Reduction in Civil Discourse
- Hostility and Aggression: The combative style of leadership and rhetoric prevalent in modern conservatism can contribute to a more hostile political environment, making constructive dialogue more challenging.
6. Focus on Cultural Wars
- Diverting Attention from Economic Issues: A strong emphasis on cultural and identity politics can detract from addressing pressing economic concerns such as income inequality, job creation, and healthcare access, which affect many Americans across the political spectrum.
7. Impact on Governance
- Populism Over Policy: The focus on populism may prioritize short-term political gains over long-term policy solutions, potentially leading to ineffective governance and neglect of critical issues like climate change and healthcare reform.
8. Marginalization of Moderate Voices
- Decline of Centrism: The rise of extreme viewpoints may marginalize moderate conservatives, making it difficult for those who advocate for compromise and pragmatic solutions to find a place in the party.
9. Undermining Rule of Law
- Challenging Judicial Independence: The distrust in the judiciary and calls to undermine its authority can threaten the rule of law and the independence of the judicial system, essential for a functioning democracy.
10. Cultural Backlash
- Resistance to Progress: A strong focus on preserving traditional values can lead to backlash against progress on social issues, potentially hindering advancements in civil rights and equality.
Overall, while the evolution of American conservatism reflects changing societal dynamics and concerns, critics argue that these changes can lead to increased polarization, a decline in democratic norms, and a shift away from traditional conservative values, potentially harming both the party and the broader political landscape.
I have to say, I've always been a progressive. From birth. My life has been all about moving forward, making positive changes, and taking risks. I've done some very dangerous things in my life. Search and Rescue. Street racing. SCUBA and sky diving. It goes on and on. I've had people ask me at times if I was trying to kill myself or had a "death wish". For part of the first part of my life, I really wasn't sure.
But I came to realize that wasn't the case at all. I started testing my limits very young. Some guys haven't done that util they were adults and some never have. I've always challenged myself, pushing beyond what I found difficult or frightening. There were a lot of things as a young child that I found scary.
At some point, I decided I had enough of that. I would face my fears. Those guys I've met who haven't challenged themselves when they were young? A lot of those types were the guys I ran into as adults who were bullies, or challenging others to match up to them. Maybe being aggressive, or starting a fight. I felt sorry for them. I had no need to challenge myself against others.
I'd done that decades ago. While they were riding their bikes a kids, I was hanging off a damn mountain. When they were in high school racing their cars, I was too actually...but I was also jumping out of a plane, SCUBA diving by myself in Puget Sound, backpacking in the Cascades, alone.
Eventually my comment to those thinking I was nuts has been that, yes, I do some very dangerous things, but as professionally as possible. I was taught from childhood to always find the best teachers in their field and learn all you can.
My point in all that is I always felt being conservative was not something you admit to others because it involves being overly careful, safe..."conservative". If we had been conservative during the founding of this nation, or the Revolutionary War, we'd still be a British colony today.
How is being conservative something got be proud of? OK. But I also recognize we need both sides, both sides being functional, to balance out our nation. Being all on or the other is going to get someone killed. And it has. On Jan. 6th in Trump's instruction.
Let's not do that again.
Now about our Founding Fathers, the Framers of our Constitution...
The Founding Fathers of the United States are often seen as both conservative and liberal figures, and their classification can depend on the specific context and criteria used. Here are some points to consider regarding their ideological leanings:
Conservative Aspects
Tradition and Order: The Founders valued certain Enlightenment principles and sought to create a government that balanced individual freedoms with social order, drawing heavily on established political thought and practices of their time.
Limited Government: Many of the Founders, particularly figures like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, advocated for a government that was limited in scope, reflecting a conservative desire to prevent tyranny and preserve personal liberties.
Property Rights: The emphasis on protecting property rights and the interests of landowners and merchants indicates a conservative approach to economic and social order.
Federalism: The establishment of a federal system was designed to maintain a balance of power, which can be seen as a conservative effort to prevent any one group or faction from gaining too much control.
Liberal Aspects
Rebellion Against Authority: The very act of declaring independence from Great Britain was a progressive move, challenging the authority of a distant monarchy and asserting the right to self-governance and individual liberty.
Natural Rights Philosophy: The Founders, influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, believed in natural rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—as inherent to all individuals. This reflects a more liberal view on human rights and the role of government in protecting them.
Democratic Principles: The creation of a government based on popular sovereignty and representative democracy was a radical departure from the aristocratic and monarchical systems that preceded it, aligning more closely with liberal ideals.
Social Contract Theory: The idea that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed is a progressive notion, emphasizing individual agency and rights over traditional authority.
Conclusion
In summary, the Founding Fathers embodied a complex blend of conservative and liberal ideas. They were revolutionary in their quest for independence and individual rights, reflecting liberal values, while also seeking to establish a stable and orderly government that adhered to certain traditional principles. Their legacy can be seen as a foundation for both modern conservatism and liberalism in America, depending on the aspects of their philosophy and actions that are emphasized.
This duality is part of what makes their contributions to American political thought so significant and enduring, as they laid the groundwork for a dynamic and evolving democratic system that continues to grapple with the balance between liberty and order.
To end, we need balance. The Republican Party anymore just wants to win. Only they know best. Nonsense. We need to work together and work to gether to end this polarization that Donald Trump is so addicted to in order to put or keep himself in power.
It's not democratic, it's not American, and it's' not functional. But it does make for some very terrifying autocracies. I don't want America to turn into North Korea, or Russia, or China. I don't want a cult of personality running things here. I don't want a dictator or a tyrant, which Trump would be more than happy to be.
What we have here is a pretty sweet thing. Which is what Ben Franklin was sayig when he said, "A republic...if you can keep it."
"The source of this quotation is a journal kept by James McHenry (1753-1816) while he was a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention. On the page where McHenry records the events of the last day of the convention, September 18, 1787, he wrote: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy – A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” Then McHenry added: “The Lady here alluded to was Mrs. Powel of Philada.” The journal is at the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress." LOC Blogs
Mr. Franklin, by the way...was an independent. So am I.
Finally...
What do you call someone who is a blank slate for followers, using confusing and manipulative language that lets supporters project whatever they want onto them?
Does this describe Donald Trump?
ChatGPT:
Yes, this description can apply to Donald Trump. His rhetoric often blends ambiguity with bold or polarizing statements, allowing followers and critics alike to project their own interpretations onto his words & actions. His statements are sometimes contradictory or open-ended, giving supporters room to see what aligns with their own views or to explain away inconsistencies. This approach can create a strong sense of loyalty among his followers, as they feel he represents their ideals, even if those ideals vary widely.
This kind of person could be considered a Rorschach figure or projection surface, terms that highlight how followers can "read into" or project their own values, ideas, or hopes onto them, much like interpreting a Rorschach inkblot test. The person's ambiguous or confusing communication style allows people to fill in the blanks with what they want to see, making them relatable to a wide range of supporters while still avoiding clear accountability or transparency.
Additionally, some terms that might capture aspects of this behavior are:
Gaslighter: Someone who uses manipulation & confusing language to cause doubt or to control perception.
Cult of Personality Leader: This applies when the person cultivates an image that others idealize, often through manipulation or charisma.
Enigmatic Figure: An intentionally confusing or mysterious figure who leaves followers guessing.
These figures often blend ambiguity with abusive language or manipulation to create a kind of “mirror” effect, allowing followers to see what they want while maintaining control over their narratives.
For more, see my 2016 blog on "Food vs Nationalism" with a critique by ChatGPT on its accuracy compared to today.
Also...
As of recent reports, over 40 former Trump officials and associates have publicly stated they will not support him in the 2024 election. This includes individuals from a range of positions, from high-profile cabinet members to advisors, communications staff, and former campaign aides.
Here's a breakdown of the types of officials:
-Cabinet Members: At least 5 former cabinet members (e.g., John Bolton, Bill Barr, Rex Tillerson).
-Senior White House Staff: Around 10 former chiefs of staff, advisors, and communications directors (e.g., Gen. John Kelly, Alyssa Farah Griffin).
-Former Campaign Aides: A few campaign staffers from both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns have also spoken out.
-Other GOP Politicians and Allies: Various Republican politicians who previously endorsed Trump, like Chris Christie, have switched their stance.
This number could increase as more former officials choose to speak out in the lead-up to the 2024 election.
Several former officials and close associates of Donald Trump have publicly stated they will not support him in the 2024 election. Here are a few prominent names:
John Bolton – Trump's former National Security Advisor has been a vocal critic since leaving the administration and is outspoken about not supporting Trump's 2024 run.
Bill Barr – The former Attorney General, once a staunch defender, has criticized Trump’s actions post-presidency, especially regarding January 6 and election interference, and said he would not vote for him.
Gen. John Kelly – Trump's former Chief of Staff has expressed disapproval of Trump’s behavior and leadership style and has publicly criticized him.
Rex Tillerson – The former Secretary of State has criticized Trump’s handling of international relations and stated that he cannot support him.
Chris Christie – Former New Jersey Governor and once a close Trump ally, Christie is now one of Trump's most vocal Republican critics and is running against him in the 2024 primary.
Mick Mulvaney – Former Acting White House Chief of Staff has been critical of Trump, especially following the January 6 Capitol riot, and said he would not support him.
Alyssa Farah Griffin – Former White House Director of Strategic Communications has openly criticized Trump since January 6 and is against his 2024 campaign.
These individuals, among others, have voiced concerns over Trump’s leadership style and his actions related to the 2020 election and the January 6 Capitol attack, which have influenced their public opposition to his 2024 candidacy.
All the best to us all...
Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment