Thank you for explaining your point of view. Such a viewpoint is welcome. I want to read "non-partisan punditry" as it is more balanced than much of what is written. As you point out, the Bulwark presents this sort of view as well. While I am a liberal, I find it valuable to read thoughtful criticism of the left as well as the right. I'm glad you are willing to share your thoughts on our political situation.
I paid to read this Substack, because I remember Damon Linker when he was affiliated with the right, and I always appreciated his political writing.
I have taken a different tack. I have become more right wing in the years since the debacle of the Iraq war. Given where I live, and my interactions with the administrative state, I much prefer a full house cleaning approach.
As to stability, I am ideologically predisposed to believe that it is only the right who has to give-in in order to create stability. When a democratic choice is made in a rightward direction in any municipality or state in our country, it is not considered 'democratic'. That the double standards are so fully ingrained as to make it necessary to discount every statement from the left as only being in bad faith.
I’ve thought about your post for days. Can you give me an example of a rightward direction choice, that people are saying is anti-democratic? Why are these democratic choices considered left or right?
I find I have nearly equal cynicism for left and right statements.
How about Liz Cheney being defeated in Wyoming. The entirety of the liberal media industry decried it as an undemocratic act, but the Republican Party made its choice, and elections are democratic.
The point is that the elite Democrats want to proscribe what positions the conservatives in America can support. I reject that view. If you always allow your dishonest opposition to set your agenda, that way leads to constant defeat.
What I notice about Cheney's defeat is that again and again the Trump supporters around me tell me that their support of him is all about the policy. But you can't find anyone more in line with the policy than Cheney. So it's obviously not all about the policy or she would still have a gig.
With regard to the comments about her defeat being undemocratic, I have not heard those comments, but I can imagine where they might come from. Cheney seems to be a good faith actor who is trying to defend the country from bad actors who would like state legislatures to throw away votes if they so choose. It's not the process of getting rid of Cheney that is undemocratic, but the reason for getting rid of her. It would be a fair argument or point of view that the idea of the unitary executive and/or the independent legislature is undemocratic, and the removal of folks who oppose those positions could therefore be fairly seen as an "undemocratic" - not the vote per se, but the policy goal behind the vote if that makes sense.
Lastly, I hear this comment a lot that the other side wants to proscribe what positions are allowed. It usually goes something like "they don't like our policies so they call us nazis" or something like that. But when you look closely, it isn't tax policies or small government policies that trigger the fascism comparison, it is fascist policies, like granting a few folks in the state legislature the arbitrary and plenary power to throw out tens of millions of votes if they so choose. The argument that no court and no constitution - and in fact no power whatsoever - can stop them from doing this is a very extremely radical position. If you guys are going to support fascist policies, just admit that you are fascists and you like it that way. Why hide it? I bet you would get a lot of support if you just came out and said it and showed the world that you aren't scared of being called bad names. Just seize power and do with it what you will. The strong do what they like and the weak do what they must. Americans love gangsters. You should just own it.
There is the understanding that she has never lived in Wyoming, which is a legitimate cause not to elect her.
She voted in favor of the expanded background checks on guns, which is a policy that is not favored by the majority of Wyoming voters.
It is also the case that Liz Cheney was throwing in with the Democrats at a time when the Democratic Party is seeking the wholesale destruction of the two major industries in the State of Wyoming. It does not take a genius to understand that if the Democrats have unfettered power, they will cripple the energy production industry, and will also cripple the agriculture industry, given half a chance. Liz Cheney knows that, but she's only concerned with Liz Cheney rather than the state she was elected to represent. The people of Wyoming took their chance to remove the problem from office. And whatever your ideas are as regards the motives of said electorate, they are allowed to pass judgment.
As to the fascism: That is a fatuous argument. The unitary executive at least ensures the buck stops at the executive branch, where elections can hold he/she accountable. As to state throwing out votes, I don't see any state throwing out any legally cast vote. It's not the Republicans speaking endlessly about packing courts and removing judicial review from pet pieces of legislation.
Finally, since we live in a democracy, I don't have to accept your policies when they become enacted. In fact, it's perfectly fine to point out the destructive nature of leftist policies, to rail against them, and to undermine them wherever possible. In the words of the American Dream Dusty Rhodes, "...it'll never be over!" And that's the way it should be.
What is a centrist? Is it everybody between the hard left and hard right? Or are some like me, mostly in the middle but with some swiveling on certain issues? I lean left fiscally and right socially, except hard-anti-death penalty. I’m a modified pacifist and pro-getting countries on a similar page.
It's easier to be a hack, though, isn't it?
Thank you for explaining your point of view. Such a viewpoint is welcome. I want to read "non-partisan punditry" as it is more balanced than much of what is written. As you point out, the Bulwark presents this sort of view as well. While I am a liberal, I find it valuable to read thoughtful criticism of the left as well as the right. I'm glad you are willing to share your thoughts on our political situation.
I paid to read this Substack, because I remember Damon Linker when he was affiliated with the right, and I always appreciated his political writing.
I have taken a different tack. I have become more right wing in the years since the debacle of the Iraq war. Given where I live, and my interactions with the administrative state, I much prefer a full house cleaning approach.
As to stability, I am ideologically predisposed to believe that it is only the right who has to give-in in order to create stability. When a democratic choice is made in a rightward direction in any municipality or state in our country, it is not considered 'democratic'. That the double standards are so fully ingrained as to make it necessary to discount every statement from the left as only being in bad faith.
I’ve thought about your post for days. Can you give me an example of a rightward direction choice, that people are saying is anti-democratic? Why are these democratic choices considered left or right?
I find I have nearly equal cynicism for left and right statements.
How about Liz Cheney being defeated in Wyoming. The entirety of the liberal media industry decried it as an undemocratic act, but the Republican Party made its choice, and elections are democratic.
The point is that the elite Democrats want to proscribe what positions the conservatives in America can support. I reject that view. If you always allow your dishonest opposition to set your agenda, that way leads to constant defeat.
What I notice about Cheney's defeat is that again and again the Trump supporters around me tell me that their support of him is all about the policy. But you can't find anyone more in line with the policy than Cheney. So it's obviously not all about the policy or she would still have a gig.
With regard to the comments about her defeat being undemocratic, I have not heard those comments, but I can imagine where they might come from. Cheney seems to be a good faith actor who is trying to defend the country from bad actors who would like state legislatures to throw away votes if they so choose. It's not the process of getting rid of Cheney that is undemocratic, but the reason for getting rid of her. It would be a fair argument or point of view that the idea of the unitary executive and/or the independent legislature is undemocratic, and the removal of folks who oppose those positions could therefore be fairly seen as an "undemocratic" - not the vote per se, but the policy goal behind the vote if that makes sense.
Lastly, I hear this comment a lot that the other side wants to proscribe what positions are allowed. It usually goes something like "they don't like our policies so they call us nazis" or something like that. But when you look closely, it isn't tax policies or small government policies that trigger the fascism comparison, it is fascist policies, like granting a few folks in the state legislature the arbitrary and plenary power to throw out tens of millions of votes if they so choose. The argument that no court and no constitution - and in fact no power whatsoever - can stop them from doing this is a very extremely radical position. If you guys are going to support fascist policies, just admit that you are fascists and you like it that way. Why hide it? I bet you would get a lot of support if you just came out and said it and showed the world that you aren't scared of being called bad names. Just seize power and do with it what you will. The strong do what they like and the weak do what they must. Americans love gangsters. You should just own it.
There is the understanding that she has never lived in Wyoming, which is a legitimate cause not to elect her.
She voted in favor of the expanded background checks on guns, which is a policy that is not favored by the majority of Wyoming voters.
It is also the case that Liz Cheney was throwing in with the Democrats at a time when the Democratic Party is seeking the wholesale destruction of the two major industries in the State of Wyoming. It does not take a genius to understand that if the Democrats have unfettered power, they will cripple the energy production industry, and will also cripple the agriculture industry, given half a chance. Liz Cheney knows that, but she's only concerned with Liz Cheney rather than the state she was elected to represent. The people of Wyoming took their chance to remove the problem from office. And whatever your ideas are as regards the motives of said electorate, they are allowed to pass judgment.
As to the fascism: That is a fatuous argument. The unitary executive at least ensures the buck stops at the executive branch, where elections can hold he/she accountable. As to state throwing out votes, I don't see any state throwing out any legally cast vote. It's not the Republicans speaking endlessly about packing courts and removing judicial review from pet pieces of legislation.
Finally, since we live in a democracy, I don't have to accept your policies when they become enacted. In fact, it's perfectly fine to point out the destructive nature of leftist policies, to rail against them, and to undermine them wherever possible. In the words of the American Dream Dusty Rhodes, "...it'll never be over!" And that's the way it should be.
What is a centrist? Is it everybody between the hard left and hard right? Or are some like me, mostly in the middle but with some swiveling on certain issues? I lean left fiscally and right socially, except hard-anti-death penalty. I’m a modified pacifist and pro-getting countries on a similar page.
So am I centrist or just confused?