Reddit mentions: The best conservatism & liberalism books

>> Do you want to cut environment laws to save a few bucks.

>The EPA and BLM (Bureau of Land Management) seem out of control. This was an interesting and enlightening read: https://www.amazon.com/Government-Bullies-Everyday-Americans-Imprisoned/dp/1455522775

You are right about zoning laws but that is the cause of not putting industrial or certain housing into other communities, and people trying to control their neighbourhoods, those rules start out that way and then end up catching other people leading to more complicated laws. Though I am less knowledgeable about the BLM. I also wonder though which exact rules.

The EPA is really hard to say, but it depends on what law, have not read into it the exact rules that people want struck down or regulation decreased. But they are the reason they exist is that you can't just build whatever you want whenever you want. Also making sure things run in for the best case of public health and the countries environment. The problem is two competing approaches, one is NIMBY who force regulations and second is gutting it in places that matter leading to issue like Flint etc. Their focus has been messed with needs organizational restructure not gutting. Also they are responsible of making sure that companies comply with air pollutant contents, water pollutant contents, waste etc. Also protecting certain habitats in America, that personally I would rather see live on than be bulldozed. There are some that are crazy that you can wonder why, but those are usually due to laws for one issue ending up expanding into something else.

>> Remove labour laws to allow corporations to have a stronger control over their employees.

>I don't subscribe to the need for extensive labor laws. As long as people are not compelled (slave labor) it's just another voluntary trade. With the information we now have at our fingertips, IMO, the risk of abuse is much lower than it may have been at one time. The ad-hoc economy that seems to be popping up (Uber/Lyft/AirBnB/Private Amazon Delivery) seems to be another indicator that there will be many opportunities to essentially work for yourself.

Those are horrible jobs. People who use Uber make less than an average taxi driver. It is a good secondary income, but should never be considered primary. And Airbnb is horrible, one crazy party and you are stuck with huge insurance claim. One death and good luck with even being able to rent it out in a year. An accident and you could be liable for huge damages. There is a reason why hotels have regulations. It's also takes away alot of bargaining power from employees. For example if an employee gets injured at work can he sue if he is forced to sign an agreement that the company is not liable for injuries. Another issue is trying to control worker hours to make sure you don't end up forcing people to work crazy hours. Most of these rules are created to help people working under big business but end up expanding to small business. Which to be honest are some of the worst offenders, by making people do work without the required equipment. Etc.

>> Honestly if benefits could be offloaded to the government in a universal sustem like universal healthcare based on the taxes on income and letting stares decide the way they want it to function, it removes another cost to businesses and simplifies the healthcare issue.

>I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Have you ever dealt with medicaid, medicare or social security? I think the answer is again with private industry not government. Where I do agree is decoupling health insurance from employment. I think a compelling argument can be made that private industry can provide catastrophic insurance (much less expensive than today's plans) and people can save and pay for their own health care or purchase a gap insurance. I'd like to see how a less molested market affects the pricing of care and drugs.

>Preexisting conditions is the nut I think no one has been able to crack as the safety net eliminates the need for paying anything until you are diagnosed. The state answer seems to be to force everyone to pay, even the young and healthy. I disagree with the government compelling action like this.

The issue is you have three bodies, that are not only dealing with themselves but with the private industry. Healthcare insurance is for profit. You remove profit you take away a huge chunk of spending. Healthcare insurance should not be as big of an industry. Germany has a public private hybrid but it is only the hospital's or medical facilities that can be private. Canada has a public system and their overall cost per patient is less than in America. The main reasoning can easily be attributed to early detection, which when people don't have to worry if they are covered or not or its cost can get done. For me it's maslow's triangle, take away a necessity and the person can focus on something else and better themselves.

>At a fundamental level I view government as mostly unnecessary in everyday affairs. For those that feel uncomfortable at the thought I can relate the this best via analogy. There are big differences between ebay and craigslist. Both have differing control and feedback mechanisms yet both can be used safely by taking different types of precautions. Users know the relative risks and consequences of craigslist (no reputation to rely on, potential shady characters, no refunds) and adapt to those risks for the opportunity and/or the savings. Ebay may make people feel more secure, but you're paying for that security and it is by no means required, nor is it inherently unsafe to use craigslist, just requires different behavior. The flaw in the analogy is that ebay's services are generally not priced ridiculously and they are held to a standard of profitability while the government has no such standard and waste and graft is everywhere.

Big government for me is different from many other ways, I believe in the constant updating of the laws, but needs to be focused on is less control on people's personal lives like surveillance and certain rules. Yes it has expanded in many ways but neither government will ever decrease it. They just have their own version of big government they shove on people.

Also eBay and Craigslist are not a good example of managing a country. As both have very different goals. One is for profit and one is management of a country. I mean if you want to see a profitable country look at Singapore and Dubai. They have giant governments yet are really profitable. So was UK and Switzerland. They have a bigger role on citizen lives than the US has.

For me smaller government is decreasing inconvenience but also removing as much of the issues about necessities or how to pay for everything by alleviating costs and letting people focus on taking risks like starting a business etc.


>Re: the prison industrial complex, I share your concern but can't suggest I know enough about the details to offer any value. Intuitively it seems there's massive potential for corruption. And the incarceration rate seems strangely high. Perhaps having less laws to break would be a good start.

Honestly, I was sitting a training by Indiana Democrats and the person next to me said he read a great book called Run for Something. I picked up a copy, read it, saw they were endorsing candidates and applied for it and got it. I could probably use the slack a bit more, but for me, they hooked me up with a mentor who was GREAT to talk to and really just encouraged me. They also have created a lot of resources like a Canva style guide that helped for fast graphic creation. They have been great and I love being a part of it and the work they are doing.

I have also been active in a program by Indiana Democrats called the Emerging Leaders which has been AMAZING in preparing me for being a candidate. They have equipped us a lot with basic skills, how to fundraise, use voterfiles, etc..

If people want to run, I'd recommend reading the Run for Something book.

For me, the biggest challenge is name recognition and getting in front of voters. People start out as republican here, but if i can get in front of them, tell them why i am running and the issues that concern me, then I can get them on my side. At the local level its less political party and who is the person who can get things done.

As far as savvy, I use weebly for the website, crowdpac to online raise $$$, and canva for everything else. You gotta have some tech sense if you want to kick butt, but you also have to have the personality to connect with strangers and meet people.

I think as a party we need to invest in more pipelines for future candidates and start up funds for local races that can cover some basics like yard signs, ads in papers, digital advertising.

We need a trust circle in which the party, activists, and the average voter can engage in dialog and support. A philosophical stalemate between activists and the Idaho Democratic Party has led to a total communication breakdown. The average citizen has given up completely as they know the Democratic Party serves only millionaires and up. The activist resent the IDP for their greed, ineptitude, and frank reluctance to show any support for FDR's values.

The IDP refuses to acknowledge that neoliberalism has failed utterly and completely. The party base continues on roaring into the void while the IDP declines to support what might have been their best field organizers. Unfortunately the IDP has been hooked on the D.C. money funnel for so long they fail to see they have lost all credibility by supporting the DNC. If the IDP were to turn off the tap and start having faith in the citizens to provide for their economic well being they might turn things around. They dare not become accountable to the majority. The simple math determines that pleasing a wealthy minority easier and more profitable then attempting to solicit funding from the cash strapped average citizens. Politics have become a safe career to leach money from the upper crust, see Sally Boyton Brown skipping town.

The enthusiasm among the citizens for the IDP has bottomed out due to the radical differences in finical desires. Idaho's majority individuals lives in poverty or near poverty.. The average the median per capita income for Idaho was $24,273 in 2015. You need at least 30k to stop living pay check to pay check per person. The citizens want healthcare, green jobs, education and social security. The IDP waits in vain for a Idaho millionaire/billionaire to help build the "collation of the ascendant" that will never come to Idaho and what little was here has begun to crumble.

The Democrats for the past 40 years have been slowly dismantling the FDR values that brought them easy votes for multiple generations. They have become lazy and spoiled expecting the working class to keep blindly heaving them over the finish line. The working class well has finally run dry, see the 2016 Presidential elections. Now we face an impasse, do we burn down the crooked orchard and start again or do we try to prune down the twisted roots put down by the neoliberal elite?

The answer is neither. The IDP needs radical restructuring so as to knock out the hierarchical leadership. All party decision should return to directly to precinct captains. As in precinct captains act as a virtual house of representatives that elect a virtual senate made of the district leadership. The senate elects a party leader. Why add all this crazy complication to the political machine?

1. The average citizen can have a direct impact on the Idaho democratic party without leaving their home precinct. It gives the power back to the people.
   
2. It forces the democratic authoritarians running the party to face democratic libertarians in a honest political discussion for once.
   
3. It democratizes how the donations get distributed.
   
4. It gives potential candidates opportunity to practice politics in a sandbox.
   
5. It limits the center-right brow beating the hierarchical structure delivers.
   
6. It pushes the career political wonks away from the money and levers of power.
   

I think this question is something that people assume they know, but few people have real answers.

When it comes to immigration, there has been a very strong recent change on the matter by Democrats:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/15/americans-views-of-immigrants-marked-by-widening-partisan-generational-divides/
>Between 1994 and 2005, Republicans’ and Democrats’ views of immigrants tracked one another closely. Beginning around 2006, however, they began to diverge. In October that year, the partisan gap between Republicans and Democrats grew to 15 percentage points. Since then, the share of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying that immigrants strengthen the country steadily increased, from 49% then to 78% now, while the share with this view among Republicans and Republican leaners has shown little change (34% then, 35% today).

Democrats now think that immigrants strengthen this country, but this is a recent opinion for them. Unfortunately, Pew does not track the opinions on illegal immigration in this article back before 2013, which means it doesn't capture if this change was also about illegal immigrants. I believe it does, but that's a guess.

For comparison, I found this article on the immigration debate in the 90s. I believe it shows that Democrats have recently changed their opinion on illegal immigration and that this is a new policy. However, while it shows that immigration was highly debated, it lacks any clear polls on Democratic opinions.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/SHR/5-2/dittgen.html

There are probably at least two reasons for the change, one honest and one cynical.

First, research shows that immigrants eventually end up as economic net positives.
https://clas.berkeley.edu/research/immigration-economic-benefits-immigration

Second, the crass reason. In 2001 there was a book predicting an "inevitable demographic majority" that would put the Democrats permanently in power. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0036QVPEU/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Since the article was published, the pundits have gone back and forth on whether the book is right, but over and over the book comes back up in major media. When the Republicans win, the "emerging democratic majority" is either unreliable, or too far away in the future to count on. When Democrats win, the majority is here and we never have to worry about Republicans again (until they win again, then the pundits think the sky is falling anew.)

A series of articles through the years to demonstrate that this book and its prediction is repeatedly brought up, and thus people are probably aware of it:
2016
2015
2014
2012
2011
2010
2009

TLDR: The support of illegal immigrants is mostly recent and is driven, like a lot of things, by the partisan political divide. The Democrats are supportive of all types of immigration today, and they have very good valid reasons for it, but also a belief that immigration will give them political power.

>can you please clarify your ideological position

Sure.

I'm a paleoconservative deep ecologist. This means I adhere to the oldest values of American conservatism and pair them with an interest in environmentalism through a more wholesome design of society.

I moderate /r/new_right because the new right ideas are closest to paleoconservatism in some ways. I tried to write a description of new_right that encompassed all of the ideas that the movement has tossed around.

Beyond that, I think politics is a matter of strategies and not collectivist moral decisions, am fond of libertarian-style free market strategies, and take interest in many things, hence the wide diversity of stuff that I post.

I've learned that on Reddit it's important to ask for people to clarify definitions before ever addressing any question using those terms. If you want me to answer any specific questions, we need a clear definition first agreed on by all parties.

I recommend the following books for anyone interesting in post-1970s conservatism beyond the neoconservative sphere:

• Paul Woodruff, Reverence: Renewing a Forgotten Virtue
  
• Pat Buchanan, Suicide of a Superpower
  
• Joseph Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies
  
• Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind from Burke to Eliot
  
• Jared Diamond, Collapse
  
• Mark Steyn, America Alone
  
• Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals
  
• Bruce Charlton, Thought Prison: The Fundamentalist Nature of Political Correctness
  
  Other than that, I'm pretty much a mainstream Republican. Not all links I post constitute endorsement, such as this fascinating article.

Those fawning reviews on Amazon are something else! I can't shake the suspicion that the Trump's pay people to buy the book and post reviews written by the Trump PR team.

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/154608603X/ref=acr_dpx_hist_5?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=five_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

>The thing that I love about the Trump family is their honesty. The bad reviews come from liberal haters that had once claimed that they were the party of love and acceptance. They were that party, until the the truth was told about how they want socialism. I don’t know about anyone else but when the truth is told by people like Donald Trump Jr. people on the left get very angry. Sometimes the TRUTH hurts. If anyone as an adult can’t handle the TRUTH, they are ignorant cry babies. Go cry somewhere else while the TRUMP family saves our great country. Donald Jr. is a great man with honesty and integrity . Thank you for the TRUTH!!

I'll ignore the "insult" part and just focus on the label.

Liberals isn't just used by people talking about those who are "too far left". They are people who believe in or advocate for one of the liberal ideologies. Why do you think it's "toxic" to have a label we can use to refer to those who believe in and advocate for a specific ideology (or family of closely related ideologies)?

Now, I'm not going to disagree it's not misused, but that's a thing that's always going to happen with words, especially ideologies. It's a useful rhetorical tool and, let's be honest, most people aren't gonna have, want, or need a nuanced understandings of the features that differentiate their perceived enemies. Euphemisms happen. Ignorance is a fact of life. I understand people are going to call me a liberal sometimes because they don't know what I am, and that's okay - I'm sure I've done the same to others in other situations!

And yeah, it's gonna get misused as a symbol for the purpose of virtue signaling, but anything could be.

That doesn't mean the word isn't useful, and it is (often) used in a way that is perfectly descriptive. To a certain extent, I sort of feel like this post is an attempt to deny that the ideology even exists, or that it's particularly common - but it is an ideology, a fairly coherent one, and it is a common (often outright dominant) ideology on college campuses, in news rooms, in the entertainment industry and the halls of politics on the Democratic side. How else will you better describe those ideologies and their advocates if not using the word that literally means that?

I think it's also important we have the word, so we can differentiate between the different flavours of leftist thought - between the liberals, the neoliberals (who really aren't particularly liberal despite the name), the socialists (of various flavours) and those who identify as none of the three.

What exactly do you think "Listen, Liberal" should have been called instead? Who exactly would we say the book was trying to address?
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391

> effective blocksize increase

"Effective blocksize increase" isn't too bad. Presuming that "blocksize increase" is the same thing as "effective blocksize increase" is what I'm objecting to. Perhaps you were just misreading Bitcoinopoly, or perhaps you were just abruptly disagreeing with his terminology, I don't know.

> before you started proposing "capacity increase"

I'm just following Greg Maxwell's terminology on that. I think he was being very careful in how he worded things in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion, and I appreciate his effort.

> cut-through transactions like Lightning

Interesting term. That's an improvement, thanks.

> You seem remarkably paranoid and quick to jump to negative conclusions.

Sorry, it maybe comes from being American. Politics in the USA are full of calculated use of [language and framing in order to direct debates] (http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-The-Progressives/dp/1931498717). I took enough classes as an undergrad to know how important these kinds of effects can be, and my cognitive science background makes it hard for me to not notice when these kinds of effects are occurring and potentially becoming significant. In this case it was probably unintentional.

How much time do you have? If you have enough time, I’d recommend this book. It’s a little older but it’s the only one by Lakoff that I’ve personally read. It’s a very quick read and great help. There’s a book on a essentially the same topic by Frank Luntz and the thought of my money going to Luntz kinda makes me wanna puke but there’s no denying he’s effective at messaging. At the end of the day (and also sadly) facts won’t effect influence unless you can effect emotion from your message. That’s what the book is about.

Edit 1: Best of luck buddy!

Edit 2: If you don’t have enough time, or if you want a second pair of eyes, feel free to send me what you’re planning to say and I’ll use my experience with this to help. Just PM and we can work out the deets

He wishes to help regulate, that's part of his job. He would likely want to pay more taxes as well, but that doesn't mean he's going to donate to the government before legislation is passed. It's reasonable for legislators to patronize companies they wish to regulate. His Senate office isn't involved in the Amazon book deals. Good for him for standing up for what's right even though the company helps him sell books.

Here's what you can do:
Step 1: Go to your local library's contact page (now is a good time).
Step 2: Contact them and ask them to order copies of:

> Where Do We Go From Here ISBN 978-1250163264 [to be released Nov 13^th]
> An Outsider in the White House ISBN 978-1784784188
> [Our Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Revolution_(book) ISBN 978-1250132925
> The Speech: On Corporate Greed and the Decline of Our Middle Class ISBN 978-1568585536
> * Bernie Sanders Guide to Political Revolution ISBN 978-1250138903

Step 3: Smile that public funds are supporting the political revolution and disseminating our message.
Step 4: Pass on the idea if you think it worthwhile.
Step 5: Lean into standing up, exercising your voice, and fighting for what you believe in.

The two books i've read are The Political Mind and Don't Think of an Elephant. He is a congitive linguist who wrote a lot about metaphor and framing, and how the Right has effectively framed every major issue in their own terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff

His ideas aren't radical or world changing, but the Dems really shun him (i think over some personal spats... like, he disagreed with Rahm Emmanuel once (a plus in my book) and also with Steven Pinker (more plus), so they don't like him). Not that if they listened to him they'd win all elections, but maybe they'd do a little better?

I'm interested in him because, so far as i've read, his explanation for why Republicans voters vote for Republicans is the only one that makes sense. "Why do they vote against their interests" leaves out that they are voting for their values, even when those values are against their interests.

But, i dunno, maybe he's way off base and that's why no one listens to him. Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts.

Continued support for the military industrial complex
Bold and expressed support for the war in Iraq
Pushing for the war In Syria
Continued support for more wars abroad, even adding 4 more major conflicts under the Obama presidency
Continued support for the war on drugs
Continued support for the prison industrial complex
Continued support for predatory lending industries
refusal to support a living wage
refusal to support single payer / medicare for all / universal healthcare
refusal to support extending public education beyond k-12
growing support within the party to move towards greater and greater privatization of public services
Enactment of the ACA, a healthcare proposal initially concocted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
refusal to break up the big banks
refusal to support or truly fight for a carbon tax
a continual decline of support for unionized labor
The continued and increasing acceptance of legalized bribery / money in politics
A general abandonment of leftist economic policy


The democrats do pander very frequently to leftist ideals, but they are either extremely ineffective at governing toward their ideals or are disingenuous. In my view I lean toward the latter, mostly due to the blatant and transparent acceptance of enormous sums of money from special interest groups. It makes them look like they are paid to lose/throw the fight - but still pander to the left and win votes.


This criticism of the Democratic party as moving rightward by no means excused the disgusting sprint toward facism of the Republican party, but the Democrats have been trying for years to run away from being branded with associations to FDR or New Deal style politics. For a very thorough analysis, check out this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391

To be fair, he's hardly the only one.

In 1969 someone wrote a book called The Emerging Republican Majority that correctly predicted coming Republican dominance due to demographic changes. And the book was quite right when you look at presidential contests. From 1968 to 1988 Republicans won 5 out of 6 presidential elections. And the 1 they lost (Carter, 1976) they only narrowly lost.

In 2004 someone wrote a book called The Emerging Democratic Majority, making much the same prediction based on demographic changes. Sure Bush later won reelection that year, but the exit poll numbers only reinforced the author's point about how the GOP was losing in growing demographic groups, and hence likely to struggle more at winning elections.

These kinds of demographic changes DO NOT mean it's impossible for one party to win the white house however. Only that until demographics or voting behavior starts changing significantly that one party will struggle more at winning national elections.

To say that demographics mean Democrats will control the government for the next 4 or however many decades goes too far.

This is a very good description and understanding of political movements.

Here is a book about conservatism by an American. It's definitely much more negative in outlook towards conservatism than you but it looks at the history of conservatism and what is the common thread and is a very interesting read.

>The Reactionary Mind by Corey Robin

>
> Late in life, William F. Buckley made a confession to Corey Robin. Capitalism is "boring," said the founding father of the American right. "Devoting your life to it," as conservatives do, "is horrifying if only because it's so repetitious. It's like sex." With this unlikely conversation began Robin's decade-long foray into the conservative mind. What is conservatism, and what's truly at stake for its proponents? If capitalism bores them, what excites them?
>
> Tracing conservatism back to its roots in the reaction against the French Revolution, Robin argues that the right is fundamentally inspired by a hostility to emancipating the lower orders. Some conservatives endorse the free market, others oppose it. Some criticize the state, others celebrate it. Underlying these differences is the impulse to defend power and privilege against movements demanding freedom and equality.
>
> Despite their opposition to these movements, conservatives favor a dynamic conception of politics and society--one that involves self-transformation, violence, and war. They are also highly adaptive to new challenges and circumstances. This partiality to violence and capacity for reinvention has been critical to their success.
>
> Written by a keen, highly regarded observer of the contemporary political scene, The Reactionary Mind ranges widely, from Edmund Burke to Antonin Scalia, from John C. Calhoun to Ayn Rand. It advances the notion that all rightwing ideologies, from the eighteenth century through today, are historical improvisations on a theme: the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.

Oh boy have I got some books for you:

• The Conservatarian Manifesto, Charlie C.W. Cooke --
  The editor of National Review Online argues the path to a better conservatism lies in a marriage with libertarianism.
  
  
• The End is Near and it's Going to be Awesome, Kevin D. Williamson --
  National Review's Roving Correspondent argues that the American government is collapsing under its own weight and that's a good thing.
  
  
• Hillbilly Elegy, J.D. Vance --
  A former marine and Yale-educated lawyer gives a powerful account of his upbringing in a Rust-belt town and his family's connection to Appalachia.
  
  
• The Evolution of Everything, Matt Ridley --
  The Fellow of the Royal Society and member of the House of Lords describes how spontaneous order is behind a great many advancements of the modern age and why centralized "design" is ineffective and prone to failure.
  
  
• The Vanishing American Adult, Ben Sasse --
  The popular freshman senator describes the crisis of America's youth, and how the solutions lay beyond the realm of politics.
  
  
• Our Republican Constitution, Randy E. Barnett --
  One of America's leading constitutional law scholars explains why Americans would benefit from a renewal of our Republican Constitution and how such a renewal can be achieved.
  
  
• A Torch Kept Lit, William F. Buckley, edited by James Rosen --
  A curated collection of Buckley's best eulogies, A Torch Kept Lit provides invaluable insight into both the eminent twentieth century conservative and an unrevised conservative account of the great lives of the twentieth century.
  
  
• Scalia Speaks, Antonin Scalia, edited by Christopher Scalia and Ed Whelan --
  This volume of Justice Scalia's finest speeches provides intimate insight on the justice's perspectives on law, faith, virtue, and private life.

Obviously not OP. But give Run For Something a read. Maybe you don't end up running for office. But it can help give you an appreciation of why it's important to engage with and help candidates even for smaller positions. Your school board, your city council members, your township trustees can have a huge impact. It can be the difference that gives you quality schools, roads that don't swallow your car, and maybe even forward thinking policies such as municipal internet access. Those things impact your life as much or more than national level elections.

Find out who's running for positions in your area and talk to them, find out what they want to achieve and decide if that's something you think would be good. Then help out in any way you can. Maybe it's volunteering or working for them. Maybe it's simply making sure your friend's and family are registered to vote and know when the elections are and their voting location and how they're going to get there.

What was so good here was watching Bernie be super respectful and thorough when deal with people who clearly had opposite opinions of him.

For anyone who doesn't know - Bernie was a weekly guest for 10 years on Thom Hartmann's radio show. Thom has a book on how to win over peoples hearts and minds. Its called Cracking the Code. I highly recommend.

https://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Code-Restore-Americas-Original/dp/1576756270

>Democrats have done little to advance traditional liberal goals: expanding opportunity, fighting for social justice, and ensuring that workers get a fair deal. Indeed, they have scarcely dented the free-market consensus at all. This is not for lack of opportunity: Democrats have occupied the White House for sixteen of the last twenty-four years, and yet the decline of the middle class has only accelerated. Wall Street gets its bailouts, wages keep falling, and the free-trade deals keep coming.

>With his trademark sardonic wit and lacerating logic, Frank's Listen, Liberal lays bare the essence of the Democratic Party's philosophy and how it has changed over the years. A form of corporate and cultural elitism has largely eclipsed the party's old working-class commitment, he finds. For certain favored groups, this has meant prosperity. But for the nation as a whole, it is a one-way ticket into the abyss of inequality. In this critical election year, Frank recalls the Democrats to their historic goals-the only way to reverse the ever-deepening rift between the rich and the poor in America.

From the publisher's description of Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal. Sounds like I gotta read this book!

> He holds no concrete policy convictions

This meme is based on a false premise. Last election, the self-proclaimed "true conservatives" of the GOP nominated a habitual flip-flopper who ran as a progressive in Massachusetts before pretending to be a conservative, was for a path to citizenship before he was against it, for gun control before he was against it, created Romneycare before bashing Obamacare, etc., etc. Consistency and principles only matter now because the neocons have been overwhelmingly rejected at the ballot box by their own party, and they're lashing out at Trump.

It's easy and popular to claim that Trump has no real policy convictions, but it just isn't true. If you're actually concerned, read through the detailed policy papers on his website and the books that he's written about his political views. There's plenty of information out there about where he stands, you just have to do your own homework instead of expecting Trump to do it for you.

Has Trump changed his opinions before? Sure - for instance, he changed his mind about gun control when he got a gun and a license and saw why people like having them, and he changed his views on abortion when a personal friend decided at the last minute not to have one. But on his bread-and-butter issues, his message has been consistent for decades. You can go back 28 years and hear him saying the same things about trade that he's saying now. You can go back 16 years and read him saying the same things about illegal immigration and national security and foreign policy that he's saying now.

> What is a Trump voter actually voting for?

We're voting for national security, border security, trade deals that actually benefit us (not just our trade partners), and a prosperous economy that works. More importantly, we're voting against a phony strain of "conservatism" that capitulates on every issue, hates its own voters, and has been an embarrassment to our party and our country.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'political books' but I'm going to assume that you're looking for books that help explain the current political situation and current events. Maybe I'm wrong.

Fiasco and the follow up by Thomas Ricks The Gamble. These are fantastic books that put the Iraq war in perspective.

Looming Tower. A great book about the lead-up to 9/11.

For stuff about torture and Bush's policies therein I'd start with Dark Side but Torture Team is better, just more legalistic and possibly drier.

For understanding the politics right now I think it's really good to know about authoritarianism. It's completely changed how I've viewed politics. This is a new book on the subject that I have on my shelf but haven't gotten around to reading.

If this is the type of stuff you're looking for, I'm happy to provide other recommendations, but I think that's a good place to start.

EDIT: formatting

lol. no way I could do it justice... thanks!

I like bobswern's comment where he politely suggests kos take a sabbatical and give all this some more thought. Im tempted to pile on and tell markos to log off DKOS, turn off MSNBC for a week or two and go read a few good books. Go hole up or have a few drinks with Meteor Blades maybe, heh.

start with this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391

Im sure we collectively could come up with a pretty good reading list for him lol

This is pretty much the "strict father" version of conservatism that George Lakoff lays out in "Don't Think of an Elephant." It's contrasted by a "nurturing parents" metaphor for the left.

I think it's a useful metaphor for some conservative ideologues - particularly what I call the 'big government' conservatives who see a moral role for government. Here you'll find many on the religious right as well as the neo-cons who supported Bush's freedom-by-force foreign policy.

But there is a significant faction of the conservative movement that is more interested in restraining the size and power of government to protect individual liberty. These are what might be called classical liberals or conservative libertarians. For these conservatives, it's not as much about "everyone getting what they deserve," since that result seems to beg for a strong authority figure to enforce it.

Instead and here's the CMV payload it's about preventing the creation of an authority that would enforce equal consequences. The philosophical justification is that an authority strong enough to enforce justice is also strong enough to enforce injustice. Therefore, this branch of conservatism opposes efforts to protect people from the consequences of their actions which may seem like they are hoping people get what they deserve... but that's only a byproduct of their actual intent.

Dude, the book is a collection of data featuring the CIA's funding Hussein's rise into power in the first place! The opinion of the writer isn't the point, it's the collected data. But missing the point seems to be your forte.


"JFK was not alive when Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq." Um yes, that's the fucking point you blithering idiot liberal. He HELPED Hussein gain power BEFORE he had it. How are you this incapable? The US supported (president after president) Hussein, all the way up until the point he wanted to nationalise resources, and ONLY then did the US recognise his "crimes against humanity".


Liberals are excellent at flitting about, chanting platitudes and telling minorities to wait for a better time to protest - when push comes to shove they side with the reactionaries. Liberal internationalists may very well oppose the war (when it suits), but they still blindly support a system which inevitably exploits.

​

A.N.S.W.E.R were the largest anti-war group after Iraq, liberals wouldn't help or join them because they were leftist and "too radical". The majority of anti-Vietnam protestors were LEFTISTS, not liberals.


If you had even read any article from your google search; "The movement against U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War began small - among peace activists and leftist intellectuals on college campuses - but gained national prominence in 1965, after the United States began bombing North Vietnam in earnest."


"Though the vast majority of the American population still supported the administration policy in Vietnam, a small but outspoken leftist minority was making its voice heard by the end of 1965".


"The anti-war movement began mostly on college campuses, as members of the leftist organization Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)" You liberals don't get to do nothing, and then claim the actions of leftists. Sorry. Not happening anymore.


https://depts.washington.edu/moves/antiwar_intro.shtml The majority of anti-Vietnam (New Left) protestors wanted to be rid of the democratic and republican parties, while the liberals (you) blindly followed/follow the democrats no matter what they do; just like the reactionaries blindly follow the republicans.

​

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/postwarera/1960s-america/a/the-student-movement-and-the-antiwar-movement

​

"71% of US citizens supported the decision to use military force, while just 22% said it was the wrong decision". The majority of liberals are NOT anti-war. https://www.thedailybeast.com/michael-moore-on-the-iraq-war-the-liberals-backed-it where are you guys on your anti-war stance whenever someone questions dem leaders warmongering? Opps that's right; too busy asking if everyone is Russian.


http://crookedtimber.org/2013/03/25/why-did-liberals-suppor-the-iraq-war/ Liberals have been nothing but a thorn in the side of leftists, nothing. They not only never challenge the status quo, there is always a better time for the revolution. There is always a better way to act, a better way to be "angry" and a better way for minorities to get "justice" - protest is only "good" for a liberal as long as it's all within the confines of the system. Because we wouldn't want to rock the boat, would we? How do you feel about the black panthers, were they "too radical" should they have tried to be more "demure"? That's all I've heard from the liberal mouthpiece.

​

Ask any neoliberal what they think of the "conflict in the middle east" and actually listen. Complicity in western intervention is a liberal past time. https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/


https://themarxistminx.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/marxs-critique-of-liberalism/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLqKXrlD1TU&pbjreload=10 Liberals in a fucking nutshell.

​

“weak-minded, market-friendly centrist, wonky, technocratic and condescending to the working class … pious about diversity but ready to abandon any belief at the slightest drop in poll numbers”.

https://chomsky.info/20161214/ You don't even seem to understand what a fucking liberal is. Do you even know what economic liberalism entails? You seem to think liberals are social reformers when liberals have done nothing but sit on their arses, wait for leftists to actually do something, then claim they were there all along; how is neoliberalism anything but right wing? How is market theory that advocates free trade and the pursuit of material self-interest "revolutionary"? Fuck off liberal. And stop, claiming the work of leftists.


https://www.amazon.com.au/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People-ebook/dp/B012N992EK

I'm being down-voted, but seriously. This isn't just once in a lifetime. We can repeat this. We have to. Electing Bernie once won't do much this first point . We need to sustain. We need a new generation of politicians like Bernie. That is the only way the liberal vision will survive.

George Lakoff has some great ideas on liberal language that people should read! Language is important! I'll post some links to his works. Incorporate them into your daily life. PM me and I might buy you the books. We need an awaking of liberal frames.

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-The-Progressives/dp/1931498717

http://www.amazon.com/The-Little-Blue-Book-Democratic-ebook/dp/B007WT31BM

Little blue book annotations:

http://www.nowforourturn.org/Reframing/The%20Little%20Blue%20Book.pdf

Seriously. The language of the debate is important. I'll be releasing a paper on language of Bernie vs Hillary soon. I'm not respected or good at writing, but I think it has a good few points on the language we use. It's more important that people think.

I'm glad Jimmy didn't let Thomas Frank off the hook for voting for Clinton. Jimmy obviously loves Frank's book, Listen, Liberal, but seriously, how do write that masterpiece and still remain loyal to the Democratic Party?

Studies like this one Politico published have shown that Trump supporters share views that align with traditional authoritarian views: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533

​

There are a few books and studies that show a correlation between conservative viewpoints and authoritarian viewpoints. This one from Hetherington and Weiler is one of them: https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarianism-Polarization-American-Politics-Hetherington/dp/052171124X In short, American conservatives and authoritarians both value obedience, an adherence to traditional norms in behavior and speech, as well as deference to elders and positions of power. American Democrats, obviously, have a strain of this but are far more likely to value individuality and personal choices at this point.

​

I don't, unfortunately, have time to pull psychology studies on the issue (psychology is mostly my area of expertise). These were google searches of existing knowledge, and hopefully acceptable to this sub. If y'all have to pull this post down I'll understand - still new to this.

>For some reason they went absolutely insane when he won.

I can't speak to why the base lost their minds in such a drastic fashion (outside of just regurgitating the hysteria they get from the media), but the party leadership is losing it because Trump winning put a pretty big dent in the whole Demographic Destiny idea that they've been building up for the last 15 years. They honestly thought by now they'd be ruling a 1 party state in all but name, at least at the federal level.

You can track the Democrat strategy of silent approval of increasing illegal immigration and doing everything they can to appeal to ethnic minorities to riiiight around the time this trash was published.

I know this sounds hard to believe but I made $69/hour in my spare time just working at home! To visit this website click here or copy this URL into your web browser: http://xxxbotjobs.com/gamereddit

It was that easy I racked up $450 in 3 days just spending time online! I love this site it made it all possible! To visit this website click here or copy this URL into your web browser: http://xxxbotjobs.com/gamereddit

It is totally recession-proof, and read this news article from a reputable source about how this awesome Fortune 500 company is not a scam! To visit this website click here or copy this URL into your web browser: http://xxxbotjobs.com/gamereddit

> No one uses the word "leftist" who hasn't had conservative kool aid

That's simply not true, I know many leftists who self-describe as such, because they don't attach to a specific left tendency but they want to distinguish themselves from liberals. I'm one of them.

On the other hand, the rampant anti-China bias on reddit is palpable and I think many (most?) Western leftists are drinking the propaganda regarding China produced by Western capitalist governments. Like virtually all Western accounts of socialism, there is a bit of truth to each story, but wildly exaggerated and not placed in the proper context. That's how geopolitical foes characterize each other--socialist regimes do it too. It's ridiculous to swallow English-language Western accounts of Chinese socialism whole with little to no skepticism.

edit: from the first two pages of Google results for "leftist":

• a book written by a progressive author titled "The Optimistic Leftist: Why the 21st Century Will Be Better Than You Think"
  
  
• The Marxist Internet Archive's list of global left-wing parties, titled "Leftist Parties of the World
  
  
• A paper by left-wing intellectual Slavoj Zizek, titled "A Leftist Plea for 'Eurocentrism'"

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has a $158 billion question for the wealthiest person in the world. “Jeff Bezos and his company, Amazon, make huge profits by paying their employees wages that are so inadequate that many of them need public assistance just to get by,” the senator says. “How absurd is that?” But try to ask Sanders why he’s set to sell his upcoming book, “Where We Go from Here,” on Amazon and you won’t get an answer.

What a terrible article. So because Bernie wants Amazon and other companies like them to pay their employees a fair wage and not rely on public assistance, he's not allowed to use their platform? He never said Amazon should not exist. This is absurd.

It's like saying Democrats or Republicans want to change the minimum wage - yet they still eat at restaurants paying their servers a different minimum than their proposal? Gotcha!!!! Checkmate for the low effort thinkers.

This NYT piece explores that question pretty thoroughly, and includes a lot of outside links

This section is a decent summary:

>In other words, upscale voters were just as important to the Obama coalition as downscale voters. One consequence of the increased importance of the affluent to Democrats, according to Bonica and the three co-authors on the inequality paper, is that the Democratic Party has in many respects become the party of deregulated markets.

>“The Democratic Party pushed through the financial regulation of the 1930s, while the Democratic party of the 1990s undid much of this regulation in its embrace of unregulated financial capitalism,” the four authors write.

> They cite the crucial role of congressional Democrats in enacting the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which eliminated past restrictions on interstate banking; the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act separating commercial banking from other financial services; and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which restricted government oversight of most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps — all of which played a role in the financial crisis of 2007-2009.

>The critique of the increased Democratic dependency on the rich by Bonica and his co-authors is modest in comparison to that of Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, political scientists at Princeton and Northwestern. In a 2014 essay, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” they analyze congressional voting patterns and conclude that

> >"The majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose."

> >“These findings may be disappointing to those who look to the Democratic Party as the ally of the disadvantaged,” Gilens wrote in a 2012 essay published by the Boston Review:

It's going to be more slanted, but the Thomas Frank book Listen, Liberal charts the road the Democrats traveled from focusing on common welfare to catering to the needs of the upper-middle professional class.

Happy to help. I wrote this post last week to put some of my thoughts into writing. I also highly, highly recommend this book. It was the one thing that pulled me out of my anxiety slump after Kennedy retired. The same guy also runs a blog that's pretty good.

Trying to figure that out. I'm going back over "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and checking out new books like "Cracking the Code" to refresh and challenge myself. Man audio books are great.

woooo ---- weeee looked up that book in Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/Obstruction-Justice-National-Security-Democrats/dp/1621579433/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3MDC7GVP27WJQ&keywords=obstruction+of+justice+book&qid=1554297959&s=gateway&sprefix=%E2%80%9CObstruction+of+Justice+%E2%80%9C%2Caps%2C184&sr=8-1

The 'Customers who bought this item also bought' and 'Sponsored products related to this item' is the best example of the right wing wackjob press I've seen in a while.

The icing on the cake was

'Investigative reporter Luke Rosiak is being hailed as “one of the smartest, most diligent reporters in Washington” (TUCKER CARLSON) and “a bulldog” (DANA LOESCH) for uncovering “what is possibly the largest scandal and coverup in the history of the United States House of Representatives” (NEWT GINGRICH). '

three traitors for sure.

Well, yeah. He could have done it for free, but he didn’t. Nothing wrong with that. I like his ideas. Let’s just acknowledge he’s wealthy and that’s fine

Here is Bernie enriching Bezos https://www.amazon.com/Where-We-Go-Here-Resistance/dp/1250163269

> Do you want to cut environment laws to save a few bucks.

The EPA and BLM (Bureau of Land Management) seem out of control. This was an interesting and enlightening read: https://www.amazon.com/Government-Bullies-Everyday-Americans-Imprisoned/dp/1455522775

> Remove labour laws to allow corporations to have a stronger control over their employees.

I don't subscribe to the need for extensive labor laws. As long as people are not compelled (slave labor) it's just another voluntary trade. With the information we now have at our fingertips, IMO, the risk of abuse is much lower than it may have been at one time. The ad-hoc economy that seems to be popping up (Uber/Lyft/AirBnB/Private Amazon Delivery) seems to be another indicator that there will be many opportunities to essentially work for yourself.

> Honestly if benefits could be offloaded to the government in a universal sustem like universal healthcare based on the taxes on income and letting stares decide the way they want it to function, it removes another cost to businesses and simplifies the healthcare issue.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Have you ever dealt with medicaid, medicare or social security? I think the answer is again with private industry not government. Where I do agree is decoupling health insurance from employment. I think a compelling argument can be made that private industry can provide catastrophic insurance (much less expensive than today's plans) and people can save and pay for their own health care or purchase a gap insurance. I'd like to see how a less molested market affects the pricing of care and drugs.

Preexisting conditions is the nut I think no one has been able to crack as the safety net eliminates the need for paying anything until you are diagnosed. The state answer seems to be to force everyone to pay, even the young and healthy. I disagree with the government compelling action like this.

At a fundamental level I view government as mostly unnecessary in everyday affairs. For those that feel uncomfortable at the thought I can relate the this best via analogy. There are big differences between ebay and craigslist. Both have differing control and feedback mechanisms yet both can be used safely by taking different types of precautions. Users know the relative risks and consequences of craigslist (no reputation to rely on, potential shady characters, no refunds) and adapt to those risks for the opportunity and/or the savings. Ebay may make people feel more secure, but you're paying for that security and it is by no means required, nor is it inherently unsafe to use craigslist, just requires different behavior. The flaw in the analogy is that ebay's services are generally not priced ridiculously and they are held to a standard of profitability while the government has no such standard and waste and graft is everywhere.

Re: the prison industrial complex, I share your concern but can't suggest I know enough about the details to offer any value. Intuitively it seems there's massive potential for corruption. And the incarceration rate seems strangely high. Perhaps having less laws to break would be a good start.

>It seems to me that the gist of conservatism relies on two things, (1) mistrust of a priori (utopian) reasoning and revolutions, (2) and trust in incremental changes by past experiences and wisdom.

If you one day feel like challenging this conception of yours, i recommend taking a look at the book The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin by Corey Robin.

That is an excellent question. I think it requires diligence, pointing out the lie each and every time you hear it, and being fearless in doing so. The liar will profess instant indignation and threaten legal action, so courage is required.

Being careful of what is being said is also important. "Tax relief", for example, is a loaded term, making taxes sound like a sort of punishment, when in reality they are the necessary fees that keep society running, like the membership fees of a gym. You pay your fees, you get something useful in return, like a stable society.

George Lakoff called this "framing the debate" and wrote an interesting book called Don't Think of an Elephant! about this.

The Democratic Party hasn't been liberal for 35 years. It is astounding that liberals still believe the DNC represents them.

Thomas Frank explains it way better than I can, and it is worth a read or listen:
Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? https://www.amazon.com/dp/1627795391

Cracking the Code is a great read. It goes over the various communication modalities sighting many examples of powerful speeches and as a bonus, breaks down the philosophical differences between progressive and conservative mindsets.

I know what you're referring to, but that's not what I meant. This Reason article sums it up nicely, and this book by Marc Hetherington also address this, from a time well before Trump and this idea that only R's are that way.

From my own personal experience with liberal or conservative friends, there are some on both sides who like this tough approach. It does tend to be more obvious on the Right, but that's more due to age I think. It seems most younger people of any political affiliation - in my experience - tend to reject authoritarianism. YMMV of course

You haven't posted a single source for any of your claims yet here we are. Good luck in your liberal bubble. Best stay in r/politics next time kiddo.

" In this controversial National Bestseller, the former CEO of NPR sets out for conservative America wondering why these people are so wrong about everything. It turns out, they aren’t. "

"With his trademark sardonic wit and lacerating logic, Frank's Listen, Liberal lays bare the essence of the Democratic Party's philosophy and how it has changed over the years. A form of corporate and cultural elitism has largely eclipsed the party's old working-class commitment, he finds. For certain favored groups, this has meant prosperity. But for the nation as a whole, it is a one-way ticket into the abyss of inequality. In this critical election year, Frank recalls the Democrats to their historic goals-the only way to reverse the ever-deepening rift between the rich and the poor in America." https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391

And the Dems are not listening to us. On the contrary, the money of the privileged class is speaking.

cool. Thanks for acknowledging my point and stating your disagreement in a diplomatic way. I think we are getting to a real discourse here.

My first disagreement with your statement is I don't think fighting republicans and making democrats better is either or first or second type of situation. In fact, considering how the democrats are always chasing the republicans rightward often losing big in election seasons, I think that making the democratic party a stronger one that better represents and inspires its people will stop the rightward shift of both parties.

Because policy polling shows the democratic platform is way more popular than the republican one and actually on most polices, the majority of American's are left of the democratic party but the constant losing of ground on policy, the appearance of elitism and corruption, the focus on identity politics which doesn't resonate compared to economic issues, and the fact that economically the middle and working classes have been devastated by republicans AND Democrats are some of the reasons why Democrats keep losing. That and the Democrats constant shift rightward, because when voters are presented with the options of republican and republican light, they'll go with the real thing.

I do agree the republicans are worse and we should fight and obstruct their agenda I also don't think investing energy in trying to change the republicans is the most prudent strategy.

There is a cogent argument made by Thomas Frank in his book Listen Liberal that the democratic party abandoning the working class in favor of the professional class is what led to them losing the majority of legislatures over the last 40 some years. So the way I see it, if the democratic party can take on the role of being the party of the people again, in a meaningful not rhetorical, way they will win seats and if the republicans want to stand a chance as a party they'll have to follow the democrats lead.

Jimmies have been maximum rustled. If anyone wants to gift a liberal family member or friend in college, check out check out Ben Shapiro's book Brainwashed. Excellent read.

I doubt he was born in the US but it really doesn’t matter at this point. Trump is erasing everything Obama did while in office so it’s almost like it never happened anyway. Just like to bring up the birth thing to trigger people like you.

The lie started taking over the party when this book was published. After 2004 they more-or-less gave up reaching out to the white working class in favor of trying to turn growing minority communities (Muslims, Latinos) into another captive Democrat voting bloc like the black community.

> Conservatives tend to value hierarchy

They don't just value it — hierarchy is the common factor between all conservative movements since the French Revolution.

Read the Reactionary Mind. The author goes through hundreds of years of conservatism, comparing & contrasting different movements. Many of them wouldn't get along, especially in terms of economics, social politics, governance, etc. And yet they all agree on one thing:

> Hierarchy is the natural state of society.

Now, exactly who is on top, and why they're up there... well, the different movements would argue about that too.

EDIT: clarification, thanks to u/RicketyFrigate

That's why they call it the Reactionary Party.

Have you read The Reactionary Mind? It tracks conservatism from the French Revolution onward, and finds that the only common factors are:

1. Hierarchy is good
   
2. Change (away from hierarchy) is bad
   
   Hierarchy = any kind structure that says some people deserve more than others. Whether they be rich, or white, or male, or landowners, or family, or citydwellers, or religious, or sectarian, or educated... different brands of conservatism prefer different kinds of hierarchy
   
   But they all want some people on top and, more importantly, some people below. And they will fight fight fight to stop any change from happening.
   
   It's a fascinating read!
   
   
   
   

Yes, a smart Democratic party would exploit it. But its one of the things they can't actually push because it might work.

Democrats are operating of this book and have for some time. Hence, they dream of flipping Texas using the Hispanic vote and locking in a permanent majority.

https://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Democratic-Majority-John-Judis/dp/0743254783

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/the-coming-democratic-majority-might-be-coming-a-lot-slower-than-you-think.html

Stop believing the media bias. Here is a book he wrote that pretty clearly outlines his foreign policy vision. This vision informs his goals, and his presidential run has been largely driven by his proposed solutions; like the temporary immigration ban, the Wall, renegotiation of trade deals.

You dont get to where Trump is right now by being clueless. Honestly it sounds a little like projection to me.

His book, liberty defined would be a great starting place.

http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333121760&sr=8-1

for opposition, maybe any books written by the other candidates.

Facebook, google and twitter (run by leftists) doing targeted censorship of right wing ideology? (for example, one that is very evident, is people who are against mass illegal and legal immigration). Demonetizing right wing youtube channels outright? Linking to left wing "fact checking" services and making sure news articles pass their political truth test? Google having a hostile work environment to libertarians or people on the right?

I can't think of any better examples of "abolishing all things which don't validate a certain narrow worldview".

Or for example the major leftists news organization which claim to be unbiased, but for anyone with an objective outlook, can see just how slanted they really are. I mean the ex CEO of NPR, someone who should be listened to if you want to understand how leftist media operates, wrote an entire book about NPR and liberal media's bubble. https://www.amazon.com/Republican-Like-Me-Liberal-Learned/dp/0062460781

But as a fellow truth seeker I'm sure you know all this by now.

this fantastic and short book is a great primer on the cognitive science that underlies political leanings


In short -- conservativism and liberalism constitute holistic world views.


The conservative world view is one in which the following exist: good, evil, weak, strong, work, and sloth. The strong and good must protect the weak from evil. people show their nature through their actions. ultimately this means they get what they deserve. it is evil to interfere with that process because it hampers justice.

The liberal world view is one in which these categorical divisions blur due to complex causality. Behavior that looks like evil can be protective and result from previously received trauma. A good work ethic can be the result of a good and safe upbringing. A bad one can be the result of hampered development. Ultimately we are all the same and deserving of nurturance.

Here is his new one , another home run imo

[Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?]
(https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8)

>From the bestselling author of What's the Matter With Kansas, a scathing look at the standard-bearers of liberal politics -- a book that asks: what's the matter with Democrats?

>It is a widespread belief among liberals that if only Democrats can continue to dominate national elections, if only those awful Republicans are beaten into submission, the country will be on the right course.

>But this is to fundamentally misunderstand the modern Democratic Party. Drawing on years of research and first-hand reporting, Frank points out that the Democrats have done little to advance traditional liberal goals: expanding opportunity, fighting for social justice, and ensuring that workers get a fair deal. Indeed, they have scarcely dented the free-market consensus at all. This is not for lack of opportunity: Democrats have occupied the White House for sixteen of the last twenty-four years, and yet the decline of the middle class has only accelerated. Wall Street gets its bailouts, wages keep falling, and the free-trade deals keep coming.

Suggested reading from greatandpowerfulOZ

The American Conservative

Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk (or anything by Kirk for that matter). Doesn't really delve too far economically speaking, but his philosophical and ideological underpinnings should glean light into how a conservative feels an economy should operate.

• Mentioned before, but the Road to Serfdom is a decent choice as well.
  
  
• I, personally am not a fan of Friedman as his neoliberal outlook seems to be coming apart at the seams. However, many will mention him and as many of his views tend to guide the economic policies of many Conservatives you should read up on him as well.
  
  
• I like Wilhelm Roepke.
  
  

>Also Clinton supporters being right wing? I don't see it, like Trump supporters most Clinton supporters are coming straight from Obama and I don't see how they're right wing.

From a modern American perspective, no. But from a global perspective yes. It used to be very different, in FDR's time for example. People did fight against his social-democrat policies, but they were adopted and widely popular. I mentioned how the John Birch Society shifted the Republicans to the right, and that's where things started to change. After McGovern's loss and, later, 12 years of Reagan and his VP being massively popular somehow, Democratic leaders assumed that they couldn't win by appealing to the left (which ignored the other circumstances surrounding McGovern's loss and Reagan's win). When they got back into power it was with Bill Clinton, who explicitly pursued a centrist agenda (he called it "triangulation") that included dismantling/privatizing the welfare state (welfare reform), expanding the police state and deregulating the financial industry (Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000). And these are all positions which were considered right-wing in the pre-Bill Clinton era. Now fast-forward to Obama, who has basically pursued the same foreign policy as Bush II, and whose central accomplishment is a bill which is an altered form of a healthcare-reform idea proposed by the far-right Heritage Foundation, and he is basically being attacked as a secret communist by Republicans. Frankly, it's rather insulting to the communists to group Obama with them.

(The book Listen, Liberal discusses in more detail how the Democratic Party moved to the right, if you're curious in reading further into this.)

>the real problem that we both should be against is the current corrupt people in power which is why a lot of people support Trump's promises to get rid of the people dividing us further for their own gain.

His proposals for lobbying reform and term limits aren't bad actually. But his proposed cabinet is, well, it's certainly a change from Democratic corruption but not the good kind. The people he's proposing are mostly distinguished by loyalty rather than actually fitting their position (lol Ben Carson), most of them have conflicts of interest based on their business histories, and most of them are big donors to the Trump campaign. Is any of this unusual for a Presidential cabinet? Well, not really, but it doesn't inspire hope about Trump actually wanting to address corruption more than nominally. And maybe he won't appoint any people with connections to the right-wing's favorite boogeymen such as Soros (though Mnuchin is a close Soros associate so... lol) but for every Dem-aligned billionaire rigging the system in their favor there's a Republican one doing the same thing. There's the Kochs, ALEC, and so on. Corruption isn't a Dem-only thing. When businesses spend billions to elect their stooges, that's an assault to democracy, doesn't matter which party's doing it (as I've said, the two parties are not too different in their goals at this point). But I never see Trump supporters worry about the Kochs or ALEC, oddly. I think that they're using anti-corruption as a cover for partisanship, ultimately.

If anti-corruption reform does happen, it's not going to occur thanks to politicians and businesspeople who've benefited from it. You can't use the system to change the system. Big money is the problem. And capitalism more broadly is the problem. Electing someone who'll just put the big businesses in power directly, rather than having them go through middlemen, isn't a solution in my opinion. If you want to get shit done, you do it through a mass movement and direct action. The civil rights and women's rights movements didn't succeed because they elected the right people, they succeeded because they essentially used sheer manpower (or, womanpower in the latter case) to make the government change shit. That's real democracy, IMO.

I didn't downvote you, and never downvote what I consider sincere and well-meaning posts by people trying to contribute new ideas, after all, that's how new ideas get going...but I have to say that I don't think more Orwellian double-speak bumper-stickers is necessarily what the Dems need. What we really need is for the American public to finally get their heads out of their asses. A book recommendation for you: Don't Think of an Elephant! Also, a little reminder: it doesn't get much more simple, catchy, and benevolent than "Hope" and "Change."

Oh, my goodness gracious, there are literally thousands of articles on Google on this, dozens of books by conservative intellectuals on how leftists, starting with boomers, took over American college campuses and stymy careers of conservative academics.

They've successfully brainwashed generations of students - I was one until I got out into the real world.

If you're so lacking in intellectual curiosity, here are some suggestions:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/05/01/higher-education-has-a-strong-leftist-bias-but-not-enough-for-one-prof/#ecf1e2576d7c

"A good many educators take seriously the idea that teaching is a political activity and accordingly feel justified in using their classrooms as platforms for spreading their social, economic, and philosophical beliefs. They want to act as “change agents” who will improve the world.

Most of those educators have been imbued with a leftist cast of mind – hostile to capitalism, private property, and anything that stands in the way of their utopian visions of a just society brought about through government power. Instances like the recent ones at UC Santa Barbara (where a professor physically attacked a student who was peacefully protesting abortion) and Eastern Connecticut (where a writing professor went off on a rant about how evil Republicans are) are pretty common."

https://www.leadershipinstitute.org/Writings/?ID=2
"Leftist Control on Campus

Overwhelmingly leftist faculty.
Overwhelmingly leftist administrators who actively suppress conservative activities and refuse to address grievances from students who suffer persecution for their conservative beliefs.
Leftist domination of most student government associations.
Leftist domination of "student courts" which decide issues regarding student government actions and persecute students for activities in behalf of conservative principles.
Leftist Indoctrination on Campus

Large numbers of courses presented that explicitly in their catalog descriptions push leftist ideology, but no balance of conservative principles offered in the curriculum.
Indoctrination of students in class by faculty who promote socialist ideas and other leftist priorities.
Leftist faculty using their class time to preach politics instead of teaching the topic at hand.
Faculty who express in class blatant contempt of conservative ideas.
Assignment by faculty of one-sided textbooks and readings which systematically push leftist ideas and denigrate or ignore conservative ideas.

Leftist domination of almost all official campus newspapers, which are funded by taxpayers, compulsory student fees, or unwitting donors to the colleges and universities.
Large numbers of leftist student organizations, supported by major, national leftist organizations.
Leftist monopolies of most journalism faculties.
Programs which present overwhelmingly leftist off-campus speakers to the students.
Overwhelmingly leftist speakers provided to speak to graduates and their families at graduation ceremonies.

College and university libraries packed with leftist books and magazines but few if any books or publications which promote conservative principles.
Compulsory freshman orientation programs and "sensitivity training" designed by leftists to undermine traditional values.
Mandatory seminars for students on how to have "safe sex" with little or no mention of the possibility or merits of abstinence or marriage.
Enforced diversity in every area except for the adherence to or the teaching of conservative principles."

https://townhall.com/columnists/danieldoherty/2011/11/19/avoiding-leftist-indoctrination-at-american-colleges-and-universities-n797669

"One of the greatest dilemmas facing American students today is the perennial threat of leftist indoctrination on college campuses. In recent years, institutions of higher learning – which have historically been places for enlightened thought and dissenting opinions – have increasingly become breeding grounds for radical liberalism. College courses, which are often taught by biased professors who espouse leftist ideology, fail to adequately challenge undergraduate students and often leave many of them woefully unprepared for the real world."

Some full books:

https://www.amazon.com/Brainwashed-Universities-Indoctrinate-Americas-Youth/dp/1595559795

https://www.amazon.com/Indoctrination-Lefts-Against-Academic-Freedom/dp/1594031908

You should read Obstruction of Justice: How the Deep State Risked National Security to Protect the Democrats

The two books Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer and Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? by Thomas Frank pair extremely well and are required reading for anyone that wishes to understand how US politics has been shifted so far to the right these past decades. Dark Money, while extremely informative regarding the propaganda of billionaires, largely gives a pass to the Democratic party which Listen, Liberal reveals as being undeserved.

Wow, multiple replies from the same person.

Have you read Donald Trump Jr's new book? I think you'd like it. It's about you.

No one else has mentioned it. "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff talked greatly about how James Dobson and Focus on the Family moved Evangelical Christianity into a wealth=moral fortitude type of mentality. The idea that God only allows the people who are upright Christians to be successful and wealthy is one they capitalized upon and were able to use that value-speak to cause a lot of people who often voted with the Democrats (particularly the blue-collar labor class in the South and Midwest) to side with the Republicans.

I can't tell if this a bot response, or someone throwing their hands up in the air before even making an effort to have a discussion. If I'm not worth the time that's fine, but I do recommend that book. Here's a link. There are also plenty of interviews on Youtube where the author talks about details from the book. I promise it's all more worthwhile than talking to random dudes online for fake internet points.

Bill was the master deregulator. Sure, while they are in office it might seem fine on the surface. Thomas Frank briefly goes over it a bit here if you are interested: https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People-ebook/dp/B012N992EK Kept seeing this in amazon and bought it recently.

Great! I'd start with this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537527/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480350675&sr=8-1&keywords=ron+paul+the+revolution

and then follow up with this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480350707&sr=8-1&keywords=ron+paul+liberty+defined

> It always sets off alarm bells to see Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Prof. Weinstein, and Hirsi Ali get lumped in with conservatives - even though all of these people are liberal, and most are very liberal.

Conservatism by definition is the defense of hierarchy against leftist movements. The main political split in Western societies is between those who think hierarchical domination should be minimized or abolished, and those who believe it is natural, inevitable, and glorious. If they are defending an ethnic, gendered, or economic hierarchy of any kind, then they are doing conservative politics.

https://www.amazon.com/Brainwashed-Universities-Indoctrinate-Americas-Youth/dp/1595559795

Pretty sure it's this one. The year seems right.

>1. The Democratic party, for some insane reason, followed the Republican party to the right. I dunno what the strategy behind that was, but if they had not, they would likely have control of most State governments + Congress.


Read or listen to Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? by Thomas Frank

Analyzing gnzlgrc

• comments per month: 32.7 ^I ^have ^an ^opinion ^on ^everything
  
• posts per month: 2 ^lurker
  
• favorite sub AskReddit
  
• favorite words: country, three, three
  
• age 0 years 11 months
  
• profanity score 0.8% ^Gosh ^darnet ^gee ^wiz
  
• trust score 101.2% ^tell ^them ^your ^secrets!
  
  
• Fun facts about gnzlgrc
  
  • "I am fucking terrified of mass Muslim immigration into the western world."
    
  • "I am enjoying reading them and the crazy cat people to rational people is lower than I initially thought."
    
  • "I am applying for jobs that don't call back."
    
  • "I am not producing any money."
    
  • "I am with him on every aspect he describes on this book."
    
  • "I am still a monster."
    
  • "I am churning the hell out of it ;) I understand."
    
  • "I am pretty sure those businesses have the "card fee" well integrated on their business plan."
    
  • "I am using it for the double cash back promo on your first year offer they have."
    
  • "I am trying to say is that it is highly likely that Schwab will reject your application."
    
  • "I am still angry about it."
    

JtO's response seems to me the sort of emotion-laden bombast that you'd find from many political commentators. I don't think he has the reach of impact of a Glenn Beck or Andrew Sullivan, but the tactics aren't dissimilar and they do seem to work by shifting the Overton window.

I sometimes think that the most useful information many people here could learn is standard political issue framing. Pick up George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant and give it a read (don't panic if Lakoff doesn't mesh with your personal political stripe - the tactics are agnostic and the book examines which ones tend to be used by which side in a pretty even-handed way).

This is a political fight, and in political fights, words matter. Learning how to use them effectively forges your metaphorical linguistic sword and shield for that battle.

Sorry, I just don't understand how anybody who knows about the history of the Democratic Party specifically could rationally think there is anyway it will ever change. This book by Thomas Frank is a really good analysis. Although ultimately he seems to think reforming the party is possible, but he is not a radical so I guess that explains his irrational faith.

Under the book cover there is a "Listen".
It's mostly just him ranting about the left and how silly they are for having triggered words and how awesome Trump is.
https://www.amazon.com/Triggered-Left-Thrives-Wants-Silence/dp/154608603X

Federalist 39.

Also, Our Republican Constitution by Randy Barnett is a great commentary on the subject.

You might be thinking of George Lakoff's Don't Think of An Elephant (2004). I searched the wiki of episode guests from 1999 - 2006, but Lakoff doesn't appear. He has written many books over 40 years, has lots of interviews on youtube; plenty of material to sink your teeth into.

If Lakoff wasn't what you were searching, maybe he'll be a good substitute.

Liberty Defined by Ron Paul https://smile.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1VT8J25TDUGQM&keywords=liberty+defined+ron+paul&qid=1555784579&s=gateway&sprefix=liberty+defined%2Caps%2C140&sr=8-1

Two books related to upbringing and politics that you might enjoy: George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant and Thomas Franks' What's the Matter with Kansas?

Lakoff also has some youtube videos of his lectures.

Our Republican Constitution by Randy Barnett is a fantastic discussion of the history of the Constitution and how it has evolved over time.

https://www.amazon.com/Our-Republican-Constitution-Securing-Sovereignty/dp/0062412280/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497708785&sr=8-1&keywords=randy+barnett

The Dems did abandon the white working class, or at the very least were in the process of doing so. I will give no specific policy evidence for this but will give an underlying truth. We had the emerging Democratic majority. We had "the jobs arent coming back mantra", we had the deplorables, we had record immigration(both legal and illegal), we had proposed amnesties for illegals, we had identity politics coming out of our ears, we had race and ethnic baiting. All this with an eye on the electoral advantage to the Democrats. All this to ensure the soon to be Dem Majority. Even if you disagree with the above I think you have to admit the emerging Democratic Majority had some influence on how Dems had been playing politics recently.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Emerging-Democratic-Majority-John-Judis/dp/0743254783

Same way they made the word “Liberal” a pejorative term.

This book by George Lakoff outlines just how Republicans have hijacked the political discourse in this country and explains how to undo the bunk framing and take it back to reality. Quick and fascinating read. Check it out.

> This is rationalism?

Reading people who have object- and meta-level views you may disagree with? Yes. I wouldn't hesitate to read The Emerging Democratic Majority if I were interested in their methodology as opposed to just a couple of soundbites that I heard repeated elsewhere in the blogosphere when the book first came out.

Don't Think of an Elephant is by a cognitive scientist and psycholinguist named George Lakoff. Whether or not you agree with his politics, I've found it incredibly useful to know how to bait audiences into making assumptions.

The general thesis is that people organize their concepts into "frames," or categories that help us make sense of complicated ideas. But many of these ideas can exist in more than one frame, so when people evoke a specific frame instead of another, they can subtly guide your thinking by introducing a new semantic context and perspective.

So much of Act One requires the audience to simultaneously 1) know that the protagonist has a flaw, 2) secretly agree with the misguided belief behind that protagonist's flaw, 3) not know how to defeat that belief, and 4) be enticed into learning how to defeat the wrong belief. Though #1 an #2 seem mutually exclusive, knowing how to lure audiences into adopting incorrect frames can allow you to highlight cognitive dissonance in the audience, which you then correct over the course of the protagonist's adventure.

Further, knowing when leaders or organizations are trying to manipulate you into accepting incorrect frames can be a big indicator that other people are being misled also. So you can be "Mr. prescient hot-button writer guy" when you write a movie about the issue that "says all the things I was thinking, but didn't quite know how to say."

A great book that discusses why some don't want taxes on the rich, are against abortion but for the death penalty. Don't think of an elephant!. Summary: some believe in the nurturing parent theory, others believe in the strong father theory.

First thing's first...

>Twenty years later, we are still told by important professors and politicians that ‘identity politics’ are dangerous, a genuine threat to civilization. Rather than the Jewish thinkers of the Frankfurt School, an idea with roots in anti-Semitic ‘cultural bolshevism,’ the new intellectual source for mainstream right-wingers is now ‘postmodernism’ — a dubious source given post-modern’s distinctive brand of skepticism towards all-encompassing systems.

That is a filthy lie.

1. "Cultural bolshevism" was only about art, it was about targeting art that was perceived as "subversive" by the Nazi State and nothing to do with political movements attacking cultural institutions
   
2. Google's Ngram Viewer reveals that the term associated with this, "cultural marxism" has no connection whatsoever with "cultural bolshevism", appearing decades after WWII in the era of the New Left
   
   Now that this is done, the author is doing one big sleight of hand... pretending that because Republicans leveraged identity politics to win the South back in the 70s that they and they alone bear the fault for identity politics today. This is a form of whataboutism, trying to deflect criticism by pretending someone else did something similar first.
   
   The reality is that both can be true: Republicans can have leaned on white identity politics to gain the South AND leftist activists can be deeply involved in identity politics today for political gains. These are not mutually exclusive claims, and the author's whole argument hinges entirely on the reader accepting the implied statement that they are mutually exclusive. The author also pretends that this flirtation with "white identity politics" has never ended in the Republican party, which is not at all supported in hist text nor in reality.
   
   The facts are that leftist thinkers have been harping about "The Emerging Democatic Majority" and the "Coaltition of the Ascendant", focusing on identity politics to attract the votes of rising demographics of college-educated women, ethnic minorities and the like to fashion a new coalition. Just saying "buh the Republicans did it too decades ago!" is not a defense.

It has to do with authoritarianism. About 25% of the public score high in authoritarianism.

There has been a political realignment in the last few decades and now nearly almost all whites who vote and who score high in authoritarianism vote republican now.

And I being up white voters because non whites who score high on authoritarianism generally know they aren't welcome in the gop. They aren't stupid.

Here is a good book about it.

https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarianism-Polarization-American-Politics-Hetherington/dp/052171124X

Pick up a copy of Liberty Defined, Ron Paul has a great short summary in the book.

The basic problem is how government encourages employer based health care through tax incentives. But government even created the employer based health care mess when they had wage caps on labor from FDR through Nixon, so employers started offing healthcare to subsidize for the lower wages government mandated through those years. So there is no real option currently with healthcare, you get the healthcare your employer provides you and that's it. You rarely hear people complaining about their house or car insurance because if their premiums go up to much, they change provider, change their deductible, or change their coverage amounts. This puts the customer in charge of their insurance. But we don't have those options now.

Also, back in the day when Ron Paul was practicing, all the doctor students would sign the Hippocratic Oath which basically stated it was their duty to provide for the poor. They did this in various ways, sometimes discounts, some times payment plans, some times they did work pro bono. But once medicare/medicaid were introduced, this whole practice disappeared.

Another problem is price transparency. There is one surgery clinic in Oklahoma that no longer takes medicare/medicaid patients and is a free market only practice. Since they don't loose money because of government underpaying them for work at the medicare/medicaid pricing, they don't have to jack up the cost for the other patients. The result is costs that are 1/5 to 1/10 of the prices insurance would pay in other hospitals. Almost every surgery they offer is less than $12K, the most expensive is some penis surgery that is 15k.

I kind of lost my train of thought, but what America has now is no where near the Free Market system and hasn't been for many many decades. Probably the last time it was free market was the last time no one was complaining about the system and before government got involved.

A good explainer. http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462717848&sr=1-1&keywords=listen+liberal

Those two quotations are from the front matter of Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?, the new book from Thomas Frank.
http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391

You might be interested in a short read called "Don't Think of an Elephant". The author is a linguist and he looks at how Republicans manipulate language as a means to an end. He addresses your question to some extent.

I have noticed that when existing moral or cognitive categories/structures are challenged, people tend to regress to more basic ones. So even as many people have embraced liberal human rights ideas, such as gender equality and dignity for QUILTBAG (LGBTQIA+), many others are in a backlash as they pull back to try to find something that they can understand and rely on, and that tends to be more simplified power and authority structures where big/loud=strong.

George Lakoff described some of this thinking in Don't Think of an Elephant.

Gotta step in here, as I'm currently writing a quantitative article on authoritarianism in this election. Altemeyers work is super outdated. His measurement schemes actually conflate authoritarianism and conservatism. You should check out Stanley Felman, Karen Stenner, Marc Hetherington and Johnathan Weiler's updated work on this topic. It's got some differences to Altemeyer and some similarities. They conceptualize authoritarianism as having two components that must interact: a personality predisposition that favors conformity over autonomy and a perceived threat. When those two things are both present, people start acting authoritarian, which DOES often manifest itself in wanting to punish others, specifically people who caused the perceived threat (often minorities, people who break norms, people who disrupt the social order). Super interesting!
https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarianism-Polarization-American-Politics-Hetherington/dp/052171124X

Everyone please read this book https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717

We can take back our country!

>It is that and worse! I as of now woukd like to stop buying anything from Amazon... I usually buy a fair amount of stuff every month. Bezos should be stoned at his next public appearance. I have already canceled Netflix just due to their unwarented price increases.


https://www.amazon.com/Where-We-Go-Here-Resistance/dp/1250163269

lol

seems like Don Jr is the one who's Triggered.

Read Lakoff's, Dont think of an elephant. It talks about how politicians like Lamar frame their debates around issues similar to SOPA. You can learn a lot from the book on running a productive campaign against politicians who try misrepresenting an issue.

The book that originated the theory.

This should be mandatory reading for any aspiring political analyst. Too many people read the book and concluded that since demographics would allow democrats to win no matter what, they could abandon the center and push whatever the base wanted without consequence. Trump unfortunately is the consequence of not reading the book more closely.

Read "Don't think about an elephant" (https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717) for an excellent rundown of how the GOP has used language to shape the thinking (when people bother to think) over the last 30+ years.

Sorry for my heated reaction.
There was a Study published in 2009 showing what Authoritarian characteristics look like and what political stances they're likely to take.
Trump is the crystallization of their findings.
Here is a 538 article about the book. But the Vox article is vast and much more in depth.
The authoritarian stars aligned and we got Trump.

https://www.amazon.com/Where-We-Go-Here-Resistance/dp/1250163269


It came from selling this.


More utterly transparent Republican projection. "We don't steal, THEY steal!"

If you're serious, I've heard good things about the book "Run for Something." I haven't read it myself, but it's a guide for getting involved and elected at a local level.

They have an incentive to. It seems to be working.

Also, this passage, I'm told, got a standing ovation at the end of it:

> But now we are being tested again by a new wave of immigration larger than any in a century, far more diverse than any in our history. Each year, nearly a million people come legally to America. Today, nearly one in 10 people in America was born in another country; one in 5 schoolchildren are from immigrant families. Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within 5 years, there will be no majority race in our largest State, California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States.

> I've met plenty of conservatives who don't see anyone as inferior.

It's not usually explicit, that specific people are inferior. But the ideology believes that the "better" people should control the lessers in various spheres in society. Great related book here: https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Burke/dp/0199959110

> nowadays you won't see anyone on National Review or so implying someone is less worth.

https://newrepublic.com/article/131583/national-reviews-revolt-masses

You should read this -

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717

words matter.

> this is the mindset of conservatives since inherently you are being steadfast against a changing world. The idea already has conflict set and the world is crumbling around you as you get older and wish for whatever idea of right you had.

Totally. Corey Robin has been pushing (in his book and elsewhere) the thesis that conservatism has always essentially been about preserving the hierarchy of the past. And this is necessarily a project of oppression and occasional violence. Nice New Yorker writeup here.

Listen, Liberal by Thomas Frank

Vote for us you insufferable bigots, and by the way here’s a guide to your future: https://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Democratic-Majority-John-Judis/dp/0743254783

Intersectionality forever!!!!

Brainwashed by Ben Shapiro

http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441

Educate yourself

For $10 you can get Liberty Defined which is everything you're looking for and more.

The Reactionary Mind by Corey Robin

If you found this article interesting, checkout "Don't think of the elephant" by George Lakoff. He goes in much deeper into the whole Horatio Alger myth and how it affects US politics.

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717

I've heard that before.

https://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Democratic-Majority-John-Judis/dp/0743254783/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=democratic+majority&qid=1566270263&s=gateway&sr=8-1

I second this.

Lakoff is a linguist. Don't think of an elephant should be required reading for every progressive.

I'll read it if you read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Where-We-Go-Here-Resistance/dp/1250163269

You ever read any George Lakoff? Check out: https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717

Where We Go from Here by Bernie Sanders https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250163269/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_NCGIBbTZ3T60A via @amazon


Edit: at least you can get a look at the cover.

Read Listen Liberal if you really believe Dems aren't neoliberal.

https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391

Read this book and it will make sense

https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391

https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Burke/dp/0199959110

george lakoffs book "dont think of an elephant" is an inexpensive, short, easy-to-read book that explains how language has been hijacked by the neo-cons, and what liberals can do about it.

A++++ would read again.

Look into Ben Shapiro's book Brainwashed. His strategy was to speak conservatively while in class, but would write his exams as if he were far left / socialist. His exams were graded anonymously so teachers couldn't single him out.

Reddit should read more George Lakoff. He said the same thing years ago.

Don't Think of An Elephant

• Films:
  
  — "The Obama Deception"
  
  — "War by Deception" (Israeli connection to 9/11)
  
  — "International Law?" (a critique of globalism)
  
  — "David Icke Live at Oxford Union"
  
  — On Blowback and Interventionism (short; highly recommend)
  
  — On the Prussian Education model: (first short), (second short), (third short)
  
  
• Books:
  
  — "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas Woods (essay summary: here)
  
  — "Liberty Defined" by Ron Paul (online PDF version: here)
  
  — "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins (online PDF version: here and here)

>The only way to counter this is to use "fox news" tactics. Step one: Give this law a catchy nickname that will make people oppose it.

There's actually a best-selling book about those tactics:
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-The-Progressives/dp/1931498717

If you are interested in a deeper dive at how Fox uses all sorts of dirty psychological tricks to manipulate the masses, check out Thom Hartmann's book: Cracking the code:

http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Code-Restore-Americas-Original/dp/1576756270/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332710778&sr=1-1-fkmr1

Everyone still puzzled by right-wing tactics in the US should read George Lakoff's Don't Think Of An Elephant.


Chapter 1 is especially relevant:

http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/dont_think_of_an_elephant:paperback/chapter_1

Check out "The Reactionary Mind" by Corey Robin. All this hate and lawlessness are completely in line with conservatism throughout history. They will stop at nothing to preserve their status in the hierarchy. https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Burke/dp/0199959110

Actually George Lakoff is not praising them for doing this at all! He founded a progressive think tank to try and COUTNER this framing, and wrote a book about it called Don't Think Like an Elephant (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1931498717/103-8161085-8388602?v=glance&n=283155)

Rather than respond to individuals in this thread, a reasoned argument is Thomas Frank "Listen Liberal."

It's a fake cover

You're still failing to respond... still waiting for an intelligent and rational argument here. Let me recommend you a book, because it is exactly what is going on to you.

What makes this even funnier is how you aren't even an American, just a sad troll.

Kamala Harris let fucking Steve Mnuchin go when there was a mountain of evidence that he was a corporate criminal. Harris was also the only Democrat to receive a campaign contribution from Mnuchin and his criminal enterprise One West Bank. Now that crook is Trump's treasury secretary.

Get the Book "Listen Liberal" by Thomas Frank. He lists the crimes of the Clintons and Obama in detail and Frank is a well know liberal himself. It may open your eyes.

https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391

> FUCK TRUMP

There's a book that was just released, written just for you! Check it out on amazon!

Exactly, a system excluding independents 7 months before the vote, when people barley know any other candidate but the establishment name-recognition candidate, is not corruption, definitely not rigged, it's the voters stupidity for having busy lives and being disgusted by the dirty tricks of the two parties.

https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391

They should just know to make sure the system didn't exclude them months before the candidates have even set foot in their state to pitch for their vote.

Trump merely just has to say the democratic primary was rigged and it falls on sympathetic ears, he's now winning amongst the people cheated by that process, and you are calling them idiots, I have rarely seen something so obviously backwards, your perspective makes it that that simple for one of the biggest liars to tell the truth, my god.

>Obama had his cabinet picked by CitiGroup

Have to stop reading once you say something I know is bullshit. This is false.

If anyone wants a non-reddit, educated understanding of the topic at hand, please read "Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?". This is where Dems lost there way. And believe it or not, some of the blame is on the American people who fail to show up.

Near as I can tell, the idea of "Liberal professors brainwashing students" comes from:

Right-leaning source:
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/betsy-devos-educators-brainwashing/

Some selective censorship:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3960800/KATIE-HOPKINS-College-liberals-think-people-voted-Trump-Brexit-dumb-letting-brainwash-society-s-stupid.html

Another UK source:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/what-explains-the-idiocy-of-the-liberal-elite-its-their-education/

A book:
https://www.amazon.com/Brainwashed-Universities-Indoctrinate-Americas-Youth/dp/1595559795

A tabloid:
http://nypost.com/2017/01/09/how-trump-can-end-brainwashing-on-us-campuses/

Fox News:
https://youtu.be/-fyISqxPUSw

HuffPo admits it:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1312889

NYTimes describes it here:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/opinion/sunday/how-liberal-colleges-breed-conservative-firebrands.html

But denied it years before:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opinion/sunday/college-doesnt-make-you-liberal.html

This girl describes her woes:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/liberal-arts-college-turned-me-into-a-conservative

>Do you listen to yourself?

What do you listen to? yourself?

Ben’s at it, too. With FACTS and LOGIC!!!!1!!11!

>Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth Paperback – June 14, 2010

>Brainwashed is the explosive exposé of the leftist agenda at work in today's colleges, revealed by firebrand Ben Shapiro, a recent UCLA gratudate, syndicated columnist, and one of today's most exciting new conservative voices, who's been on the front lines of the battle for America's young minds. This book proves once and for all that so-called higher education continues to sink lower and lower into the depths of liberal madness as close-minded professors turn their students into socialists, atheists, race-baiters, and sex-crazed narcissists.

It's not about free speech. Stop accepting that framing.

1. Street violence is a tactic used by fascists of all stripes - the Klan, the Nazi party, fascist skins, whatever. "Free speech" is a pretense used to give legal cover so they can assert themselves on the streets. If they have the numbers, they'll beat people, as they did in Berkeley and Charlottesville. If not, they'll hide behind the cops.*
   
   
2. Fascism is a serious enough threat that direct, violent tactics are justified. History suggests that fascists can capture control of the liberal-democratic state, with catastrophic results. Trying to crush fascism while it's still small is justifiable.
   
   
3. One of the reason First Amendment law is so focused on being content-neutral is that a) you can't trust the government to only outlaw the really bad movements, and b) you don't want to set a precedent that could be used against you. Those issues don't necessarily apply to direct action.
   
   
   *This arguments is obviously less applicable to situations where they really are just sticking to speech, which is worth thinking about. Kinda a whole other can of worms I'm not really ready to get in to.

We've got a problem in our country. A deep-seated one and one that won't go away when Trump exits the public stage- whether that's 8 years, 4 years, or 2 months. Those people will still be here. Radicalized by a demagogue. And looking for "revenge" against the nonwhites who they've been propagandized to believe are the roots of all their problems. And deeply unhinged. They saw what power they had. I'm watching Trumped-a documentary that revisits the utter craziness of the 2016 presidential election- a stirring reminder of just how far Trump crossed the line in vulgarity, how comically inept he was at the debates, etc. and yet they willed him into office.

Sometimes it seems that a demagogue has gotten so into the heads of his followers, that they are so far gone in terms of what they're tolerate and what they'll believe (ie: conspiracy theories) that ordinary people are at a loss for how to even talk to such people. (let's not forget Voltaire's quote “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”)

Whites have always been a proud people and with the right agitation, history shows it doesn't take much before their violent instincts get the best of them. We shouldn't go to sleep on this tendency of theirs.

And it's not some mentality that is restricted to the low-class mouthbreathers; there are people like Michael Flynn (national security advisor to the White House) and Steve Bannon (chief strategist - White House) who are not 'garden-variety conservatives'. They are also believers in the creed of supremacy and have this notion that white self-restraint in the past has harmed America (which they say publicly) and has harmed "goodhearted American people" (white people) which they are more coy about but believe just as much. (these concepts of white 'self-restraint' and 'victimization' are largely fiction, but they are foundational to their worldview; it justifies their outlook which paints a dark picture of nonwhites- their being problems and threats). I strongly advise people read George Lakoff and how he talks about "framing"; his book "Don't Think of an Elephant" is a short read but a terrific primer on linguistics in politics; summarizing here: Once you use language that convinces your audience that Person X or Group Y is villainous, you can attack them with impunity; the crowd will be indifferent of even supportive. No one will object to your 'defending' them from an aggressor.).

What this re-emergent white supremacist movement's rank& file and leadership both share is a 'persecution complex'. People are very dangerous when they have this perception. They will do things in this mode that they wouldn't ordinarily do if they viewed things like geopolitics in an objective way. It's not a sober evaluation of cause and effect; they see it as Action or Death. Once they whip themselves into this frenzy, where they completely distort reality, flip it on its head, and in their newly constructed funhouse-mirror of the world- nonwhites are 'taking advantage' of whites who are now the Victim- seemingly nothing is off the table in terms of "self-defense". A victim sees himself as willing to use "whatever means are necessary" to stop the "abuse". Trump and Co. have used precisely this language with regards to Mexico and China. Trump has said China is "raping" the US. This is not the language of a statesman; it's the language of someone who wants to sway the people into giving him maximum flexibility to "retaliate". And when it happens, as is our practice, unilateral aggression will be packaged as "self-defense".