I read the post from Kizzie last night related to the statements made by Harris and I believe it was being debunked by the fact checkers. But I happened upon this piece by The Hill and it resonates that Harris indeed has the opinion that the “lessers” should be put before the “mores”…all in the name of “equity”
One might try to dissect her words meanings but for me I believe I know where she is coming from and it is not good.
“No matter your politics, these new numbers are shocking. Of the 7 million migrants that ICE released while their cases are being processed, 663,000 have criminal histories, 13,000 were convicted of homicide, 16,000 of sexual assault, and 1,845 face homicide charges. � “
Well, this is a piece of good news, for me at least. My 2 senators were among the 11 senators to vote against the Ukraine war package last week. Looks like I can vote for them after all. :–)
How anyone could possibly vote for this person is beyond me. “Oh I was to investigate the “cause” of the illegals coming here..not to stop it”!! And here she is lying through her teeth to get elected with the help of those illegally here living off the backs of taxpayers. Reprehensible…
Vice President Harris made her first appearance Friday at the southern border since becoming the Democratic nominee for president, and delivered a speech pledging to crack down on illegal immigration while blasting former President Trump.
“Those who cross our borders unlawfully will be apprehended and removed and barred from reentering for five years,” Harris told an enthusiastic crowd inside the gymnasium of the Cochise County College Douglas Campus located roughly two miles from the southern border.
“We will pursue more severe criminal charges against repeat violators and if someone does not make an asylum request at a legal point of entry and instead crosses our border unlawfully, they will be barred from receiving asylum. While we understand that many people are desperate to migrate to the United States. Our system must be orderly and secure.”
~ The economic illiteracy with which the major party nominees for president evince when they discuss these matters is only surpassed by the shamelessness with which they pander.
Trump talks about tariffs with the kind of enthusiasm typically reserved for people selling ShamWows or miracle baldness cures. Harris weighs in on housing policy like she’s hawking swamp-adjacent timeshares. Both agree that nothing should be changed about our rapidly bankrupting entitlement programs and that millions of Americans should get huge tax breaks. Taxes down, spending up, huge duties on foreign goods: What could go wrong? ~
NJ – To clarify what I shared yesterday: I know that Harris has pushed what she (and others) refer to as equity. But for that particular post that is going around, her words and her point were not exactly how they were portrayed, and were not in reference to Hurricane Helene. That was my only thought in sharing that.
FYI-Christopher W. Stirewalt is contributing editor for the Dispatch which seems to be preferred by disaffected Republicans. People who prefer the economic policies of Reagan, Bush and Clinton (the Uni-party aka centrist Republicans and Democrats) will agree with Stirewalt’s assessment. But people should remember that the policies of these presidents were deregulation, NAFTA, and the wholesale replacement of domestic manufacturing production to China and other slave labor countries. What could possibly go wrong with that?
Noted Kizzie. However I do believe if she believed in “equity” with Ian she still holds fast to her position with any and all disasters or effects of “climate change” upon the haves and have nots.😊
John Deere, General Motors, VW are just a few of the manufacturing companies with decent paying jobs that have layed off hundreds or thousands since July 2024. Economically we can go with the views of disaffected Republicans and Democrats or we can stick with the choice that demonstrated a solid economic path forward in 2017-2020. People have to choose what they want and then live with it.
Thinking on the economic proposals from both sides to boost the financial situation of the USA, under the old rules I would have picked Trump to have the smarter plan based on his business education and his years of experience in real estate and marketing. But with the new rules . . . Harris knows law, that is her background, and she knows how to manipulate it, use it to weaponize, and she has the global backing. She is all about global equity, not so much about the USA in particular, though she will use the USA for her agenda. Trump is all about the USA (MAGA) as a tradionalist. Comparing their economic policies is like comparing apples and oranges. They each are smart in their own ways (and eyes), and each have a totally different vision of what the USA should be. And they each have their blind spots. As do we all.
I wish this thread had a lot more diversity than it actually does. But I’m mostly resigned to that, and accept being an occasional, unwelcome minority voice. 🙂
Yes for some more centrist views 🙂 We currently are polarized and I’m not seeing that as a very good thing, certainly not something that allows our government to function very well.
It’s curious to me that the Dispatch — which is made up of conservatives — is now viewed as an “enemy” of some kind, but I see that as one of the results of the far right becoming so dominant. It will pass (I hope, but work and willingness to cooperate will be needed once this ‘era’ we’re in passes); for now the conservative movement is seriously divided.
Some who are more centrist have suggested in may require a new part to be launched. We’ll see. For now the “Republican” party has been changed so dramatically that a good number of us don’t consider it a home any longer.
Our system has worked so well in good part because the two parties can balance each other out (and that’s a balance that’s needed in a pluralistic society).
Now, they’re locked in an endless battle of the extremes.
As for the choices for president, neither is a good one. 😦
As for defending centrism — I believe both the far left and the far right are unreasonable when it comes to governing in the way our nation was set up to do.
Our nation was built on being able to bridge those differences when necessary and it’s worked (for the most part) for over 200 years. Nobody gets everything they want in an imperfect world with imperfect nations and imperfect governments.
But if we can’t figure out how to do that again, this experiment may be doomed.
Far right and far left are terms that may be a bit “loose” and difficult to define. Some of us would say we know it when we see and hear it (I know, not very satisfying) … Within the Republican Party, I think the distinction is commonly understood by most of us, but there could be variations.
I’d suggest that rigidity is part of both the far left and far right.
Sorry that’s not a more specific answer. But I do think it’s something that also varies in time, cultures, circumstances.
Another trend that we see now is populism, something that can be disruptive in American politics (in ways some consider good and others consider not so much).
No surprise, but I’m not a fan. Speaking as a traditional conservative of sorts, it’s a de-stabilizing force and focuses on emotion and personalities that draw ‘followings’ that aren’t necessarily based on consistent ideas or policies.
Centrist is more a matter of a political mindset — being willing to work with the other side in what may need to be a compromise to break a standoff. Being able to listen and work to craft a solution that can move 2 rigid sides to an agreement.
As for far right or extremism, I think you see much of that sentiment now aired on “X.” Far left has its own outlets that likely do the same, I’m not as familiar with those.
From a @WSJ piece today (calling it the “New Right”):
~ … In Washington, (Vance) has become the unexpected figurehead of a new conservative movement that draws on his early fixation with policy to rewrite Republican orthodoxy with a philosophy that champions industrial policy, questions Wall Street and embraces trade protectionism.
While “Project 2025” has garnered attention for its radical prescriptions for a second Trump term, it has overshadowed a high-stakes debate between old-guard conservatives and the pro-Trump policy movement that calls itself the “New Right.”
As the movement has risen to prominence, its acolytes have helped rally Republicans to support some surprising causes including using U.S. government money to redirect the private sector, like a $280 billion law in 2022 to boost the U.S. semiconductor industry. They have moved the idea of expanding the child tax credit from the Republican fringes to a hotly debated issue in the presidential election. And they have at times expressed admiration for Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, whose crackdown on corporate consolidation has led business executives to push for her ouster.
…
Vance’s allies say the old guard has already lost—the establishment has larger numbers and deeper pockets, but momentum is on the New Right’s side.
“The pre-Trump political alignment in this country is just gone,” said Oren Cass, a longtime friend of Vance’s who founded a think tank in 2020 called American Compass that has become the most influential New Right group on Capitol Hill. “It’s not coming back.”
… While the New Right has momentum, its future—and whether it will be dominated by Vance, or someone else—is still in flux.
A Trump loss in November could unleash a renewed campaign by establishment Republicans to wrest back control of the party, potentially scuttling Vance and Cass’s political future.
If Trump wins, many of the stars of the New Right movement could find themselves newly empowered. In addition to Vance, New Right-aligned lawmakers such as Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) and Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) are seen as possible contenders for senior jobs in a second Trump administration.
Yet Trump remains an unpredictable figure with few closely held beliefs. How he would govern, and whether policy issues would take a back seat to the political crises and palace intrigue that dominated Trump’s first term, is uncertain.
Whatever happens in November, change is afoot, Sen. Lummis said after the meeting. “I think there is a subtle transition going on between the more-establishment Republicans and whatever you wanted to call it—the ‘New Right’?”
_________________
Whatever your leanings, it will be an interesting political era to watch going forward.
Alienated class?! Sounds rather Marxist doesn’t it? I was talking to another Christian awhile back who made the surprising statement that Marx had some insight to many of our problems, he just had no good solutions. As Christians, we’re all part of the alienated class, but we do have the ultimate solution. The problem is that pesky span of time between the imperfect now and the consummation of the ultimate solution. But as long as we are content to be ‘Independent’ or as I prefer to say it ‘Unaffiliated”, we’ll be just fine. Becoming too vested in the ‘isms’ , whether it’s Marxism or Communism or Capitalism is a spiritually dangerous proposition, in my opinion.
By the way, you never really said what specifically centrist policies you prefer? What compromises are acceptable to you personally? I figured out a long time ago that it’s easier to critique others’ opinions than to articulate my own. The reason I like to articulate my own is that it helps to see if there are flaws in my thinking. Others are sure to quickly point it out. There is certainly safety in not sharing, but you lose the opportunity to grow.
Since we see totally clashing worldviews with the two parties currently, I don’t see any real way for a large enough centrist group to form from the deep divide. But God may have other plans.
An alienated group? You’re taking “class” way too seriously!
OK, centrist policy that you and I most definitely disagree on would be national defense.
Centrists would believe it to be wise to have a strong national defense. (Currently we don’t, according to articles I’ve read about the state of our military.)
No, we don’t seek out wars and some entanglements have certainly proven to be ill advised, so it is almost near impossible to see into the future in some of those cases.
But it seems to me we’re forgetting the lessons of World War II very quickly. And centrists would say that’s foolish. The world, like it or not, is “small” — we have enemies. Our enemies see our weakness; they are joining in their own alliances.
And speaking of alliances, yes, I think it’s important for America to keep her word and assist her allies — after all, it’s our security at stake as well, ultimately. Putin is not our friend. And no, Trump doesn’t *really* have Putin in his back pocket as he so often brags.
Debra, I’d consider your position – apparently shared by the “new right” — to be one of isolationism. I think that’s not only dangerous but, yes, foolish.
Many of us had parents who came of age during WWII. We heard about the dangers of America’s isolationism. Pearl Harbor didn’t happen in a vacuum. And it’s frankly stunning to me that we are repeating that history and naïveté when I see some of your posts. I usually don’t comment, but you’ve asked.
Janice, the only way forward if we say in this polarization is deeper division within our own nation. That won’t end well.
Common sense political centrism and returning to an embrace of America’s “common cause” emerges when we all realize how dangerous this road has become for our own nation.
Or, if we don’t come to our senses, when we are attacked by our enemies who are closely watching that we’re too busy fighting among ourselves to look up and out. …
This article that I finished reading a little while ago seems to go along, at least somewhat, with the current discussion. People on each side tend to think that those on the other side are much more stringent in their leftist/rightist views than they are, except for a small minority on each side.
From friends on both sides of the political spectrum, I see views that those on the “other side” are horrible people. According to this piece, the majority in each side are closer to those on the other than we are led to think.
“Take back the public square: Why silence won’t slow polarization”
~ “How did we get here? While forces such as loneliness, technology, geographic sorting and our primary systems have all played a role, studies point to one more cause: A loud minority distorting our perceptions of one another. A small fraction of Americans, for example, produces nearly all the country’s political posts on social media. And the views they espouse are shared by few.
The wings of the political spectrum — what one study calls “faith and flag conservatives” and “progressive activists” — together make up less than a fifth of the country. Yet, with their voices magnified by media incentives that reward nastiness, the tribes of the loud minority dominate public discourse, pitching a narrative that divides us.
If such a small number of people are making discourse so toxic, why are the rest of us letting it happen? One reason may be futility. For many, fights without hope of resolution hold no appeal. Another reason is the spiral of silence, political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s term for what happens when we avoid expressing views for fear of public response. The tribes of the loud minority police allegiance with threats of shame or worse. Veer off message, and they will come for you, especially after moderate voices expressing even a hint of empathy for the enemy tribe. We reward their attacks with our silence, which then incentivizes more attacks, and so on.
But by vacating the public square to the tribes of the loud minority, we have let them define our politics. Their outsized volume creates the illusion that their views are widespread. When they depict our adversaries as enemies, we believe them. There’s no one to say otherwise.
This has created what some call the perception gap: the gap between what we believe about our adversaries and how they really are. Heaps of data illustrate it. A survey by Beyond Conflict, for example, posed a 100-point scale for positions on immigration and gun control. For immigration, 1 meant completely open borders and 100 meant completely closed. For gun control, 1 was outlawing guns and 100 was no gun restrictions at all. The results showed that Democrats and Republicans overlap more than they realize, while vastly overestimating the extremity of the other party’s positions. When guessing the other side’s average ratings on the scales, Republicans missed by an average of 25 and Democrats missed by 19.” ~
I found this part especially important to keep in mind: “A small fraction of Americans, for example, produces nearly all the country’s political posts on social media. And the views they espouse are shared by few.“
Social media has become a pox on our society. I avoid the crazy threads as much as I can but realize they are “influencing” too many.
I don’t know of any fix to that, or how we come to our collective senses.
As far as I’m concerned, this election can’t be over soon enough — but my guess is that won’t end the yelling or fighting or conspiracy theories or the diatribes.
It feels like we’ve just turned in on each other. Maybe it is a minority, I hope so. But if so it’s a loud minority.
lol. ‘Alienated class’ was your choice of words not mine, DJ. Maybe I have taken you too seriously, so perhaps rethink your terminology?
I did suspect that foreign policy might be a sticking point. I think it is for most people who call themselves centrists. Some of them have gone over to the Democrat party, at least for now. There’s nothing wrong with that if it’s what they believe.
We were blessed by God to be the only major manufacturing nation left intact after WW2. I think it’s tremendously unfortunate that we appear to believe that the great lesson to be learned is that the USA is therefore superior and should police the world and conduct coups at will. I don’t think those activities will prove justified in the end. We’ll see.
In the meantime, I guess I will be lumped with what you call the ‘isolationists’ and you, with what I call the war hawks and warmongers of politics….centrists. But this too shall pass— probably when we do. And who knows what dichotomies the future generations will grapple with.
PS Re parents who came of age during WW2: Dad is a WW2 vet and a retired educator and missionary. He is 98 and determined to live until Nov 5 so he can cast his vote for Trump. He doesn’t see Trump as an isolationist or view the preference for domestic policy (as opposed to world dominance) as a weakness.
@9:41 d”Another difference: Centrists aren’t usually posting outrage on Twitter or X.”
True, they are not. They’d be less destructive if they were posting on social media rather than allocating hundreds of billions of dollars (which we don’t have) for wars in other countries.
Hearing that Asheville NC was one of the areas hit hard by the storm, I googled to see if that included World’s headquarters. It does. Here’s an article from World that mentions it in passing.
Come on, AJ, you LOVE social media, including the worst of it, you quote from it endlessly. So you can ‘own’ that (to use your own snarky term).
If you wanted journalism that’s more thoughtful and even handed, you’d be quoting from that, it is still out there. But you don’t seem to gravitate toward that.
Wandering Views 
I read the post from Kizzie last night related to the statements made by Harris and I believe it was being debunked by the fact checkers. But I happened upon this piece by The Hill and it resonates that Harris indeed has the opinion that the “lessers” should be put before the “mores”…all in the name of “equity”
One might try to dissect her words meanings but for me I believe I know where she is coming from and it is not good.
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/3672683-harriss-suggestion-to-distribute-disaster-relief-equitably-isnt-just-wrong-its-dangerous/
LikeLiked by 3 people
This should outrage every American, regardless of politics.
With receipts….
https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1839741316068192551?t=MXu1758fxn2zncqE6cZmZg&s=19
“No matter your politics, these new numbers are shocking. Of the 7 million migrants that ICE released while their cases are being processed, 663,000 have criminal histories, 13,000 were convicted of homicide, 16,000 of sexual assault, and 1,845 face homicide charges. � “
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well, this is a piece of good news, for me at least. My 2 senators were among the 11 senators to vote against the Ukraine war package last week. Looks like I can vote for them after all. :–)
https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-11-gop-senators-voted-against-ukraine-aid-1707182
LikeLiked by 4 people
This is a very succinct and factual speech on the Senate floor by Sen. Tuberville (Alabama) regarding the Ukraine war and why it should not be funded.
LikeLiked by 4 people
How anyone could possibly vote for this person is beyond me. “Oh I was to investigate the “cause” of the illegals coming here..not to stop it”!! And here she is lying through her teeth to get elected with the help of those illegally here living off the backs of taxpayers. Reprehensible…
Vice President Harris made her first appearance Friday at the southern border since becoming the Democratic nominee for president, and delivered a speech pledging to crack down on illegal immigration while blasting former President Trump.
“Those who cross our borders unlawfully will be apprehended and removed and barred from reentering for five years,” Harris told an enthusiastic crowd inside the gymnasium of the Cochise County College Douglas Campus located roughly two miles from the southern border.
“We will pursue more severe criminal charges against repeat violators and if someone does not make an asylum request at a legal point of entry and instead crosses our border unlawfully, they will be barred from receiving asylum. While we understand that many people are desperate to migrate to the United States. Our system must be orderly and secure.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
More lies as I research face checkers. CNN actually pressed on on her lies!
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/25/politics/fact-check-harris-trumps-manufacturing-jobs/index.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
face checkers/fact checkers …Comsi comsa 😂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I imagine CNN is now trying to set themselves apart as the Truer News by fact checking the Fact Checkers. What crazy times we are witnessing!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Via Chris Stirewalt on Politics column:
~ The economic illiteracy with which the major party nominees for president evince when they discuss these matters is only surpassed by the shamelessness with which they pander.
Trump talks about tariffs with the kind of enthusiasm typically reserved for people selling ShamWows or miracle baldness cures. Harris weighs in on housing policy like she’s hawking swamp-adjacent timeshares. Both agree that nothing should be changed about our rapidly bankrupting entitlement programs and that millions of Americans should get huge tax breaks. Taxes down, spending up, huge duties on foreign goods: What could go wrong? ~
LikeLiked by 1 person
God alone has the best free deal ever!
LikeLiked by 1 person
NJ – To clarify what I shared yesterday: I know that Harris has pushed what she (and others) refer to as equity. But for that particular post that is going around, her words and her point were not exactly how they were portrayed, and were not in reference to Hurricane Helene. That was my only thought in sharing that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Truth and being careful in posting matters.
LikeLiked by 2 people
FYI-Christopher W. Stirewalt is contributing editor for the Dispatch which seems to be preferred by disaffected Republicans. People who prefer the economic policies of Reagan, Bush and Clinton (the Uni-party aka centrist Republicans and Democrats) will agree with Stirewalt’s assessment. But people should remember that the policies of these presidents were deregulation, NAFTA, and the wholesale replacement of domestic manufacturing production to China and other slave labor countries. What could possibly go wrong with that?
Debra
LikeLiked by 3 people
Noted Kizzie. However I do believe if she believed in “equity” with Ian she still holds fast to her position with any and all disasters or effects of “climate change” upon the haves and have nots.😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
John Deere, General Motors, VW are just a few of the manufacturing companies with decent paying jobs that have layed off hundreds or thousands since July 2024. Economically we can go with the views of disaffected Republicans and Democrats or we can stick with the choice that demonstrated a solid economic path forward in 2017-2020. People have to choose what they want and then live with it.
Debra
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thinking on the economic proposals from both sides to boost the financial situation of the USA, under the old rules I would have picked Trump to have the smarter plan based on his business education and his years of experience in real estate and marketing. But with the new rules . . . Harris knows law, that is her background, and she knows how to manipulate it, use it to weaponize, and she has the global backing. She is all about global equity, not so much about the USA in particular, though she will use the USA for her agenda. Trump is all about the USA (MAGA) as a tradionalist. Comparing their economic policies is like comparing apples and oranges. They each are smart in their own ways (and eyes), and each have a totally different vision of what the USA should be. And they each have their blind spots. As do we all.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Debra, I’m shocked! lol (not) @1:29
So?
Lots of sources here to quote from and he also happens to be a pretty seasoned commentator and polls watcher.
I’d like to think we tolerate different voices and sources here?
LikeLiked by 1 person
*Sometimes* it’s even possible to agree with someone from the “other side” if we’re taking an argument with independent thinking.
At least I’d hope that’s the case. Critical thinking sometimes puts us in different camps and that’s actually refreshing and a good thing.
* dj
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wish this thread had a lot more diversity than it actually does. But I’m mostly resigned to that, and accept being an occasional, unwelcome minority voice. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
(said as a centrist/conservative — and former Republican, now an independent 🙂 — ducking)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Now now, DJ, don’t be put off by a little truthful context. I thought you guys would appreciate it. What part do you disagree with?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Centrist seems a good position in a country with so much variety. Everybody has to compromise, just as in any relationship.
mumsee
LikeLiked by 2 people
What centrist policies do you guys like?
LikeLike
Yes for some more centrist views 🙂 We currently are polarized and I’m not seeing that as a very good thing, certainly not something that allows our government to function very well.
It’s curious to me that the Dispatch — which is made up of conservatives — is now viewed as an “enemy” of some kind, but I see that as one of the results of the far right becoming so dominant. It will pass (I hope, but work and willingness to cooperate will be needed once this ‘era’ we’re in passes); for now the conservative movement is seriously divided.
Some who are more centrist have suggested in may require a new part to be launched. We’ll see. For now the “Republican” party has been changed so dramatically that a good number of us don’t consider it a home any longer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
*it may require a new party*
LikeLike
Our system has worked so well in good part because the two parties can balance each other out (and that’s a balance that’s needed in a pluralistic society).
Now, they’re locked in an endless battle of the extremes.
As for the choices for president, neither is a good one. 😦
LikeLike
As for defending centrism — I believe both the far left and the far right are unreasonable when it comes to governing in the way our nation was set up to do.
Our nation was built on being able to bridge those differences when necessary and it’s worked (for the most part) for over 200 years. Nobody gets everything they want in an imperfect world with imperfect nations and imperfect governments.
But if we can’t figure out how to do that again, this experiment may be doomed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
dj: I’ve asked you this several times before (without a response), but what is the “far right” in the USA?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Far right and far left are terms that may be a bit “loose” and difficult to define. Some of us would say we know it when we see and hear it (I know, not very satisfying) … Within the Republican Party, I think the distinction is commonly understood by most of us, but there could be variations.
I’d suggest that rigidity is part of both the far left and far right.
Sorry that’s not a more specific answer. But I do think it’s something that also varies in time, cultures, circumstances.
Maybe someone else can do better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Much of it depends on the time frame and the current political culture of the time and place.
LikeLike
Another trend that we see now is populism, something that can be disruptive in American politics (in ways some consider good and others consider not so much).
No surprise, but I’m not a fan. Speaking as a traditional conservative of sorts, it’s a de-stabilizing force and focuses on emotion and personalities that draw ‘followings’ that aren’t necessarily based on consistent ideas or policies.
LikeLike
Speaking of policies, what are the centrist policies that you personally favor, DJ?
LikeLike
sorry that was Debra
LikeLike
Centrist is more a matter of a political mindset — being willing to work with the other side in what may need to be a compromise to break a standoff. Being able to listen and work to craft a solution that can move 2 rigid sides to an agreement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As for far right or extremism, I think you see much of that sentiment now aired on “X.” Far left has its own outlets that likely do the same, I’m not as familiar with those.
LikeLike
From a @WSJ piece today (calling it the “New Right”):
~ … In Washington, (Vance) has become the unexpected figurehead of a new conservative movement that draws on his early fixation with policy to rewrite Republican orthodoxy with a philosophy that champions industrial policy, questions Wall Street and embraces trade protectionism.
While “Project 2025” has garnered attention for its radical prescriptions for a second Trump term, it has overshadowed a high-stakes debate between old-guard conservatives and the pro-Trump policy movement that calls itself the “New Right.”
As the movement has risen to prominence, its acolytes have helped rally Republicans to support some surprising causes including using U.S. government money to redirect the private sector, like a $280 billion law in 2022 to boost the U.S. semiconductor industry. They have moved the idea of expanding the child tax credit from the Republican fringes to a hotly debated issue in the presidential election. And they have at times expressed admiration for Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, whose crackdown on corporate consolidation has led business executives to push for her ouster.
…
Vance’s allies say the old guard has already lost—the establishment has larger numbers and deeper pockets, but momentum is on the New Right’s side.
“The pre-Trump political alignment in this country is just gone,” said Oren Cass, a longtime friend of Vance’s who founded a think tank in 2020 called American Compass that has become the most influential New Right group on Capitol Hill. “It’s not coming back.”
… While the New Right has momentum, its future—and whether it will be dominated by Vance, or someone else—is still in flux.
A Trump loss in November could unleash a renewed campaign by establishment Republicans to wrest back control of the party, potentially scuttling Vance and Cass’s political future.
If Trump wins, many of the stars of the New Right movement could find themselves newly empowered. In addition to Vance, New Right-aligned lawmakers such as Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) and Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) are seen as possible contenders for senior jobs in a second Trump administration.
Yet Trump remains an unpredictable figure with few closely held beliefs. How he would govern, and whether policy issues would take a back seat to the political crises and palace intrigue that dominated Trump’s first term, is uncertain.
Whatever happens in November, change is afoot, Sen. Lummis said after the meeting. “I think there is a subtle transition going on between the more-establishment Republicans and whatever you wanted to call it—the ‘New Right’?”
_________________
Whatever your leanings, it will be an interesting political era to watch going forward.
LikeLike
Those of us in the “alienated” class? We’ll likely remain “Independent” for some time to come. 🙂
LikeLike
Alienated class?! Sounds rather Marxist doesn’t it? I was talking to another Christian awhile back who made the surprising statement that Marx had some insight to many of our problems, he just had no good solutions. As Christians, we’re all part of the alienated class, but we do have the ultimate solution. The problem is that pesky span of time between the imperfect now and the consummation of the ultimate solution. But as long as we are content to be ‘Independent’ or as I prefer to say it ‘Unaffiliated”, we’ll be just fine. Becoming too vested in the ‘isms’ , whether it’s Marxism or Communism or Capitalism is a spiritually dangerous proposition, in my opinion.
By the way, you never really said what specifically centrist policies you prefer? What compromises are acceptable to you personally? I figured out a long time ago that it’s easier to critique others’ opinions than to articulate my own. The reason I like to articulate my own is that it helps to see if there are flaws in my thinking. Others are sure to quickly point it out. There is certainly safety in not sharing, but you lose the opportunity to grow.
Debra
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since we see totally clashing worldviews with the two parties currently, I don’t see any real way for a large enough centrist group to form from the deep divide. But God may have other plans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An alienated group? You’re taking “class” way too seriously!
OK, centrist policy that you and I most definitely disagree on would be national defense.
Centrists would believe it to be wise to have a strong national defense. (Currently we don’t, according to articles I’ve read about the state of our military.)
No, we don’t seek out wars and some entanglements have certainly proven to be ill advised, so it is almost near impossible to see into the future in some of those cases.
But it seems to me we’re forgetting the lessons of World War II very quickly. And centrists would say that’s foolish. The world, like it or not, is “small” — we have enemies. Our enemies see our weakness; they are joining in their own alliances.
And speaking of alliances, yes, I think it’s important for America to keep her word and assist her allies — after all, it’s our security at stake as well, ultimately. Putin is not our friend. And no, Trump doesn’t *really* have Putin in his back pocket as he so often brags.
Debra, I’d consider your position – apparently shared by the “new right” — to be one of isolationism. I think that’s not only dangerous but, yes, foolish.
LikeLike
Many of us had parents who came of age during WWII. We heard about the dangers of America’s isolationism. Pearl Harbor didn’t happen in a vacuum. And it’s frankly stunning to me that we are repeating that history and naïveté when I see some of your posts. I usually don’t comment, but you’ve asked.
LikeLike
Janice, the only way forward if we say in this polarization is deeper division within our own nation. That won’t end well.
Common sense political centrism and returning to an embrace of America’s “common cause” emerges when we all realize how dangerous this road has become for our own nation.
Or, if we don’t come to our senses, when we are attacked by our enemies who are closely watching that we’re too busy fighting among ourselves to look up and out. …
LikeLike
Perhaps God is done with our nation as a beacon for the world. I hope not. But time will tell. Right now we’re not much of a light.
Peace.
LikeLike
This article that I finished reading a little while ago seems to go along, at least somewhat, with the current discussion. People on each side tend to think that those on the other side are much more stringent in their leftist/rightist views than they are, except for a small minority on each side.
From friends on both sides of the political spectrum, I see views that those on the “other side” are horrible people. According to this piece, the majority in each side are closer to those on the other than we are led to think.
“Take back the public square: Why silence won’t slow polarization”
~ “How did we get here? While forces such as loneliness, technology, geographic sorting and our primary systems have all played a role, studies point to one more cause: A loud minority distorting our perceptions of one another. A small fraction of Americans, for example, produces nearly all the country’s political posts on social media. And the views they espouse are shared by few.
The wings of the political spectrum — what one study calls “faith and flag conservatives” and “progressive activists” — together make up less than a fifth of the country. Yet, with their voices magnified by media incentives that reward nastiness, the tribes of the loud minority dominate public discourse, pitching a narrative that divides us.
If such a small number of people are making discourse so toxic, why are the rest of us letting it happen? One reason may be futility. For many, fights without hope of resolution hold no appeal. Another reason is the spiral of silence, political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s term for what happens when we avoid expressing views for fear of public response. The tribes of the loud minority police allegiance with threats of shame or worse. Veer off message, and they will come for you, especially after moderate voices expressing even a hint of empathy for the enemy tribe. We reward their attacks with our silence, which then incentivizes more attacks, and so on.
But by vacating the public square to the tribes of the loud minority, we have let them define our politics. Their outsized volume creates the illusion that their views are widespread. When they depict our adversaries as enemies, we believe them. There’s no one to say otherwise.
This has created what some call the perception gap: the gap between what we believe about our adversaries and how they really are. Heaps of data illustrate it. A survey by Beyond Conflict, for example, posed a 100-point scale for positions on immigration and gun control. For immigration, 1 meant completely open borders and 100 meant completely closed. For gun control, 1 was outlawing guns and 100 was no gun restrictions at all. The results showed that Democrats and Republicans overlap more than they realize, while vastly overestimating the extremity of the other party’s positions. When guessing the other side’s average ratings on the scales, Republicans missed by an average of 25 and Democrats missed by 19.” ~
https://thehill.com/opinion/4891704-silent-majority-polarization/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFm1mpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHQEpHP79ppktMhiNfIjhOmHwFzd8Yl7uxHoV7FTa10J6gVZnMJICpL6NZA_aem_hKDUPFMIxumqYGFFHqev8g
LikeLike
I found this part especially important to keep in mind: “A small fraction of Americans, for example, produces nearly all the country’s political posts on social media. And the views they espouse are shared by few.“
LikeLike
Social media has become a pox on our society. I avoid the crazy threads as much as I can but realize they are “influencing” too many.
I don’t know of any fix to that, or how we come to our collective senses.
As far as I’m concerned, this election can’t be over soon enough — but my guess is that won’t end the yelling or fighting or conspiracy theories or the diatribes.
It feels like we’ve just turned in on each other. Maybe it is a minority, I hope so. But if so it’s a loud minority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another difference: Centrists aren’t usually posting outrage on Twitter or X. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
lol. ‘Alienated class’ was your choice of words not mine, DJ. Maybe I have taken you too seriously, so perhaps rethink your terminology?
I did suspect that foreign policy might be a sticking point. I think it is for most people who call themselves centrists. Some of them have gone over to the Democrat party, at least for now. There’s nothing wrong with that if it’s what they believe.
We were blessed by God to be the only major manufacturing nation left intact after WW2. I think it’s tremendously unfortunate that we appear to believe that the great lesson to be learned is that the USA is therefore superior and should police the world and conduct coups at will. I don’t think those activities will prove justified in the end. We’ll see.
In the meantime, I guess I will be lumped with what you call the ‘isolationists’ and you, with what I call the war hawks and warmongers of politics….centrists. But this too shall pass— probably when we do. And who knows what dichotomies the future generations will grapple with.
LikeLiked by 2 people
PS Re parents who came of age during WW2: Dad is a WW2 vet and a retired educator and missionary. He is 98 and determined to live until Nov 5 so he can cast his vote for Trump. He doesn’t see Trump as an isolationist or view the preference for domestic policy (as opposed to world dominance) as a weakness.
Debra
LikeLiked by 2 people
@9:41 d”Another difference: Centrists aren’t usually posting outrage on Twitter or X.”
True, they are not. They’d be less destructive if they were posting on social media rather than allocating hundreds of billions of dollars (which we don’t have) for wars in other countries.
LikeLiked by 2 people
oops, that was me again, Debra
LikeLike
Hearing that Asheville NC was one of the areas hit hard by the storm, I googled to see if that included World’s headquarters. It does. Here’s an article from World that mentions it in passing.
https://wng.org/sift/more-than-50-dead-amid-hurricane-helene-devastation-1727549982
LikeLiked by 2 people
Social media became a pox on your house because the media was a pox on everyone else’s.
Own it. Your industry is responsible for the rise of X.
LikeLike
Come on, AJ, you LOVE social media, including the worst of it, you quote from it endlessly. So you can ‘own’ that (to use your own snarky term).
If you wanted journalism that’s more thoughtful and even handed, you’d be quoting from that, it is still out there. But you don’t seem to gravitate toward that.
Why do you embrace the worst of “X”?
LikeLike