Wherein Matt Lewis is madly ahistorical
Jesus fucking christ this idiocy. Also, Twitter broke my reply chain, so to see it all, you have to start here, most of the way down, then scroll up.
Matt Lewis - @mattklewis - 7:35 AM · Dec 6, 2021
Now, I'm not going to suggest there is a perfectly straight line from Clinton to Donald Trump. But perhaps when the public rejected good men like Dole and HW (and later Romney and McCain), it sent a message to Republicans? It turns out, character doesn't win elections.
@solarbirdy · 3:22 PM · Dec 6, 2021
Replying to @mattklewis
As someone who has studied the religious and political right for decades, and warned people for just as long about _where we are right now_, this is a _stunningly_ ahistorical take, one relying entirely on accepting bad faith presentations as legitimate belief and argument.
-----
They NEVER CARED ABOUT CHARACTER. Not once, not ever. Not as I (and possibly you) would define it.
They would rehabilitate _anyone_, no matter what they did, as long as they said the right things. It was a revolving door of scandal, exit, re-entry, and cynical all the way down.
-----
And the reason is that their definitions of what makes something true - and what makes someone good - are very, very different to mine, and possibly yours.
(I'm saying that because I don't want to presume.)
-----
Most people on what passes for the liberal and left in the US see truth as observational and testable. They may and may not be good at it individually, but attitudinally they're empiricists, and as such, modernists in the larger sense of the word.
-----
You can learn about the world by studying it, and make better decisions to improve your lot - and the world - based upon what you learn.
The manifests in the current debate as "science is real."
-----
The fundamentalists - and the fascist movement that has sprung out of it - are fundamentally _not_. They operate on a system of received knowledge from authority.
This is why they used say openly that where things went wrong in western civilisation was the Renaissance.
-----
Because it represented - this is a close paraphrase, I'm doing this from memory - a _turning away from God_ as the _sole and exclusive_ source of truth.
And by "God," of course, they meant "their beliefs."
-----
And what this means is that the working definition of "truth" is _whether it agrees with their existing beliefs_, and the working definition of "ethical" is _whether it furthers their beliefs and agenda_, everything else be damned. Empirical reality isn't even relevant.
-----
This manifests today as anti-vax conspiracy theory and QAnon.
-----
Until you understand that the working definitions of these core concepts are _completely different_, you _really can't_ begin to understand what's happening.
Once you _do_, all this was predictable _during Clinton_, because that's when fundamentalist _culture_ took over the GOP.
-----
I am, of course, simplifying. This is Twitter, you're not getting a thesis. I could spend a lot of time talking about how important Revelations 3:16 was and is _culturally_, and how that leads directly to...
-----
...rejecting the very concept of a loyal opposition (spoiler: it's Satan) and of moderation, and how they spent decades training themselves against both ideas, and exactly _how_ that took over GOP culture.
But that takes a bigger canvas than Twitter.
-----
But I am begging you - and anyone else reading - _understand this_.
And understand that _they_ understand this.
Because they use it, acting and speaking in constant bad faith to further their goals. And that's fine by them, because by _their_ definitions, it's _good_ to do so.
Also posted to ソ-ラ-バ-ド-のおん;
comments at Dreamwidth. Please comment there.
Matt Lewis - @mattklewis - 7:35 AM · Dec 6, 2021
Now, I'm not going to suggest there is a perfectly straight line from Clinton to Donald Trump. But perhaps when the public rejected good men like Dole and HW (and later Romney and McCain), it sent a message to Republicans? It turns out, character doesn't win elections.
@solarbirdy · 3:22 PM · Dec 6, 2021
Replying to @mattklewis
As someone who has studied the religious and political right for decades, and warned people for just as long about _where we are right now_, this is a _stunningly_ ahistorical take, one relying entirely on accepting bad faith presentations as legitimate belief and argument.
-----
They NEVER CARED ABOUT CHARACTER. Not once, not ever. Not as I (and possibly you) would define it.
They would rehabilitate _anyone_, no matter what they did, as long as they said the right things. It was a revolving door of scandal, exit, re-entry, and cynical all the way down.
-----
And the reason is that their definitions of what makes something true - and what makes someone good - are very, very different to mine, and possibly yours.
(I'm saying that because I don't want to presume.)
-----
Most people on what passes for the liberal and left in the US see truth as observational and testable. They may and may not be good at it individually, but attitudinally they're empiricists, and as such, modernists in the larger sense of the word.
-----
You can learn about the world by studying it, and make better decisions to improve your lot - and the world - based upon what you learn.
The manifests in the current debate as "science is real."
-----
The fundamentalists - and the fascist movement that has sprung out of it - are fundamentally _not_. They operate on a system of received knowledge from authority.
This is why they used say openly that where things went wrong in western civilisation was the Renaissance.
-----
Because it represented - this is a close paraphrase, I'm doing this from memory - a _turning away from God_ as the _sole and exclusive_ source of truth.
And by "God," of course, they meant "their beliefs."
-----
And what this means is that the working definition of "truth" is _whether it agrees with their existing beliefs_, and the working definition of "ethical" is _whether it furthers their beliefs and agenda_, everything else be damned. Empirical reality isn't even relevant.
-----
This manifests today as anti-vax conspiracy theory and QAnon.
-----
Until you understand that the working definitions of these core concepts are _completely different_, you _really can't_ begin to understand what's happening.
Once you _do_, all this was predictable _during Clinton_, because that's when fundamentalist _culture_ took over the GOP.
-----
I am, of course, simplifying. This is Twitter, you're not getting a thesis. I could spend a lot of time talking about how important Revelations 3:16 was and is _culturally_, and how that leads directly to...
-----
...rejecting the very concept of a loyal opposition (spoiler: it's Satan) and of moderation, and how they spent decades training themselves against both ideas, and exactly _how_ that took over GOP culture.
But that takes a bigger canvas than Twitter.
-----
But I am begging you - and anyone else reading - _understand this_.
And understand that _they_ understand this.
Because they use it, acting and speaking in constant bad faith to further their goals. And that's fine by them, because by _their_ definitions, it's _good_ to do so.
Also posted to ソ-ラ-バ-ド-のおん;
comments at Dreamwidth. Please comment there.