Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I recommend What's The Matter With Kansas? for anyone who's interested in where the wingnuts have come from in the last decade.

Frank built his entire thesis by assuming that he knew what people should hold as valuable, and then showing that they are irrational in their voting patterns because their votes don't actually give them what they hold as valuable.

His mistake was his underlying assumptions. He just seems incapable of believing that people's moral and philosophical beliefs could be a source of value higher than economic self-interest.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
1.) So does this mean we all do sorta agree that states should be able to decide this an all similar issues?

2.) Completely unrelated. Not so long ago, 2 Russians were arrested for killing a rebel Chechen leader in Dubai or something. This leads to a couple of questions. a.) Do we support Russia threatening Dubai (even though they are our ally) and b.) do we support Russia adopting our doctrine and threatening anyone who supports terrorists who threaten Russia?

The thing on 2b is, I'm generally in support of any nation being able to attack threatening terrorists in another nation. However, some of the harboring nations are our allies (as has been discussed ad nauseum here before) when they harbor our own enemies. I'm thinking this is a great way for Putin to solidly align Russia with the U.S., while also allowing us to exert even more pressure on our allies to deal with the jackasses they harbor. Of course, I'm looking forward to Britain threatening us over the IRA, but that's another story. All in all, I think this Russia thingy could be good for us, but I hope the WH is paying attention and trying to figure out how to do the right thing while still leveraging this to our benefit (and not necessarily to Russia's detriment).

Hello

1. Dubai is not our ally; we need Dubai's oil.

2. I say let Russia kill terrorists anywhere it finds them. The same goes for the Mossad, the CIA, whoever. A dead terrorist is the best kind.

3. I don't think that anybody should be threatening sovereign governments per se.

4. As for Britain threatening us over the IRA: (i) see my point immediately above; and (ii) the threat really should be credible before it becomes worrisome.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
AG's point is that while Republicans have run on an anti-federalist, states' rights position for years, it's not like Democrats have taken the position that everything should be federalized. Democrats are happy to work through whichever reins of power they can hold onto. When the Republicans surrender their states'-rights rhetoric to try to stick it to gays, metaphorically speaking of course, they are being hippocritical; not so (says AG) when Dems oppose them.

So what do you do when two strong principles meet and collide? Explode? Or, maybe, go with the most pressing one?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
He just seems incapable of believing that people's moral and philosophical beliefs could be a source of value higher than economic self-interest.

And you can?

This must confuse you as well.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
'Tis better to have no principles than to violate the ones you espouse?

Democrats have principles about the importance of civil rights. Republicans historically take a more limited view of civil rights, but at least they're not being hippocritical about it. I'm more interested in the underlying debate, but AG likes to come along now and then to lower the hammer on GOP hippocracy. It's what he does.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Frank built his entire thesis by assuming that he knew what people should hold as valuable, and then showing that they are irrational in their voting patterns because their votes don't actually give them what they hold as valuable.

His mistake was his underlying assumptions. He just seems incapable of believing that people's moral and philosophical beliefs could be a source of value higher than economic self-interest.

This is a good example of why you shouldn't describe books you haven't read.* From Frank's media blitzkreig and the start of the book, I can understand why you might think that this is true, but if you were to actually read it you would discover that he drops this "thesis" fairly quickly and has quite a bit of narrative describing, e.g., interviews with the wingnut leaders of Kansas, many of whom he seems to have some respect for.

And you're not even describing the thesis very well. I don't think Frank says that voters should value their economic interests above their cultural interests -- I think he's explaining/marvelling that they do, and upset that the Democratic Party often doesn't seem to get this. I think he feels that it's a failure on the Democrats' part to speak to their economic interests that led people to become radicalized.

* For another, unrelated example, see James Wolcott ripping Richard Cohen a new one.

edited to add a thought

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
So what do you do when two strong principles meet and collide? Explode? Or, maybe, go with the most pressing one?

It's pretty apparent that when the GOP's federalism meets the GOP's need for religious wingnut voters, the latter wins out.

(Using "wingnut" in the ironic sense, of course. These voters are principled people -- whose views I disagree with -- and rather few of them are wingnuts.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's pretty apparent that when the GOP's federalism meets the GOP's need for religious wingnut voters, the latter wins out.

(Using "wingnut" in the ironic sense, of course. These voters are principled people -- whose views I disagree with -- and rather few of them are wingnuts.)

I disagree with the premise that the DEMs have not been ideologically bent towards federalism.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I disagree with the premise that the DEMs have not been ideologically bent towards federalism.

Maybe as a means, but not as an end.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is a good example of why you shouldn't describe books you haven't read.*

Partially right. I read about three and a half sections before I got bored with it, and dissatisfied with his thesis. If he moved on after that, then I'm wrong.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's pretty apparent that when the GOP's federalism meets the GOP's need for religious wingnut voters, the latter wins out.

Well, in an era where the GOP's love for small government loses out to the GOP's Ted Kennedy wing, everything's on the table.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
1. Dubai is not our ally; we need Dubai's oil.

2. I say let Russia kill terrorists anywhere it finds them. The same goes for the Mossad, the CIA, whoever. A dead terrorist is the best kind.

3. I don't think that anybody should be threatening sovereign governments per se.

4. As for Britain threatening us over the IRA: (i) see my point immediately above; and (ii) the threat really should be credible before it becomes worrisome.

Regarding #3, I gotta say that one of the main purposes of my post was to point out that Dubai should be taking recent Russian announcements as a fairly explicit threat by the (eta: Russians, did I say Soviets?). And, personally, I think the U.S. should (in addition to backing off the Russians on Chechnya as a general matter) let Dubai know that Russia's statements are consistent with the Bush doctrine.

Hello

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe as a means, but not as an end.

How do you then explain the interpretation of the commercise clause, among other things.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
How do you then explain the interpretation of the commercise clause, among other things.

I explain it as both parties being unprincipled. The Dems. think it has no limits. The Rs. think it has limits, except when it seeks to regulate moral turpitude in some way or another.

And I'll pass on the fatty jokes that would call for a very expansive definition of the commercise clause to get some of that damn weight off.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Democrats have principles about the importance of civil rights. Republicans historically take a more limited view of civil rights, but at least they're not being hippocritical about it. I'm more interested in the underlying debate, but AG likes to come along now and then to lower the hammer on GOP hippocracy. It's what he does.

I, too, hate it when people criticize hippos. They are way too cute for that.