What ever happened to the counterculture?

[Rothman]

I don't think Dems have adopted a progressive agenda in my lifetime.  Progressives have been shunted aside in favor of centrists, whether Clinton, Obama or Biden.

[Scott5114]

In my opinion, both the Left and the Right are now radical, just with vastly different goals.  The Right's counter-reaction to the Left's 'progressive' agenda could itself be called a sort of 'progressive' agenda: regression is not the maintaining of the status quo, but is rather progress in the opposite direction.

More countercultural than even being a conservative these days is being a centrist [...]

This all tracks. The definition of being radical is that you seek such a profound change in the world that you are changing the very roots—radix being Latin for root—of society. Pretty much nobody, left or right, is happy with the state of the world, so much so that they seek radical changes. But both sides are utterly at odds over what exactly needs to be changed, and the directions they each want to go are fundamentally incompatible.

In a world where both left and right are radicalized, being centrist—or even just not radical—would certainly then be countercultural, because you'd be one of the few that believes that profound changes are not necessary!

[hbelkins]

I haven't seen a furry in real life in years. Which I am not complaining about.

How would you know if you did?

I don't know if this is fully defined as a furry, but I attended a board game meetup group one night and a woman was wearing a plush bunny suit. That seemed obvious enough to me.

She was just wearing her Christmas present from Aunt Clara.

[JayhawkCO]

I haven't seen a furry in real life in years. Which I am not complaining about.

How would you know if you did?

I don't know if this is fully defined as a furry, but I attended a board game meetup group one night and a woman was wearing a plush bunny suit. That seemed obvious enough to me.

She was just wearing her Christmas present from Aunt Clara.

If I remember right, it looked pretty similar to that.

[kernals12]

I think that social media has increased the pressure to conform.

[JayhawkCO]

I think that social media has increased the pressure to conform.

While also amplifying weirdos.

[Max Rockatansky]

Social media has made lots of formerly niche things main stream. 

[kphoger]

I think that social media has increased the pressure to conform.

While also amplifying weirdos.

On the other hand, YouTube has allowed people who are kind of weird (which is most people) the opportunity to see others who share their weirdness, which can give them the confidence to accept who they are as an individual.  This can be both good and bad.  It's good because maybe what the world needs right now is exactly that person's variety of weirdness, applied in some way.  It's bad because conformity isn't all bad:  we are communal creatures, after all, and learning how to fit in is a valuable social skill.

Social media has made lots of formerly niche things main stream. 

I once asked a friend if he ever watched the Technology Connections channel on YouTube, and his answer was "Of course!"

[JayhawkCO]

While also amplifying weirdos.

On the other hand, YouTube has allowed people who are kind of weird (which is most people) the opportunity to see others who share their weirdness, which can give them the confidence to accept who they are as an individual.  This can be both good and bad.  It's good because maybe what the world needs right now is exactly that person's variety of weirdness, applied in some way.  It's bad because conformity isn't all bad:  we are communal creatures, after all, and learning how to fit in is a valuable social skill.

But it's also allowed people who engage in conspiracy theories to find other nuts to add to their echo chamber. Before the internet, someone would spout their nonsense in public, everyone would tell them to shut up, and we'd go on with our lives.

[kphoger]

But it's also allowed people who engage in conspiracy theories to find other nuts to add to their echo chamber. Before the internet, someone would spout their nonsense in public, everyone would tell them to shut up, and we'd go on with our lives.

The government doesn't want you to know that Earth is flat.

(But don't ask me why they don't.)

[JayhawkCO]

But it's also allowed people who engage in conspiracy theories to find other nuts to add to their echo chamber. Before the internet, someone would spout their nonsense in public, everyone would tell them to shut up, and we'd go on with our lives.

The government doesn't want you to know that Earth is flat.

(But don't ask me why they don't.)

I watched a flat earth documentary where they set up this elaborate experiment to prove it's flat, and then it (obviously) fails at the end, and they just shrugged and said "that's weird".

[english si]

I have tentatively come to the conclusion that the American political Right is no longer conservative, but has instead become radical.

Wikipedia's definition of conservatism is that it "seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values." Now, I've never identified as a conservative, so I wouldn't know if that definition's wrong or not. But it's hard to see how things like renaming a body of water that has had the same name for hundreds of years, or dismantling government institutions that have existed for 50 years, is compatible with that definition.

Stuff like "the Gulf of America" is very Madisonian 'Manifest Destiny'. Wanting to annex neighbours is such a traditional US principle that it pre-dates its founding (one of the 'destestable acts' was about enforcing borders with the neighbouring French and Indians whom the colonists wanted to settle the land of).

Buying Greenland off the Danes is something that has been a long standing, but rarely stated (eg when they tried to buy it alongside the Danish Virgin Islands, or post-WW2, or under the first Trump administration), Government policy of the US for a long long time.

A small federal government is a return to 19th Century norms, as is 'America First'...

Certainly, there's a radical streak in the Trump administration that bigs up its revolutionary counter-revolution side of things, but its harking back to America's past to be radical in seeking to conserve. The country was founded by warring against a Britain to defend the old ways of slaving, smuggling and settling.

Perhaps the best way to put is that they want to conserve the founding ideal of the US to be revolting.

It might not be your kind of conservatism (and its definitely not UK conservatism), but it's a long-standing strand in US conservatism.

[JayhawkCO]

revolting

+1.

[roadman65]

While also amplifying weirdos.

On the other hand, YouTube has allowed people who are kind of weird (which is most people) the opportunity to see others who share their weirdness, which can give them the confidence to accept who they are as an individual.  This can be both good and bad.  It's good because maybe what the world needs right now is exactly that person's variety of weirdness, applied in some way.  It's bad because conformity isn't all bad:  we are communal creatures, after all, and learning how to fit in is a valuable social skill.

But it's also allowed people who engage in conspiracy theories to find other nuts to add to their echo chamber. Before the internet, someone would spout their nonsense in public, everyone would tell them to shut up, and we'd go on with our lives.

That is so true. The internet changed us.

That's why we get mad discussing politics. Before it was discussed conversationally and no flames. We discussed it among our friends and family. Today we find random people like us and it creates excitement in us.

Local news was kept local. For example that guy in Utah last December who took his frustrations out on the dealership who sold him a lemon by driving the said car through the showroom window after being refused a refund would have never been national news.

The internet has an effect on how we see things in today's culture.

[kphoger]

Stuff like "the Gulf of America" is very Madisonian 'Manifest Destiny'. Wanting to annex neighbours is such a traditional US principle that it pre-dates its founding (one of the 'destestable acts' was about enforcing borders with the neighbouring French and Indians whom the colonists wanted to settle the land of).

Buying Greenland off the Danes is something that has been a long standing, but rarely stated (eg when they tried to buy it alongside the Danish Virgin Islands, or post-WW2, or under the first Trump administration), Government policy of the US for a long long time.

A small federal government is a return to 19th Century norms, as is 'America First'...

Certainly, there's a radical streak in the Trump administration that bigs up its revolutionary counter-revolution side of things, but its harking back to America's past to be radical in seeking to conserve. The country was founded by warring against a Britain to defend the old ways of slaving, smuggling and settling.

Perhaps the best way to put is that they want to conserve the founding ideal of the US to be revolting.

It might not be your kind of conservatism (and its definitely not UK conservatism), but it's a long-standing strand in US conservatism.

So you seem to be saying that "regression" is a subset of "conservatism".  Yes, I do admit that that could be one take.

But still.

The Party that you might expect to keep longstanding government institutions in place now wants to eliminate or drastically reorganize them.

The Party that you might expect to champion rural America now wants to deport upwards of 50% of farm labor.

The Party that you might expect to disavow government overreach and rely on the separation of powers now takes every opportunity to use loopholes in the system to pass legislation.

The Party that you might expect to love free enterprise and competition has now embraced tariffs.

The Party that you might expect to reduce government spending and debt has now incurred more debt during its President's first term than the opposing Party's president had.

The Party that you might expect to follow in the footsteps of George H. W. Bush's aim of "increased immigration of skilled individuals" has now set about reducing or eliminating work visas in order "to hire American workers first for every visa and immigration program".

So yes, you can say that a lot of the current Republican agenda can be traced back to earlier days.  But it is also at odds in many ways with what US conservatism had become over the last few decades.

(Note that, in this post, I am not advocating for either side.  I'm not weighing in on whether you should or should not support reducing the national debt, immigration, etc.  I'm just pointing out that the current agenda need not be labeled "Conservative".  If you don't want to vote Conservative, then this does not apply to you.)

[english si]

I'm just pointing out that the current agenda need not be labeled "Conservative".

Absolutely - I'm just pointing out that it can be.

[roadman65]

Websters Dictionary defines Conservative as to Preserve what has been established.

[kphoger]

Websters Dictionary defines Conservative as to Preserve what has been established.

Didn't look down to (b) in that definition, huh?

[SectorZ]

Stuff like "the Gulf of America" is very Madisonian 'Manifest Destiny'. Wanting to annex neighbours is such a traditional US principle that it pre-dates its founding (one of the 'destestable acts' was about enforcing borders with the neighbouring French and Indians whom the colonists wanted to settle the land of).

As opposed to annexing non-neighbors like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom

[kphoger]

Buying Greenland off the Danes is something that has been a long standing, but rarely stated (eg when they tried to buy it alongside the Danish Virgin Islands, or post-WW2, or under the first Trump administration), Government policy of the US for a long long time.

So, now I can't help but imagine this is how it went down:

— [someone] Man, Don, you should hear about some of the plans from America's history to buy Greenland.  Ha ha!

— [Trump] You mean we can do that?

— [someone] Uh.  Yeah, sure.  You go ahead and get started on that, alrighty?  *rolls eyes

/ later

— [someone] What?  What?  Geez, I didn't think he'd actually...  *gets slapped in the back of the head

— [someone else] Didn't think he'd what?  Have you learned nothing!

[Max Rockatansky]

The Greenland purchase idea has been something that pops up every couple decades. 

[JayhawkCO]

The Greenland purchase idea has been something that pops up every couple decades. 

It's just dumber this time.

[kphoger]

The Greenland purchase idea has been something that pops up every couple decades. 

It's just dumber this time.

Or is it just louder?  It's the first time I've ever heard of such a thing.

[JayhawkCO]

The Greenland purchase idea has been something that pops up every couple decades. 

It's just dumber this time.

Or is it just louder?  It's the first time I've ever heard of such a thing.

If I'm not mistaken, every other "foray" into acquiring Greenland was via purchase, not the invasion of a NATO partner.

[kphoger]

If I'm not mistaken, every other "foray" into acquiring Greenland was via purchase, not the invasion of a NATO partner.

Has he actually explicitly said that?  Other than "one way or the other"?  I've been keeping away from the news but chalking this one up to hype.