". . . it would be an unalloyed victory for conservatives — and America — if the Democratic Party fully rejected socialism, abortion-until-birth and its growing obsession with wholesale gun confiscation."
Yes, it would indeed be an unalloyed victory for conservatives IF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUDDENLY BECAME THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Just as it would be an unalloyed victory for me to suddenly be 20 years old again--but this time with the body of a god and a much more outgoing personality.
“It would be an unalloyed victory for America if the entire Republican Party walked into the sea and never returned. Also if Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavenaugh quit the Supremes and formed a soft rock trio that played only Holiday Inn lounges on Thursdays.”
"Ladies and Gentlemen... Unalloyed Victory!" [Stage lights blast on too bright and three dorks, squinting and blinking, launch into a rhythm so sloppy that no one in the audience can decide whether it is a jazzy "Wipe Out" by the Safaris or a pepped up "Reminiscing" by the Little River Band. Only in minute 3, when the Caribbean breakdown arrives as utter chaos and everyone understands the song to be Led Zeppelin's "Fool in the Rain," is Kavanaugh finally struck dead by a hurled beer mug. The police do not investigate.]
Reading anything by Jonah is like eating at that greasy spoon outside of town: you know if you do you’ll have the shits for two days. You, Roy, have a stronger stomach than I.
Goldberg prattling on about "conservatism" always reminds me of the immature thirteen year-old Jonathan Krohn speaking at CPAC in 2009, back before he grew up.
The fact that these new “respectable” rightwing publications are popping up makes me wonder what Conservatism, Inc. will look like post-Trump. Because I think we all know that Trumpism won’t die when Trump is gone since it didn’t start with him, he just popularized saying all the quiet parts out loud.
Trumpism has about 90% approval from Republicans, so who/where is the audience for the quasi-anti-Trump half of National Review’s writers, AND the Bulwark, AND the Dispatch? It must consist entirely of other conservative writers and the 250 rich businessmen who are probably funding all three publications.
I think they're getting ready for one of history's greatest spackle jobs--covering over Trumpism with a heavy layer of "Of course we didn't like the man because he wasn't REALLY a conservative, but he did have some good policies we need to pursue . . ."
Nah. GWB followed the ex-president tradition of vanishing completely for a solid year or two, then resurfacing to tell Late Night TV hosts about his hobbies. It's going to be impossible to memory-hole Trump, because he's going to live to 99 and spend every minute of it barking that he was robbed and his successor is a traitor. That'll keep 40 percent of the population ginned utterly the fuck up on ressentiment and gearing to topple whatever Wiemar Republic we are able to construct out of the ashes of his term in office. America's only real hope is that Trump lands quickly and forever in prison, with no access to media.
I somehow missed the original call-out of The Bulwark; you guys know I've yelled about them in my SmartNews feed before. And just what the country needs right now, yet ANOTHER "reasonable conservative" outlet that still traffics in the same tired tropes. I suppose at least it keeps them from stealing hubcaps.
“polarization and demonization of Blue America” is pretty much all conservatives do.
Well, wait. It's true that they offer nothing to anyone not a mill/billionaire apart from Freedom (TM). But they do a lot of other stuff, too! They whine about how oppressed they are. They pule about how they're "not allowed" to say this or do that. They sneer at popular culture but then get excited if Kanye West goes to the White House. They denounce homosexuality until they're caught in bed with the pool boy. They're VERY BUSY.
A very good point, and you avoided the low-hanging fruit: they despise higher education yet simultaneously crow about and trumpet ('crumpet'? 'trow'?) any Ivy League credential possessed by someone they like.
Also: let's be good economists,, if only for a moment, and understand that a 'good' is anything someone values, and James Baldwin put it better than I can in his debate with Buckley:
<blockquote>[…]they’ve been raised to believe, and by now they helplessly believe, that no matter how terrible their lives may be, and their lives have been quite terrible, and no matter how far they fall, no matter what disaster overtakes them, they have one enormous knowledge in consolation, which is like a heavenly revelation: at least, they are not Black.</blockquote>
Since Goldberg's mind can't handle an original thought, it would be "a victory for America" if Democrats would "fully reject socialism". Thanks to years of conservatives (not to mention Trump and his Fox lackeys) screaming that Democrats are all radical socialists, the rest of the media has turned it into conventional wisdom. But as a commie pinko from way back, I have to ask, what "socialism" is it that Democrats need to "fully reject?"
There are two prominent Democratic Socialists (not even the original flavor) in Congress. That's it. Policies like Medicare for All, labeled "SOCIALISM!" by conserverati like Goldberg, is nothing more than a single-payer insurance plan not unlike the forms of universal healthcare of every other fucking industrial country on the planet. Not to mention, Medicare already covers 55 million people, and along with stuff like the minimum wage and civil rights enforcement has existed for years as statutory functions of government. Even high marginal tax rates on the rich were in place during the halcyon days of the 50's.
In other words, there ain't nothing new here. These assholes like to think they're "conservatives." They're really just Republicans who want the Heritage Foundation to run the country.
I basically agree with you: for his sort, anything the government does, except for the Forces and protecting the private property of rich persons real and artificial and enforcing their contracts, is at most one step away from the Gulag. The good news is that among some of the youngest voters it sounds like 'Socialism' is no longer quite the hate-incamtation (snarl-word) it used to be.
One point, though: France, Germany, Israel, and Japan are all industrialised nations whose insurance schemes aren't like Medicare, rather its and extremely regulated market that (if I'm remembering correctly) doesn't allow profit on health alone thought they do permit bundling (an old New England tradition). It's possible, though, that our 'money==speech' doctrine and the gigantic fortunes the insurers possess means that we can't have nice things. ('That's how you get insur-ants.')
My scepticism of Medicare-for-all is conditioned by the above, by seeing a parent used as a cash-cow during an hospital stay─doctors would poke their heads in, ask how she was doing, not press her reflexive 'Fine.' and vanish, only to bill Medicare a couple of hundred (probably making-up-for pre-A.C.A. indigents)─and by seeing endless 'let's bill the fuck out of Medicare' ads on poor persons' and Spanish-language T.V..
Government programs generally are sitting ducks to be gamed by fraudsters, and Medicare (and even worse, Medicaid) is one of them. But at the same time, Medicare's administrative costs are a fraction of private insurance, so oversight and efficiency is at least possible. As someone who has had premium private insurance and is now on Medicare, I can say that the patient-as-cash-cow thing seems about the same for both. But my health needs are minimal - my wife's on the other hand aren't, and Medicare has been perfectly adequate, with no gouging in sight. I think it would still be a vast improvement for most folks.
The thought of Goldberg boarding a skiff with "limited provisions" is both utterly hilarious and an own goal forty seconds after the game starts. He's still got it!
Sounds exactly like a Trump development: Gold-plated turds. Seems the model is increased civility and the occasional tut-tut to Donnie.
Drain-The-Swamp-Gas. Now with 50% more "meth" in the methane.
50% more meth in the methane makes ethane
". . . it would be an unalloyed victory for conservatives — and America — if the Democratic Party fully rejected socialism, abortion-until-birth and its growing obsession with wholesale gun confiscation."
Yes, it would indeed be an unalloyed victory for conservatives IF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUDDENLY BECAME THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Just as it would be an unalloyed victory for me to suddenly be 20 years old again--but this time with the body of a god and a much more outgoing personality.
“It would be an unalloyed victory for America if the entire Republican Party walked into the sea and never returned. Also if Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavenaugh quit the Supremes and formed a soft rock trio that played only Holiday Inn lounges on Thursdays.”
"Ladies and Gentlemen... Unalloyed Victory!" [Stage lights blast on too bright and three dorks, squinting and blinking, launch into a rhythm so sloppy that no one in the audience can decide whether it is a jazzy "Wipe Out" by the Safaris or a pepped up "Reminiscing" by the Little River Band. Only in minute 3, when the Caribbean breakdown arrives as utter chaos and everyone understands the song to be Led Zeppelin's "Fool in the Rain," is Kavanaugh finally struck dead by a hurled beer mug. The police do not investigate.]
Reading anything by Jonah is like eating at that greasy spoon outside of town: you know if you do you’ll have the shits for two days. You, Roy, have a stronger stomach than I.
Goldberg prattling on about "conservatism" always reminds me of the immature thirteen year-old Jonathan Krohn speaking at CPAC in 2009, back before he grew up.
The fact that these new “respectable” rightwing publications are popping up makes me wonder what Conservatism, Inc. will look like post-Trump. Because I think we all know that Trumpism won’t die when Trump is gone since it didn’t start with him, he just popularized saying all the quiet parts out loud.
Trumpism has about 90% approval from Republicans, so who/where is the audience for the quasi-anti-Trump half of National Review’s writers, AND the Bulwark, AND the Dispatch? It must consist entirely of other conservative writers and the 250 rich businessmen who are probably funding all three publications.
I think they're getting ready for one of history's greatest spackle jobs--covering over Trumpism with a heavy layer of "Of course we didn't like the man because he wasn't REALLY a conservative, but he did have some good policies we need to pursue . . ."
You're probably right. All the unsavory parts go down the memory hole. They already know that will work because look at the rehabilitation of GWB.
I misread that second line as " unsavory pants". Must have been thinking of Jonah.
Nah. GWB followed the ex-president tradition of vanishing completely for a solid year or two, then resurfacing to tell Late Night TV hosts about his hobbies. It's going to be impossible to memory-hole Trump, because he's going to live to 99 and spend every minute of it barking that he was robbed and his successor is a traitor. That'll keep 40 percent of the population ginned utterly the fuck up on ressentiment and gearing to topple whatever Wiemar Republic we are able to construct out of the ashes of his term in office. America's only real hope is that Trump lands quickly and forever in prison, with no access to media.
"Fox News Presents: Trump That Bitch, an hour with your favorite ex-President." Shudder. Yeah, he definitely needs to be in jail on 23 hour lock down.
That's who it's always been for. The people who like to pretend it's an idea.
I assume centrist Democrats are also part of the anticipated audience
I somehow missed the original call-out of The Bulwark; you guys know I've yelled about them in my SmartNews feed before. And just what the country needs right now, yet ANOTHER "reasonable conservative" outlet that still traffics in the same tired tropes. I suppose at least it keeps them from stealing hubcaps.
Great. I just want to clarify that I only support retail gun confiscation. I believe wholesale gun confiscation is a terrible idea.
Maybe, but for the Right it's an anti-Semitic dog-whistle.
That's all very interesting, but I want to know what transporter accident (or demon curse) separated whom into Jonah Goldberg and Seb Gorka.
Interesting. I thought the division was Good and Evil, but when all you have to work with is Evil and Stupid...
In this case, it's Fatuous&anti-Semitic and Fatuous&Fuck!He'sJewish.
doppelgangers
“polarization and demonization of Blue America” is pretty much all conservatives do.
Well, wait. It's true that they offer nothing to anyone not a mill/billionaire apart from Freedom (TM). But they do a lot of other stuff, too! They whine about how oppressed they are. They pule about how they're "not allowed" to say this or do that. They sneer at popular culture but then get excited if Kanye West goes to the White House. They denounce homosexuality until they're caught in bed with the pool boy. They're VERY BUSY.
A very good point, and you avoided the low-hanging fruit: they despise higher education yet simultaneously crow about and trumpet ('crumpet'? 'trow'?) any Ivy League credential possessed by someone they like.
Also: let's be good economists,, if only for a moment, and understand that a 'good' is anything someone values, and James Baldwin put it better than I can in his debate with Buckley:
<blockquote>[…]they’ve been raised to believe, and by now they helplessly believe, that no matter how terrible their lives may be, and their lives have been quite terrible, and no matter how far they fall, no matter what disaster overtakes them, they have one enormous knowledge in consolation, which is like a heavenly revelation: at least, they are not Black.</blockquote>
(Thanks to: https://www.rimaregas.com/2015/06/07/transcript-james-baldwin-debates-william-f-buckley-1965-blog42/ .)
Since Goldberg's mind can't handle an original thought, it would be "a victory for America" if Democrats would "fully reject socialism". Thanks to years of conservatives (not to mention Trump and his Fox lackeys) screaming that Democrats are all radical socialists, the rest of the media has turned it into conventional wisdom. But as a commie pinko from way back, I have to ask, what "socialism" is it that Democrats need to "fully reject?"
There are two prominent Democratic Socialists (not even the original flavor) in Congress. That's it. Policies like Medicare for All, labeled "SOCIALISM!" by conserverati like Goldberg, is nothing more than a single-payer insurance plan not unlike the forms of universal healthcare of every other fucking industrial country on the planet. Not to mention, Medicare already covers 55 million people, and along with stuff like the minimum wage and civil rights enforcement has existed for years as statutory functions of government. Even high marginal tax rates on the rich were in place during the halcyon days of the 50's.
In other words, there ain't nothing new here. These assholes like to think they're "conservatives." They're really just Republicans who want the Heritage Foundation to run the country.
I basically agree with you: for his sort, anything the government does, except for the Forces and protecting the private property of rich persons real and artificial and enforcing their contracts, is at most one step away from the Gulag. The good news is that among some of the youngest voters it sounds like 'Socialism' is no longer quite the hate-incamtation (snarl-word) it used to be.
One point, though: France, Germany, Israel, and Japan are all industrialised nations whose insurance schemes aren't like Medicare, rather its and extremely regulated market that (if I'm remembering correctly) doesn't allow profit on health alone thought they do permit bundling (an old New England tradition). It's possible, though, that our 'money==speech' doctrine and the gigantic fortunes the insurers possess means that we can't have nice things. ('That's how you get insur-ants.')
My scepticism of Medicare-for-all is conditioned by the above, by seeing a parent used as a cash-cow during an hospital stay─doctors would poke their heads in, ask how she was doing, not press her reflexive 'Fine.' and vanish, only to bill Medicare a couple of hundred (probably making-up-for pre-A.C.A. indigents)─and by seeing endless 'let's bill the fuck out of Medicare' ads on poor persons' and Spanish-language T.V..
Government programs generally are sitting ducks to be gamed by fraudsters, and Medicare (and even worse, Medicaid) is one of them. But at the same time, Medicare's administrative costs are a fraction of private insurance, so oversight and efficiency is at least possible. As someone who has had premium private insurance and is now on Medicare, I can say that the patient-as-cash-cow thing seems about the same for both. But my health needs are minimal - my wife's on the other hand aren't, and Medicare has been perfectly adequate, with no gouging in sight. I think it would still be a vast improvement for most folks.
Oh please. People don't want conservatives with good taste, they want conservatives that taste good!
Fat chance. Too much MSG.
Roy, about how much of our payment for this site goes to Substack? Also, are we not enough people to get a "far left" media company?
The thought of Goldberg boarding a skiff with "limited provisions" is both utterly hilarious and an own goal forty seconds after the game starts. He's still got it!
Buttkist?