The Nihilistic Feedback Loop

32 Comments

1. 

   Arthur Gilroy on December 22, 2015 at 11:08 am

   You write:

   I’ve never seen any group of human beings who could craft a positive agenda around nihilism.

   I guess that depends on your definitions of “positive” and “nihilism,” Booman.

   Lets go with nihilism first.

   I’ll go with Merriam Webster’s second main definition in this case:

   The belief that a society’s political and social institutions are so bad that they should be destroyed.

   And “positive?” In this context I would use the word “successful” instead.

   Thus a translation of your statement using these ideas would be:

   I’ve never seen any group of human beings who could craft a successful political agenda around the belief that a society’s political and social institutions are so bad that they should be destroyed.

   Hmmmm…

   If you take the word “successful” to mean being able to take over a society’s entire political and cultural system by whatever means necessary for more than a couple of years?

   Examples abound.

   Revolutions abound.

   Are they “positive” examples?

   I dunno.

   Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not.

   You tell me.

   The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

   IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

   The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

   When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

   We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

   He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
   He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
   He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
   He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
   He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
   He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
   He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
   He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
   He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
   He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
   He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
   He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
   He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
   For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
   For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
   For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
   For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
   For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
   For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
   For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
   For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
   For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
   He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
   He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
   He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
   He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
   He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

   In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

   Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

   We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

   Hmmmm…

   Is Trump on this level?

   Not on your life.

   Is he on the level of the Russian Revolution?

   Nope.

   But…is he on the Hitlerian level?

   Not yet he ain’t, but the game is still in play.

   Watch.

   And…let us pray.

   AG

   • 

     BooMan on December 22, 2015 at 11:40 am

     It’s appropriate to talk about nihilism in a political context here, obviously.

     But I use the term is a broader sense that includes your definition but isn’t limited to it.  

     Most Republicans are religious in a very theistic sense which means that it would be inappropriate to call them nihilists in at least one important way. The certainly do believe in something.  

     But when it comes to the empirical world, they and their strategists are constantly engaging in metaphysical or even epistemological nihilism. It isn’t possible to know if human activity is causing climate change or what the climate is going to do. No amount of direct experience can alter a belief in certain ideological propositions (see: trickle down economics).  People who are “reality-based” are stuck on some false and inferior truth standard that neither applies in actuality nor is a solid political strategy.  Lying isn’t really lying because the truth is unknowable and is (in any case) completely beside the point of who is going to win.  

     Another form of nihilism is their willingness to engage in behavior that any remotely astute observer knows is doomed or reckless or even simply madness.  Let’s shoot down Russian planes in Syria. Let’s use nuclear weapons. Let’s default on our national debts and destroy our credit rating. Let’s shut down the government for no purpose other than to show we “fought.”  This form of nihilism is the kind that basically says “nothing matters, so who cares what happens?”  Or, “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.”  

     And, yes, there’s also the Russian version of nihilism that is a hybrid of all these things. It says that everything is so rotten that almost anything is permissible to destroy the existing social order. That’s how Stalin wound up killing a lot more people than Hitler.  

     However, you slice it, it isn’t compatible with running the federal government.  

     • 

       Arthur Gilroy on December 22, 2015 at 11:58 am

       You write:

       However, you slice it, it isn’t compatible with running the federal government.

       This must be a misprint.

       I am sure that you meant to write:

       However, you slice it, it isn’t compatible with ruining the federal government.

       No?

       Oh.

       Well.

       Nevermind.

       Because I believe that this is exactly what the nativist right is trying to do.

       Quite successfully, on the evidence.

       A politcally-driven revolution.

       A backwards revolution, back to the days of total white supremacy. Total supremacy of the old European Protestant Christian beliefs that were the excuse for the way the country was built from a continent of unused raw materials to the most powerful country in the world over the course of about 170 years.

       Say 1776-1946.

       If Trump wins the presidency…and I believe that he has a really good chance of doing just that, especially against Hillary Wardom Clinton…he will make the so-called “Reagan Revolution” look positively liberal in comparison.

       Watch.

       AG

2. 

   Phil Perspective on December 22, 2015 at 11:26 am

   Does Frum blame Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito?  That allowed wealthy people to back Ted Cruz and others.  Does he blame the same GOP establishment for allowing the rise of Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk?  Because their success also helped lead to today.

   What we’re witnessing now, with Donald Trump, is proof that the base of the GOP will support almost any rhetoric as long as it is aimed at bashing Latinos, Muslims, or the Republicans in Washington DC who seem more interested in getting reelected than in keeping their promises.

   Don’t forget bashing Hillary Clinton.  The GOP base loves who ever bashes her.  That’s why Trump’s numbers will stay steady, or even increase after yesterday’s ugly word salad.

   • 

     BooMan on December 22, 2015 at 11:43 am

     yeah, but name me the candidate who isn’t bashing Hillary.

     • 

       Phil Perspective on December 22, 2015 at 1:59 pm

       No one is doing it like Trump though.  He’s using a bullhorn when others are using dog whistles.

       • 

         Marie3 on December 22, 2015 at 2:28 pm

         Trump jumped into the race because he could see that none of them were fluent in “teabag” and he is.  Oh, and he views himself as “great.”

     • 

       Beahmont on December 22, 2015 at 4:17 pm

       I’ve not seen Bernie Sanders himself bashing Hillary. Elements of his campaign and a lot of his supporters yes. Sanders himself? No.

       That however is very much limited to what I’ve seen. It’s entirely possible I missed something, and Sen. Sanders has in fact been bashing Hillary Clinton and I just missed it. But I’m reasonably confident I didn’t because the smug from some of the Sanders supporters over at C&L would be enough to wipe all of California off the map, not just San Francisco.

3. 

   The Voice In The Wilderness on December 22, 2015 at 11:46 am

   He could as easily have said “The DNC planned a dynastic restoration in 2016. Instead, it triggered an internal class war.”  These two statements are equivalent because both the Republican and the Democratic establishments are happy with the status quo.

   The have power and the money keeps flowing upward. Throw a few bullshit red meat quotes out to keep the dumb voters happy and all’s right with the world. So both bases are unhappy. The (R) base bolts to the Right, because that’s the Kool-Aid they’ve been drinking for decades. The (D) base bolts Left, because that’s the Kool-Aid they have been drinking for decades.

   Arthur Gilroy’s Permagov is revealed. Not as a formal conspiracy but as a confluence of shared interests. Self-interests, not the interests of their respective bases.

   • 

     Arthur Gilroy on December 22, 2015 at 12:36 pm

     Arthur Gilroy’s Permagov is revealed. Not as a formal conspiracy but as a confluence of shared interests. Self-interests, not the interests of their respective bases.

     Precisely.

     Thank you.

     Although…I believe that in certain places, at certain times among certain people…the spooksters, the Cheneys, Kissingers etc…it is and has always been a “formal” conspiracy. A sitdown amongst various gang leaders at the highest level, a brokered meeting in order to “get things done.”

     And after things do “get done,” then the system devolves back once again into a confluence of shared interests, which in turn becomes a competition, a turf war just exactly like the turf wars of gangs only vastly larger.

     This keeps on going higher.

     It then becomes a “confluence of interests” between opposing countries like the rapidly approaching alliance between U.S-dominated NATO powers and Russia against their common enemy, ISIS. Alweays remember the “confluence of interests” that united the U.S. and Russia in W.W. II. had it not happened we would all be speaking German now. Bet on it.
     Trump understands this, as does Putin. The neo-libs? HRC, Obama and the like? Not so much, apparently.

     Read this?

     Military to Military-Seymour M. Hersh on US intelligence sharing in the Syrian war

     If not, you should. We all should.

     A few pertinent snippets:

     Barack Obama’s repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and that there are `moderate’ rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him – has in recent years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff. Their criticism has focused on what they see as the administration’s fixation on Assad’s primary ally, Vladimir Putin. In their view, Obama is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China, and hasn’t adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries share Washington’s anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria; like Washington, they believe that Islamic State must be stopped.

     —snip—

     Germany, Israel and Russia were in contact with the Syrian army, and able to exercise some influence over Assad’s decisions – it was through them that US intelligence would be shared. Each had its reasons for co-operating with Assad: Germany feared what might happen among its own population of six million Muslims if Islamic State expanded; Israel was concerned with border security; Russia had an alliance of very long standing with Syria, and was worried by the threat to its only naval base on the Mediterranean, at Tartus. `We weren’t intent on deviating from Obama’s stated policies,’ the adviser said. `But sharing our assessments via the military-to-military relationships with other countries could prove productive. It was clear that Assad needed better tactical intelligence and operational advice. The JCS concluded that if those needs were met, the overall fight against Islamist terrorism would be enhanced. Obama didn’t know, but Obama doesn’t know what the JCS does in every circumstance and that’s true of all presidents.’

     —snip—

     Once the flow of US intelligence began, Germany, Israel and Russia started passing on information about the whereabouts and intent of radical jihadist groups to the Syrian army; in return, Syria provided information about its own capabilities and intentions. There was no direct contact between the US and the Syrian military; instead, the adviser said, `we provided the information – including long-range analyses on Syria’s future put together by contractors or one of our war colleges – and these countries could do with it what they chose, including sharing it with Assad. We were saying to the Germans and the others: “Here’s some information that’s pretty interesting and our interest is mutual.” End of conversation. The JCS could conclude that something beneficial would arise from it – but it was a military to military thing, and not some sort of a sinister Joint Chiefs’ plot to go around Obama and support Assad. It was a lot cleverer than that. If Assad remains in power, it will not be because we did it. It’s because he was smart enough to use the intelligence and sound tactical advice we provided to others.’

     —snip—

     One of the constants in US affairs since the fall of the Soviet Union has been a military-to-military relationship with Russia. After 1991 the US spent billions of dollars to help Russia secure its nuclear weapons complex, including a highly secret joint operation to remove weapons-grade uranium from unsecured storage depots in Kazakhstan. Joint programmes to monitor the security of weapons-grade materials continued for the next two decades. During the American war on Afghanistan, Russia provided overflight rights for US cargo carriers and tankers, as well as access for the flow of weapons, ammunition, food and water the US war machine needed daily. Russia’s military provided intelligence on Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts and helped the US negotiate rights to use an airbase in Kyrgyzstan. The Joint Chiefs have been in communication with their Russian counterparts throughout the Syrian war, and the ties between the two militaries start at the top. In August, a few weeks before his retirement as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dempsey made a farewell visit to the headquarters of the Irish Defence Forces in Dublin and told his audience there that he had made a point while in office to keep in touch with the chief of the Russian General Staff, General Valery Gerasimov. `I’ve actually suggested to him that we not end our careers as we began them,’ Dempsey said – one a tank commander in West Germany, the other in the east.

     When it comes to tackling Islamic State, Russia and the US have much to offer each other. Many in the IS leadership and rank and file fought for more than a decade against Russia in the two Chechen wars that began in 1994, and the Putin government is heavily invested in combating Islamist terrorism. `Russia knows the Isis leadership,’ the JCS adviser said, `and has insights into its operational techniques, and has much intelligence to share.’ In return, he said, `we’ve got excellent trainers with years of experience in training foreign fighters – experience that Russia does not have.’ The adviser would not discuss what American intelligence is also believed to have: an ability to obtain targeting data, often by paying huge sums of cash, from sources within rebel militias.

     A former White House adviser on Russian affairs told me that before 9/11 Putin `used to say to us: “We have the same nightmares about different places.” He was referring to his problems with the caliphate in Chechnya and our early issues with al-Qaida. These days, after the Metrojet bombing over Sinai and the massacres in Paris and elsewhere, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that we actually have the same nightmares about the same places.’

     —snip—

     HMMMMMmmmm…

     A précis?

     Sure.

     Obama don’t have a clue about what is happening right under his overprivileged, narcissistic nose.

     The end of the Cold War, the beginning of the Hot Truce?

     Could be.

     You scratch my back; I’ll scratch yours and we’ll eliminate these wild-eyed fundamentalists and get back to the real “fundamentals.” The business of business.

     Bet on that as well..

     Watch.

     And now the news.  (From CNN-aka The CIA News Network)

     Putin praises ‘bright and talented’ Trump

     Donald Trump has said that he would “get along very well” with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

     The feeling is apparently mutual.

     Putin offered high praise for the billionaire businessman-turned-Republican presidential front-runner on Thursday during an annual news conference with reporters.

     “He is a bright and talented person without any doubt,” Putin said, adding that Trump is “an outstanding and talented personality.”

     And in remarks closely mirroring Trump’s assessment of the campaign, the Russian leader called Trump “the absolute leader of the presidential race,” according to the Russian TASS news agency.

     Later Thursday, Trump returned the warm words.

     “It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond,” Trump said in a statement released by campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks. “I have always felt that Russia and the United States should be able to work well with each other towards defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not to mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from mutual respect.”

     Masha Gessen, a Russian-American journalist who authored the book “Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin,” said she believed Putin’s comments are “sincere” and that the Russian leader shares a lot in common with the brash billionaire.

     “There’s a really aggressive posture to both men. Putin respects fighters and he respects aggression and he doesn’t respect sort of calm and deliberation,” Gessen said. “He wants a manly adversary. He wants somebody he can understand.”

     The two men are both well known for their blunt manner and bravado.

     READ: 10 groups Trump has offended since launching his campaign

     Trump prides himself on his straight talk and often attacks his opponents for being “low-energy” or lacking the “strength and stamina” to be president, touting instead the need for a “strong” leader like himself.

     Putin, a former KGB spy and avid outdoorsman, has staked his reputation on his macho image, with his press shop even releasing a photo of the Russian leader topless on horseback.

     “(Putin) sees himself as someone who doesn’t mince words and who gets into verbal fights, as well as knife fights,” Gessen said. “And in fact Russians see him like that.”

     Putin and Trump also appear to share a similar global outlook, both viewing the world as largely a zero-sum game.

     For Trump, people are either winners or losers. For Putin, it’s Russia against the world.

     And in that outlook, there’s also a shared oversimplification, Gessen claimed.

     “I think what Putin sees in Trump is somebody who’s shooting from the hip,” she said. “Somebody who sees things as being simpler than other politicians or evil journalists might try to make them seem.”

     —snip—

     Watch.

     AG

     • 

       The Voice In The Wilderness on December 22, 2015 at 2:07 pm

       Aber, Ich spricht Deutsch.

       • 

         Arthur Gilroy on December 22, 2015 at 3:24 pm

         Nach wahl.

         Je parle français, moi-même.

         Y español, también.

         Plus Street and Harvard.

         AG

         • 

           The Voice In The Wilderness on December 22, 2015 at 6:13 pm

           Ah! A Renaissance Man!

         • 

           Arthur Gilroy on December 22, 2015 at 8:33 pm

           At the very least…a Google Translate man.

           The new “renaissance,” I think.

           “Rebirth”.

           We shall see.

           Soon enough.

           Later…

           AG

4. 

   Spiny on December 22, 2015 at 1:05 pm

   I wish I was as optimistic on the lack of possibility of the proto fascist crowd winning the presidency. It’s not the most likely scenario at this point, but it won’t be out-of the question either. Certainly the outcome of the election will have enough uncertainty that the billionaire class will be willing to pony up enough cash to possibly tip the scales. And then there is always the possibility of the random health issue with the Democratic candidate or something like that. Plus also they will most likely still control the House and probably have about an even chance of keeping the Senate.

   What’s happened to the Republican party is that, because of 24/7 hate radio, the reality filter of faux news, and huge sums of dark money, the candidates no longer need to wink and node to deliver their racist, eliminationist message in coded form. Actually, it has become the opposite- the more direct and clear the candidates have become with their words of hate and fear, the better they do among the Republican primary voters. And I think it is very appropriate to call these people nihilistic, because they really do want to destroy the government.

   I have believed for quite some time now that the end game for the Republicans is some form of fascism- a psuedo democratically elected authoritarian government (see: Russia). I think that’s essentially where the voter suppression/gerrymandering path leads to.

   While there is some irony about the Frankenstein monster that the Republican “establishment” (largely but not entirely) created, the fact is that while they continue to have a nonzero chance of gaining power, it is a problem for all of us and it won’t go away if the Republicans lose the presidential election.

5. 

   greatferm on December 22, 2015 at 2:21 pm

   I don’t see the old category fitting, republicans don’t believe in nothing, they believe in money.
   “Money is the measure of all things, of things that are, that they are, of things that are not, that they are not”.  “Money giveth, money taketh away, Blessed be…”

   Power is only important in service to money.

   And what Spiny said….

6. 

   Marie3 on December 22, 2015 at 2:24 pm

   First, Schlafly goes wherever the rightwing, regressives go.  She doesn’t bother any more with facts, logic, and consistency than Trump or the teabaggers do.  She’s only relevant in so far as always being able to gin up the negative emotions among that persistent US minority faction.

   Second, generic odds were with the GOP for 2016.  The “time for a change” after eight years of either party holding the WH.  The exception was GHWB, but that was an anomaly; Dukakis was simply too flawed as a candidate.  

   Third, the GOP elites did expect that either Walker or Christie would become their Obama.  A change, young, and able to sell platitudes that suggest a positive direction but unspecific enough that the old GOP gang could take over after the election.

   Fourth, the fallbacks.  Unlike 2008 when they didn’t have any after Allen lost his Senate seat.  Jeb? was barely on the reserve bench and not remotely viable if Clinton didn’t run.  And there were enough young “wannabes” that one could, if needed, possibly emerge as Obama-like.  The suddenness of the Christie implosion may have been unsettling, but not a cause for alarm.  They did take their time in assessing the wannabes, but with Clinton in and the not-Walkers falling short, Jeb? got the call.  A choice, which GOP voters didn’t feel they had in 2008 and 2012, between Walker or Jeb?  For the party, either would do equally well if nominated and if not elected, they would still control at least one DC chamber and a solid majority of state governments.

   Fifth — the best laid plans … a “black swan.”  Why did Walker delay entering the race?  The messy legal issues that wouldn’t die?  Intimidated by the prospect of going up against Jeb?  He made his move when the former was dying and Jeb? was out there and not looking formidable.  Trump was a joke that would quickly flame out.  Instead, Walker became the joke.  Cruz has a lot of money.  And Jeb? and oddly Christie are praying for a miracle.

   Of course in the near and long-term, that Goldwater nomination worked out well.      

        

   • 

     TarheelDem on December 22, 2015 at 2:34 pm

     For over 50 years, Schlafly has been the wind-sock of the modern conservative movement.  Indeed.

7. 

   TarheelDem on December 22, 2015 at 2:33 pm

   And I’ve never seen any group of human beings who could craft a positive agenda around nihilism.

   That apparently does not stop down-ticket candidacies from winning.  Tell me again why I’m supposed to suddenly become optimistic (or less pessimistic).

   It seems that nihilism has its supporters and “small government” is the perfect cover for not having to provide a positive agenda.

   “We don’t need the stinkin’ potholes fixed.  Fix them yourself.” is now not an unlikely campaign statement.

8. 

   MNPundit on December 22, 2015 at 3:00 pm

   Y’know if you really wanted to stop immigrants from coming here you’d make it easier for native borns to pay for legitimate colleges. But good luck pushing free college here.

9. 

   Marie3 on December 22, 2015 at 3:16 pm

   Charles and David Koch both hold BS and MS degrees from MIT.

   • 

     Arthur Gilroy on December 22, 2015 at 3:27 pm

     Yes.

     BullShit and Master of BullShit.

     AG

     • 

       DerFarm on December 22, 2015 at 3:48 pm

       knocking degrees from MIT is a bit like taking potshots at Mother Teresa:  Even if you’re right, everybody thinks you’re a fool.

       • 

         Arthur Gilroy on December 22, 2015 at 4:07 pm

         So…I’m supposed to be impressed that the Koch Bros. went to MIT?
         Lissen up.

         The Koch family (ˈkoʊk koke) of industrialists and businesspeople is most notable for its political activities and control of Koch Industries, the second largest privately owned company in the United States (with 2013 revenues of $115 billion).[1] The family business was started by Fred C. Koch, who developed a new cracking method for the refinement of heavy oil into gasoline.[2][3]

         Daddy owned a heavy-duty. big-money patent. He undoubtedly bought his sons into MIT, just as rich motherfuckers have been doing since the beginning of “elite” colleges in the U.S.

         George W. Butch went to Harvard. Am I supposed to  think that he actually studied his way into and out that particular funny farm?

         

         C’mon…

         I should care about media-blinded people who think that an elite degree is a guarantee of anything except the ability to pay the tuiition?

         Please.

         AG

         • 

           Marie3 on December 22, 2015 at 5:06 pm

           Way to completely misinterpret my comment that was only a response to this:

           who studied science in college, presumably, has an interest in not destroying the planet through climate change, Koch bros could care less.

           Whether MIT or Pudunk U, it can’t be said that the Koch’s didn’t study some science in college.  Unlike Yale and Harvard, MIT doesn’t do legacy admissions and therefore, the Kochs are unlikely to have gotten through their coursework with “gentleman’s C’s.”

         • 

           Arthur Gilroy on December 22, 2015 at 8:35 pm

           It’s “Podunk,” Marie.

           And…money buys power in every and any system.

           You ain’t noticed?

           AG

   • 

     Errol on December 22, 2015 at 5:00 pm

     yes, I’m distinguishing them, the money guys who are trying to install candidates to push their personal agenda, vs. GOP traditionalists, who are trying to protect the party as they know it, the old style GOP, and who know that the scientists are right. I’m not saying the oligarchs didn’t go to college, I’m saying they have different interests than the GOPers trying to protect the party, the oligarchs only care about their own personal $$, so due to flourishing of the oligarchs, those  “in control” of the direction of the GOP divide into two groups; presumably the oligarchs fan the flames of populist teabaggers or trump supporters or whatever to the degree it suits their interests. I wouldn’t put trump in with the oligarchs per se (Adelson, Kochs, etc).

10. 

    bcamarda on December 22, 2015 at 3:20 pm

    I think their strategy consists of reducing the Democratic vote: partly by suppression, but even more so by convincing Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents that voting is so pointless and the system is so irremediably corrupt that it isn’t worth their time.

    The utter destruction of American democracy and democratic institutions involved in this strategy? Mere collateral damage.

    I think this strategy has, by far, the best chance to succeed of any available to them. In fact, I think its chances of success are well above 50%.

    • 

      TarheelDem on December 22, 2015 at 4:08 pm

      Sure seems to me that the appropriate Democratic response would be to put more possible people out there to vote for and to give voters some good reasons to vote.  There is an establishment game being played here of “There is no alternative,” and both parties are no longer playing it because the Republican Party has been highjacked from its current establishment.

      I’m assuming that “their” in your first sentence means the RNC and its allies.

11. 

    Errol on December 22, 2015 at 5:01 pm

    my college comment was useless, ignore it

12. 

    Errol on December 22, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    college comment was useless, didn’t say what I meant and has nothing to do with college, ignore, should delete

    • 

      Marie3 on December 22, 2015 at 5:08 pm

      That’s okay — we all slip up a bit when too quickly and too broadly generalizing.