Reading the 20th Century discussion
Archive
>
Welcome to The Midnight Bell (a virtual pub and general discussion thread) (2024)
Mod
But I've probably said this before, I suspect that Obama's politics would be wet Toryism here. There are different intellectual traditions in Europe and the US.
Mod
Quite right, and we should celebrate that more people rejected the hate, division, incompetence and greed than voted for it.
Weird confession: I have developed a bit of a schoolgirl crush on Wes Streeting 😍
I think people expected things from Obama that were fairly unrealistic. I'm from Chicago - he was always a moderate. Never anything but. However, the progressives in the party thought they could push him left. Much like they thought they could Clinton. But, frankly, the Democrats keep moderating moderates. Only moderates can get elected. Clinton responsible for moving the Democrats further to the right and progressives have been working hard to push them to the left ever since.Now, I don't know what we'll do. One candidate verging on senility vs. a crazy candidate also verging on senility.
Mod
I would have said the same only that doesn't explain Trump.
Interesting to see how we and France (and other European
countries) have been fielding these hard-right extremist parties who are picking up significant voter numbers but are, so far, being held in check.
Roman Clodia wrote: "Jan C wrote: "Only moderates can get elected"I would have said the same only that doesn't explain Trump.
Interesting to see how we and France (and other European
countries) have been fielding ..."
I'm sorry I was referring to the democratic party. Republicans don't care how far right they are. They frequently forget that their party is shrinking - partly through attrition (they're old and dying) and partly because their politics don't always appeal to enough people. We are pretty much divided into thirds - 1/3 republican, 1/3 independent and 1/3 democrats. And they are fast losing their moderate republicans (including my sister).
Mod
www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibition/ey...
Jan C wrote: "I think people expected things from Obama that were fairly unrealistic. I'm from Chicago - he was always a moderate. Never anything but. However, the progressives in the party thought they could pu..."Once upon a time in my then home state, the Republicans gave us a choice between a once convicted , former Grand Dragon of the KKK and a not yet convicted many times re elected- but eventually to be convicted Democrat. The Democrat was widely believed to be a crook. The election motto: Vote for the Crook its important. The Grand Dragoon lost.
One candidate verging on senility vs. a crazy candidate also verging on senility.
Lest re state this :
One candidate verging on senility vs. a crazy criminal and criminally minded candidate also verging on senility, who is backed by people who have been working to end the two party system and are now working to create a dictatorship.
Still hardly the best of all possible worlds, but perhaps sufficient to make the choice a tad easier. I have always felt bad for people who only think of voting for 'The Person". The real issue is who comes in the same package.
Mod
Trump brooks no opposition and has terrorised into submission all the Republicans who opposed him or run them out of the party. The sad thing is that he couldn't have done it successfully if the people hadn't voted for his candidates (or against his opponents) in the primaries. So he has taken over the party democratically. Threats of violence have been less important, but also have been a factor in some places and will be more so in the future.The Democrats are split between moderate and progressive wings. Biden was one of the few candidates who could unite them in 2020, and this is his claim to being "uniquely qualified" to beat Trump.
To have succession planning you need party bosses who can impose it, and since 1968, when they imposed Hubert Humphrey as the Presidential candidate, our democratic system has resisted the idea of party bosses exercising control over the system. Biden has 99% of the democratically elected delegates to the convention, who are now bound by party rules to vote for Biden unless he releases them.
Harris proved herself a weak campaigner in 2020, and few believe she has improved. There are many other possible candidates, but to be viable Biden must release his delegates.
It is sadly possible to have too much democracy or to have the wrong kind of democracy. See also government by referendum.
Thanks Ben . That's helpful . "The wrong kind of democracy" .... democracy needs the will of the people , trust in politicians and strong institutions .. the last two have been dramatically eroded in the last decade paralleling the revolution in communication with the internet ..... we have no credible 4th estate .... even a visibly frail US president does not trust the politicians in his own party enough to stand down .. it has the awful feel of a slow motion train crash . Last time this information chaos happened on such a scale was with the printing press . Took a while for that to settle down ...just saying ...
Mod
Hester, yes, the lack of free media is profoundly undemocratic. How does media ownership stack up on the US compared with here? Far too many billionaire non-doms control our press in the UK even before we think about anyone being an 'expert' on the internet and misinformation.
Mod
I always thought JFK died instantly but apparently not, according to this.
The Rest is History has some great podcasts on JFK. I can't comment on the accuracy of the book, RC, but it's well-known that JFK had a lot of affairs, much like his father.
A Mexican billionaire owns the NY Times.
A Murdoch company owns the Wall St Journal and the NY Post
Bezos owns the Washington Post
The Newhouse family owns The New Yorker (and Vogue)
Most other newspapers are owned by media companies that control whole chains of papers. Some are traditional journalists, some are frighteningly right wing propagandists.
For years the US has worked against itself; finding an immense number of ways to discredit its institutions. We have made of government a punching bag as much for entertainment as for anything substance based. This has been esp harmful in the targeted attackes on government agencies charged with introducing concepts like public health and public safety into government and corporate rule making.
There is some history to suggest that overall American conservative thinkers, and this includes Libertarians, do not recognize a concept of Public, in any instance where Personal comes into conflict.
It was conservatives who ended the draft. While to their credit they insured military pay/benefits would be more competitive with civilian pay. Please note that there has been considerable withering away esp in the area of benefits.
More recently conservative thought was that public health efforts to minimize COVID should be illegal where they conflicted with personal rights.
Meantime people deliberately or out of misunderstanding the role of government have asked,: Why not run government like a business?
The two are not the one, except under the extremes of fascism and communism.
Trump positioned himself as the guy who will run the US as a business. Along the way he has made a point of appealing to an odd admixture of separatists, the "let it burn extremists", isolationists and the America as "Christian" nation and others who had felt , and most likely should be ignored.
Mod
Very similar to Thatcherite and later Tories then - and just look at the mess the UK is in. Thames Water who are effectively a monopoly providing an essential service are pretty much bankrupt because they took all the customers' money, borrowed more, and spent it on shareholder dividends and directors' bonuses while ignoring infrastructure upgrades, health and safety concerns and the spillage of sewage in rivers and seas. *That's why* government shouldn't be run like a business: people are getting ill in the UK from drinking contaminated water out of their taps.
Mod
I didn't know this other than Marilyn Monroe but it certainly adds context to the whole Clinton/Lewinsky affair as JFK regularly slept with his interns and young female staff.
The book isn't just about JFK and maybe the most pertinent point for me so far is the complicity of women, including the Kennedy wives.
Mod
Yes. And the immediacy , with television was shocking . As a child it had a big impact .
Mod
which is a story I remember well from the time. London, September 1978: exiled Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov is murdered in broad daylight on Waterloo Bridge with what appears to be a poison-tipped umbrella. It would become the most infamous unsolved killing of the Cold War.
Many years later, young journalist Ulrik Skotte is approached with explosive new information about a man alleged to be responsible for Markov’s death – a spy code-named Piccadilly who worked for the Bulgarian secret service. This meeting launched Skotte into a hunt for the killer lasting more than a quarter of a century, bringing him face to face with eccentric conspiracy theorists, a washed-up former dictator, ageing Danish spooks – and, ultimately, with Agent Piccadilly himself.
Drawing on an incredible cache of original documents, interviews and archive material, The Umbrella Murder provides jaw-dropping answers to questions that have persisted for nearly five decades: who killed Georgi Markov? And who has been protecting the assassin ever since?
I lived through the assassinations. Not fun. Riots left and right during those years. At one time my brother was "defending" the Pentagon from rioters when he was in the Army. He said most of them would rather have been on the other side. He was the NCO and, thus, had the bullets and didn't hand them out to the younger soldiers. That's why he thought Kent State never made any sense to him. Who the devil gave them the bullets and what on earth were they thinking?The primaries are different in every state. In my state, Biden was the only name on the ballot. Some states had Biden and None of the above. But I don't believe we had a choice in NC. Perhaps Susan in NC can correct me if I'm wrong. And he hadn't really been out in public that much. I don't think they let us see how old 81 is on Biden. And that was the shock to most of us.
Not sure what I think about this Kennedy book, RC. I believe JFK was dead shortly after arriving at the hospital.
The rich and powerful often feel entitled to play fast and loose with morals and ethics. A perfect example is the right wing portion of the Supreme Court.
Mod
www.theguardian.com/books/article/202...
Roman Clodia wrote: "Here's a link to the Guardian review of the Kennedy book, Ask Not: The Kennedys and the Women They Destroyed, which makes me think it's more than just gossip. It's messily organize..."I never heard most of these stories. Does it bother you that she apparently (per a GR review) took "creative license" in this book? I understand there is an extensive bibliography. It makes me leery of the book I already have of hers - American Predator: The Hunt for the Most Meticulous Serial Killer of the 21st Century. Another GR review notes that she primarily writes for a right-wing publication. It noted that this isn't a political book but it sounds as though if there was a way to slant a story, she probably took it.
I probably wouldn't read it. But I don't really go in for gossipy books that often. I think the last was probably Shelley Winters' two memoirs.
Mod
Anyone have any experience of reviving bees? I found a very lethargic bee in the kitchen. Thought he was dead but put a clear plastic container with holes in over him to be sure and saw he moved slightly. So put him on a saucer on the garden table with a teaspoonful of small amount of white sugar dissolved in lukewarm water like you're supposed to, his wings moved and he definitely drank some but he still seems very out of it. Does it take a while for recovery? Or is there something else I should do?
Thanks so much Nigey, it worked! Bee sat around looking out of it for about an hour and then buzzed off! So cool...So relieved I checked for signs of life and didn't just sweep him into the bin.
Mod
Alwynne wrote: "Anyone have any experience of reviving bees? I found a very lethargic bee in the kitchen. Thought he was dead but put a clear plastic container with holes in over him to be sure and saw he moved sl..."We had done that on a couple of occasions, but we just left the bee on a dish with the sugar water no plastic bag. My husband's grand parents kept bees , so we knew what to do. We were also told if they swarm , the biggest, being the queen should be removed and the rest would follow it. But I could never do that as I would be too frightened to go anywhere near!
Thanks Jill, didn't use a plastic bag, he'd have suffocated, used a clear food container from the recycling with air holes in it, he really looked totally dead. Just wanted to be sure! When there were minute signs of movement put a card under the container and transported him outside to the dish.
that's such a great story Alwynne ,cand I've learnt something transformative...thanks Nigel
Jan C wrote: "Roman Clodia wrote: "Jan C wrote: "Only moderates can get elected"I would have said the same only that doesn't explain Trump.
Interesting to see how we and France (and other European
countries..."
The thing is Republicans are more interested in the party and lately are more interested in fighting the left. I cannot remember the last time they provided constructive criticism or one of their own ideas. However, the Democrats are more divided. Every Democrat has their own worldview of what they would like to see. But, happily, they come up with ideas. Are the ideas perfect? No. But they are trying to provide a path forward.
Basically, think about driving a car. When you go in reverse, there are few choices. Going forward is more open.
Mod
With abortion likely to be a key issue KH could make a big difference on that, esp with JD Vance being so virulently anti-abortion
Either way it seems to me that they now have a much better chance of defeating Trump with him now the only aged candidate.
Kirsten wrote: "Jan C wrote: "Roman Clodia wrote: "Jan C wrote: "Only moderates can get elected"I would have said the same only that doesn't explain Trump.
Interesting to see how we and France (and other Europ..."
"I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat"
Will Rodgers
The roots of Trumpism extend at least back to Barry Goldwater.BG was unfairly marked as a radical, he was not. However his campaign made deliberate efforts to apeal to more extreme elements of conservatism. Again, who comes with you matters.
In the years since, various elements of the conservative wing have actively worked against unity. There was even a group dedicated to what was called wedge issues, prayer in schools, creationism and abortion being among the best known.
In separate efforts conservatives pushed for more jerry mandering such that mid-roaders are not electable. Any contact with the other side is death at the polls. There has been a many years long effort deliberate efforts to load the judiciary in favor of conservative thinking and a lot of work has gone into changing process in favor of conservatives. It used to take a 2/3 majority to confirm a supreme court judge, now a simple majority is enough.
Trump came in on a the largest continuous free coverage of a candidate in history. He tapped into a number of long standing conservative notions and exhaustion with so called identity politics.
Phrodrick wrote: "Kirsten wrote: "Jan C wrote: "Roman Clodia wrote: "Jan C wrote: "Only moderates can get elected"I would have said the same only that doesn't explain Trump.
Interesting to see how we and France ..."
I think it's a movement that arises every 40 years or so, at least since the 1840s. They are isolationists, anti-immigrant (I guess forgetting how their own families got here), extremely conservative, want to return to some imagined past. Democrats tend to look to the future.
Kamala is like a breath of fresh air and has raised amazing amount of money in 24 hours.
Gonna just toss this out,see if it resonates:Do conservative thinkers take to the notion of a public (fill in the blank)?
They are very staunch on private interests, but do they get things like public welfare, public health and related ?
Mod
Anyone's better than that narcissistic lunatic
A short post to respond to Phodrick.Looked at in the most generous light, the conservatives do have a concept of a public interest, which is served by order, respect of property rights, and maintenance of "traditional values". They believe that the social and economic order is always under threat by the many, who have limitless, disordered demands that, if allowed, would seize all property for themselves, destroy the economic order and end in chaos. Another strand of conservatism also believes that man is inherently evil and sinful, and man's lust and other sins must be kept in check by strict moral rules that have been handed down by God or tradition.
However, there is a contradiction between the two strands. Those whose conservatism is based on property often have a libertarian bent, and believe personal actions (particularly those done by the rich) aren't a threat to society and thus they can come into conflict with the moralists who may decry the corruption and immorality of the wealthy. (Excluding of course the actions of the Orange One).
So, public health and welfare do enter into it, but in a very different sense than on the left. I'm not defending that point of view or suggesting that there isn't hypocrisy and self-interest involved as well (which exists on the left too).
Ben wrote: "A short post to respond to Phodrick.Looked at in the most generous light, the conservatives do have a concept of a public interest, which is served by order, respect of property rights, and maint..."
First, Thank you. An interesting and thought out reply.
Between us , I suspect there is a there there. More exactly somewhere between my notion and your answer, the truth, if obtainable exists.
I am attempting to understand a thought process that comes across to me, as My right to spread disease is greater than the possible benefits or advantages to public health do be derived by taking well established methods.
I reject a model that says this , or that POV is the result of a desire to do harm. IMHO rare is the movement that can sustain itself on the motto, lets do something evil. Such do exist, but I believe them to be on the margins and not an explanation for , for example Police Officers who refused to mask up, or health care professionals who resisted what they had to know was standard protocols to limit the spread of infection.
At the height of the COVID epidemic, I dropped in on a read of An Enemy of the People.
There was almost total agreement that the Public Health Official was in the wrong because he had poor people skills. I found that shockingly shallow, and dumb. No amount of PR skills was going to save that community once the word got out they knew their Health Spa was not healthy and they let people get sick and or die anyway.
As written, this is a clear case of short term profit at the expense of people of sickened or killed.
I think it's interesting in this case to contrast how the two sides appear in cases that are very different, but have some types of similarities: the recent pandemic and its effect on public health, and fears of moral corruption arising from artistic productions that question traditional values or appeal to "prurient interests" and endanger moral health or the social fabric. Do we shut down society to protect those vulnerable to infection (even if it drives the economically vulnerable into greater poverty)? Do we allow creators freedom to create any kind of art they wish (even if that includes pornography and violence or undermines respect for democracy or promotes racism or sectarianism?
It's not just an issue of greed, profit and corruption. My personal beliefs are for greater weight on public health and artistic freedom, but there are good faith arguments on the other side.
Phrodrick wrote: "Gonna just toss this out,see if it resonates:Do conservative thinkers take to the notion of a public (fill in the blank)?
They are very staunch on private interests, but do they get things like p..."
Absolutely not. The only thing conservatives want regulated are their conservative leanings on sex and women.
Ben wrote: "I think it's interesting in this case to contrast how the two sides appear in cases that are very different, but have some types of similarities: the recent pandemic and its effect on public health..."In asking some good question you raise an interesting issue. Again I reject the use of greed, per se as that , sounds to much like a decision based on a determination to do evil. I think a less value loaded approach: short term profit verses long term sustainability serve as at least value neutral.
We have ample record of fishermen, over-fishing, lumbermen over cutting and so forth. The intent being to make it through this year at whatever the longer term costs.
The morals question brings in a host of topics. Fundamentally if a rule does not come from God what is the 'ultimate' source of that rule. I would argue for a public health as a reasonable authority, but I know that command over that authority can make its every decision a problem. Is Public Health in the hands of pure scientists or a hypothetical Unitary Executive.
Mod
You can say rules come from organised religion I suppose.
Mod
At the risk of this becoming a discussion of a vast number of topics, an on going thread in the Left/Right divide is:Is America a nation Under God? And therefore religious (God's) law is always superior.
For more than a few of that POV, being "fundamentally patriarchal" is a non issue and the term merely labels the user as a lefty.
Mod
Phrodrick wrote: "Is America a nation Under God? And therefore religious (God's) law is always superior...."I'm not going to wade into this one. I'm glad I live in a country where this is not a fundamental issue, notwithstanding the existence of an Established Church. But I'll just make a lawyer's point.
An individual of course is free to decide to follow "God's Law" and disregard the laws of the land. And then to bear the consequences under laws for his decision.
But if a Government representative determines he or she can disregard the law and instead cause the Government to act by the authority of the particular God he or she follows, then the law itself becomes meaningless.
Ben wrote: "Phrodrick wrote: "Is America a nation Under God? And therefore religious (God's) law is always superior...."I'm not going to wade into this one. I'm glad I live in a country where this is not a f..."
I used to be able to site the exact case and wording, Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority stated, (more or less exactly) that an automatic religious exemption is the end of the rule of law.
That said there is , in the US a lot more on this topic.
Ben wrote: "Phrodrick wrote: "Is America a nation Under God? And therefore religious (God's) law is always superior...."I'm not going to wade into this one. I'm glad I live in a country where this is not a f..."
Well said Ben, I'm with you, R. C. and Susan on this...
Reading the 20th Century
Books mentioned in this topic
Middlemarch (other topics)The Sea, the Sea (other topics)
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (other topics)
My Name Is Red (other topics)
The Accursed (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Toni Morrison (other topics)Henry James (other topics)
Dorothy M. Richardson (other topics)
Warsan Shire (other topics)
Virginia Woolf (other topics)
More...
I agree with your second point -- the Democrats were never going to enact a program like the postwar Attlee government -- but we didn't know about the first point in 2008. He came in as a "community organiser" pledging to enact a proper health care bill, shut down Guantanamo Bay, give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship and regulate the financial services industry after the global financial crisis, and he was feared by the Republicans as bringing socialism to America. For the first two years he had a Democratic controlled Congress to work with. But he never wanted to risk his popularity by pushing for his program.
In retrospect it's clear that he talked a better game than he played and that his campaign to run the most liberal (in the American sense, not European) administration since Roosevelt and Johnson was just skin deep. It was just a "hopey changey thing" as Sarah Palin disparagingly called it in the 2012 campaign.
But we didn't know that in 2008.