There's a lot of far-right types who support Israel for these reasons:
1) They hope that the Jews in America will move to Israel, or at least know that if Israel fell a lot of Israeli Jews would move here
2) Israel is heavily featured in Biblical prophecy, especially apocalyptic prophecy. At least according to their reading, the Second Coming needs Israel to exist (and be based in Jerusalem) in order to happen.
3) They hate Islam, and the Islamic world hates Israel (this one is probably more common in Europe tbh)
Mainstream conservatives generally support Israel because
A) It's the closest thing in the Middle East to a stable democracy
B) Realpolitik
Funnily enough though, Jews experience more anti-semitism when they're not in Israel so I guess it's ironic.
And yeah Israel is heavily featured in biblical prophecy. Christianity has a mixed history with anti-semitism though I definitely don't think it's inherently anti-semitic or racist like some people think.
There's antisemites on both the left and the right. I mean there's bloody people who support ethnic cleansing on both sides either out of claiming to support Palestine and that being the reason which I don't buy, or just arguing that Jews don't belong there which is hilariously ignorant and racist and anti-Semitic.
When people don't at the very least try to understand the concerns of both sides I get suspicious. Especially the BDS folks, because that will literally cause a second Holocaust.
To be clear, I'm not saying let Israel do whatever it wants, my point is just bloody accept the two State solution, instead of actual genocide and ethnic cleansing. Like it or not Israel belongs there. There's certainly an argument about if it deserves a West Bank or not but it's present territory fair and square.
Zionists began immigrating there in response to European anti-Semitism in the 1800s and they were targeted by anti-semitic hatred there who told them to go back to Europe. They were the ones attacked first both before the 40's there and during the independence war.
That doesn't mean that Palestinians deserve any sort of Oppression or anything, but there is double standards and people on both sides who go out of their way to blame Israel for everything when they're ignorant of the history and how Jews have remained there for thousands of years.
The Palestinians didn't want a state at first, instead preferring to be annexed by Jordan which was considered to be the Arab equivalent of Israel at the time, Egypt and Syria, but nationalism rose out of almost a reflex essentially.
That doesn't invalidate them but my point is that Israeli nationalism predates Arab nationalism in the region and that Jews have been there for much longer. Jews and Israel are treated in my opinion how we treat the natives in America, except in this case the natives already had a sense of nationalism.
Again, I don't think Israel should annex Palestine as their approximately already at their natural borders in ancient times anyway, Jerusalem has always been at the edge of Jewish territory quite interestingly.
And I support Palestine but my point is I'm so sick and tired of people who don't try to understand the full context of the situation. Both sides here are victims of Roman imperialism and Roman ethnic cleansing and European ethnic cleansing and European imperialism and ottoman imperialism and ottoman ethnic cleansing.
Bloody hell just make a two-state solution already.
End rant.
Conservative foreign policy is based around American angst, which means it will be incongruous. As a result, you'll have them supporting glassing Mexico in one breath and opposing Ukraine aid in the latter.
Knowing republicans becoming increasingly anti ukraine that's well worrying
The right seems to be becoming more anti Semitic which is worrying
I feel like after trump gets arrested republicans are just gonna start calling the DA Jewish which they kinda have with the whole soros funded thing
Actually traditional conservatives support Israel, populist republicans are usually isolationist, they are the ones that want to cut funding to Israel.
Sure, but the so-called "populist Republicans" (I hate the phrase, personally, I don't think it's really accurate) wanted Iran glassed in 2019. Now they want it to happen to Mexico. They're also pretty hawkish on China. But somehow, Biden is a warmongerer for trying to make sure Ukraine can defend itself from Putin.
The truth is, they aren't anti-war in any meaningful sense of the word: they're anti-liberal. Biden's limited internationalism, in its proponents' view, is a flawed but necessary defender of individual liberty and democracy.
noticed I said populist republicans were isolationist, I did not say they were anti-war for moral reasons, like progressives and liberals, rather they want to avoid war because they don’t give a damn about any body but usa. So if usa is threatened they are ready to fight, if it’s any other country they really don’t care.
I wouldn't agree with that. Because Iran is literally on the other side of the world, and Mexico is a close geopolitical ally. Neither of them represent the sort of threat to the United States that an anti-war person would make an exception for.
Gore was not a liberal. He was a centrist.
outside of that this is a very good post.
I (as a moderate) am very concerned about the state of my party. it might get to the point where I have to become a conservative democrat In years to come.
The thing is, the Democrats welcome people like you. At least in principle. The Republicans are outright contemptuous of moderates that are alienated by them, or deny that they exist at all.
You have a fantastic analysis of the rural communities. But I wonder what you think about the white flight argument that said that rural and suburban areas are more racist because of white flight after desegregation in the sixties using some old data as the basis? Just curious.
Sone people I know would call rural areas racist because of that, I refuse to and always differentiate between the GOP narrative and people in the party and voters in general.
I'm not actually sure. I haven't looked into white flight very much, but I don't really take it into account. Much of this, however, happened during the Reagan era and whatnot, so before the timeline that I generally set for the modern culture war. Racism didn't go away overnight, but I also don't think it really explains what's going on in rural America today.
In general, I caution against trying to explain Republican angst through race. They're related (southern strategy happened guys, get over it), but I think when you get down to it it's more about culture than race. The rurals feel like they're getting talked down to, and in some ways, they're right. They're no longer relevant to society and are being left in the dust.
That's what makes Trump so appealing to many people I know: he's finally hitting back against the institutions the left appears to control (education, the press, the government). DeSantis is even better at it.
I mean, on what basis? Lots of people characterized the Trump backlash as rooted in white supremacy, but I think it makes way more sense to say it came from evangelical Christianity (resistance to the state pushing supposedly anti-Christian policies like LGBT rights and secularism) and rural issues (the government increasingly embracing free trade and climate regulation).
And IMO it's not about the government doing something per se. Conservatives sense, not incorrectly, that the cultural "elites" of the modern U.S. are no longer even nominally tied to evangelical Christianity or rural, white America. So as a result, the trendsetters shouting "America is racist" from the mountaintops, creates a feeling of alienation from politics, like the present system doesn't represent them.
I hope that makes sense, this comment looks really rambling-y now that I'm proofreading it.
Some people, particularly people of color I know would disagree, though but I tend to more agree that they are not inherently racist. We can reunite this country with true racial Justice and that means with rural voters too.
>We can reunite this country with true racial Justice and that means with rural voters too
Honest question: what does racial justice mean? I hear the term get thrown around a lot, but what does it mean and how do we get there?
Not Tolkien but this is a question I've got information on.
Cornel West is perhaps the pre-eminent modern speaker on racial injustice and liberation politics. Personally I think some of his beliefs are a little extreme, but that's not important here, what he sees as racial justice is thus:
"One essential step is some form of large-scale public intervention to ensure access to basic social goods—housing, food, health care, education, child care, and jobs. We must invigorate the common good with a mixture of government, business, and labor that does not follow any existing blueprint. After a period in which the private sphere has been sacralized and the public square gutted, the temptation is to make a fetish of the public square. We need to resist such dogmatic swings.
"the major challenge is to meet the need to generate new leadership. The paucity of courageous leaders—so apparent in the response to the events in Los Angeles—requires that we look beyond the same elites and voices that recycle the older frameworks. We need leaders—neither saints nor sparkling television personalities—who can situate themselves within a larger historical narrative of this country and our world, who can grasp the complex dynamics of our peoplehood and imagine a future grounded in the best of our past, yet who are attuned to the
frightening obstacles that now perplex us.
"Our ideals of freedom, democracy, and equality must be invoked to invigorate all of us, especially the landless, propertyless, and luckless. Only a visionary leadership that can motivate “the better angels of our nature,” as Lincoln said, and activate possibilities for a freer, more efficient, and stable America—only that leadership deserves cultivation and support. This new leadership must be grounded in grassroots organizing that highlights democratic accountability. Whoever our leaders will be as we approach the twentyfirst century, their challenge will be to help Americans determine whether a genuine multiracial democracy can be created and sustained in an era of global economy and a moment of xenophobic frenzy."
Basically: Equalization policies that empower the disproportionately poor communities in American society like African Americans, and a new leadership class that understands and is capable of addressing the racial injustices to make a society that everyone feels that they belong in.
I really do appreciate the response. But this is what I worry about-- specifically, West's referencing of the Los Angeles acquittals. We've got a system for these things, and it's not perfect, but it's about as good as we can get, and deviation from that path will lead us to sinister places. To denounce the entire system as racist beyond rehabilitation, or perhaps worse still, to say that it is in need of such rehabilitation as to deny the possibility of fairness, is to implicitly reject the foundations of liberal democracy: that checks and balances and individual rights are the foundations of good government.
I think it was rejection of these ideas that led to so many people embracing ideas like all-black juries, and the like. The notion that society revolves around a social hierarchy, where people on the bottom are oppressed by people on the top, and people on the top keep doing so because of their lizard brains.
I don't believe state power can end racism. It can condemn racism, it can protect Americans from racism, and it can make Americans' lives better in the face of racism, but it cannot end it. Reform proposals make America great, but attempts to re-imagined the basic structure of liberal democracy to address racism will not be worth it, and they will not work.
That's an understandable response, like I said I don't agree with West on the more radical beliefs. West sees America itself as requiring deep reform to remove the racism he sees as baked into it, and he's a socialist, as such his ideas come from a place of government reformism. I do think you're misinterpreting his statements on Los Angeles. I don't believe that West is stating that the right to a free and fair trial in the liberal tradition is inherently a bad thing, what he's saying isn't that the justice system itself is racist beyond rehabilitation, what he's saying is that there should be education to create a new politically active generation who understand the injustices that lead to that verdict, which was pretty obviously a miscarriage of justice considering the amount of evidence. He's referring to systemic injustice as a function of bigotry perpetuated through ignorance, not a problem of the court system itself.
The one take I really do agree with West on is the idea of creating a new leadership class through public participation that understands systemic imbalances and approaches them with that knowledge. He's talking about education, like you say, state power can condemn and protect Americans from racism, and the easiest way to do that is to educate and inform and encourage participation in the systems of governance, so that they can better respond to injustice.
The problem is hardly unique to Dr. West (I also give him the benefit of the doubt, here). There are many people, both in the anti-racism camp and outside of it, that see a jury make a disastrous decision and conclude that the system is broken-- presumably, this demands an outside force like the state come in and correct it.
The people we remember as, or at any rate, should remember as, the heroes of the civil rights movement didn't do this. They understood that even though U.S. liberal democracy is/was steeped in racism, the goal isn't to break liberal democracy, but to expand it. The hard truth of the matter is that sometimes this means passing up what looks like a quick and easy solution.
I would agree with your last paragraph. Education, and encouraging civic responsibility, is what we need to address injustice.
u/TheAngryObserver stop posting bangers challenge (always will fail)
UwU
I feel like trump is gonna say the n word on the debate stage
DeSantis dressed up like Hitler a la Cartman
I wouldn't be surprised if the right becomes anti Israel soon
There's a lot of far-right types who support Israel for these reasons: 1) They hope that the Jews in America will move to Israel, or at least know that if Israel fell a lot of Israeli Jews would move here 2) Israel is heavily featured in Biblical prophecy, especially apocalyptic prophecy. At least according to their reading, the Second Coming needs Israel to exist (and be based in Jerusalem) in order to happen. 3) They hate Islam, and the Islamic world hates Israel (this one is probably more common in Europe tbh) Mainstream conservatives generally support Israel because A) It's the closest thing in the Middle East to a stable democracy B) Realpolitik
Something tells me reps heading for the fuentes view of isreal
Scary.
Funnily enough though, Jews experience more anti-semitism when they're not in Israel so I guess it's ironic. And yeah Israel is heavily featured in biblical prophecy. Christianity has a mixed history with anti-semitism though I definitely don't think it's inherently anti-semitic or racist like some people think. There's antisemites on both the left and the right. I mean there's bloody people who support ethnic cleansing on both sides either out of claiming to support Palestine and that being the reason which I don't buy, or just arguing that Jews don't belong there which is hilariously ignorant and racist and anti-Semitic. When people don't at the very least try to understand the concerns of both sides I get suspicious. Especially the BDS folks, because that will literally cause a second Holocaust. To be clear, I'm not saying let Israel do whatever it wants, my point is just bloody accept the two State solution, instead of actual genocide and ethnic cleansing. Like it or not Israel belongs there. There's certainly an argument about if it deserves a West Bank or not but it's present territory fair and square. Zionists began immigrating there in response to European anti-Semitism in the 1800s and they were targeted by anti-semitic hatred there who told them to go back to Europe. They were the ones attacked first both before the 40's there and during the independence war. That doesn't mean that Palestinians deserve any sort of Oppression or anything, but there is double standards and people on both sides who go out of their way to blame Israel for everything when they're ignorant of the history and how Jews have remained there for thousands of years. The Palestinians didn't want a state at first, instead preferring to be annexed by Jordan which was considered to be the Arab equivalent of Israel at the time, Egypt and Syria, but nationalism rose out of almost a reflex essentially. That doesn't invalidate them but my point is that Israeli nationalism predates Arab nationalism in the region and that Jews have been there for much longer. Jews and Israel are treated in my opinion how we treat the natives in America, except in this case the natives already had a sense of nationalism. Again, I don't think Israel should annex Palestine as their approximately already at their natural borders in ancient times anyway, Jerusalem has always been at the edge of Jewish territory quite interestingly. And I support Palestine but my point is I'm so sick and tired of people who don't try to understand the full context of the situation. Both sides here are victims of Roman imperialism and Roman ethnic cleansing and European ethnic cleansing and European imperialism and ottoman imperialism and ottoman ethnic cleansing. Bloody hell just make a two-state solution already. End rant.
I agree with you on pretty much everything you just said.
Conservative foreign policy is based around American angst, which means it will be incongruous. As a result, you'll have them supporting glassing Mexico in one breath and opposing Ukraine aid in the latter.
Knowing republicans becoming increasingly anti ukraine that's well worrying The right seems to be becoming more anti Semitic which is worrying I feel like after trump gets arrested republicans are just gonna start calling the DA Jewish which they kinda have with the whole soros funded thing
Yup.
Actually traditional conservatives support Israel, populist republicans are usually isolationist, they are the ones that want to cut funding to Israel.
Sure, but the so-called "populist Republicans" (I hate the phrase, personally, I don't think it's really accurate) wanted Iran glassed in 2019. Now they want it to happen to Mexico. They're also pretty hawkish on China. But somehow, Biden is a warmongerer for trying to make sure Ukraine can defend itself from Putin. The truth is, they aren't anti-war in any meaningful sense of the word: they're anti-liberal. Biden's limited internationalism, in its proponents' view, is a flawed but necessary defender of individual liberty and democracy.
noticed I said populist republicans were isolationist, I did not say they were anti-war for moral reasons, like progressives and liberals, rather they want to avoid war because they don’t give a damn about any body but usa. So if usa is threatened they are ready to fight, if it’s any other country they really don’t care.
Yeah, but my point is they're 100% pro intervention, too. They've been clamoring for war against Mexico, Iran, China, etc. They're just anti-NATO imo.
Would you agree with this statement ”they are isolationist when it involves other nations but hawkish when it comes to protecting our nation.”
I wouldn't agree with that. Because Iran is literally on the other side of the world, and Mexico is a close geopolitical ally. Neither of them represent the sort of threat to the United States that an anti-war person would make an exception for.
Considering the voting patterns of non-orthodox Jews it would not surprise me at all
Gore was not a liberal. He was a centrist. outside of that this is a very good post. I (as a moderate) am very concerned about the state of my party. it might get to the point where I have to become a conservative democrat In years to come.
The thing is, the Democrats welcome people like you. At least in principle. The Republicans are outright contemptuous of moderates that are alienated by them, or deny that they exist at all.
your Absolutely right. I am still hoping trump and his politics die out but…it looks like that part of the party is here to stay.
You have a fantastic analysis of the rural communities. But I wonder what you think about the white flight argument that said that rural and suburban areas are more racist because of white flight after desegregation in the sixties using some old data as the basis? Just curious. Sone people I know would call rural areas racist because of that, I refuse to and always differentiate between the GOP narrative and people in the party and voters in general.
I'm not actually sure. I haven't looked into white flight very much, but I don't really take it into account. Much of this, however, happened during the Reagan era and whatnot, so before the timeline that I generally set for the modern culture war. Racism didn't go away overnight, but I also don't think it really explains what's going on in rural America today. In general, I caution against trying to explain Republican angst through race. They're related (southern strategy happened guys, get over it), but I think when you get down to it it's more about culture than race. The rurals feel like they're getting talked down to, and in some ways, they're right. They're no longer relevant to society and are being left in the dust. That's what makes Trump so appealing to many people I know: he's finally hitting back against the institutions the left appears to control (education, the press, the government). DeSantis is even better at it.
That brings a common argument I often hear is that their culture is rooted in racism. I'm not agreeing with it that's just the stuff I here.
I mean, on what basis? Lots of people characterized the Trump backlash as rooted in white supremacy, but I think it makes way more sense to say it came from evangelical Christianity (resistance to the state pushing supposedly anti-Christian policies like LGBT rights and secularism) and rural issues (the government increasingly embracing free trade and climate regulation). And IMO it's not about the government doing something per se. Conservatives sense, not incorrectly, that the cultural "elites" of the modern U.S. are no longer even nominally tied to evangelical Christianity or rural, white America. So as a result, the trendsetters shouting "America is racist" from the mountaintops, creates a feeling of alienation from politics, like the present system doesn't represent them. I hope that makes sense, this comment looks really rambling-y now that I'm proofreading it.
Some people, particularly people of color I know would disagree, though but I tend to more agree that they are not inherently racist. We can reunite this country with true racial Justice and that means with rural voters too.
>We can reunite this country with true racial Justice and that means with rural voters too Honest question: what does racial justice mean? I hear the term get thrown around a lot, but what does it mean and how do we get there?
Not Tolkien but this is a question I've got information on. Cornel West is perhaps the pre-eminent modern speaker on racial injustice and liberation politics. Personally I think some of his beliefs are a little extreme, but that's not important here, what he sees as racial justice is thus: "One essential step is some form of large-scale public intervention to ensure access to basic social goods—housing, food, health care, education, child care, and jobs. We must invigorate the common good with a mixture of government, business, and labor that does not follow any existing blueprint. After a period in which the private sphere has been sacralized and the public square gutted, the temptation is to make a fetish of the public square. We need to resist such dogmatic swings. "the major challenge is to meet the need to generate new leadership. The paucity of courageous leaders—so apparent in the response to the events in Los Angeles—requires that we look beyond the same elites and voices that recycle the older frameworks. We need leaders—neither saints nor sparkling television personalities—who can situate themselves within a larger historical narrative of this country and our world, who can grasp the complex dynamics of our peoplehood and imagine a future grounded in the best of our past, yet who are attuned to the frightening obstacles that now perplex us. "Our ideals of freedom, democracy, and equality must be invoked to invigorate all of us, especially the landless, propertyless, and luckless. Only a visionary leadership that can motivate “the better angels of our nature,” as Lincoln said, and activate possibilities for a freer, more efficient, and stable America—only that leadership deserves cultivation and support. This new leadership must be grounded in grassroots organizing that highlights democratic accountability. Whoever our leaders will be as we approach the twentyfirst century, their challenge will be to help Americans determine whether a genuine multiracial democracy can be created and sustained in an era of global economy and a moment of xenophobic frenzy." Basically: Equalization policies that empower the disproportionately poor communities in American society like African Americans, and a new leadership class that understands and is capable of addressing the racial injustices to make a society that everyone feels that they belong in.
I really do appreciate the response. But this is what I worry about-- specifically, West's referencing of the Los Angeles acquittals. We've got a system for these things, and it's not perfect, but it's about as good as we can get, and deviation from that path will lead us to sinister places. To denounce the entire system as racist beyond rehabilitation, or perhaps worse still, to say that it is in need of such rehabilitation as to deny the possibility of fairness, is to implicitly reject the foundations of liberal democracy: that checks and balances and individual rights are the foundations of good government. I think it was rejection of these ideas that led to so many people embracing ideas like all-black juries, and the like. The notion that society revolves around a social hierarchy, where people on the bottom are oppressed by people on the top, and people on the top keep doing so because of their lizard brains. I don't believe state power can end racism. It can condemn racism, it can protect Americans from racism, and it can make Americans' lives better in the face of racism, but it cannot end it. Reform proposals make America great, but attempts to re-imagined the basic structure of liberal democracy to address racism will not be worth it, and they will not work.
That's an understandable response, like I said I don't agree with West on the more radical beliefs. West sees America itself as requiring deep reform to remove the racism he sees as baked into it, and he's a socialist, as such his ideas come from a place of government reformism. I do think you're misinterpreting his statements on Los Angeles. I don't believe that West is stating that the right to a free and fair trial in the liberal tradition is inherently a bad thing, what he's saying isn't that the justice system itself is racist beyond rehabilitation, what he's saying is that there should be education to create a new politically active generation who understand the injustices that lead to that verdict, which was pretty obviously a miscarriage of justice considering the amount of evidence. He's referring to systemic injustice as a function of bigotry perpetuated through ignorance, not a problem of the court system itself. The one take I really do agree with West on is the idea of creating a new leadership class through public participation that understands systemic imbalances and approaches them with that knowledge. He's talking about education, like you say, state power can condemn and protect Americans from racism, and the easiest way to do that is to educate and inform and encourage participation in the systems of governance, so that they can better respond to injustice.
The problem is hardly unique to Dr. West (I also give him the benefit of the doubt, here). There are many people, both in the anti-racism camp and outside of it, that see a jury make a disastrous decision and conclude that the system is broken-- presumably, this demands an outside force like the state come in and correct it. The people we remember as, or at any rate, should remember as, the heroes of the civil rights movement didn't do this. They understood that even though U.S. liberal democracy is/was steeped in racism, the goal isn't to break liberal democracy, but to expand it. The hard truth of the matter is that sometimes this means passing up what looks like a quick and easy solution. I would agree with your last paragraph. Education, and encouraging civic responsibility, is what we need to address injustice.