The Log Cabin Libertarians?

[Anthony '58]

LGBT Conservatives Don't Buy into The Woke Left's Radical View That Sex and Gender Are Meaningless
By Charles Moran


LGBT conservatives are committed to the fight for equality and inclusion. The Log Cabin Republicans advocate for inclusion within the ranks of our own party, and over the years we have had both significant wins and challenging setbacks.c and NCAA champions demand action to protect women’s swimming

At the same time, we aren’t afraid to call out anyone on the Left who uses "equality" as a Trojan Horse to push a radical cultural agenda that, in reality, has nothing to do with actual LGBT rights. 

That’s what happening now. Over the last month, we’ve watched a major new culture war erupt on two fronts: Disney doubling down on teaching kindergartners about gender identity and the NCAA unfairly allowing trans women to compete in women’s sports. 

We’ve watched the Left dishonestly demonize concerned parents and concerned female athletes as ‘anti-trans’ or ‘bigots.’ 

We can’t be bullied into silence. Simply put, LGBT conservatives don’t buy into the Woke Left’s radical notion that sex and gender are meaningless. Their demands have nothing to do with LGBT rights, and everything to do with their years-long campaign to strip away sex and gender as significant mores of Western society under the guise of "equality."

It is one thing to support, as we do, transgender individuals' rights to transition freely at an appropriate age, live safely, and be respected without fear of being harassed. It’s quite another to demand that teachers should be allowed to build lesson plans around gender and sex for kindergartners, without the involvement or consent of the parents.

If that demand sounds ridiculous, it’s because it is, but that’s exactly what Disney, a company supposedly built around family and children’s entertainment, called for when they came out in opposition to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law. 

Disney peddled lies from Left-wing activists about the bill -- that it was somehow anti-gay -- to hide it’s real intent to stop educators from teaching young children that their gender doesn’t matter. 

Disney is opposed to the Florida law for the same reason they are stripping all references to ‘boys and girls’ from their theme parks: it’s part of their campaign to erase sex and gender from our culture, and they’re hoping to fool the public by calling it "equality." 

Log Cabin Republicans was proud to speak out against the Democrats’ and Disney’s lies about the Florida law and defend parents -- including LGBT parents -- who are concerned about what their young children are being taught in school. As long as the Woke Left pushes this radical war and deceptively hides it behind the banner of "equality," LGBT conservatives will be at the frontlines fighting back. 

The Left is opening another front of their war in women’s sports and we will fight there as well. It’s one thing to support and include trans athletes. It’s quite another to demand that trans women have the right to compete in women’s sports, pretend that they don’t have an obvious physical advantage over their peers, smear those who disagree as anti-trans, and then cheer a win for "equality" while young women are shoved into second place and robbed of athletic and educational opportunities. 

If those demands sound ridiculous, it’s because they are. This is exactly what unfolded at the NCAA championships, when Lia Thomas, a trans woman, defeated nearly a dozen biological women and won the Division I national championship title in swimming. 

Tragically, many of the so-called "women’s advocacy groups" who claim to fight for women have abandoned these swimmers, either because they’re afraid of being smeared by the Left or are complicit in their crusade.


They may not fight for those women, but we will. LGBT conservatives refuse to bow down to the Left’s preaching that there are no physiological differences between men and women, we don’t believe that LGBT equality comes at the expense of desecrating women’s sports, and we reject the Democrats’ and the media’s dishonest smears that Republican efforts to protect women's sports are "anti-trans." 

There are common-sense solutions to this sports problem. Some have proposed creating separate sporting events for trans athletes; others have proposed requiring trans athletes to compete in competitions aligned with their bioligical sex. There’s a way to fairly include trans athletes in athletics without taking opportunities away from others or demonizing the trans community. But radical Leftists won’t even let the discussion happen.

Conservatives are waking up to what is going on. The Left is actively trying to rearrange our politics, our culture, our courts, and our schools to align with their radical woke views on sex, gender and race. It’s why the Florida law prompted such a fierce smear campaign from the Left; it’s why President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee shockingly refused to define what a woman is; and it’s why anyone concerned about the future of women’s sports is being slandered as anti-trans. 

From parents' rights to women’s sports, these battles are worth having to protect Western culture, and LGBT conservatives will continue to lead the charge.

[David Horn]

This is a perfect example of Woke Overreach. Setting a whole new woke agenda for an unwilling nation is a fool's errand, and the fools have been at it now for several years. Nothing ever changes that quickly barring a cataclysmic event that impacts most if not all of us. I don't discount mayhem, since the stage has been set for it to erupt. I just fail to see evidence of it coming any time soon -- especially in this social sphere. I'm a cisgendered heterosexual -- about as safe a place to be as there is. It I was otherwise, I would be fearful of the Woke crowd as much as the haters. They feed on each other. But the fact is, a serious confrontation in the LGBT space will not affect enough people to generate real change in the larger sense, and, perhaps, not even in gender awareness. Sad.

[pbrower2a]

(04-16-2022, 01:59 PM)David Horn Wrote: This is a perfect example of Woke Overreach.  Setting a whole new woke agenda for an unwilling nation is a fool's errand, and the fools have been at it now for several years.  Nothing ever changes that quickly barring a cataclysmic event that impacts most if not all of us.  I don't discount mayhem, since the stage has been set for it to erupt.  I just fail to see evidence of it coming any time soon -- especially in this social sphere.  I'm a cisgendered heterosexual -- about as safe a place to be as there is.  It I was otherwise, I would be fearful of the Woke crowd as much as the haters.  They feed on each other.  But the fact is, a serious confrontation in the LGBT space will not affect enough people to generate real change in the larger sense, and, perhaps, not even in gender awareness.  Sad.

Considering that the Hard Right now pushes an ultra-reactionary agenda that the evisceration of workers rights, privatization of anything possible in the public sector to rapacious monopolists, banning of abortion and possibly birth control and outlawing of homosexuality (need a population explosion for cannon fodder, cheap labor, and high rents), a denial of environmental regulations when those  cut even slightly into profits, tax cuts for the Master Class but higher taxes for everyone else, and low-quality education compatible with Protestant fundamentalism, then we have a Class Struggle that the elites expect to win. After such, life will not be so precious even if it is done in the names of Life, Liberty, and Prosperity. The common man will be responsible to people who have no responsibility except to themselves.

If things get bad enough i can quit taking my blood-pressure medicine.

All that is necessary is for people to act humanely toward each other and demand the same in politics. The Hard Right has mastered the black arts of identity politics, rage, and political theater.

[Eric the Green]

Right Mr. Brower. Conservatives have launched an all-out attack on people who are different; trans, gay/lesbian, people of color, immigrants, the poor, the middle class; you name it. This has gone far beyond whether trans people can play women's sports. Now we are not allowed to know our history or understand people who are gay. Healthcare givers who help trans people are now threatened with long prison terms. Women are being forced back into back alleys and coathangers if they don't want to carry a child, or even use an abortion pill. The conservatives are appealing to fear and prejudice to get votes for their billionaire masters. That's all it amounts to. The Republican Party becomes more openly Nazi every day. They are a total threat to our democracy, our republic, our climate, our world.

[David Horn]

(04-18-2022, 12:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Right Mr. Brower. Conservatives have launched an all-out attack on people who are different; trans, gay/lesbian, people of color, immigrants, the poor, the middle class; you name it. This has gone far beyond whether trans people can play women's sports. Now we are not allowed to know our history or understand people who are gay. Healthcare givers who help trans people are now threatened with long prison terms. Women are being forced back into back alleys and coathangers if they don't want to carry a child, or even use an abortion pill. The conservatives are appealing to fear and prejudice to get votes for their billionaire masters. That's all it amounts to. The Republican Party becomes more openly Nazi every day. They are a total threat to our democracy, our republic, our climate, our world.

Yes and no.  The Right has been building toward this time for decades, and now they are finally in a position to strike.  Ask yourself: how did they managed to get the lower middle class to support them, and that is beginning to include Black and Hispanic people in similar circumstance?  The answer isn't hard: the Left has marched around and waved signs but produced very little that has altered the lives of these people and taken credit for none that it has.  

The Right takes credit for all wins, shifts the blame for all failures; they never wanted to make anyone's lives better, they just wanted to make them bitter.  It's easy to play to people's fears and hates.  They added a faux honor or two: the hyper work ethic (those people are just lazy, but not you), protected gun rights and validation of their place in society above "them".

Elizabeth Warren has an op-ed in today's NY Times that is a call to arms.  She and Bernie both get it; neither is a spring chicken.  I'm afraid that we'll be waiting for another champion when the 2024 election results roll in.  Let's how that by 2028 we're still enough of a democracy for a real turnabout.  Its' not coming from Biden and, God knows, it's never coming from the GOP.

[pbrower2a]

(04-18-2022, 09:06 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-18-2022, 12:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Right Mr. Brower. Conservatives have launched an all-out attack on people who are different; trans, gay/lesbian, people of color, immigrants, the poor, the middle class; you name it. This has gone far beyond whether trans people can play women's sports. Now we are not allowed to know our history or understand people who are gay. Healthcare givers who help trans people are now threatened with long prison terms. Women are being forced back into back alleys and coathangers if they don't want to carry a child, or even use an abortion pill. The conservatives are appealing to fear and prejudice to get votes for their billionaire masters. That's all it amounts to. The Republican Party becomes more openly Nazi every day. They are a total threat to our democracy, our republic, our climate, our world.

Yes and no.  The Right has been building toward this time for decades, and now they are finally in a position to strike.  Ask yourself: how did they managed to get the lower middle class to support them, and that is beginning to include Black and Hispanic people in similar circumstance?  The answer isn't hard: the Left has marched around and waved signs but produced very little that has altered the lives of these people and taken credit for none that it has.

Quote:The Goldwater-Reagan Right has morphed into the Gingrich-Trump Right, which is itself a generational change. The Goldwater-Reagan Right was strictly economic in its objectives, believing that a government that fostered the enrichment of people already filthy rich would create the means (investment and economic growth) that would solve more problems than would a welfare state. Its assumption was that a bigger paycheck  (tax cuts might be a pittance for such people as hairdressers and janitors, but those would be real) and lower prices at K-Mart would be adequate compensation for the loosening of regulations, tax cuts for the super-rich, and the weakening of labor unions. If life is better, then few have grounds for complaint (other than the pitiable, helpless people to be obliged to fend for themselves and fail). The Gingrich-Trump Right makes no pretense about any sympathy toward anyone not rich. This Right is far more compatible with wealth-cult Christianity (the "Gospel of Greed") that sees failure in people when the agenda of enriching th e Right People at the expense of everyone else consigns everyone else to economic failure. Their ideal is a world that divides neatly between "winners" and "losers", with winners  who have taken advantage of breaks and then consigning the losers with few exceptions (those who have succeeded with extreme efforts in gambles unlikely to pay off. Carry this to its logical conclusion, and the elites ride rough-shod over the masses and fault the masses for moaning when they hurt.

The GI's, Right or Left, morphed into irrelevancy due to the usual effect of time, and so will Boomers, Right and Left. It is easy to see clownish characters among the X Right (Madison Cawthorn, Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz) but do not be fooled: the Right of Generation X can sacrifice these  on behalf of right-wing figures of unrelieved elitism, ruthlessness, and sadism. They believe even more firmly in an Evil Empire internally evil for extreme hierarchy, repression of science in favor of ideology, religion that endorses uncritical obedience instead of the clear demands of rabbinical and Gospel teachings on responsibilities toward the poor, hyper-natalist policies intended to foster a population boom (especially among "trustworthy" white people),crony capitalism, and wars for profit. If this sounds like a Marxist critique of capitalism, then such reflects that bad capitalist orders all fit a Marxist critique of capitalism!

Quote:The Right takes credit for all wins, shifts the blame for all failures; they never wanted to make anyone's lives better, they just wanted to make them bitter.  It's easy to play to people's fears and hates.  They added a faux honor or two: the hyper work ethic (those people are just lazy, but not you), protected gun rights and validation of their place in society above "them".

We are in a struggle to determine whether our old virtues or our old vices (vices are never genuine innovations) will prevail. At times, conservatives and liberals have split in their relative valuations of the virtues. If it were simply an inversion between the emphases that Democrats and Republicans had in the 1950's, then we would simply see inversions of electoral results by the states. I took delight to show the similarities between Eisenhower (R, 1952 and 1956) and Obama (D, 2008 and 2012) then recognize similarities between the two (caution, integrity, respect for expertise and learning, reverence for protocol and precedent, and recognition for the merit of tradition even if those are not one's own).

Note well that Donald Trump is about everything that Obama isn't. I'm not going to say that Ike's opponent Adlai Stevenson was an awful person. John McCain had his virtues. Mitt Romney may have had his faults but at least he could see through the partisan haze that Donald Trump is a horrible person.

Quote:Elizabeth Warren has an op-ed in today's NY Times that is a call to arms.  She and Bernie both get it; neither is a spring chicken.  I'm afraid that we'll be waiting for another champion when the 2024 election results roll in.  Let's how that by 2028 we're still enough of a democracy for a real turnabout.  Its' not coming from Biden and, God knows, it's never coming from the GOP.

Yup!
 

[Eric the Green]

(04-19-2022, 05:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(04-18-2022, 09:06 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-18-2022, 12:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Right Mr. Brower. Conservatives have launched an all-out attack on people who are different; trans, gay/lesbian, people of color, immigrants, the poor, the middle class; you name it. This has gone far beyond whether trans people can play women's sports. Now we are not allowed to know our history or understand people who are gay. Healthcare givers who help trans people are now threatened with long prison terms. Women are being forced back into back alleys and coathangers if they don't want to carry a child, or even use an abortion pill. The conservatives are appealing to fear and prejudice to get votes for their billionaire masters. That's all it amounts to. The Republican Party becomes more openly Nazi every day. They are a total threat to our democracy, our republic, our climate, our world.

Yes and no.  The Right has been building toward this time for decades, and now they are finally in a position to strike.  Ask yourself: how did they managed to get the lower middle class to support them, and that is beginning to include Black and Hispanic people in similar circumstance?  The answer isn't hard: the Left has marched around and waved signs but produced very little that has altered the lives of these people and taken credit for none that it has.

The Right got a good portion of the lower mostly-white middle class to support them because the Right managed to brainwash them in a country in which ignorance and deception is as common as ants and cockroaches. In a country with a poor education system that no longer includes civics, but which has plenty of churches that teach prejudice and belief in delusions, it is not so hard to peddle "self-reliance" memes that pin the blame for their troubles and conditions on welfare recipients, immigrants and taxes. Neoliberalism is very tempting; it says government is the problem and that taxes and regulations are their problem. Lower taxes is always an easy sell. Most poorly-educated people just can't see a bigger picture.

The Right has thus maintained and expanded its power over the last 41 years and counting, and that is the main reason the Left has not succeeded. The Left has never been in a position to make the difference in peoples' lives that it promises. When it has power, it has to compromise with the neoliberal power, and such victories as it has achieved were only obtained by moderate candidates who adopted some neoliberal tenets and policies. 
But even so, even our moderately "Left" presidents only have power for less than one term of Congress before the people withdraw their support from even the tepid measures that it offers. And that is about to happen yet again. Since the people have been brainwashed and convinced to support the Right, they are not able or willing to support even a moderate-left president by giving them a congress beyond even one of its terms. There has not been a single case in our lifetimes of the people giving such presidents more than a single congressional term at most, and the only time that this single congressional term was enough time to accomplish anything substantial was after the "Left"'s most popular leader had been shot down and martyred by someone in Dallas TX who could never have been satisfied with anything our government would or could ever do.

You made the good point David that the moderate Bill Clinton could have done away with the filibuster, but his moderate Democratic congress was afraid to do this because it would come back to bite them when Republicans got the majority again, as they were sure to do, and I can't blame them for that. As for the moderately-left Obama, he supposedly had a filibuster proof congress, but this was only for 7 months, and even then some of those Democrats were also moderates who would not agree to any substantially-leftist programs. After this 7 months were over, Obama's presidency was effectively over too. Republicans in the last 40 years of neoliberalism have never been willing to act for the people. Their only interest is to keep it from taking action in order to protect their clientele: the rich, and the prejudiced.

[quote, David]
Let's (s)how that by 2028 we're still enough of a democracy for a real turnabout. Its' not coming from Biden and, God knows, it's never coming from the GOP. [unquote]

It is most unlikely that an administration promoting real change can win as a first turning begins. How will we get back our democracy once the Republicans control congress again for another 2 or 3 terms? They are lined up solid against democracy already, and have already outlawed it. Biden is certainly not to blame. He has done as well as anyone else could have done. The people are to blame; they did not give their president a congress, and now they even want to take away even the lousy congress that he has. No president can govern effectively without a congress. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were as charismatic and persuasive as any candidates could ever be, and they were not given even a moderate a congress for more than 7 months, and even that just for only one time.

And as great as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are, they don't even come up to Biden's level in that department.

[David Horn]

(04-20-2022, 03:12 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Right has thus maintained and expanded its power over the last 41 years and counting, and that is the main reason the Left has not succeeded. The Left has never been in a position to make the difference in peoples' lives that it promises. When it has power, it has to compromise with the neoliberal power, and such victories as it has achieved were only obtained by moderate candidates who adopted some neoliberal tenets and policies. 
But even so, even our moderately "Left" presidents only have power for less than one term of Congress before the people withdraw their support from even the tepid measures that it offers. And that is about to happen yet again. Since the people have been brainwashed and convinced to support the Right, they are not able or willing to support even a moderate-left president by giving them a congress beyond even one of its terms. There has not been a single case in our lifetimes of the people giving such presidents more than a single congressional term at most, and the only time that this single congressional term was enough time to accomplish anything substantial was after the "Left's most popular leader had been shot down and martyred by someone in Dallas TX who could never have been satisfied with anything our government would or could ever do.

You made my point here.  Milquetoast advocacy, especially when it's cloaked in complex policy wonkery, cannot and will not motivate anyone -- even the more predisposed.  In short, the Left has committed political suicide, and can't seem to understand how or why.  They better learn and fast!

I finally saw a politician of the left who embodies what I'm saying here: Abby Finkenauer of Iowa.  She's running for US Senate in the Iowa Democratic primary to oppose Chuck Grassley.  Wisely, she is avoiding the "woke" issues and concentrating on governance and fairness in the economy -- supporting the very people Donald Trump used as cord wood.  More important, she's a real firebrand and takes no prisoners.  Whether she can get the nod (two traditional Democrats are also running) is still TBD, but she has the mien of someone with a new message to Dems they are in dire need of hearing.

Eric Wrote:You made the good point David that the moderate Bill Clinton could have done away with the filibuster, but his moderate Democratic congress was afraid to do this because it would come back to bite them when Republicans got the majority again, as they were sure to do, and I can't blame them for that. As for the moderately-left Obama, he supposedly had a filibuster proof congress, but this was only for 7 months, and even then some of those Democrats were also moderates who would not agree to any substantially-leftist programs. After this 7 months were over, Obama's presidency was effectively over too. Republicans in the last 40 years of neoliberalism have never been willing to act for the people. Their only interest is to keep it from taking action in order to protect their clientele: the rich, and the prejudiced.

It's simple: you strike when the iron is hot!  Dithering (yes I'm talking to you Merrick Garland) will only lead to yet another loss.  People expect effort if not results, and hiding behind procedure won't get any politician more than a full-on face full of contempt.  Sorry, but no award for being earnest.

Eric Wrote:

David Wrote:Let's (s)how that by 2028 we're still enough of a democracy for a real turnabout.  Its' not coming from Biden and, God knows, it's never coming from the GOP.

It is most unlikely that an administration promoting real change can win as a first turning begins. How will we get back our democracy once the Republicans control congress again for another 2 or 3 terms? They are lined up solid against democracy already, and have already outlawed it. Biden is certainly not to blame. He has done as well as anyone else could have done. The people are to blame; they did not give their president a congress, and now they even want to take away even the lousy congress that he has. No president can govern effectively without a congress. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were as charismatic and persuasive as any candidates could ever be, and they were not given even a moderate a congress for more than 7 months, and even that just for only one time.

And as great as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are, they don't even come up to Biden's level in that department.

Biden is a Silent at a time we need anything but.  Even when he tries to be passionate, it comes across as Grandpa telling the Grandkids to behave.  Both Bernie and Elizabeth bring the fire, and that's how you get followers.  James Clyburn, another Silent of course, decided we needed a calm voice.  No, we didn't!

[beechnut79]

(04-20-2022, 08:44 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-20-2022, 03:12 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Right has thus maintained and expanded its power over the last 41 years and counting, and that is the main reason the Left has not succeeded. The Left has never been in a position to make the difference in peoples' lives that it promises. When it has power, it has to compromise with the neoliberal power, and such victories as it has achieved were only obtained by moderate candidates who adopted some neoliberal tenets and policies. 
But even so, even our moderately "Left" presidents only have power for less than one term of Congress before the people withdraw their support from even the tepid measures that it offers. And that is about to happen yet again. Since the people have been brainwashed and convinced to support the Right, they are not able or willing to support even a moderate-left president by giving them a congress beyond even one of its terms. There has not been a single case in our lifetimes of the people giving such presidents more than a single congressional term at most, and the only time that this single congressional term was enough time to accomplish anything substantial was after the "Left's most popular leader had been shot down and martyred by someone in Dallas TX who could never have been satisfied with anything our government would or could ever do.

You made my point here.  Milquetoast advocacy, especially when it's cloaked in complex policy wonkery, cannot and will not motivate anyone -- even the more predisposed.  In short, the Left has committed political suicide, and can't seem to understand how or why.  They better learn and fast!

I finally saw a politician of the left who embodies what I'm saying here: Abby Finkenauer of Iowa.  She's running for US Senate in the Iowa Democratic primary to oppose Chuck Grassley.  Wisely, she is avoiding the "woke" issues and concentrating on governance and fairness in the economy -- supporting the very people Donald Trump used as cord wood.  More important, she's a real firebrand and takes no prisoners.  Whether she can get the nod (two traditional Democrats are also running) is still TBD, but she has the mien of someone with a new message to Dems they are in dire need of hearing.

Eric Wrote:You made the good point David that the moderate Bill Clinton could have done away with the filibuster, but his moderate Democratic congress was afraid to do this because it would come back to bite them when Republicans got the majority again, as they were sure to do, and I can't blame them for that. As for the moderately-left Obama, he supposedly had a filibuster proof congress, but this was only for 7 months, and even then some of those Democrats were also moderates who would not agree to any substantially-leftist programs. After this 7 months were over, Obama's presidency was effectively over too. Republicans in the last 40 years of neoliberalism have never been willing to act for the people. Their only interest is to keep it from taking action in order to protect their clientele: the rich, and the prejudiced.

It's simple: you strike when the iron is hot!  Dithering (yes I'm talking to you Merrick Garland) will only lead to yet another loss.  People expect effort if not results, and hiding behind procedure won't get any politician more than a full-on face full of contempt.  Sorry, but no award for being earnest.

Eric Wrote:

David Wrote:Let's (s)how that by 2028 we're still enough of a democracy for a real turnabout.  Its' not coming from Biden and, God knows, it's never coming from the GOP.

It is most unlikely that an administration promoting real change can win as a first turning begins. How will we get back our democracy once the Republicans control congress again for another 2 or 3 terms? They are lined up solid against democracy already, and have already outlawed it. Biden is certainly not to blame. He has done as well as anyone else could have done. The people are to blame; they did not give their president a congress, and now they even want to take away even the lousy congress that he has. No president can govern effectively without a congress. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were as charismatic and persuasive as any candidates could ever be, and they were not given even a moderate a congress for more than 7 months, and even that just for only one time.

And as great as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are, they don't even come up to Biden's level in that department.

Biden is a Silent at a time we need anything but.  Even when he tries to be passionate, it comes across as Grandpa telling the Grandkids to behave.  Both Bernie and Elizabeth bring the fire, and that's how you get followers.  James Clyburn, another Silent of course, decided we needed a calm voice.  No, we didn't!

The oligarchy made sure that neither Bernie nor Liz could succeed at winning the nomination, did they not?

[David Horn]

(04-20-2022, 12:33 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: The oligarchy made sure that neither Bernie nor Liz could succeed at winning the nomination, did they not?

So far, yes. Is that permanent? Hard to say at this point. People are getting the hint that things are not what they seem and almost everything is broken. Maybe that's a start of something better ... or possibly even worse.

4Ts are supposed to rectify conflict, but how is never pre-determined. We may get lucky; we may not.

[Mikebert]

I cannot remember whether I posted this here. I have written a book about our current crisis. It is the result of 25 years of inquiry. Although heavily influenced by S&H, I ultimately rejected their generational model as not fitting the data and went with Peter Turchin's secular cycle concept. I was already working on this when the old T4T site went down and there is a section here on this stuff. I have gone deep into this theory, employing new fields like cultural evolution as an adjunct to Turchin's cliodynamics, and incorporating Hyman Minsky's and Steve Keen's theories to form a comprehensive account of how these crises form and how one can resolve them successfully. 

I am not a good writer and the subject is complex so the book is a hard read. But I am trying to get some feedback about whether I should bother publishing.

America-in-crisis.pdf (neocities.org)

[David Horn]

(04-20-2022, 06:18 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I cannot remember whether I posted this here. I have written a book about our current crisis. It is the result of 25 years of inquiry. Although heavily influenced by S&H, I ultimately rejected their generational model as not fitting the data and went with Peter Turchin's secular cycle concept. I was already working on this when the old T4T site went down and there is a section here on this stuff. I have gone deep into this theory, employing new fields like cultural evolution as an adjunct to Turchin's cliodynamics, and incorporating Hyman Minsky's and Steve Keen's theories to form a comprehensive account of how these crises form and how one can resolve them successfully. 

I am not a good writer and the subject is complex so the book is a hard read. But I am trying to get some feedback about whether I should bother publishing.

America-in-crisis.pdf (neocities.org)

I started through your book in the past.  I'll try to finish it now.  You're right -- it's a tough read, but no moreso than Thomas Picketty's Capital in the 21st Century, which I tackled in the past.  In fact, some of your ideas and his overlap.  

You mentioned that you rejected S&H in favor of Turchin, but I don't think that any single model is likely to be right.  As Yogi Berra noted, predictions are hard, especially about the future.  I'll add that it's also true that the past is far from flat -- certainly since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.  But I think we're seeing an emerging pattern for today: the explosion of information sources has led the world to see information as inexact.  In fact, it's assumed that multiple versions of reality are equally true, with everyone choosing their preferred option. Only a societal reset will change that.  Frankly, I'm losing faith in our ability to reset our expectations short of a major war, and that's too scary to contemplate.  If you have other options, I'm all ears and eyes.

[Eric the Green]

(04-20-2022, 12:33 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(04-20-2022, 08:44 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-20-2022, 03:12 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Right has thus maintained and expanded its power over the last 41 years and counting, and that is the main reason the Left has not succeeded. The Left has never been in a position to make the difference in peoples' lives that it promises. When it has power, it has to compromise with the neoliberal power, and such victories as it has achieved were only obtained by moderate candidates who adopted some neoliberal tenets and policies. 
But even so, even our moderately "Left" presidents only have power for less than one term of Congress before the people withdraw their support from even the tepid measures that it offers. And that is about to happen yet again. Since the people have been brainwashed and convinced to support the Right, they are not able or willing to support even a moderate-left president by giving them a congress beyond even one of its terms. There has not been a single case in our lifetimes of the people giving such presidents more than a single congressional term at most, and the only time that this single congressional term was enough time to accomplish anything substantial was after the "Left's most popular leader had been shot down and martyred by someone in Dallas TX who could never have been satisfied with anything our government would or could ever do.

You made my point here.  Milquetoast advocacy, especially when it's cloaked in complex policy wonkery, cannot and will not motivate anyone -- even the more predisposed.  In short, the Left has committed political suicide, and can't seem to understand how or why.  They better learn and fast!

I finally saw a politician of the left who embodies what I'm saying here: Abby Finkenauer of Iowa.  She's running for US Senate in the Iowa Democratic primary to oppose Chuck Grassley.  Wisely, she is avoiding the "woke" issues and concentrating on governance and fairness in the economy -- supporting the very people Donald Trump used as cord wood.  More important, she's a real firebrand and takes no prisoners.  Whether she can get the nod (two traditional Democrats are also running) is still TBD, but she has the mien of someone with a new message to Dems they are in dire need of hearing.

Eric Wrote:You made the good point David that the moderate Bill Clinton could have done away with the filibuster, but his moderate Democratic congress was afraid to do this because it would come back to bite them when Republicans got the majority again, as they were sure to do, and I can't blame them for that. As for the moderately-left Obama, he supposedly had a filibuster proof congress, but this was only for 7 months, and even then some of those Democrats were also moderates who would not agree to any substantially-leftist programs. After this 7 months were over, Obama's presidency was effectively over too. Republicans in the last 40 years of neoliberalism have never been willing to act for the people. Their only interest is to keep it from taking action in order to protect their clientele: the rich, and the prejudiced.

It's simple: you strike when the iron is hot!  Dithering (yes I'm talking to you Merrick Garland) will only lead to yet another loss.  People expect effort if not results, and hiding behind procedure won't get any politician more than a full-on face full of contempt.  Sorry, but no award for being earnest.

Eric Wrote:

David Wrote:Let's (s)how that by 2028 we're still enough of a democracy for a real turnabout.  Its' not coming from Biden and, God knows, it's never coming from the GOP.

It is most unlikely that an administration promoting real change can win as a first turning begins. How will we get back our democracy once the Republicans control congress again for another 2 or 3 terms? They are lined up solid against democracy already, and have already outlawed it. Biden is certainly not to blame. He has done as well as anyone else could have done. The people are to blame; they did not give their president a congress, and now they even want to take away even the lousy congress that he has. No president can govern effectively without a congress. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were as charismatic and persuasive as any candidates could ever be, and they were not given even a moderate a congress for more than 7 months, and even that just for only one time.

And as great as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are, they don't even come up to Biden's level in that department.

Biden is a Silent at a time we need anything but.  Even when he tries to be passionate, it comes across as Grandpa telling the Grandkids to behave.  Both Bernie and Elizabeth bring the fire, and that's how you get followers.  James Clyburn, another Silent of course, decided we needed a calm voice.  No, we didn't!

The oligarchy made sure that neither Bernie nor Liz could succeed at winning the nomination, did they not?

That is not correct. The voters in Democratic primaries made that choice.

The oligarchy supports the Republicans, and their politicians and their voters set up our political and judicial process so that the oligarchs benefit from it.

You didn't quite get my point, David. Granted that Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale did not fill the bill of a candidate that connected with the people, and they lost to less-wonky Republican candidates. But Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were as appealing and articulate as presidential candidates as we are EVER likely to get. They were more than policy wonks; they connected with people. What has kept us subjected to neoliberalism and decline is not the politicians; it is because of the voters. No matter how non-milquetoast a president is, (s)he can do nothing without a congress, and neither could JFK, Carter, Clinton nor Obama. Because the stupid USA voters withdrew support from them in the midterms, and then also did not vote for a Democratic Party successor! We the people voted for every political problem that we now have! NOT our leaders.

And this was partly because young people who do not know civics or who can't look below the surface, and because some on the Left expected more results from their president than any president could ever deliver in such a backward country as the USA, and blamed HIM instead of themselves. And so they didn't vote in the midterms and thereby screwed us up even more.

The horoscope scores indicate that Biden, a boomer/silent cusper, is a better communicator than either Silent Bernie Sanders or Boomer Elizabeth Warren, and has a better chance to win the presidency than they. And that applies also to every other 2020 Democratic candidate.

Bernie (whom I voted for) and Liz did not have the fire to bring enough of their voters to the polls. Biden did, and he beat Trump's fire too.

I mentioned this before, but great as Elizabeth Warren is, she is also Crusader Rabbit. She's a dead-ringer. Crusaders don't win the USA presidency, except for once in 230 years (TR).

The point is not to argue over this. The point is not to find a politician or a generation to blame. The point is, how do we get liberal young people to vote in midterms?

I would say one thing we can do is share this Obama clip. https://youtu.be/7hZgg_KjvDQ?t=3246

[JasonBlack]

(04-16-2022, 01:59 PM)David Horn Wrote: This is a perfect example of Woke Overreach. Setting a whole new woke agenda for an unwilling nation is a fool's errand, and the fools have been at it now for several years. Nothing ever changes that quickly barring a cataclysmic event that impacts most if not all of us. I don't discount mayhem, since the stage has been set for it to erupt. I just fail to see evidence of it coming any time soon -- especially in this social sphere. I'm a cisgendered heterosexual -- about as safe a place to be as there is. It I was otherwise, I would be fearful of the Woke crowd as much as the haters. They feed on each other. But the fact is, a serious confrontation in the LGBT space will not affect enough people to generate real change in the larger sense, and, perhaps, not even in gender awareness. Sad.

More or less my thoughts as a conservative gay man. Many of the more toxic elements of woke culture are not new concepts. What is new is their breakout into the mainstream establishment, away from the academic towers and nightclub backrooms where they had previous been cloistered away.

When I was younger, I still had some hope that we would be able to live the kind of normal lives that straight people often take for granted. Gay rights were supposed to give LGBT people the opportunity to embrace the stability, loyalty and simplicity of traditional marriage, but instead they did the opposite: attacking them at every turn, to the point where mainstream straight culture has adopted more norms from gay culture than the reverse.

I need to remind myself to view other gay people with some compassion, given that, before circa mid 2000s, we really had nowhere to go to meet others like us other than nightclubs, entertainment districts, etc. However, that doesn't make the norms which were adopted in such settings any less self-destructive: serial monogamy, alcoholism/drug addiction, histrionics, youth obsession and all manner of nasty ways of dealing with shame and lack of intimacy.

In many respects, I view many liberal causes in a similar vein, albeit usually from a standpoint of less personal experience. People who were hurt in the past seek to distance themselves from those who would persecute them, but often at the cost of casting aside more beneficial norms of behavior: norms like monogamy, frugality, close family bonds....we have romanticized rebellion, sexual degeneracy, histrionic celebrity idolization and other destructive psychological patterns to the point where they have contributed to wide spread mental illness and anxiety (one could argue the mental illness is a result of persecution, but as we're seeing the rates climb higher and higher as people get more and more rights and less and less persecution, that would be a difficult case to make).

Hopefully, when all of this settles down, society can enter a new era. Not one of returning to rigid gender roles or persecution of sexual minorities, but of....sobriety. A rest from the angry, shame-ridden circuses and psychological death spirals that have taken the gay community hostage.

[Eric the Green]

Aren't most LBGTQ people involved in monogamy? I think you exaggerate the reckless rebellion and histrionics in gay culture. Perhaps it seems that way from the safe distance of a red state, viewed on conservative media perhaps?

If anything, histrionic persecution and attack on non-straight-white communities has escalated since Trump came down that escalator, and since Tucker Carlson took up his cause. We see more and more Charlottesvilles and Buffalos, and more and more attempts to rob them of their voting rights.

[JasonBlack]

(05-15-2022, 09:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Aren't most LBGTQ people involved in monogamy? I think you exaggerate the reckless rebellion and histrionics in gay culture. Perhaps it seems that way from the safe distance of a red state, viewed on conservative media perhaps?

If anything, histrionic persecution and attack on non-straight-white communities has escalated since Trump came down that escalator, and since Tucker Carlson took up his cause. We see more and more Charlottesvilles and Buffalos, and more and more attempts to rob them of their voting rights.

I lived in Chicago for half a decade. I'm not sheltered when it comes to gay culture (though I do likely have a lower threshold for what is considered degenerate, as far as both gay and straight culture are concerned)

[Eric the Green]

(05-15-2022, 09:13 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-15-2022, 09:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Aren't most LBGTQ people involved in monogamy? I think you exaggerate the reckless rebellion and histrionics in gay culture. Perhaps it seems that way from the safe distance of a red state, viewed on conservative media perhaps?

If anything, histrionic persecution and attack on non-straight-white communities has escalated since Trump came down that escalator, and since Tucker Carlson took up his cause. We see more and more Charlottesvilles and Buffalos, and more and more attempts to rob them of their voting rights.

I lived in Chicago for half a decade. I'm not sheltered when it comes to gay culture (though I do likely have a lower threshold for what is considered degenerate, as far as both gay and straight culture are concerned)

It may not take very long to get a distorted view of what's happening if one lives in a red state. Maybe that's not true for you, I don't know, but it also seems to me that red states are in anything getting redder despite migration trends. Living in the SF/SJ Bay Area I have my share of acquaitance with LGBTQ people, and I think the majority are monogamous. Even if not, there's nothing wrong with playing the field either. As for histrionics, maybe what you see is just what I would call having some fun. But I'm not sure what you refer to.

One thing I have recently become informed about is how many trans-gender people of color are murdered just for who they are. And Republicans are taking advantage of homophobia to wage culture wars against gays by passing ludricrous laws. So to say there's no more need for gay and trans social movements seems incorrect to me. I would not deny that people in social movements can become extreme and annoying in their defensiveness, and that does not help their cause with other people.

[JasonBlack]

(05-16-2022, 02:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-15-2022, 09:13 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-15-2022, 09:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Aren't most LBGTQ people involved in monogamy? I think you exaggerate the reckless rebellion and histrionics in gay culture. Perhaps it seems that way from the safe distance of a red state, viewed on conservative media perhaps?

If anything, histrionic persecution and attack on non-straight-white communities has escalated since Trump came down that escalator, and since Tucker Carlson took up his cause. We see more and more Charlottesvilles and Buffalos, and more and more attempts to rob them of their voting rights.

I lived in Chicago for half a decade. I'm not sheltered when it comes to gay culture (though I do likely have a lower threshold for what is considered degenerate, as far as both gay and straight culture are concerned)

It may not take very long to get a distorted view of what's happening if one lives in a red state. Maybe that's not true for you, I don't know, but it also seems to me that red states are in anything getting redder despite migration trends. Living in the SF/SJ Bay Area I have my share of acquaitance with LGBTQ people, and I think the majority are monogamous. Even if not, there's nothing wrong with playing the field either. As for histrionics, maybe what you see is just what I would call having some fun. But I'm not sure what you refer to.

One thing I have recently become informed about is how many trans-gender people of color are murdered just for who they are. And Republicans are taking advantage of homophobia to wage culture wars against gays by passing ludricrous laws. So to say there's no more need for gay and trans social movements seems incorrect to me. I would not deny that people in social movements can become extreme and annoying in their defensiveness, and that does not help their cause with other people.

The most I'm willing to grant this is that it's an immature phase a lot of young males go through. It's not supposed to be the norm for people to either just have sex or go through strings of serial monogamy until they're 40 and childless. I'm not suggesting we make anything illegal here, but the culture of cheap sex, disloyalty and lack of deeper intimacy has fucked a lot of people up over the last few decades. It used to be largely a gay cultural trend, now straight people have adopted it.

[Eric the Green]

(05-23-2022, 08:50 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-16-2022, 02:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-15-2022, 09:13 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-15-2022, 09:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Aren't most LBGTQ people involved in monogamy? I think you exaggerate the reckless rebellion and histrionics in gay culture. Perhaps it seems that way from the safe distance of a red state, viewed on conservative media perhaps?

If anything, histrionic persecution and attack on non-straight-white communities has escalated since Trump came down that escalator, and since Tucker Carlson took up his cause. We see more and more Charlottesvilles and Buffalos, and more and more attempts to rob them of their voting rights.

I lived in Chicago for half a decade. I'm not sheltered when it comes to gay culture (though I do likely have a lower threshold for what is considered degenerate, as far as both gay and straight culture are concerned)

It may not take very long to get a distorted view of what's happening if one lives in a red state. Maybe that's not true for you, I don't know, but it also seems to me that red states are in anything getting redder despite migration trends. Living in the SF/SJ Bay Area I have my share of acquaitance with LGBTQ people, and I think the majority are monogamous. Even if not, there's nothing wrong with playing the field either. As for histrionics, maybe what you see is just what I would call having some fun. But I'm not sure what you refer to.

One thing I have recently become informed about is how many trans-gender people of color are murdered just for who they are. And Republicans are taking advantage of homophobia to wage culture wars against gays by passing ludricrous laws. So to say there's no more need for gay and trans social movements seems incorrect to me. I would not deny that people in social movements can become extreme and annoying in their defensiveness, and that does not help their cause with other people.

The most I'm willing to grant this is that it's an immature phase a lot of young males go through. It's not supposed to be the norm for people to either just have sex or go through strings of serial monogamy until they're 40 and childless. I'm not suggesting we make anything illegal here, but the culture of cheap sex, disloyalty and lack of deeper intimacy has fucked a lot of people up over the last few decades. It used to be largely a gay cultural trend, now straight people have adopted it.

I don't care that much about what is "supposed to be the norm." It seems to me that the traditional norms have supported tyranny and violence through the ages. But I don't know what is right about sex. A part of me wants to respect people enough not to use them for sex objects and pleasure without intimacy. Another part of me enjoyed the relative ease of availability of sex in the late 20th century, without which I might not have "had any." It seems natural for younger people to play the field and to be promiscuous more than older people. This has often been true, despite religious and legal restraints. It also offers the chance to find the right partner, which in times of "old norms" was not permitted. It is also useful in our times of overpopulation to separate sex from bearing children. On the other hand, there are drawbacks to free-wheeling sexual lifestyles, like hurt feelings, disease and irresponsible childbirths. So to have a moral compass is necessary. Treat others as you would wish to be treated.

What is certain is that people need to be accepted despite their approach to gender and sex, and not used a political pawns to stir up prejudice and violence and get more people to vote for market libertarians disguised as culture warriors.

[JasonBlack]

(05-23-2022, 02:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't care that much about what is "supposed to be the norm." It seems to me that the traditional norms have supported tyranny and violence through the ages.

I usually don't either, but with regards to issues where they make a practical difference.

Quote:But I don't know what is right about sex. A part of me wants to respect people enough not to use them for sex objects and pleasure without intimacy. Another part of me enjoyed the relative ease of availability of sex in the late 20th century, without which I might not have "had any."

Many studies actually show that the people who get the best and most frequent sex....are married couples.

Quote:It seems natural for younger people to play the field and to be promiscuous more than older people.

For men this is definitely true. For women it's a mixed bag, as youth lends itself to greater hedonism, emotionality and impulsivity, while women's sexual drive tends to peak nearer the end of their fertility window (the body's "I've only got one last chance!" if you will).

Quote:This has often been true, despite religious and legal restraints. It also offers the chance to find the right partner, which in times of "old norms" was not permitted.

I don't think either the old norms or the new norms offer a good chance to find the right partner. The former was sexually repressive, the latter a foolhardy opening of the floodgates and telling young people "just figure it out". It turns out...the majority of men, women, straight people, gay people and everything in between.....have pretty self-destructive notions of what they're attracted to. Attraction is not a choice, but I think we also need to better educate people on what many of the most toxic (if not dangerous) pitfalls look like, and alternatives to avoid them.

Quote:It is also useful in our times of overpopulation to separate sex from bearing children.

There is no overpopulation problem is the United States (since that is the country for which we are currently discussing policy). That's happening primarily in impoverished African nations, and, to a lesser extent, areas of southeast Asia. The United States, Europe, China and Japan don't have anything approaching an over-population problem.

Quote:On the other hand, there are drawbacks to free-wheeling sexual lifestyles, like hurt feelings, disease and irresponsible childbirths. So to have a moral compass is necessary. Treat others as you would wish to be treated.

that's a start, but I would argue that, in practice, relationships are an extremely complicated topic that most people could use better education on. Obviously, a lot of it will come down to experience, but we should at least give people as many tools as possible to mitigate the riskiest behaviors.

Quote:What is certain is that people need to be accepted despite their approach to gender and sex, and not used a political pawns to stir up prejudice and violence and get more people to vote for market libertarians disguised as culture warriors.

I don't think those are equivalent (there is no "approach to gender". transgenderism is an issue of brain chemistry, hormone levels and, often, developmental issues in the womb). Nonetheless, I tend to prefer not bullying people 99% of the time, and, like a good libertarian, prefer to just avoid people I morally disapprove of rather than trying to use the government to straightjacket them.