Quo Vadis GOP?

[Sheilbh]

I agree it's 90% academic - but doesn't it shape the way you fight back?

For example my view is that anti-fascist politics is broad church, popular front, quite boring and don't frighten middle America; I think with Erdogan or Orban part of their attack is "they're all the same and in it for themselves", so I wonder if a clean break with the past, sharp dividing lines and aggression might be the better approach? But they are almost opposites.

[Josquius]

On trump being fascist, the world's leading expert on fascism who wrote the text book says... Yes.

https://www.newsweek.com/robert-paxton-trump-fascist-1560652

The trumpies really do check off so many of the qualifiers.

But they have their standard go to defences of "you just call everyone you don't like a fascist!" and "the left are the fascists!" (somehow) to avoid actually discussing the issue.

[The Brain]

I think the struggle for an open society is best served by evidence-based labelling, and a knowledge of history.

That many will go to great lengths to label stuff Fascism on the flimsiest of evidence makes me unable to shake the suspicion that they think other right-wing despotic ideologies are less bad somehow.

[Jacob]

On trump being fascist, the world's leading expert on fascism who wrote the text book says... Yes.

https://www.newsweek.com/robert-paxton-trump-fascist-1560652

The trumpies really do check off so many of the qualifiers.

But they have their standard go to defences of "you just call everyone you don't like a fascist!" and "the left are the fascists!" (somehow) to avoid actually discussing the issue.

... and, of course, the usual "if only the wokeists hadn't forced the Fascists to be Fascists. Let's focus on the real enemy and defeat wokeists and then maybe the Fascists will go away on their own."

[Valmy]

Well what does defeating the wokeists look like?

Turn back the clock to 1990s social values?

[Jacob]

Well what does defeating the wokeists look like?

Turn back the clock to 1990s social values?

Your guess is as good as mine, but my guess is that victory against wokism rests on three pillars:

1) No one has to fear consequences for making members of marginalized groups upset, whether by accident or on purpose.

2) General agreement that there is no such thing as structural advantages and disadvantages in society, and the termination of any programs to address this (now discredited idea of) structural inequality.

3) The absence of "insane wokeist excess" stories in the media (whether social or corporate).

That'd be my guess. As you can see, that victory is far off.

[Barrister]

Why the hell are we discussing whatever nebulous strawman is this "disagreeable wokeism" that we can't even agree to describe and not the fascistic drift of the GOP?

Because the awesome power and might of Whataboutism cannot be resisted.

Who is engaging in "whataboutism"?

I merely said "wokeism" is a real thing.



Man - since this is the Quo Vadis GOP thread, I listened to a Podcast yesterday that had an extended conversation with former Speaker Paul Ryan.  He doesn't speak publicly that much.  Man, I miss republicans like him.  I mean he said explicitly he wasn't going to second-guess Speaker McCarthy (and didn't), but was pretty clear that he labelled himself "Never-Again Trump", about the need for immigration reform (and deficit reduction!), wouldn't say anything nice about MTG and the like, called Jan 6 and insurrection...

But he also spoke out against wokeism - and in the way I agree with, not the Ron de Santis way.

Anyways, even when someone more-or-less agrees with you, but points out the areas of disagreement, it seems like the "whataboutism" is in saying "why are you even talking about that - surely your side is doing much worse?".

[The Minsky Moment]

BB - I didn't have a problem with what you said.

I do have a problem with accepting the rhetoric about wokism at face value when it comes from Trump-ites and with commentators treating these as equivalent problems.

[The Minsky Moment]

Well what does defeating the wokeists look like?

Turn back the clock to 1990s social values?

True victory will never be achieved because there will always be someone in the Dan Brown Chair of Semiotics at the  University of Obscurity oppressing some poor red-blooded American with their confusing pronouns.  The fake outrage machine need never shut down.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. Wokeism will only be defeated if people stop caring and it stops working as a line.

[crazy canuck]

Why the hell are we discussing whatever nebulous strawman is this "disagreeable wokeism" that we can't even agree to describe and not the fascistic drift of the GOP?

Because the awesome power and might of Whataboutism cannot be resisted.

Who is engaging in "whataboutism"?

I merely said "wokeism" is a real thing.



Man - since this is the Quo Vadis GOP thread, I listened to a Podcast yesterday that had an extended conversation with former Speaker Paul Ryan.  He doesn't speak publicly that much.  Man, I miss republicans like him.  I mean he said explicitly he wasn't going to second-guess Speaker McCarthy (and didn't), but was pretty clear that he labelled himself "Never-Again Trump", about the need for immigration reform (and deficit reduction!), wouldn't say anything nice about MTG and the like, called Jan 6 and insurrection...

But he also spoke out against wokeism - and in the way I agree with, not the Ron de Santis way.

Anyways, even when someone more-or-less agrees with you, but points out the areas of disagreement, it seems like the "whataboutism" is in saying "why are you even talking about that - surely your side is doing much worse?".

It might be, all depends on what you mean by Wokeism.  I have yet to hear anyone who condemns it provide an answer to what it is they are condemning.

I think there is activity that can be condemned but I am not sure it falls under your definition of what being woke is.

[Barrister]

It might be, all depends on what you mean by Wokeism.  I have yet to hear anyone who condemns it provide an answer to what it is they are condemning.

I think there is activity that can be condemned but I am not sure it falls under your definition of what being woke is.

I wonder if those who think that "wokism" is as much of a threat to liberal liberal democracy as Orbanism can tell us what wokism is.

Obviously there is no single definition of "wokeism".  The term woke started up on the left, got raised up as a pejorative by the right, and obviously means different things to different people.

At it's most agreeable, being "woke" means being made aware of the persistent inequality and systemic discrimination against minority groups across western society.  This is something "the right" should agree with, and promote conservative solutions to, although sadly often don't.  And yes some on the right oppose this version of wokeism.

But at it's most disagreeable, "wokeism" means using social pressure to enforce very left-wing/progressive social views, even when those views are not the majority across society.  Think of journalists being fired for discussing whether it's appropriate to use the N-word, professors being reprimanded for showing historical portraits of the Prophet Mohammed, calls for Harry Potter to be boycotted.  There are lots of examples of such behaviour, mostly involving social media, and mostly involving universities or journalism (though not limited to such areas either).

Look we can all argue who is worse - the left or the right.  That's all fair game.  And Minsky can argue that Ron de Santis is a greater threat to democracy than "wokeism".  That's all fair.

But I don't think you can deny that what I'll call "disagreeable wokeism" isn't a real thing, and that it is, well, disagreeable.

[Admiral Yi]

I think I've said this before.  I will consider wokeism to have been defeated when people surrender the thinking that only members of protected minorities have standing to pass judgement on what constitutes unfair and unjust action against their group.

[Jacob]

I think I've said this before.  I will consider wokeism to have been defeated when people surrender the thinking that only members of protected minorities have standing to pass judgement on what constitutes unfair and unjust action against their group.

How many people has to surrender that thinking? Everyone? Or just a majority of people?

[Admiral Yi]

How many people has to surrender that thinking? Everyone? Or just a majority of people?

I would cease hostilities once it has been reduced to a radical delegitimized fringe.