The Party of Reagan ...

@Thinkerbell I'm trying so hard to argue with this conclusion, but I can't. 😔

@Thinkerbell You got it in one!!! Unfortunately.

@Thinkerbell Any idea on what the logical progression of this stance could be?

They are (nearly) all crooked so why bother to vote at all? Hell, let's do away with democracy entirely.

Maybe a bit of self-reflection is in order. Maybe what is actually happening is a rather severe form of cognitive dissonance. You see that your party of choice is as bent as a marzipan doorhandle (Brit expression. I'm sure that google can explain) and you're too emotionally/tribally invested to actually look at the other side.

Or, maybe you're trying that classic right-wing strategy of disenfranchising the electorate. Good luck with that one. OHIO!!!!!!!!

@room101


Wrong.

One shouldn't stop voting; one should vote against any incumbent that one suspects isn't honest.

Incumbency at present gives political officeholders such an advantage that something like 90% get re-elected time after time. This has a corrupting influence and can lead to a gerontocratic leadership such as we now have in the US.

If officeholders had more to fear of being voted out, then perhaps they would be more honest.
Of course, this would require a more informed electorate and a fourth estate of generally honest journalists, neither of which currently obtains in the US.

@Thinkerbell 💯💯💯

@Thinkerbell So you see no correlation between statements such as; "The short answer is that (nearly) all politicians are whores who will go in whatever direction they think will get them elected and re-elected, while (of course) enriching themselves in the process." and a general apathy amongst voters? Interesting🤔

News media is a business and just like any other business, it is affected by the market. Bottom line, if there is demand for BS, they (admittedly not all) will provide BS.

I would argue that re-electing incumbent officials is a generational phenomenon. See my comment above about cognitive dissonance and emotional/tribal choices. Going back to at least the 60's (particularly but not exclusively) in America, it has been the younger generations that have been the most rebellious against the status quo of their respective times. Sadly, however, those younger generations get older and the pressures of life kick in. Which, in turn, causes a more internalised view of politics. How will this candidate/party make MY life better?

So yes, telling them that all politicians are bent will indeed disenfranchise them from taking part in the democratic process. If they don't vote, all that's left is the older generations who will continue to vote for the same candidates that they've always voted for. And of course, those candidates (incumbents). have gotten older themselves so, before we know it, we've got a geronocentric/geronocratic political landscape.

I'm confident that @sarabee1995 will attest to this, I've always looked to younger generations to take our societies forward and improve them. As an outsider, that's the one thing that gives me a modicum of hope vis-a-vis the current political situation in the USA.

Which is probably another reason why Sara's title of "The Party of Reagan" pissed me off so much😉

@room101 My title pissed you off?

Looking through the comments, you're not the only one who was pissed off by it but I don't know why.

We have one commentator who is right now insisting my post was about Reagan. I said nothing about him. Not one thing.

"The Party of Reagan" is a very common phrase referring to the conservative movement in the USA (which the current Republican party has departed from).

My post was about the war in Ukraine and the position of the Republican party regarding it's funding. 🙄

@sarabee1995 I was very evident your post and comments on replies that it was about Ukraine and the Conservative movement and not Reagan. Great attention seeking title btw....you have a future in advertising.

@KiwiBird Oh there's no doubt that I choose titles to drive engagement.

But in this case, so many people turned fire red at the mere mention of his name and couldn't read past it.

I guess that's a title failure. 😔

@sarabee1995 I know that your post is essentially about supporting Ukraine. I know that "The Party of Reagan" is commonly used phrase to illustrate what the GOP once was. I know that you tend to phrase your posts (inc the titles) carefully. I know all of that and replied accordingly in my main response.

However, this isn't about your post per se, it's about the reply posted by Thinkerbell. And yes, your choice of title did piss me off. First, because the argument that you posit doesn't hold, far from it. See my actual response to your post. Second, because of the context of my interaction with Thinkerbell. I clearly state (and you know this about me first hand) that I look to younger generations to move our societies forward. Harping back to an imagined "golden era" of the GOP, especially that of Reagan, is not moving forward. It is, in fact, the opposite.

Finally, you admit above that your title was intended to spark interaction. It certainly achieved that. Thinkerbell mentions honest journalism. Obviously, posting on SW isn't journalism. Furthermore, to my knowledge, you have never put yourself out there as a journalist. However, isn't your choice of title a bit of "click bait" journalism?

Funny side note. When the term "fake news" first started being thrown around, long before the orange one started using it, I actually thought that it meant two things. 1. news that wasn't, in fact, news. 2. headlines that had little to do with the content that followed and were specifically used to attract readers. How naive was I🤣🤣🤣

@room101 Hmmm... "Click bait"??

I think there is both a broad and a narrow definition of click bait, right? In the broad sense, every post on social media is designed to generate interaction, engagement and is, therefore, click bait. This post is no different.

But In the more narrow sense, no, I don't think it is. My title is directly relevant to the content of my story. It is not misleading or "click bait" journalism.

In the quote Included within my story, which btw is what motivated me to post in the first place, Adam Kinzinger states that the Party of Reagan is gone and goes on to explain. Again, talking about the party and how it has changed over the last forty years.

The Party of Reagan and how it has changed.

The headline of every story ever published is intended to drive engagement. That's why headlines exist. Me admitting that I seek to drive engagement when choosing a headline doesn't make the post click bait as long as the headline is relevant to the post. And in this case it is. My post and Adam Kinzinger's article, upon which it was based, are about The Party of Reagan and how it would never stand for the Republican position today regarding Ukraine.

What I didn't realize was that the mere mention of the name Reagan in any context would send liberal, progressive, and other left-leaning people into apocalyptic shock!

@sarabee1995 Click bait or not click bait. Broad definition or narrow. Yes, you're right, headlines are indeed intended to attract attention. Probably my use of that phrase was influenced by my original interpretation of fake news.

I hasten to add that your post does not at all fall into any of those misconceptions of mine. If I'm brutally honest with myself, it was probably all down to the mention of Reagan. I am a life-long Leftie after all.

Is it really only those of us on the Left of the political spectrum that have reacted with "apocalyptic shock"? I don't know our fellow Sweeps well enough to determine.

@room101 Apocalyptic shock was probably a bit strong in most cases. I admit that.

But if you glance through the comments here and just count how many chose to comment on Reagan the man rather than the wider concept of the Party of Reagan or the actual topic at hand (the current lack of Republican support for Ukraine), it is staggering.

Obviously he was before my time. And I have no strong feelings about the man, positive or negative. So, yup, I was a bit shocked at the comments and (very rare for me) stopped engaging with replies on one of my own posts. 😔

@room101


Be careful what you look toward; it was younger generations that propelled Communism and Fascism in the last century.

It is usually perfectly possible to vote against corrupt incumbents by voting for people other than dangerous or stupid radicals.

@Thinkerbell I was one of those younger generations of the last century. As were all of my peers........erm obviously lol. Whilst some were a lot more Left Wing than others, none of us "propelled" Communism and ALL of us were actively against Fascism.

What I've actually found is that, in the last twenty years or so, there has been an increase in support for Fascism amongst the young. Which, of course, is rather disconcerting to say the least.

I've seen relatively little support for Communism amongst the young, during the same time-span.

Yes, I know, these are just my personal observations and should be treated as such.

Nevertheless, I'll go with younger minds every time. My generation had its chance, as did those before us.

@Thinkerbell Quick question: Given the phrasing of your first paragraph, do you see Communism and Fascism as being the same thing?

@room101



I was referring to the early part of the 20th century. Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Mao were all young men when they led their revolutions, and their shock troops, the Black Shirts, Brown Shirts and Red Guards were even younger.



Theoretically they are not the same, primarily with regard to ownership of the means of production.

But in practice, with regard to individual human rights, these one-party totalitarian systems are VERY MUCH the same,

@Thinkerbell Lenin was the founding head of the USSR at age 47.
Stalin became Gen Sec of the Soviet Communist Party at age 44.
Mussolini became Il Duce at age 36 (I could be wrong about that....not 100% sure because of the various titles he gave himself).
Hitler became Fuhrer of Germany at age 45.
Mao became Chairman at age 50.

Yeah, not my idea of being young or younger. With the possible exception of Mussolini.

Yes, the troops etc that you list were indeed young men. Isn't that always the case in any military or para-military organisation?

Not trying to be patronising (promise) but have you heard of the horse-shoe theory in politics? It's basically what Orwell tries to warn us about in Animal Farm. The theory argues that, as one gets to the extremes of the Left/Right spectrum of political ideology, one finds that it's not a linear relationship but, instead, the shape described by a horse-shoe. This is because extreme ideologies always tend to employ the same means to gain and hold power. Authoritarian/Totalitarian means. The same applies to religious extremes. So yes, on that we both agree. I was just curious because of the way you phrased it. Thank you for clearing that up.

@room101


You're overlooking the fact that these men had been leading movements for years (if not decades) before they actually became heads of state. Not everyone has the opportunities of, say, Napoleon Bonaparte.

And speaking of the French Revolution, that's an excellent example of the Horseshoe Theory (although I don't recall Orwell using that term). The French revolution was supposed to have been about "liberty, equality, fraternity," yet they guillotined people by the thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) who didn't think purely enough. The leaders even guillotined each other. Danton is said to have remarked on his way to the guillotine, "My only regret is that I will not live to see this happen to that rat Robespierre."

Which all goes to prove that human beings cannot be trusted with absolute power.


Sure, but the movement has to attract followers in the first place. Where would Hitler have been, for example, if no young people had wanted to join the Storm Troopers?

@Thinkerbell I know that the people you listed didn't just become dictators etc when they hit a certain age. Obviously, they had those leanings for years before they rose to power.

No, Orwell didn't use the phrase specifically in any of his writings. However, one can't fail to see it "in action" in Animal Farm.

Of course young people can be, and often are, rather radical in their views. One need only look at ISIS recruits to see that, ie we can see it in contemporary events/history. But, I'm trying to address your point about re-electing incumbent politicians etc. As I stated, my opinion is that this tends to happen more as we get older. And yes, I do believe in the young and I do look to them to affect change. To me, it's an undeniably logical approach.

FACT: the older we become, the more resistant we are to change. Sure, sometimes that goes tits-up and the change we get is far from positive. But, another FACT is that societies are organic and evolve. They evolve because of new technologies. They evolve because of wider exposure to other societies. They evolve for lots of different reasons. One sure way of stymying that evolution is to ignore the minds of those who will inevitably outlive us.

"Where would Hitler have been etc etc etc?" Where would any military (or para-military) be without its young recruits? Would you deny Sara her career because she's young? Sure, young people can be radicalised and manipulated. What about all of the over 45's etc that think that trump is the personification of the Second Coming. Are they not being radicalised and manipulated? Isn't that what Sara's post is essentially about? The Party of Reagan has been radicalised and manipulated to the extent that someone like Sara can no longer recognise it. Can no longer recognise what it stands for. It stands for nothing but....................🤷‍♂️

Sure, humans can't be trusted with absolute power. But, with respect, that's a whole different debate. If not humans then what, AI? If the checks and balances in a given political system are failing (as they very often are) what then? Throw it all out and back to the drawing board?

I love a discussion that opens up new topics for debate but, such discussions often ramble on indefinitely.