I think you are giving a pass to behavior that would make you apoplectic if the other side were doing it.

Thanks. Just wanted to add this from conservative Peter Wehner, who Ben calls ‘despicable’:

Many of the same people who once fiercely supported Reagan and opposed moral relativism and nihilism have come to embody the ethic of Thrasymachus, the cynical Sophist in Plato’s Republic who insists that justice has no intrinsic meaning. All that matters is the interests of the strongest party. “Injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice,” he argued.

The United States under Trump is dark, aggressive, and lawless. It has become, in the words of Representative Ogles, a predator nation. This period of our history will eventually be judged, and the verdict will be unforgiving—because Thrasymachus was wrong. Justice matters more than injustice. And I have a strong intuition and a settled hope that the moral arc of the universe will eventually bend that way.

Any Democrat politician has to toe the line on certain policies to win the primaries. No matter how telegenic a person is, they're not going to the Democrat nominee if they don't check certain boxes: pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-environment, pro-gun control, pro-immigration, etc. — RogueAI

You'd think so, except that, as I've pointed out, Harris was rhetorically aligned with America's longstanding immigration laws, not against them, not trying to change them. So ... maybe not on immigration.

Also, nobody's anti-environment. But blocking oil pipeline construction just burns more oil to transport the oil. Electric vehicles are just coal-powered cars. Corn based ethanol was idiotic. Wind and solar do not scale. If any of you really believed in any of this climate change alarmism stuff at all then you'd be cheerleading a fast track to a nuclear+hydrogen energy future because that is the only real, scalable answer to it, assuming it is a real problem and not just a scam. But Leftists are so hostile to nuclear and so duplicitous on multiple other issues and so obviously using the same tactics on this one that you should be able to understand why I, not being a scientist, would get suspicious.

You'd think so, except that, as I've pointed out, Harris was rhetorically aligned with America's longstanding immigration laws, not against them, not trying to change them. So ... maybe not on immigration. — BenMcLean

There's some wiggle room a Dem politician has. A lot of old school dems like myself were turned off with Biden's open border policy.

Hey, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions honestly.

I think you are giving a pass to behavior that would make you apoplectic if the other side were doing it. — RogueAI

Except the other side was doing it repeatedly. Politically motivated violent rioting, invading federal buildings, even trying to set them on fire. All of it. And supported by Democrat rhetoric. That was the summer of 2020. That had been going on for the whole season prior to the January 6th incident. That moment was the Right going apoplectic about the Left's behavior.

Many of the same people who once fiercely supported Reagan and opposed moral relativism and nihilism have come to embody the ethic of Thrasymachus, the cynical Sophist in Plato’s Republic who insists that justice has no intrinsic meaning. All that matters is the interests of the strongest party. “Injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice,” he argued.

Yeah, I know the Republic and he's right that Plato was right that this sophistry is bad.

The United States under Trump is dark, aggressive, and lawless. It has become, in the words of Representative Ogles, a predator nation.

Yeah, right. We're a predator nation. Our taxes pay to secure the international shipping of the entire world for free -- which this guy insists we keep on doing forever -- but we're a "predator nation."

There's no philosophy in this discussion. To the Lounge it goes.

What immigrant group are you talking about acting this way? Americans in Latin America or what? I think you confuse those vocal people speaking on the behalf of immigrants, when it comes to Western countries. — ssu

Too many examples to name.

Usually migrants do understand the age old truth of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". — ssu

Yes, there is mimicry and the adoption of what is useful. Sometimes this leads to full-scale assimilation where one group loses its identity and joins the other, but with Abrahamic religions, at least, this sort of thing is tantamount to annihilation. E.g., Jews could adopt Roman technology and dress, but they could never worship the Roman cult.

Who would tolerate cheap vagrants just strolling everywhere eating their own food or worse, just begging for food? — ssu

It's not this that concerns me. It's the foreigners who buy up large plots of land and make large donations to politicians and universities. Everyone notices the poor foreigner; the rich are more subtle but far more dangerous.

It's the foreigners who buy up large plots of land and make large donations to politicians and universities. Everyone notices the poor foreigner; the rich are more subtle but far more dangerous. — BitconnectCarlos

If your politicians can be bought to play the tunes of foreigners, which especially now they surely can be (starting now from Trump himself), you should blame your own people, not the foreigners for this.

If your country is corrupt, don't blame others for it.

No philosophy. Just a lot of special pleading and tu quoque.

It's about more than just politicians. Land. Universities. In any case, our original topic was the role of religion in political discourse, or the use of appeals to God/absolute truth in the political sphere.

There's a parochial madness here that is pretty sad.

No philosophy. Just a lot of special pleading and tu quoque. — Ciceronianus

The supposed "ideological crisis" is a result of dropping any pretensions of acting ethically, in favour of just openly being inconsiderate, narcissistic twats. Trying to rake back any intellectual dignity from the mess that is the GOP is a lost cause. Intellectual dignity is not on the menu. One cannot have such an "ideological crisis" unless one is committed to at least appearing to have a standing commitment to coherence, justification, or ethical self-understanding. Those pretensions have simply been abandoned.

It’s not that the GOP can’t supply a philosophy, so much as that supplying one would be instrumentally pointless given the current incentives. Attempts to reconstruct "Trumpism" (which is not even a "thing", as the kids say) as a coherent doctrine (national conservatism, post-liberalism, etc.) are absurd; trying to smuggle normative seriousness back into a practice that now explicitly disavows it.

But I would say that.

Carry on.

The supposed "ideological crisis" is a result of dropping any pretensions of acting ethically, in favour of just openly being inconsiderate, narcissistic twats. Trying to rake back any intellectual dignity from the mess that is the GOP is a lost cause. Intellectual dignity is not on the menu. One cannot have such an "ideological crisis" unless one is committed to at least appearing to have a standing commitment to coherence, justification, or ethical self-understanding. Those pretensions have simply been abandoned.

Yes, it’s a case of populists exploiting the phenomena of social media gaslighting along with religious fervour and dogmatism. If they can confuse the populist message with religious righteousness it can be smuggled through into mainstream opinion and work as a powerful force to divide and rule. And guess who’s the poster boy for all this. It will descend into chaos, corruption and economic failure.

It's about more than just politicians. Land. Universities. In any case, our original topic was the role of religion in political discourse, or the use of appeals to God/absolute truth in the political sphere. — BitconnectCarlos

The "custom of the land" as often corruption is referred to.

Politics deals also with moral and ethical questions, hence it is no wonder that in religious societies God (and hence absolute truth) would play a part. Yet politics in a democracy is about compromises to get agreements and a consensus. Political polarization makes that very difficult.

Basically every political party and movement should at all times be frightened of losing elections and power. A very entrenched political system where that isn't a problem is one reason (among others) that increases the possibility of corruption. And if the legal system isn't working or itself is corrupt, then corruption is rampant.

Perhaps conservatism might be a problem for the right if those "old values" are things like corruption, yet there's ample ideology in the right to eradicate these problems starting simply with the rights of the individuals and the ever important separation of powers.

Centralization of power, usually to one leader, is a cause for corruption and the destruction of the institutions necessary in a republic. This has been the real problem in leftist ideology (which doesn't care about separation of powers and the necessary institutions), but can also lead the right-wing astray when people want "strong leaders" to fix things.

The supposed "ideological crisis" is a result of dropping any pretensions of acting ethically, in favour of just openly being inconsiderate, narcissistic twats. — Banno

This seems like you're not thinking. Both sides for the most part really believe in what they're doing. Nobody ever sees themselves as the bad guys, or hardly ever. Where they do some things that are morally compromised sometimes, they will usually see it as a necessary compromise. No matter which party they're from. That's a reality I think you're failing to take into account.

There are a few issues where I do doubt that the other side is acting in good faith, where they agitate for causes they know aren't actionable or say they care about reducing emissions while opposing nuclear power. But I think they do see themselves as the good guys in their own story most of the time and understanding that about your opponents is absolutely vital to keeping your views grounded in reality.

It’s not that the GOP can’t supply a philosophy, so much as that supplying one would be instrumentally pointless given the current incentives. — Banno

The problem isn't that the GOP can't supply a philosophy: it's that it can't narrow down the field to just one which is internally consistent! The historical narrative I gave showed how there used to be an ideology that was constructed piecemeal out of the concerns which were most important to each of several factions but then also described how that contract has broken down. It's not that there's a lack of people with ideas or priorities: it's that there's a lack of a unifying synthesis between numerous competing factions and ideas right now. The Trump people don't clarify things, but in order to keep hold of power past 2028, they will need to. The present ambiguity and lack of a unifying ideological synthesis cannot last.