dagblog - Comments for "Behind Pence’s plan to rescue the Republican majority in 2018"

Very interesting:

artappraiser — Sun, 04 Feb 2018 17:20:26 +0000

In reply to Behind Pence’s plan to rescue the Republican majority in 2018

Very interesting:

Romney Is Already Being Considered for a Republican Leadership Position

@ TheAtlantic.com, Feb. 2

Senate GOP leaders have expressed an early interest in elevating the sometime Trump critic—even though he hasn’t yet announced a run for office.

If this is true, the split in the party could get quite serious? We're talking control of the money here. And as I read on, I started to intuit inklings of: is the GOP establishment thinking--we need someone like this to resurrect things if Trump is removed from office? Main source of the article is clearly a leaker with intent to push GOP establishment memes, that's for sure, even if made up out of whole cloth! And it's not like The Atlantic has total idiot editors.

Good points about the

artappraiser — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 19:59:44 +0000

In reply to Thanks, barefooted, for

Good points about the semantics of usage of the word conservatism and I totally agree that I should probably use the word fundamentalism when rambling on this topic. And rambling is definitely what I was doing....so thanks for the refinement!

Thanks, barefooted, for

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:55:26 +0000

In reply to Behind Pence’s plan to rescue the Republican majority in 2018

Thanks, barefooted, for posting the link you did, and artappraiser for your comment on it.

AA you wrote:

But that is the essence of true conservatism, isn't it? To believe there are certain core truths that man must follow, good bad or indifferent.

I respectfully disagree. Part of conservatism's essence is in asserting the value of some of our values, traditions, institutions, norms, etc. But conservatives don't so much insist on certain core, timeless truths as insist that before a community or a society supports changes it might otherwise oppose or decline, it is essential to consider which among those values, traditions, institutions, norms, etc. that are judged important to preserve could be overly compromised, weakened, or lost. This is in part because while change is a constant, the nature of change is not, and change is neither inherently good nor inherently bad, in terms of what human societies and individuals value.

I don't understand conservatism as implying that what is presently valued by the conservative is necessarily viewed as of timeless or universal value. Conservativism can be entirely compatible with ready acceptance of cultural variation and relativity in norms and practices--as anti-fundamentalist in this sense. (In fact, conservatism can counsel against efforts to change norms and practices of other human communities.) And conservatives sometimes do not oppose change, but oppose proposed or potential changes viewed as too rapid or too broad in scope, sometimes supporting smaller, more modest or incremental change instead. Some conservatives are full-fledged believers in evolution--they just want a slower, more gradual pace for it than some others favor.

I would venture to say that many of us at dagblog who find Trump and Trumpism so dangerous and objectionable do so in part because we believe that at least some among our more established norms, traditions, practices, etc. of government and the conduct of the presidency which he is shredding are valuable and important to preserve as bulwarks against tyranny and other abuses of power. In this sense probably most if not all of us have some "conservatism" in us.

I think of "reactionary" as taking conservatism to the extreme by in effect presuming or asserting that any and all change is bad and that what we need to do is go back to real or imagined earlier arrangements. Whether the asserted earlier arrangements were really as the reactionary represents them is another matter. Very often a highly incomplete if not a factually false picture of that imaginary past is what is presented as what we need to go back to. And whether there is any viable way to go back to the presumed better past is another matter as well.

The word "fundamentalism", as I understand (or misunderstand) it, seems to come closest to describing the stance you referenced: "To believe there are certain core truths that man must follow, good bad or indifferent." I share your aversion to it. It is typically anti-relativistic both across time and across space. Usually the cited authority for the averred timeless truths is either a text viewed as sacred or a private communication wherein the Almighty is claimed to have revealed to the fundamentalist said truths. Issues with reliance on either are well understood by folks here and don't need elaboration.

It might seem as though I am being picky. But I believe these are important distinctions, whether or not you or others use the above terms in the ways I tried to describe above.

oh yeah, thanks, it's

artappraiser — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 06:25:22 +0000

In reply to I found this interesting, and

oh yeah, thanks, it's interesting to me that he's been seen as speaking the language of "kingdom come" or Christian empire, of that kind of Evangelical Christianity.

She's doing a pretty decent job of it for such a short essay, it's really at minimum a 1,000-page book topic.

The subjugation of the Jewish people into a segregated tribe is indeed in the Christian art of the west since the "dark ages", it was part of the dominant culture and forced them to become even more segregated until, over centuries, they passed on those skills and traits needed to practiced to survive, which enabled Christians to separate and subjugate them further as "the other" in the midst.

The writer is quite correct to point out that this kind of belief is one of the main contributors to the historic problems ending up with Holocaust. That it still survives afterwards and has clueless adherents like Pence who don't even see how offensive their belief is: quite simply astounding.

But that is the essence of true conservatism, isn't it? To believe there are certain core truths that man must follow, good bad or indifferent. It is the main reason I feel more intolerant of them than any other kind of person. They can't even fathom change, they don't like the theory of evolution because it is about how the only constant is change.

The kind of art I've always been drawn to since I was in college is the weird cross-cultural stuff that inevitably springs up when people trade and therefore trade cultural info, all through the "dark ages" and the Renaissance. (I.e., Chinese Export porcelain.) The individual human beings that would see and try to understand another culture rather than the tribalism where all tribes segregate and that one tribe needs to dominate another. There is ample proof in every era that everyone didn't think along the lines of conservative core beliefs that powers over them were pushing. There is always evidence of other ways of thinking, always hope of change, and openes to new thoughts, new ideas....the rise of capitalism actually helped break the stranglehold that religious hierarchies had over societies. Unfortunately totalitarianism took over the void in some very significant cases.

Which brings up something that's really different and strange about evangelicals like Pence: they don't believe in hierarchy or in any core rituals or liturgy. It's very individualistic on that level, it's you and Jesus and the text, there's no Vatican or bishop telling you how to interpret the text. The fascination that a lot of these types have with the bizarre end times narratives in the bible books that majority Christianity disses as the "Apochrypha" is sort of reactionary and rebellious in it's own way. Certainly as kooky, if not more so, then like, the New Agers they abhor as satanists or whatever. For this reason, I just cant' see them as any different from other weird minor cults. Someone like Bannon or Trump with their very simplistic interpretation of western culture uber alles don't know that the Pence types are not really simpatico, not really deep down, not when you dig into it.

That Pence is a creepy and

CVille Dem — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 02:39:07 +0000

In reply to I found this interesting, and

That Pence is a creepy and dangerous MOFO.

I found this interesting, and

barefooted — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 01:49:59 +0000

In reply to Behind Pence’s plan to rescue the Republican majority in 2018

I found this interesting, and thought you might too, AA, given the art aspect. Beyond that ... it's chilling.

starting to look like the

artappraiser — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 01:41:50 +0000

In reply to Behind Pence’s plan to rescue the Republican majority in 2018

starting to look like the team Trump/Pence faction is aggressively going about rounding up as many of the GOP troops they can:

The State of the Union got teleprompter Trump. The GOP retreat got the real Donald Trump.

After several days of staying on script and acting presidential, Trump returned to his more animated style. He still rattled through his policy priorities at the retreat, but he offered the friendly crowd much more.

By Jenna Johnson
2 hours ago @ WaPo

These two stories together certainly counter a narrative of a White House in crisis and a GOP Congress running away from them. i.e., "this guy as president is killing us". Many busy bees plotting a continuation of a Trumpian GOP running the country 2019-2020.

I haven't figured out where the 2018 Koch money is going to go in this picture. They are certainly on the same page with Pence on one thing This includes up to $20 million on “communicating the benefits of tax reform,"

More from the Politico piece,

artappraiser — Thu, 01 Feb 2018 23:23:47 +0000

In reply to Behind Pence’s plan to rescue the Republican majority in 2018

More from the Politico piece, Pence's people really are directing the NRSC and NRCC on 2018 so far:

Pence’s plan, extraordinary for a vice president, has its roots in a congressional summit at Camp David.

In early January, congressional Republican leaders projected the risk of political peril to White House staff at the presidential retreat. Pence’s team asked top GOP campaign operatives to compile a political road map to help them keep their congressional majorities.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy was blunt: This year could be historically bad for Republicans. But, he noted, the GOP had time to turn it around. Pence and President Donald Trump made a decision: It was time for them to activate. Pence’s team asked the National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee where the vice president could be helpful.

Soon after, Pence invited Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), chairman of the NRSC, and Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio), chairman of the NRCC, along with their top aides, to the Naval Observatory, where the vice president’s team handed them a piece of paper detailing the strategy [....]

Wikipedia: America First

artappraiser — Thu, 01 Feb 2018 23:14:00 +0000

In reply to Behind Pence’s plan to rescue the Republican majority in 2018

Wikipedia: America First Policies was founded by several people, including Nick Ayers, a Republican consultant who is regarded as Mike Pence's top political adviser.[7]

Trump Presidential Campaign donor Rebekah Mercer disagreed with Brad Parscale about the direction of America First Policies. Mercer wanted America First Policies' data engine to be Cambridge Analytica, which would have effectively given her organizational control and potentially influence over the Republican Party. If Mercer had control over the organization's database and the money, Mercer could have led the organization to sway President's supporters against the President.[8]