Prompted by another thread, I was wondering about how people's views have changed over the years we've been posting here?
I wasn't so much thinking about on specific issues as I think there's less of interest there - I've become wildly more left-wing over the last decade. But more how your outlook or way of looking at things has changed, if at all?
The big change I think in my own views that I think character and conduct really matter. I think this crystalised with Trump in 2016 and Johnson shortly after because my main issue with them was fundamentally that I think they are, as people, unfit for office on a moral level. But I think I'd always previously viewed that sort of language as basically a Trojan horse for social conservatives. Relatedly I've also totally shifted my view on Bill Clinton and his impeachment. I'm not taking it from the same place 1990s Republicans were but I think his behaviour was wrong and he lied about it on oath - and those are things that we should take seriously.
It sounds very pretentious (and it is) but I think a sort of "civic virtue" is really important and people in public life should be modelling and aspiring to it. And that especially in the world now we need to recapture some of that language of things being wrong, or that what is virtuous or ethical is good. I think it's sort of almost a "fake it till you make it", that even when it's hypocritical there is a value in the hypocrisy (the tribute vice pays to virtue) of suggesting that we are aspiring to virtue, ethical conduct etc.
More left-wing, but your main gripe with Trump and Johnson is their personality, not their right-wing populism (or fascism in Trumps case)? Ok.
When it comes to politics, my personal shift is that I used to be more interested and passionate about politics, but these days I find the global and local developments so depressing that I try to emotionally distance myself by not spending too many thoughts about politics anymore.
Character, not personality.
And yeah I was very strongly Blairite, New Labour. I believed in leaning into globalisation regardless of the sectoral or regional impact with very strong redistribution (particularly focused on the poorest), that it wasn't useful to get ideological/dogmatic about how public services were provided. I now think you need a very active state (maybe not full 1945 planned economy, but state planning) including nationalisations and industrial policy. The sectoral and regional impacts matter and redistribution isn't enough and also that the welfare state should be universal not just targeted to the people who "need" it. And I am dogmatic about how public services are delivered now, I think it does need to be the state and it's to do with state capacity (as well as democratic control). Maybe more left is wrong but certainly from Third Way/New Labour to far, far more statist and interventionist, maybe a little more Old Labour.
In part - which is more of an outlook shift - I think, like Blair, I did also basically believe there was a bit of a telos to history. That we were progressing along a path and while there could be the odd detour or playing around the edges, it was fundamentally fixed: technologically, economically, culturally. There was a direction of travel and I think for me (and Blair) in that era it was summed up with the idea of globalisation. I don't believe history has that direction of travel any more even if I still think most of what's happening is the result of fairly big structural economic (and increasingly climactic) forces.
I don't know really.
I definitely have changed. But I think maybe more in depth than in positioning?
Less naiive and focussed on the high level ideal of where we should be, Star Trek level lets solve all the worlds problems, and more on the down on the ground tweak these policies and cut poverty x percent sort of stuff?
I've always been left and had my issues with the far left and the centrists and I think they largely remain intact.
Even on trains, I have been all for this stuff long before urbanism became such a thing online. Its rather nice to see people catching up (and enraging to see the reactionary response)
Maybe I've become more forgiving of liberals and the value in having sensible right wingers be a thing that exists in light of the wanton destructive insanity taking over there?
Quote from: Zanza on August 12, 2025, 07:02:29 AMWhen it comes to politics, my personal shift is that I used to be more interested and passionate about politics, but these days I find the global and local developments so depressing that I try to emotionally distance myself by not spending too many thoughts about politics anymore.
Find myself in the same boat, trying to focus on what I can do by myself to be better for those around me and those I can impact, but shutting off everything else. It hurts too much.
So this isn't politics and might just be getting older. But I think I've had something similar with culture.
I saw someone online using the phrase "great books leftist - there are dozens of us!" and I do slightly identify with that. I think I had a fairly populist open sentiment towards books and film etc (I think a bit of this with Marvel but also the YA-ification of fiction). If some people are enjoying it it might not be for me but it's clearly doing its thing. And while I still have that view broadly - I've also swung more to a slightly more snobbish/high culture perspective where I think there is more reward from spending your time on good art/culture. Even when I just want something to slob out to, I find myself more often than not reaching for a middle brow thriller of the 80s or 90s which isn't exactly high art but is just that little bit more challenging/demanding of attention.
So not judging, but I've kind of decided not to spend my own time and energy on that and it's important that there are people out there doing it.
Sheilbh, you have become more conservative, not left wing :P
For me, I think moving to a functional state 12 (!!!) years ago has mellowed me out on my economic right-wingedness.
Otherwise I don't think my vibe changed much past what aging and having a stake and roots (mortgage and a kid) does to you.
But that's been my view for a long while now: your circumstances inform your views, not the other way around.
I am still left but a lot less than 20 years ago. I do not recognize myself in the radical left embrace of religions. Especially the Anglo-Saxon movement of making religious beliefs an identity.
In the Canadian context, theres too much immigration that are used to suppress wages and for the left that only good policy is more immigration. That's not something I wish for.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 12, 2025, 08:24:10 AMCharacter, not personality.
And yeah I was very strongly Blairite, New Labour. I believed in leaning into globalisation regardless of the sectoral or regional impact with very strong redistribution (particularly focused on the poorest), that it wasn't useful to get ideological/dogmatic about how public services were provided. I now think you need a very active state (maybe not full 1945 planned economy, but state planning) including nationalisations and industrial policy. The sectoral and regional impacts matter and redistribution isn't enough and also that the welfare state should be universal not just targeted to the people who "need" it. And I am dogmatic about how public services are delivered now, I think it does need to be the state and it's to do with state capacity (as well as democratic control). Maybe more left is wrong but certainly from Third Way/New Labour to far, far more statist and interventionist, maybe a little more Old Labour.
In part - which is more of an outlook shift - I think, like Blair, I did also basically believe there was a bit of a telos to history. That we were progressing along a path and while there could be the odd detour or playing around the edges, it was fundamentally fixed: technologically, economically, culturally. There was a direction of travel and I think for me (and Blair) in that era it was summed up with the idea of globalisation. I don't believe history has that direction of travel any more even if I still think most of what's happening is the result of fairly big structural economic (and increasingly climactic) forces.
The views you post have become more right wing. interesting that you perceive yourself otherwise.
:yes:
Torypologist
I don't agree - I think it's more perhaps about the issues people care about and I think often here we all agree on a large proportion of things and the actual fights are around valence or which mean most to us. From that - like a reverse St Francis - where there is harmony we bring discord :lol:
But as I say I think the actual politics question is less interesting. You just change your views on that stuff as the world changes (and it has a lot - the 2010s, austerity and the Euro crisis particularly for me) or your analysis changes (and mine certainly has with the shelves behind me betraying an alarming taste for Verso books and Marxist theory). I was wondering more about sort of the foundations of how you look at things. As I say having viewed character as a fusty, conservative (frankly sort of John McCain fan coded) view, it's something I think is important. Who someone is as a leader matters and is also a valid ground to reject them or not - still not sure I have the language for it.
I don't think my views have changed too much, as I've been proven right in almost every instance :P
But like Zanza posted above, I'm definitely less involved/interested/triggered in politics in general.
I have become very left wing since 2003. All the bad things that left wing people here in Texas told me was going to happen as a result of the rejection of the New Deal ultimately came to pass, if anything far worse than they suggested.
My FDR worshipping Grandparents, who were farmers in a small town in Oklahoma mind you, tried to warn us if we let those business people back on top they would fuck us. Last time I visited their graves in 2021, I told them they were right about everything.
It is kind of crazy to see all the trusts and monopolies and robber barons and corruption and all of it come back to life right out of a history book. The rampant populism and violence. All of it. It's all back. It is like 100 years ago only more dangerous and worse.
I just think we need to go back to a time when we actually tried to practically solve problems using whatever mechanism instead of just blindly accepting ideologically based free market ideas. Because left alone, it seems pretty clear that the market naturally consolidates into huge oligopolies and monopolies whose power is very difficult to break.
Other issues, most social things and science based issues like climate change, I am pretty much the same on. It is mostly my economic thinking that has changed. History seems to have proven the left correct after all. That honestly surprises the shit out of me, but that is how it went.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 12, 2025, 01:44:53 PMBut like Zanza posted above, I'm definitely less involved/interested/triggered in politics in general.
Me too, and I think that's part of why the fascists are ascendant (or perhaps more likely, it's symptom of the ascendance rather than the cause). Broadly speaking, I think the fascists and their fellow travellers have gained momentum in terms of involvement, interest, and activism - while broadly speaking for leftists it's the opposite.
For political movements to succeed they need a relatively clear message (or messages), they need means of getting their messages out (propaganda), they need small victories that provide a sense of forward momentum, they need an appealing idea of where they want to go, they need ecosystems where aligning with the movement also aligns with individual self-interest (i.e. you are more likely to gain rather than lose jobs/ money/ clout/ etc for taking a public stance).
From where I'm sitting, the left has been steadily losing all of those things over the years, while the right has gained them.
Obviously it's beyond one person to change, and it's exhausting and therefore demotivating. I think the best any one of us can reasonably do at this point is to follow Oex's advice - be as involved as possible in building local connections and organization, creating and maintaining local areas of decency and resistance so they can serve as seeds and inspiration for swinging the pendulum back again one day in the future. Basically, be as involved in civil society as reasonably possible.
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2025, 02:50:37 PMFrom where I'm sitting, the left has been steadily losing all of those things over the years, while the right has gained them.
I guess where I am sitting the left finally seems to be emerging from its grave it was buried in back in 1990 or so. I guess I missed the robust and energetic leftwing happening 20 years ago. Even the British Labour Party were pretty much just a right wing party. Though I guess they sort of are today.
But this is obviously from an American perspective. There were pretty much no leftists outside of a few cranks 15 years ago. Now they are some of our most famous and popular politicians.
I've become quite disillusioned. Politics has become strange and horrifying in the last 20 years. Everyone has become more extreme it seems.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2025, 02:59:48 PMI've become quite disillusioned. Politics has become strange and horrifying in the last 20 years. Everyone has become more extreme it seems.
We are looking for new solutions, or in my case a return to a more sane and rational time before Reagan.
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2025, 02:50:37 PMMe too, and I think that's part of why the fascists are ascendant (or perhaps more likely, it's symptom of the ascendance rather than the cause). Broadly speaking, I think the fascists and their fellow travellers have gained momentum in terms of involvement, interest, and activism - while broadly speaking for leftists it's the opposite.
For political movements to succeed they need a relatively clear message (or messages), they need means of getting their messages out (propaganda), they need small victories that provide a sense of forward momentum, they need an appealing idea of where they want to go, they need ecosystems where aligning with the movement also aligns with individual self-interest (i.e. you are more likely to gain rather than lose jobs/ money/ clout/ etc for taking a public stance).
From where I'm sitting, the left has been steadily losing all of those things over the years, while the right has gained them.
I agree with a lot of this but, from a Euro-perspective, I'd cast it more as establishment parties v insurgents rather than left v right. And I think part of it is simply the decline of mass society and its institutions. Peter Mair's observation in Ruling the Void is, I think, key: "the age of party democracy has passed. Although the parties themselves remain, they have become so disconnected from the wider society, and pursue a form of competition that is so lacking meaning."
I think a non-trivial part of this (especially with Trump's rallies) is that if you're on that side. They look fun. A lot of the traditional parties are still playing out in the forms of 20th century politics. And with these ossified party structures there's a lot of clique-ishness.
I don't know if they have the same sense of fun yet, but I think you look at the movement around Melenchon and the Popular Front in France, or Jeremy Corbyn getting more than 500,000 people to sign up when he was Labour leader (and his new party is up to over 600,000) and had an even bigger campaign movement outside the party - so it exists on the left. But also when Macron launched his campaign he got hundreds of thousands signing up to his movement. I think there is a real appetite and demand to be involved in politics - but I'm not sure the traditional parties/party structures are interested in/capable of meeting that.
In the UK during Corbyn's leadership there was an interesting article and series of podcasts by someone on the left and quite sympathetic to Corbyn on how the Labour Party works - what the meetings mean, what you can do via motions, how you can use the rulebook etc. There were so many attacks from traditional Labour people (like the people around Starmer now) for encouraging people to participate and telling them how :lol: :bleeding: I'm not sure if that's capacity or lack of interest in actually meeting people's demand to be involved in politics.
Interestingly I have seen someone close to Corbyn and Sultana say they want to build other organisations/institutions too so it's not just all about a party but, for example, signing people up for tenant unions, food cooperatives, bill payers' unions. But also this bit:
QuoteI think it's important to remember that outside of Europe and North America, political meetings don't suck. They aren't boring. They're lively, participatory and rooted in popular culture – with music, food, even dancing. Normal people show up because they belong. There are different ways for people to participate. And that's because their purpose is to strengthen the bonds of solidarity and unity so that people can go out and engage in the construction of popular power.
I agree with basically all of it.
QuoteObviously it's beyond one person to change, and it's exhausting and therefore demotivating. I think the best any one of us can reasonably do at this point is to follow Oex's advice - be as involved as possible in building local connections and organization, creating and maintaining local areas of decency and resistance so they can serve as seeds and inspiration for swinging the pendulum back again one day in the future. Basically, be as involved in civil society as reasonably possible.
I agree.
I would add that I think if you are doing that, then it is also important to build or engage in spaces or projects outside of politics.
My thinking has evolved in many ways - at least I hope so - but that's not really what Sheilbh is after.
Back in 2000 (ouch), I had just stopped being involved in student politics, and the political game, being quite disillusioned by it. It was easier, then, to subscribe to the idea that looking at politics as a spectator, as an outside, dispassionate, observer, was a higher form of wisdom. That such a stance accompanied my entry into academia is probably no coincidence.
I no longer believe that. In fact, I have a lot less patience for it now - at least for the version that is rooted in a form of comfortable smugness. That it accompanied my disillusionment with academia, and my growing sense of the moral bankruptcy of the American higher education system, is probably no coincidence either.
I think it's easier, when you are young, to take close social relations for granted - family, friends, colleagues, coworkers. I always treasured them, despite being at times quite bad at maintaining long-distance ones in my personal life (having been raised in a very closely knitted society). Growing older, I have become even more passionate about them. I am still in wonder at the myriad and complex expression of collective life in historical documents. Which is good, because I still love doing what I do, and teaching it, and writing about it. It also means I have become a lot more opposed to everything I perceive to be aiming at the dissolution of social bonds.
To break my own rule and speak about a specific issues with your mention of academia -tuition fees is one where I have shifted (though here I am a true conservative: I basically think the system I experienced worked and the subsequent increases/changes have been a disaster :lol:).
They worked on their own terms but I think a lot of the side effects or other impacts have been bad in all sorts of ways (not a massive issue for the big, famous institutions - a serious problem for the newer ones/former polytechnics). And the incentives are producing unexpected outcomes now. I think we probably need to go back to a more centrally planned system.
I've come to terms with a lot and moved leftward. Part of it is a matter of survival and part of it is a continued disillusionment with existing political parties in the US and internationally. I've lost immense amounts of hope and faith in my fellow man as well as the positive trajectory of society. I've solidified some of my spiritual and political beliefs, but like to think I stay open, if guarded, to them being changed and influenced. I have far, far less ability to sympathize or tolerate folks whom I find horrible in their actions and beliefs. I've stopped engaging in "debates", debates, and outright trolling as I just don't have the stomach or the spoons to do so anymore. Coming to terms with my gender, my politics, my family, my engagement with others, and the world as a whole has been an absolutely exhausting and incredibly trying experience. I don't think I'll ever be as hopeful for myself or for the world as I once was, but I'd like to be able to at least find some reasons to keep fighting and living. Existing without truly living, but in different ways from when I was younger, is no way to go through life.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on August 12, 2025, 05:15:07 PMI've lost immense amounts of hope and faith in my fellow man as well as the positive trajectory of society. I've solidified some of my spiritual and political beliefs, but like to think I stay open, if guarded, to them being changed and influenced. I have far, far less ability to sympathize or tolerate folks whom I find horrible in their actions and beliefs. I've stopped engaging in "debates", debates, and outright trolling as I just don't have the stomach or the spoons to do so anymore.
Yeah I have come to accept that lots of people are just too far gone. And that sucks. Also there was a time I feel like when you were debating online it was with real people and you were slowly moving the ball down the field by having these discussions. You might just be making somebody out there better by engaging like this. But now most of the trolls out on the internet are bots and shit. Now it really is a waste of your time and energy.
On the internet there used to be a lot more discussion.
You think X, I think Y, lets chat about why we think these different things and learn something from each other, maybe I can even sway you to my way of thinking in some ways.
Now though its all debate club. Truth and fact are irrelevant. The goal is to WIN. To CRUSH your ENEMY.
A bit rose tinted specs of course. This has always been there. But it just seems so much worse now.
Because it's about money nowadays. There is no authenticity on the internet anymore. There's possible millions at stake, can't let anything to chance.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 13, 2025, 09:06:04 AMBecause it's about money nowadays. There is no authenticity on the internet anymore. There's possible millions at stake, can't let anything to chance.
Yeah, what is that Sinclair quote? Something about if somebody's salary depends on them not understanding something, they aren't going to understand it?
That is kind of the whole internet.
I've been thinking about this and I think the biggest vibe shift for me is the view on refugees. Have changed from the view that we should try to take in as many as we can and help the people that are worse off to the view that we should take in as few as possible and find other ways to help the less well off.
This is probably due to the effects of a far too generous refugee policy are becoming very apparent in lots of very negative ways that weren't apparent 20-25 years ago. Except for the racists then, they were correct all along, just for the wrong reasons.
Quote from: Threviel on August 14, 2025, 07:18:39 AMI've been thinking about this and I think the biggest vibe shift for me is the view on refugees. Have changed from the view that we should try to take in as many as we can and help the people that are worse off to the view that we should take in as few as possible and find other ways to help the less well off.
This is probably due to the effects of a far too generous refugee policy are becoming very apparent in lots of very negative ways that weren't apparent 20-25 years ago. Except for the racists then, they were correct all along, just for the wrong reasons.
ehh....half right.
Open door immigration is of course not a good idea. But then thats a gross exaggeration of what most sensible people believe in. Surprised you actually would have been there.
They're seriously ignorant when it comes to stopping people actually making the journey in the first place though. They actively oppose foreign aid, safe routes and other sensible spend a little now to save a lot later policies.
There are myriads of ways that the racists are wrong, that's the thing with racists, they are not nice and they are not well educated in the ways of the world.
But on not letting in a million+ uneducated middle eastern immigrants without a sensible integration policy they had a point. And on that debate I was very much on the other side back in the day, ridiculing them for their fears and mocking their views.
Today my wife wasn't allowed in the emergency room with her father at the hospital due to a no relatives rule that's due to clan violence from middle eastern immigrants. My views have changed so to speak, I did not want this.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2025, 02:57:21 PMI guess where I am sitting the left finally seems to be emerging from its grave it was buried in back in 1990 or so. I guess I missed the robust and energetic leftwing happening 20 years ago. Even the British Labour Party were pretty much just a right wing party. Though I guess they sort of are today.
But this is obviously from an American perspective. There were pretty much no leftists outside of a few cranks 15 years ago. Now they are some of our most famous and popular politicians.
Interesting.
Maybe my perspective is limited, but to me it seems that the Overton Window in the US has drifted rightwards since the 90s in fits and spurts. At the same time it feels like the left if it hasn't lost the culture war, has at least suffered a number of significant defeats and is fighting a rearguard action in the spheres of culture, pop-culture, entertainment, and academia.
Liberals, in the US (and elsewhere) abandonned politics in favor of the courtroom. They scored major and important victories there, which they confused with political victories. They confused a general sense of apathy with assent. Which, again, is also a form of victory: if gay marriage doesn't produce the societal collapse it was prophesied to bring about, then it was indeed okay for most.
Except that democratic politics isn't really about some massive, collective, spontaneous movement, and it turns out people are also apathetically okay with many, many things, if you don't actually relentlessly fight to tell them, and show them, it's worthy of fighting. And a fight that is fought using only one type of weapon, and one type of arena, and one type of fighter (law, courts, lawyers) leaves you empty-handed when they are taken from you.
I think we became okay with a lot of things progressives fought for, and call progress : gender rights, LGTBQ rights, civic rights. To that extent, we succeeded in expanding for many people the idea of what humans worthy of empathy are supposed to be, and it's a real left victory. It's just that a misguided belief for the long arc of human history, or magic self-correcting pendulum, or the invisible march towards progress, left a lot of people to think each of these victory were but a rung on a ladder that could never be climbed down permanently. But politically? In the US the ground has been ceded to the Republicans for a very long time, and liberal parties elsewhere in the world have all succumbed to the idea that politics is dangerous and what you need is just the right combination of legal expertise, economic expertise, political expertise, and PR expertise.
I don't think that is true. Sure gay marriage was won in the courtroom ultimately but that was after years and years of political action. It ultimately won because it became popular enough to be successful.
I just disagree with this assertion that nothing at all political was done and that all efforts were placed in the courts ignoring everything else. That is just ridiculous. If anything the fury I see directed at the left is that they are TOO political and TOO activist and TOO annoying because of it. So which is it? Are we annoying activists or people who don't do politics at all, just hiding out in ivory towers of the judicial system?
Why it was done in the courts is the same reason the Right is going full authoritarian. The democratic institutions are just too corrupt and too ossified and stagnant to do much more than maintain the status quo.
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2025, 11:31:07 AMQuote from: Valmy on August 12, 2025, 02:57:21 PMI guess where I am sitting the left finally seems to be emerging from its grave it was buried in back in 1990 or so. I guess I missed the robust and energetic leftwing happening 20 years ago. Even the British Labour Party were pretty much just a right wing party. Though I guess they sort of are today.
But this is obviously from an American perspective. There were pretty much no leftists outside of a few cranks 15 years ago. Now they are some of our most famous and popular politicians.
Interesting.
Maybe my perspective is limited, but to me it seems that the Overton Window in the US has drifted rightwards since the 90s in fits and spurts. At the same time it feels like the left if it hasn't lost the culture war, has at least suffered a number of significant defeats and is fighting a rearguard action in the spheres of culture, pop-culture, entertainment, and academia.
The overton window has shifted away from the consensus. People are just more ready to accept radical solutions now.
US politics has 100% drifted right since the 80s. Look at Clinton repealing Glass Steagel for instance.
I do get the vibe that the left has grown however. Could just be that I just see this stuff online. But I do get the impression theres an actual decent sized social democratic minority in the US where once there wouldn't have been.
Also notable is fascism ticks a lot more left wing boxes than liberalism. The right has grabbed power through selling hate through appeals to typically left wing groups rather than through liberal means.
I do think some actual left wing policies are the way forward for the Democrats to win. As much as actually using the word socialism is still too tainted.
Quote from: Josquius on August 14, 2025, 12:16:33 PMUS politics has 100% drifted right since the 80s. Look at Clinton repealing Glass Steagel for instance.
Yes, hence why the left was dead for decades.
Valmy, my perception is that a lot more funding has been directed by the left toward winning legal fights in the courts than was spent on winning political fights in elections.
It's the second bit that matters most, especially in the American system of judicial appointments.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2025, 12:02:47 PMIf anything the fury I see directed at the left is that they are TOO political and TOO activist and TOO annoying because of it. So which is it? Are we annoying activists or people who don't do politics at all, just hiding out in ivory towers of the judicial system?
Quoteliberal parties elsewhere in the world have all succumbed to the idea that politics is dangerous and what you need is just the right combination of legal expertise, economic expertise, political expertise, and PR expertise.
I am not saying nothing political was ever done. Certainly, many groups fought, and continued to fight. But the "proper" way was almost always the tribunal, the fundraising, the lobbying. Political games were preeminent. The language was always the language of rights - and not without reason. But it was also because liberal parties didn't want to fight on the ground of morals, or patriotism, which they ceded to the right, or other forms of equality, which they were (and still are) wary of.
Again, I am not saying these weren't real fights, nor that they aren't true victories. The proof that they were fights and victories can be seen in the ruthless struggle by Republicans to seize control of tribunals and remove that play from the equation. I am saying they were fights, and victories that abandoned other venues, and when that ground was seized, liberals have no playbook.
I am fully prepared to admit my view is informed by my being in academia, the realm of proper liberalism. Professors have no playbook once you reveal that writing strongly worded letters have no effect, and that you have allowed university governance to shift unopposed to donors and boards. University leaders have shown to be utterly appalling political beings, completely unprepared for a political fight, and showing up to be humiliated and easily outmaneuvered in front of Congressional committees. The only politics they knew was boardroom politics.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 14, 2025, 11:56:31 AMLiberals, in the US (and elsewhere) abandonned politics in favor of the courtroom. They scored major and important victories there, which they confused with political victories. They confused a general sense of apathy with assent. Which, again, is also a form of victory: if gay marriage doesn't produce the societal collapse it was prophesied to bring about, then it was indeed okay for most.
Except that democratic politics isn't really about some massive, collective, spontaneous movement, and it turns out people are also apathetically okay with many, many things, if you don't actually relentlessly fight to tell them, and show them, it's worthy of fighting. And a fight that is fought using only one type of weapon, and one type of arena, and one type of fighter (law, courts, lawyers) leaves you empty-handed when they are taken from you.
I totally agree. Two slightly unrelated thoughts.
I'm not sure if it's cause, consequence or where it comes from. But I think particularly in America on the liberal side of politics (though I think it's absolutely an issue in the UK right now too) in the last 20-30 years an ambivalence emerged towards political power and its exercise. I don't fully know where it came from but I think there's almost been an obsession with constraints for their own sake (I think this is also present in Eurozone politics). I'd add to law, the institutions, the technocracy, the quangos (and indeed the NGOs).
I think you see this even in the focus on law in the US. There is no equivalent to the conservative legal movement which is one of the most successful political enterprises of the past 50 years. They have an analysis of power within the legal system, what they needed to do to achieve it and they have executed that. I don't think there's anywhere near that equivalent of thinking in the US. I'm reminded of Peter Hennessy's phrase for the British constitution (but I think it applies to all constitutions) operating on a "good chaps" theory of government rather than an analysis of how power works in an institution (which, the good chaps absolutely have).
The other totally unrelated thought is that I think there is a purely social element to politics that we should celebrate and want to encourage. And I don't know what the disdain for "politics" does for the political in that social/"man is a political animal" sense. In the UK you have not gone canvassing if you do not end up in a pub at the end having a pint. I'm not joking when I say that I think a big part of Trump's appeal is that the rallies look fun (if you're into that sort of thing). I think a big structural advantage the Republicans have in the US with Christians is very simply that these are people who take the time meet up, in person, in a physical space every week and do something together (and that's assuming they're not involved in any of ancillary stuff going on around a place of worhsip). That's a really powerful base for mobilisation, just as the unions and friendly societies and workers' libraries were for the left. And I note Mamdani spent the last few weeks touring churches on Sundays.
I don't know how that interacts with the class cleavage of those who can work remotely (broadly, better educated and I think probably leaning on the left in most countries) and those who can't (the opposite, with exceptions - especially in the public sector).
You know, that's an excellent point. The tendency in the US has been to avoid legislating the big changes post-Great Society, but rather to use the judiciary to 'read-in' the desired changes into constitutional law. This was an extremely powerful play, especially since the more conservative forces (either Republicans or Blue Dogs) had the ability to block their legislative attempts, but now it seems that the shoe is on the other foot and the thoroughly politicized judiciary is going to be kicking in the other direction.
Canada is a totally different animal, with the Constitution being fairly recently added as a liberal project, and there being no chance of the judiciary changing their politics any time in the foreseeable future.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 14, 2025, 12:33:06 PMValmy, my perception is that a lot more funding has been directed by the left toward winning legal fights in the courts than was spent on winning political fights in elections.
It's the second bit that matters most, especially in the American system of judicial appointments.
LOL? The amount of money the Democrats blow on elections is truly mindblowing. If a lot more funding was directed towards legal fights all those attorneys must have golden palaces on the moon by now.
The notion that somehow the leftwing has been focusses squarely on the courts is insane. The Courts have not been favorable to them since the 60s. Sure they got the Gay Marriage thing through, but that is about it.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2025, 08:17:11 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on August 14, 2025, 12:33:06 PMValmy, my perception is that a lot more funding has been directed by the left toward winning legal fights in the courts than was spent on winning political fights in elections.
It's the second bit that matters most, especially in the American system of judicial appointments.
LOL? The amount of money the Democrats blow on elections is truly mindblowing. If a lot more funding was directed towards legal fights all those attorneys must have golden palaces on the moon by now.
The notion that somehow the leftwing has been focusses squarely on the courts is insane. The Courts have not been favorable to them since the 60s. Sure they got the Gay Marriage thing through, but that is about it.
Take a look at the budget for the aclu. Now consider it is but one left wing litigation interest group.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 13, 2025, 09:06:04 AMBecause it's about money nowadays. There is no authenticity on the internet anymore. There's possible millions at stake, can't let anything to chance.
Money eventually poisons everything.
Quote from: grumbler on August 15, 2025, 07:26:36 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on August 13, 2025, 09:06:04 AMBecause it's about money nowadays. There is no authenticity on the internet anymore. There's possible millions at stake, can't let anything to chance.
Money eventually poisons everything.
It's like the Simpsons beer quote.