I think the person to follow is Reihan Salam. He wrote a book with Ross Douthat back in 2008 which was very policy heavy which argued that the GOP needed to fundamentally change it's direction and reconcile some of its philosophical tenets to a more overtly activist approach. Salam identifies as a "Reformicon", which is a tiny, tiny movement within American conservatism, but Salam is also the intellectual muscle behind whatever Marco Rubio is doing behind the scenes as he considers waging a primary challenge against Trump in 2020. So I'd encourage you to take a peek at his book, or check out this video from 2008, with Douthat and Salam talking about their book:



It's one of the more promising, innovative and thoughtful intellectual schools within conservatism right now, but whether -- even in extraordinary circumstances -- it could become the dominant ideology of the GOP... I'm doubtful. In that vein, I'd add also that the book was written at a time before people really anticipated a radical realignment to the two parties, and I'd say that many of axes upon which that realignment will occur probably weren't those that Salam and Douthat imagined as being the most relevant in 2008.

I know, right? It's so weird how our elected officials create laws to address issues in our society.

Everyone does this: right, left middling, Democrat, Republican, whatever. This is the nature of American politics (especially as of late). Always trying to capitalize on whatever tragedy or misfortune is at hand. Shooting? Ban machine guns and raise the gun purchase age. Border issues? Keep Families Together act. Opioid epidemic? Introduce a bill. Trump making deals with China? Introduce a bill. Prisons over-crowded? Pass a bill. This has been par for the course for at least thirty years. Sometimes they even introduce legislation so quickly and poorly prepared, they have to vote against their own legislation.

Well... do they really? Sometimes?

yeah, those awful opportunists want to use the opioid epidemic to help people with addictions.. what partisan bull****!

This is true. A lot of time congressman will talk about now they "fought in Congress for" whatever, but on CSPAN, you can see they're talking to an empty room and will accomplish absolutely nothing, but it's technically on record.

Note that the total amount of proposed legislation has been declining, not increasing (down from 26k in the 1970s to 12k in Obama's last year).

The video doesn't talk about their stance so much, so I'll have to check out the book. Thanks for the reference, I'll try to read it here sometime in the next few months.

But: it's "offensive" now if you acknowledge that the interests of certain minority groups aren't harmonious, and they actually compete with each other.

At least personally, I haven't commented on the pick because I know little about Kavanaugh. People are saying he's more moderate, which is good. Some people were also saying the sky is falling, which it isn't. When I'm talking about the Koch brothers subverting the courts, this goes much beyond just the SCOTUS nomination.

It is however insulting to insinuate that we're all easily offended at the slightest criticism or provocation and that you think we're too emotional to notice obvious facts like that. It's a condescending statement and an obvious thinly veiled jab at PC culture.

But... come on, you're simultaneously claiming that it's insulting for me to say that you're easily offended, when, at the same time, you claim I've condescended to you (i.e., that I've insulted you), when I haven't actually said any of the things you've accused me of saying (e.g., that "you all" -- whoever that's supposed to be -- "are all easily offended," for instance).

But: it's "offensive" now if you acknowledge that the interests of certain minority groups aren't harmonious, and they actually compete with each other.

I also haven't accused you of saying anything

It is however insulting to insinuate that we're all easily offended at the slightest criticism or provocation and that you think we're too emotional to notice obvious facts like that.

which are your exact words, particularly the use of quotations around "offensive", typically suggests that the groups in question are overly emotional and too sensitive and should "calm down". It's the "snowflake" statement without explicitly stating it.

I don't particularly care if that was you're intent or not. When you repeat right-wing talking points, I'll see right-wing talking points.

And I don't particularly care if you think I'm reciting "right-wing" talking points -- I think that's your loss that you'd think that anything outside of whatever the left's narrow orthodoxies are in 2018 must be morally degenerate. If anything, this sort of rhetoric only goes to show how dogmatic, inflexible, and -- frankly -- extremist the identity left has become.

yawn

Ah, the yawn. The laziest, passive aggressive way to make Not An Argument.

Second only to the "meh"

meh, yawn is better.

Ah, the yawn. The laziest, passive aggressive way to make Not An Argument.

Not a little ironic that the Not An Argument meme is sourced from a right wing cult leader to pretty much always promote "argument" in a bad faith way.

Not a little ironic that the Not An Argument meme is sourced from a right wing cult leader to pretty much always promote "argument" in a bad faith way.

How is yawning ever in good faith?

And that's why I stopped watching Bill Maher during this administration. There are only so many salacious jokes a comedian can crack before it begins to dawn on the viewer that for all the smugness, nobody cared. (Ditto for the Daily Show in the Bush years.)

Who will the snark the snarkers?

In the past few days, there've been several things I've come across that have reminded of that Jacob Siegel article I posted a week ago (or whenever it was), and this is one of them. The increasingly dominant style of conversation on the internet, which is characterized by sarcasm, mockery and irony, is ideologically neutral by itself, but it can be made to serve nearly any ideology -- and it does.

As this video shows, that same derisive style can even be used to make fun of people whose currency is derisiveness (namely, liberal comedy news shows). But what happens when you do that? Does it hold people accountable? Does it contain any *real* element of criticism? Or is it nothing more than a self-satisfied expression of superiority, that manages to tear something down without even going so far as identifying something that is wrong with the thing that it mocks?

Not every ****ty post needs a serious reply, mate.