I'd try to de-focus from the republicans and see the whole picture. I would recommend Monica Harris's book: "The Illusion of Division". Good job, though.
Thank you Francois for your comment, and for the reference to Monica Harris's book.
I have read "about" her book, where she makes the case that "Political opportunism, exploitative media, and fringe voices have distorted our collective reality by amplifying our differences and polarizing us with hot-button issues." The problem is, there is such a "market" for hate and violence and nuttiness that these forces have succeeded in their mission of division, to the point of cult-like blind belief in the unbelievable. While making the case that there is more that unites us than the divides (which I believe is true) it actually frightens me more because that (not insignificant) market of haters and deniers will never see that light, but rather, they'll inevitably go for another Jan.6 - prodded on by the dividers who are no longer "fringe voices".
As you can see from my newsletter title, I fear not enough Americans even realize the fragility of democracy in the face of neo-fascism - "neo" because the old poison is wrapped in red-white-&-blue. Madeleine Albright said there was always a fascist streak in American politics, and it is ascendant right now. And Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here" puts the blame on "complacency". To me, these are scary times, approaching a precipice, and I fear that the greatest threat to America (and other nations) is "not recognizing" or "not taking seriously enough" the danger. Complacency, self-absorption, "we're number one", it can't happen here - so even the title of Harris's book frightens me, because it might reinforce the danger as an "illusion".
But I'm doing Harris an injustice, and will read it - because I may be a paranoid alarmist and perhaps her own insight will help me face this crisis and, as you say, "see the whole picture".
Thanks again for you feedback, and I hope you provide more insight in reacting to some of the other articles here, preferably the book reviews.
My biggest fear from these rabid GOP dogs is what is going on behind the scenes that's not on public display and also what's the next repercussion of their public vitriol. Certainly the latest Colorado nightclub shooting is yet another prime example of their hate speech and conspiracies. They've now marked all of the LGBT+ crowd as pedophiles, much less Biden too. And as much as I'd love to ignore their constant rhetoric and fear mongering, they simply make it impossible. It's now tangible.
I have no doubt the red hat flag waivers are ready to saddle up and ride again and feel that most of the Republican party, even the moderates, are too eager to look past faults and double down, and not because many don't believe the election was "stolen", but because they simply can't stomach losing. Starting with Trump's 2016 election it's become a revenge game, democracy be damned, and oh how they love to keep their pit bulls on a very loose leash. Neo-Fascism is indeed the right word for it.
Tyler, thanks for your comment, and for agreeing that Neo-Fascism is the right word to describe what's going on.
But I'm becoming more careful about distinguishing between "rabid GOP dogs" and the many "normal" Republicans and Conservatives who are not rabid dogs.
My hope is that a worthy moderate centrist leader (who puts country ahead of party) can inspire Democrats, Independents, and Moderate Republicans to unite in flushing away the hate-filled rhetoric and actions of a group of "rabid" right-wingers who have gained power greatly disproportionate to their numbers. I don't want to alienate those on the right who do not support their hatred and violence and I think there are a great many who would gladly see an end to this MAGA era.
That's why I'm writing this newsletter, as a warning about something dangerous that I see growing, and also as maybe an educational exercise (especially with the Book Reviews) to maybe change some minds or at least get some folks thinking about what they're supporting or even being silently complicit in. This stuff won't go away with Trump; his followers will find a new leader and the only way to stop them is, I think, with some kind of unifying, healing message and leader. So I don't want to generalize too much; my opinion is that not all Republicans or Conservatives are MAGA-crazy, homophobic, election-denying insurrectionists, and so I'm also hoping to engage with all "normal" and "civil" people (even if we disagree) in my fight against neo-fascism.
Thanks again, Tyler, for visiting my site and for your comments. I look forward to more discussions.
I agree that not all Republicans / Conservatives are full on MAGA and that many are still "old school" less tax / smaller govt types. Many of them do dislike Trump to be sure, but I also think that even though they may not support him publicly anymore, I strongly feel many would eventually support him come voting time if he was the only option. People have a way of making excuses for such things or will invent new methods of cognitive dissonance to erase the past, ..that is if they ever really disliked the past at all.
It's inevitable that "party first" politics often plays out this way. Democrats suffer from this too but with freedoms such as body autonomy, healthcare, and equal rights at stake it's kind of well... understandable. We are all tribal in nature of course and become polarized around every election cycle but its now become status quo. Unfortunately, these things are a direct result of only getting two options to choose from, Blue or Red. In contrast I spent the first two months of this year in Zurich on business and got to learn of how much better their political system is with their Cantonal representatives. There is no single person to rally around for tribal politics or crown king. It's so much more ideal. America would do well to not have a single president. It would greatly help to reduce aspects of polarization.
Finally, as for the GOP's "rabid dogs" I spoke of, (MTG, Cruz, Boebert, Hawley, Gaetz, etc), my point is take careful note that you just don't see any moderate Republicans in congress, much less any of our friends in our homes, schools, or offices outwardly decrying the far-right / Neo-fascist rhetoric of these people on a daily basis. Maybe on rare occasion when a shooting happens and a mic is thrust in their face will they disingenuously mumble some anti-party anecdotes which downplays the severity but it's rare. Very, very, very rare. "Thoughts and prayers" comes to mind and then absolute silence resumes. That silence speaks volumes of truth. They love to look away whenever tragedies are a direct result of their rhetoric. And what's worse is how they love to point fingers and say "you made us do this you Socialists/Communists".
We, as the moderate left, are in an abusive relationship to be sure.
And this is my whole point about the "loose leash"; It's a point of purposeful control and they all know it. It's abuse. By remaining silent, all right-wing moderates, as seemingly "moderate", are still 100% complicit in the acts and ideologies of the far right. They always have been. If you always "vote party" you are in fact consciously lending credence to the thoughts and actions of the worst of your party, ..full stop. So it's the moderates who quite obviously control the leash by voting against party or speaking up / out against their party and we've seen how that works out in the few times it happens. Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney come to mind. How many death threats have they received? How many other moderates have you heard championing their efforts?
To be clear, if any centrist moderates actually didn't like their rabid dogs, they would leave the party or vote for a democrat where able, ..or not vote at all. But statistically they rarely do that. Some of this played out in the mid-terms with some Trump endorsees losing, but by very very slim margins which tells me the moderates are in fact not so moderate!
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, until I start hearing many right-wing "moderates" (both in congress and out on the streets) actually speak up on a daily basis about their dogs, my opinion of them will not change. And that opinion is they are not to be trusted in any manner whatsoever.
Again, their continual silence speaks volumes of truth.
You know, Tyler, you've made a very strong case here.
While I hope these moderate-right people will eventually come around, they are, as you say, pretty quiet about the direction of their party. And silence is complicity.
I think you'll find some moderate-right people thinking we are overly paranoid, that the rabid-right is still a fringe that will go away - and the results in the mid-terms did show a surprisingly high number of right-of-center voters either not voting or voting Dem, so that is a hopeful sign (especially in a mid-term with high historical winds (plus inflation) favoring Repubs.
There are, I believe, many Repubs who are not MAGA-nuts, but maybe they should be more paranoid of the radical right - especially when someone with the courage of Liz Cheney sacrifices her career for the sake of the country, and she's quickly replaced by the despicable Marjorie Greene.
So what I'm saying is, there are many moderate Repubs who don't see the situation as threatening as we do, who don't think the radical right has actually taken over their party. Maybe over the next 2 years they'll see it differently.
But also, the Dems need to come up with a leader who will appeal to them, a centrist moderate who will appeal to Dems and Independents and Moderate Conservatives.
A self-destroying Repub party + a centrist new Dem leader might turn the tide.
Meanwhile, I think you and I will continue to sound the alarm.
We actually gave them a self-professed centrist moderate for 8 years named Barack "I killed Osama / drone striker" Obama and look how that has played out up to current day. The right-wing congress under control of the grim reaper himself, Mitch Lucky Kentucky McConnell, did nothing but obstruct any thought the man had, much less legislation he envisioned, and ultimately they all wanted to crucify him, especially after Trump championed the birther conspiracy.
So that said, I don't get the feeling the majority of the Republican party actually wants a moderate at all. I'd wager they just want a smarter, more able, more calculated version of Trump but with the same sort of "let's punch 'em in the face" cowboy ego. I think they want another "he might bite" dog for them to wield against the left to keep us in fear of Neo-fascist flag waving, gun toting, minority hating, immigrant fearing, women controlling "christian" ideologies. I'n not sure if Desantis fits that bill, but at least he's young and can complete sentences with coherent thought. I'll settle for that.
As for my own centrist ideology, I'm just glad Biden was able to get the infrastructure deal passed. Given the last 12 years it was nothing short of a miracle, one we all need, but one the slave mind masses will always reject.. "because Biden" just like "because Obama".
Best of luck with your writings. Don't be afraid to punch where punches are fully due.
This is no time to sit on the sidelines. Find the grit and rub some salt. It's what the left always lacks. We have no cowboys.
My wife says what you said in your last line: Dems don't punch back, they're too nice.
And maybe it's all just become a purely tribal thing after all. I heard a Georgia woman say she "despised" Herschel Walker but she'll vote for him because she'll never vote for a "Socialist." Repubs have spent tens of millions of dollars running ads that Warnock is a Socialist, and enough people bought it that it's still a race.
That's the tyranny of words. Vote for someone you despise because it's better than Socialism. Marjorie Greene's campaign motto is SASS: Save America, Stop Socialism.
But I started this project because today America seems to me to resemble Germany in the 30s, and not enough stood up and fought it before it was too late and the mass trance took hold. So my little newsletter will hopefully poke some holes in that trance. And thanks for your support, Tyler, it is greatly appreciated. I'll even give you a "free" subscription.
Thanks for chatting. I enjoy reading articles like this and enjoy talking about these things. There is a war of sorts to be fought online and we need all the smart minded soldiers we can get. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.
Other than the investigation of the Biden influence peddling, you may be creating a strawman based upon the most extreme right of the Republican Party.
I believe the Biden family should not be immune to investigation. No one should be "too big to fail".
I can find an equal number of "demons" on the left, but it serves no purpose but to create bitterness.
Democrats should be happy about the results of the mid terms. The fact that nothing has changed tells me that they will never be satisfied until they dominate the balance of powers. That is something I cannot tolerate from either side. The balance of power is the one thing that keeps government in check. I also believe we need to come to terms with election fraud. There are ways we can run elections securely and eliminate any doubt over who has won and who has lost. We have already discussed this, so I won't belabor that here.
With the mid terms being somewhat satisfying for everyone, it would be nice if we could all turn down the rhetoric a few notches. Democracy is not in danger, and in my opinion it never was. Even if our Government becomes mired in gridlock, the business of this nation goes on. When we are so evenly divided as to direction, parking the ship for a while may be the best option.
Topping off the tanks with fossil fuel would be advisable in my opinion. Selling more fuel to Europe may also be advisable. We might be able to avoid getting into another foreign war with that one simple act, and it would also help with our own trade imbalance. It might also help with inflation. One simple act would accomplish a lot.
Thanks for your reply GG. As always the voice of moderation and stability, and hope.
As I said in the article, however, these folks (MTG, Jordan, Gaetz) have been front and center all week, and seem to be the new leaders of the Republican Party. And their focus on Hunter Biden (rather than on inflation, gas prices and crime - the issues they ran on) concerns me.
I would have felt a lot more at ease if Kevin McCarthy had been out there talking about the issues they ran on, and that were top of mind for voters.
Yes, we now have some semblance of balance (Dems in Senate, Repubs in House) and I sincerely hope that works to get some work done - address some real problems. But if McCarthy lets his extreme right flank set the agenda, then everyone suffers. If tMcCarthy's the Leader of the Republican House caucus, then he should step up and take control and tell the country what the agenda is, instead of letting the extreme right set the agenda. MTG is stealing the whole show.
What I fear is that McCarthy is too weak to control his own party.
I'm not necessarily in favor of one person "controlling" the party. Kevin can focus on rooting out corruption and others can work on inflation, gas prices and crime. Democrats may not like any of the solutions for those problems either, so maybe Democrats should be grateful if Republicans cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
I'm pragmatic when I can be, but I cannot tolerate government intentionally restricting a business that could be helping to solve the majority of our ills. We should be exporting as much petroleum as possible (after securing our own supply). Most of todays problems worldwide can be reduced substantially by reducing the cost of energy.
Democrats are in my opinion using the climate change issue as a bludgeon to force the people to adopt alternative energy "solutions" that will never come near replacing fossil fuels. The stated purpose of the IPCC (the UN International Panel on Climate Change) is to make fossil fuel more expensive so that renewables "appear more affordable". This is one of the worse cases of mass manipulation happening today, and the Democrat Party has swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
I don't know if you are a proponent of all this climate change policy, but I have studied it in depth. From a geological standpoint, the sea level rise we see today is a tiny blip when viewed on a graph of the sea level change that has accompanied the dawn of civilization, beginning about 20,000 years ago. My Substack article titled "Climate Change is Real" contains enough information for anyone to gain a better perspective on how climate has changed in the last 20,000 years, and how warming is a good thing, not the boogeyman we are being fed by media. The original Boogeyman, "Global Warming" was a short 20 year spike which subsided beginning about 15 years ago, and which is nearly flat today. When temperature rise began to level off, they changed the name to "Climate Change. The climate models failed to predict this flattening, and the theory that they were created to support must be discarded if you truly "trust the science".
I have better than a layman's interest and study on the topic, and I intend to cover it in more detail with a subsequent series of posts. Next I will be covering the means by which our planet maintains a moderate climate within a range which has allowed for the proliferation and evolution of life, including our own species. Would you believe that tropical cyclones are a big part of the energy balance?
"warming is a good thing" - Tell that to the town of Lytton British Columbia that entirely burned to the ground in August 2021 during an unprecedented heat wave of 121 degrees Fahrenheit. .. In. Canada. Or tell that to all the people who get water from Lakes Powell and Mead which are almost dry because of the ever increasing lack of yearly snowfall in the Rocky Mountains. These lakes will be completely dry in a decade and the southwest may see a mass-exodus of biblical proportions.
Regardless of your semantics about sea level rise since the ice age, the much more relevant and glaring evidence of oceanic acidification due to ever growing levels of C02 and carbon simply spells disaster in short order due to our very short 200 years of industrialization and unchecked fossil fuel burning. Continuing to double down on that is an abhorrently ridiculous proposition even if we really have no other major options in the short term.
My analogous thoughts on this addiction are that we are on a runaway freight train with little to no brakes, but try we must. Our entire way of life has to change and we must all work toward that in short order. And while no energy source is truly clean, we most certainly need to use whichever ones don't literally cook us all to death over the next 50 years. When the entire consortium of IPCC scientists say each year has become hotter due our thirst for oil, coal, and natural gas, I tend to agree. Because science.
The sea level rise history is not semantics, it's science. Warmer and wetter is preferable to colder and drier. We are nearly due for the next glacial advance, so any delay to that we can muster will help us survive another 200,000 years of colder drier conditions. The drying in the West may well be a sign of the beginning of that cold dry cycle.
Climate model projections have not matched observation. They must either account for the mistake and be corrected or they must be abandoned. They could be corrected if they were able to account for the action of clouds and convection, which is a natural thermostatic effect.
If you read the actual science papers submitted to the IPCC for review, you will find that every one of them admits that the actions of clouds cannot be modeled. The IPCC reports you see projecting gloom and doom are the summaries for policymakers, written by political appointees and not based upon science at all. They are based primarily on economic projections. Actual scientists admit that climate models are flawed.
Your "analogous thoughts" are pure fantasy not based upon any science, but thank you for your opinion.
We should be overproducing fossil fuels, putting oil into our reserves, and exporting the excess to Europe where it is badly needed to stave off Russian aggression. The current administration is doing the opposite of these things, and it may lead us and our NATO allies to war with Russia. It appears that that is what the current administration wants.
I don't think anyone on the left wants war with Russia unless that's somehow being driven by rich leftists in the back rooms of the big corporations behind the DOD (and let's be honest, I doubt there's that many leftists there). And I find it odd that you don't want another war seeing how a big theme of conservatives is to have a big, strong military. Has that changed recently? The irony in this is the old, now completely dead conservative slogan of less taxes / smaller government when 50 cents of every tax dollar is spent to fund our war machines.
So equally surprising, if not glaringly hypocritical, is for a party so patently anti-socialist to be at complete odds with the US Military seeing how it is easily the biggest state funded socialistic organization in the entire world. "We the people" certainly empty our wallets to give up things like affordable health care and free education so that everyone in our military is provided with those things along with secure, good paying gubment jobs.
One could easily argue that if the bombs start flying we can all rejoice and shout at the sky screaming "at least I got my damn money's worth".
Secondly, my "analogous thoughts" are no fantasy. We are on a freight train of energy consumption with no real plan to get off fossil fuels before the entire thing derails. There's 8 billion people on the planet now. That's "only" 7 billion more than 100 years ago. ...Only... How long can we as an earth strapped species actually keep this up!? Not surprisingly, your only solution to the world's issues is in fact more "drill baby drill". And while this may, in part, work as a band-aid for short term solutions, I'd much rather prefer to think/hope we could all share in a goal of wanting to preserve as much as we can and implement more sustainable solutions before we all burn to death. I think that's a legitimately safe and logical solution which falls on the side of caution, whereas drilling more each and every year and hoping it will all work out, or stop any war, is the real fantasy.
Hopefully our two sides can find a middle ground at some point but in the interim I do hope you can agree that no resource; black, blue, or green that is linked to pumping something out of Earth's thin crust and setting it on fire, is somehow smart in the long term or that those resources are somehow infinite. Consuming more is not a solution to our future. It's simply consuming more. So actually being conservative by conserving is a better answer.
And I get that hedonists live for the day sir, but I want to be pragmatic about such things mainly because sitting in 120 degree heat, or hotter, with no animals to eat and only fields of dust to be plowed doesn't sound like a very good idea.
I know, I know. Maybe it's time to join the military where I'll be safe, protected, and well fed. Damn the torpedoes!
I'm a former Democrat, so I do take some responsibility for the mess we have today. That's why I am hoping to right some wrongs of the past.
Firstly, let me "fact check" your comment. The Defense budget is not 50% of the budget, it's 12%. See the attached link. Social Services far outweigh the defense budget, making them the most socialistic aspect of our Nation, not military.
A strong defense is a deterrent to war. So is energy independence. So is a strong economy. As I stated before, we could produce enough energy to be independent and still have enough to export to Europe to counter the Russian stranglehold, this avoiding war. This would also help with our trade imbalance. I really don't care what fantasies you harbor about conservatives, we do not want to send our children or yours to die on foreign soil. A strong defense is the best offense.
The myth of catastrophic climate change due to CO2 has many religious followers, and you appear to be one. You can "trust the science" and the scientists all you want, but until you take the time to study and learn earth science, you will always be relying on faith alone. That may satisfy you, but it is not enough for me. I've been around the block and seen my share of Al Gores. They are preaching doom and gloom with no scientific basis. The simple truth is that water vapor absorbs infrared radiation and convection carries it aloft where it is radiated into space. Convection increases with heating, making the process self regulating. This is why we look primarily for water in three phases in the search for other planets capable of sustaining life.
No one claims there is an unlimited supply of fuel, but there are enough recoverable reserves of gas and oil to last us at least 200 years. By that time we will have developed more efficient ways of using the energy we have.
There is no crisis, and so there is no rush to make draconian changes proposed by the IPCC. Their policies will harm the poorest of the poor most, and many will die if they are implemented. Luckily, they won't really be implemented because even Democrats know it's just a sham. Something else to give lip service to at election time.
As for Kevin McC, his whole leadership role should be about setting clear goals and timelines and metrics, assigning duties, and provide resources to get the job done. Maybe last week was just party extremists blowing off steam, and Kevin will work things out from the back office. I hope so, but he's the leader so we'll have to wait and see. And I guess it's fair to give him time; his shift doesn't actually start til Jan. 1.
As to your comments about climate change, I'm really not educated beyond knowing that glaciers and arctic ice and Greenland etc are melting way beyond normal, which is leading to all kinds of threats to climate patterns. But I recall you substack site has a Disclaimer that really what we think are facts are actually opinions; so I'll have a read through your post about climate change and see what I think. I'm nowhere near a scientist, and my "facts" of course come from media sources, so I'll give it another think. And also because I do believe that sometimes it's the one person out of a thousand who is right while the 999 others are wrong.
My son is an Engineer and he's putting his energy into the issue of battery storage capacity - the company he works for (and a lot of competitors) are shooting for a revolutionary battery. So there's a lot of opinions and people working in a lot of directions. I'll read your stuff asap.
Thanks as always for sharing your thoughts.
And my wife suggested that maybe I tone down the title of my latest post from Den of Snakes to "Swamp Creatures". Ha ha, as if swamp creatures is toning it down.
I'm all for better batteries, wind, water, and solar for power. I am not for fooling people into thinking that that will be more affordable and without environmental damage. I'm also certain that it can supplement, but never replace the need for fossil or nuclear generated power. The difference is collecting energy from diffuse sources versus using energy which nature has already focused for us. Collecting energy from diffuse sources uses much more of the ecosystem that collecting energy stored in the earth by nature. For example, a 10 acre oil location can produce oil or gas from beneath several thousand acres of adjoining lands. A wind or solar farm would require thousands of acres of habitat displacement to produce the same energy as that 10 acre well location.
I am preparing to build my own personal wind generator/water well combined. Smaller individual windmills are much less dangerous to birds than the large wind farms. The reason is that the large blades cause the illusion of slow motion, when the blade tips actually travel at 150-200 mph. Motion of large objects is deceptive and birds become victims of that deception. It's deceptive in the same way that a train or jumbo jet seems to be travelling very slowly. Trains kill people often because of this scale illusion. A smaller windmill is obviously spinning quickly and birds avoid them.
Engineering is probably the best field available today. I'm sure you are proud of your son, and expect he will go far in today's economy with his skills. Hopefully I can use one of his batteries as storage for my windmill one day.
I'd try to de-focus from the republicans and see the whole picture. I would recommend Monica Harris's book: "The Illusion of Division". Good job, though.
https://www.amazon.com/Illusion-Division-Monica-Harris/dp/B0BDLQW9M2
Thank you Francois for your comment, and for the reference to Monica Harris's book.
I have read "about" her book, where she makes the case that "Political opportunism, exploitative media, and fringe voices have distorted our collective reality by amplifying our differences and polarizing us with hot-button issues." The problem is, there is such a "market" for hate and violence and nuttiness that these forces have succeeded in their mission of division, to the point of cult-like blind belief in the unbelievable. While making the case that there is more that unites us than the divides (which I believe is true) it actually frightens me more because that (not insignificant) market of haters and deniers will never see that light, but rather, they'll inevitably go for another Jan.6 - prodded on by the dividers who are no longer "fringe voices".
As you can see from my newsletter title, I fear not enough Americans even realize the fragility of democracy in the face of neo-fascism - "neo" because the old poison is wrapped in red-white-&-blue. Madeleine Albright said there was always a fascist streak in American politics, and it is ascendant right now. And Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here" puts the blame on "complacency". To me, these are scary times, approaching a precipice, and I fear that the greatest threat to America (and other nations) is "not recognizing" or "not taking seriously enough" the danger. Complacency, self-absorption, "we're number one", it can't happen here - so even the title of Harris's book frightens me, because it might reinforce the danger as an "illusion".
But I'm doing Harris an injustice, and will read it - because I may be a paranoid alarmist and perhaps her own insight will help me face this crisis and, as you say, "see the whole picture".
Thanks again for you feedback, and I hope you provide more insight in reacting to some of the other articles here, preferably the book reviews.
Merci
My biggest fear from these rabid GOP dogs is what is going on behind the scenes that's not on public display and also what's the next repercussion of their public vitriol. Certainly the latest Colorado nightclub shooting is yet another prime example of their hate speech and conspiracies. They've now marked all of the LGBT+ crowd as pedophiles, much less Biden too. And as much as I'd love to ignore their constant rhetoric and fear mongering, they simply make it impossible. It's now tangible.
I have no doubt the red hat flag waivers are ready to saddle up and ride again and feel that most of the Republican party, even the moderates, are too eager to look past faults and double down, and not because many don't believe the election was "stolen", but because they simply can't stomach losing. Starting with Trump's 2016 election it's become a revenge game, democracy be damned, and oh how they love to keep their pit bulls on a very loose leash. Neo-Fascism is indeed the right word for it.
Tyler, thanks for your comment, and for agreeing that Neo-Fascism is the right word to describe what's going on.
But I'm becoming more careful about distinguishing between "rabid GOP dogs" and the many "normal" Republicans and Conservatives who are not rabid dogs.
My hope is that a worthy moderate centrist leader (who puts country ahead of party) can inspire Democrats, Independents, and Moderate Republicans to unite in flushing away the hate-filled rhetoric and actions of a group of "rabid" right-wingers who have gained power greatly disproportionate to their numbers. I don't want to alienate those on the right who do not support their hatred and violence and I think there are a great many who would gladly see an end to this MAGA era.
That's why I'm writing this newsletter, as a warning about something dangerous that I see growing, and also as maybe an educational exercise (especially with the Book Reviews) to maybe change some minds or at least get some folks thinking about what they're supporting or even being silently complicit in. This stuff won't go away with Trump; his followers will find a new leader and the only way to stop them is, I think, with some kind of unifying, healing message and leader. So I don't want to generalize too much; my opinion is that not all Republicans or Conservatives are MAGA-crazy, homophobic, election-denying insurrectionists, and so I'm also hoping to engage with all "normal" and "civil" people (even if we disagree) in my fight against neo-fascism.
Thanks again, Tyler, for visiting my site and for your comments. I look forward to more discussions.
I agree that not all Republicans / Conservatives are full on MAGA and that many are still "old school" less tax / smaller govt types. Many of them do dislike Trump to be sure, but I also think that even though they may not support him publicly anymore, I strongly feel many would eventually support him come voting time if he was the only option. People have a way of making excuses for such things or will invent new methods of cognitive dissonance to erase the past, ..that is if they ever really disliked the past at all.
It's inevitable that "party first" politics often plays out this way. Democrats suffer from this too but with freedoms such as body autonomy, healthcare, and equal rights at stake it's kind of well... understandable. We are all tribal in nature of course and become polarized around every election cycle but its now become status quo. Unfortunately, these things are a direct result of only getting two options to choose from, Blue or Red. In contrast I spent the first two months of this year in Zurich on business and got to learn of how much better their political system is with their Cantonal representatives. There is no single person to rally around for tribal politics or crown king. It's so much more ideal. America would do well to not have a single president. It would greatly help to reduce aspects of polarization.
Finally, as for the GOP's "rabid dogs" I spoke of, (MTG, Cruz, Boebert, Hawley, Gaetz, etc), my point is take careful note that you just don't see any moderate Republicans in congress, much less any of our friends in our homes, schools, or offices outwardly decrying the far-right / Neo-fascist rhetoric of these people on a daily basis. Maybe on rare occasion when a shooting happens and a mic is thrust in their face will they disingenuously mumble some anti-party anecdotes which downplays the severity but it's rare. Very, very, very rare. "Thoughts and prayers" comes to mind and then absolute silence resumes. That silence speaks volumes of truth. They love to look away whenever tragedies are a direct result of their rhetoric. And what's worse is how they love to point fingers and say "you made us do this you Socialists/Communists".
We, as the moderate left, are in an abusive relationship to be sure.
And this is my whole point about the "loose leash"; It's a point of purposeful control and they all know it. It's abuse. By remaining silent, all right-wing moderates, as seemingly "moderate", are still 100% complicit in the acts and ideologies of the far right. They always have been. If you always "vote party" you are in fact consciously lending credence to the thoughts and actions of the worst of your party, ..full stop. So it's the moderates who quite obviously control the leash by voting against party or speaking up / out against their party and we've seen how that works out in the few times it happens. Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney come to mind. How many death threats have they received? How many other moderates have you heard championing their efforts?
To be clear, if any centrist moderates actually didn't like their rabid dogs, they would leave the party or vote for a democrat where able, ..or not vote at all. But statistically they rarely do that. Some of this played out in the mid-terms with some Trump endorsees losing, but by very very slim margins which tells me the moderates are in fact not so moderate!
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, until I start hearing many right-wing "moderates" (both in congress and out on the streets) actually speak up on a daily basis about their dogs, my opinion of them will not change. And that opinion is they are not to be trusted in any manner whatsoever.
Again, their continual silence speaks volumes of truth.
You know, Tyler, you've made a very strong case here.
While I hope these moderate-right people will eventually come around, they are, as you say, pretty quiet about the direction of their party. And silence is complicity.
I think you'll find some moderate-right people thinking we are overly paranoid, that the rabid-right is still a fringe that will go away - and the results in the mid-terms did show a surprisingly high number of right-of-center voters either not voting or voting Dem, so that is a hopeful sign (especially in a mid-term with high historical winds (plus inflation) favoring Repubs.
There are, I believe, many Repubs who are not MAGA-nuts, but maybe they should be more paranoid of the radical right - especially when someone with the courage of Liz Cheney sacrifices her career for the sake of the country, and she's quickly replaced by the despicable Marjorie Greene.
So what I'm saying is, there are many moderate Repubs who don't see the situation as threatening as we do, who don't think the radical right has actually taken over their party. Maybe over the next 2 years they'll see it differently.
But also, the Dems need to come up with a leader who will appeal to them, a centrist moderate who will appeal to Dems and Independents and Moderate Conservatives.
A self-destroying Repub party + a centrist new Dem leader might turn the tide.
Meanwhile, I think you and I will continue to sound the alarm.
thanks again
We actually gave them a self-professed centrist moderate for 8 years named Barack "I killed Osama / drone striker" Obama and look how that has played out up to current day. The right-wing congress under control of the grim reaper himself, Mitch Lucky Kentucky McConnell, did nothing but obstruct any thought the man had, much less legislation he envisioned, and ultimately they all wanted to crucify him, especially after Trump championed the birther conspiracy.
So that said, I don't get the feeling the majority of the Republican party actually wants a moderate at all. I'd wager they just want a smarter, more able, more calculated version of Trump but with the same sort of "let's punch 'em in the face" cowboy ego. I think they want another "he might bite" dog for them to wield against the left to keep us in fear of Neo-fascist flag waving, gun toting, minority hating, immigrant fearing, women controlling "christian" ideologies. I'n not sure if Desantis fits that bill, but at least he's young and can complete sentences with coherent thought. I'll settle for that.
As for my own centrist ideology, I'm just glad Biden was able to get the infrastructure deal passed. Given the last 12 years it was nothing short of a miracle, one we all need, but one the slave mind masses will always reject.. "because Biden" just like "because Obama".
Best of luck with your writings. Don't be afraid to punch where punches are fully due.
This is no time to sit on the sidelines. Find the grit and rub some salt. It's what the left always lacks. We have no cowboys.
My wife says what you said in your last line: Dems don't punch back, they're too nice.
And maybe it's all just become a purely tribal thing after all. I heard a Georgia woman say she "despised" Herschel Walker but she'll vote for him because she'll never vote for a "Socialist." Repubs have spent tens of millions of dollars running ads that Warnock is a Socialist, and enough people bought it that it's still a race.
That's the tyranny of words. Vote for someone you despise because it's better than Socialism. Marjorie Greene's campaign motto is SASS: Save America, Stop Socialism.
But I started this project because today America seems to me to resemble Germany in the 30s, and not enough stood up and fought it before it was too late and the mass trance took hold. So my little newsletter will hopefully poke some holes in that trance. And thanks for your support, Tyler, it is greatly appreciated. I'll even give you a "free" subscription.
Thanks for chatting. I enjoy reading articles like this and enjoy talking about these things. There is a war of sorts to be fought online and we need all the smart minded soldiers we can get. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.
Other than the investigation of the Biden influence peddling, you may be creating a strawman based upon the most extreme right of the Republican Party.
I believe the Biden family should not be immune to investigation. No one should be "too big to fail".
I can find an equal number of "demons" on the left, but it serves no purpose but to create bitterness.
Democrats should be happy about the results of the mid terms. The fact that nothing has changed tells me that they will never be satisfied until they dominate the balance of powers. That is something I cannot tolerate from either side. The balance of power is the one thing that keeps government in check. I also believe we need to come to terms with election fraud. There are ways we can run elections securely and eliminate any doubt over who has won and who has lost. We have already discussed this, so I won't belabor that here.
With the mid terms being somewhat satisfying for everyone, it would be nice if we could all turn down the rhetoric a few notches. Democracy is not in danger, and in my opinion it never was. Even if our Government becomes mired in gridlock, the business of this nation goes on. When we are so evenly divided as to direction, parking the ship for a while may be the best option.
Topping off the tanks with fossil fuel would be advisable in my opinion. Selling more fuel to Europe may also be advisable. We might be able to avoid getting into another foreign war with that one simple act, and it would also help with our own trade imbalance. It might also help with inflation. One simple act would accomplish a lot.
Thanks for your reply GG. As always the voice of moderation and stability, and hope.
As I said in the article, however, these folks (MTG, Jordan, Gaetz) have been front and center all week, and seem to be the new leaders of the Republican Party. And their focus on Hunter Biden (rather than on inflation, gas prices and crime - the issues they ran on) concerns me.
I would have felt a lot more at ease if Kevin McCarthy had been out there talking about the issues they ran on, and that were top of mind for voters.
Yes, we now have some semblance of balance (Dems in Senate, Repubs in House) and I sincerely hope that works to get some work done - address some real problems. But if McCarthy lets his extreme right flank set the agenda, then everyone suffers. If tMcCarthy's the Leader of the Republican House caucus, then he should step up and take control and tell the country what the agenda is, instead of letting the extreme right set the agenda. MTG is stealing the whole show.
What I fear is that McCarthy is too weak to control his own party.
I'm not necessarily in favor of one person "controlling" the party. Kevin can focus on rooting out corruption and others can work on inflation, gas prices and crime. Democrats may not like any of the solutions for those problems either, so maybe Democrats should be grateful if Republicans cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
I'm pragmatic when I can be, but I cannot tolerate government intentionally restricting a business that could be helping to solve the majority of our ills. We should be exporting as much petroleum as possible (after securing our own supply). Most of todays problems worldwide can be reduced substantially by reducing the cost of energy.
Democrats are in my opinion using the climate change issue as a bludgeon to force the people to adopt alternative energy "solutions" that will never come near replacing fossil fuels. The stated purpose of the IPCC (the UN International Panel on Climate Change) is to make fossil fuel more expensive so that renewables "appear more affordable". This is one of the worse cases of mass manipulation happening today, and the Democrat Party has swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
I don't know if you are a proponent of all this climate change policy, but I have studied it in depth. From a geological standpoint, the sea level rise we see today is a tiny blip when viewed on a graph of the sea level change that has accompanied the dawn of civilization, beginning about 20,000 years ago. My Substack article titled "Climate Change is Real" contains enough information for anyone to gain a better perspective on how climate has changed in the last 20,000 years, and how warming is a good thing, not the boogeyman we are being fed by media. The original Boogeyman, "Global Warming" was a short 20 year spike which subsided beginning about 15 years ago, and which is nearly flat today. When temperature rise began to level off, they changed the name to "Climate Change. The climate models failed to predict this flattening, and the theory that they were created to support must be discarded if you truly "trust the science".
I have better than a layman's interest and study on the topic, and I intend to cover it in more detail with a subsequent series of posts. Next I will be covering the means by which our planet maintains a moderate climate within a range which has allowed for the proliferation and evolution of life, including our own species. Would you believe that tropical cyclones are a big part of the energy balance?
"warming is a good thing" - Tell that to the town of Lytton British Columbia that entirely burned to the ground in August 2021 during an unprecedented heat wave of 121 degrees Fahrenheit. .. In. Canada. Or tell that to all the people who get water from Lakes Powell and Mead which are almost dry because of the ever increasing lack of yearly snowfall in the Rocky Mountains. These lakes will be completely dry in a decade and the southwest may see a mass-exodus of biblical proportions.
Regardless of your semantics about sea level rise since the ice age, the much more relevant and glaring evidence of oceanic acidification due to ever growing levels of C02 and carbon simply spells disaster in short order due to our very short 200 years of industrialization and unchecked fossil fuel burning. Continuing to double down on that is an abhorrently ridiculous proposition even if we really have no other major options in the short term.
My analogous thoughts on this addiction are that we are on a runaway freight train with little to no brakes, but try we must. Our entire way of life has to change and we must all work toward that in short order. And while no energy source is truly clean, we most certainly need to use whichever ones don't literally cook us all to death over the next 50 years. When the entire consortium of IPCC scientists say each year has become hotter due our thirst for oil, coal, and natural gas, I tend to agree. Because science.
The sea level rise history is not semantics, it's science. Warmer and wetter is preferable to colder and drier. We are nearly due for the next glacial advance, so any delay to that we can muster will help us survive another 200,000 years of colder drier conditions. The drying in the West may well be a sign of the beginning of that cold dry cycle.
Climate model projections have not matched observation. They must either account for the mistake and be corrected or they must be abandoned. They could be corrected if they were able to account for the action of clouds and convection, which is a natural thermostatic effect.
If you read the actual science papers submitted to the IPCC for review, you will find that every one of them admits that the actions of clouds cannot be modeled. The IPCC reports you see projecting gloom and doom are the summaries for policymakers, written by political appointees and not based upon science at all. They are based primarily on economic projections. Actual scientists admit that climate models are flawed.
Your "analogous thoughts" are pure fantasy not based upon any science, but thank you for your opinion.
We should be overproducing fossil fuels, putting oil into our reserves, and exporting the excess to Europe where it is badly needed to stave off Russian aggression. The current administration is doing the opposite of these things, and it may lead us and our NATO allies to war with Russia. It appears that that is what the current administration wants.
I don't think anyone on the left wants war with Russia unless that's somehow being driven by rich leftists in the back rooms of the big corporations behind the DOD (and let's be honest, I doubt there's that many leftists there). And I find it odd that you don't want another war seeing how a big theme of conservatives is to have a big, strong military. Has that changed recently? The irony in this is the old, now completely dead conservative slogan of less taxes / smaller government when 50 cents of every tax dollar is spent to fund our war machines.
So equally surprising, if not glaringly hypocritical, is for a party so patently anti-socialist to be at complete odds with the US Military seeing how it is easily the biggest state funded socialistic organization in the entire world. "We the people" certainly empty our wallets to give up things like affordable health care and free education so that everyone in our military is provided with those things along with secure, good paying gubment jobs.
One could easily argue that if the bombs start flying we can all rejoice and shout at the sky screaming "at least I got my damn money's worth".
Secondly, my "analogous thoughts" are no fantasy. We are on a freight train of energy consumption with no real plan to get off fossil fuels before the entire thing derails. There's 8 billion people on the planet now. That's "only" 7 billion more than 100 years ago. ...Only... How long can we as an earth strapped species actually keep this up!? Not surprisingly, your only solution to the world's issues is in fact more "drill baby drill". And while this may, in part, work as a band-aid for short term solutions, I'd much rather prefer to think/hope we could all share in a goal of wanting to preserve as much as we can and implement more sustainable solutions before we all burn to death. I think that's a legitimately safe and logical solution which falls on the side of caution, whereas drilling more each and every year and hoping it will all work out, or stop any war, is the real fantasy.
Hopefully our two sides can find a middle ground at some point but in the interim I do hope you can agree that no resource; black, blue, or green that is linked to pumping something out of Earth's thin crust and setting it on fire, is somehow smart in the long term or that those resources are somehow infinite. Consuming more is not a solution to our future. It's simply consuming more. So actually being conservative by conserving is a better answer.
And I get that hedonists live for the day sir, but I want to be pragmatic about such things mainly because sitting in 120 degree heat, or hotter, with no animals to eat and only fields of dust to be plowed doesn't sound like a very good idea.
I know, I know. Maybe it's time to join the military where I'll be safe, protected, and well fed. Damn the torpedoes!
I'm a former Democrat, so I do take some responsibility for the mess we have today. That's why I am hoping to right some wrongs of the past.
Firstly, let me "fact check" your comment. The Defense budget is not 50% of the budget, it's 12%. See the attached link. Social Services far outweigh the defense budget, making them the most socialistic aspect of our Nation, not military.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
A strong defense is a deterrent to war. So is energy independence. So is a strong economy. As I stated before, we could produce enough energy to be independent and still have enough to export to Europe to counter the Russian stranglehold, this avoiding war. This would also help with our trade imbalance. I really don't care what fantasies you harbor about conservatives, we do not want to send our children or yours to die on foreign soil. A strong defense is the best offense.
The myth of catastrophic climate change due to CO2 has many religious followers, and you appear to be one. You can "trust the science" and the scientists all you want, but until you take the time to study and learn earth science, you will always be relying on faith alone. That may satisfy you, but it is not enough for me. I've been around the block and seen my share of Al Gores. They are preaching doom and gloom with no scientific basis. The simple truth is that water vapor absorbs infrared radiation and convection carries it aloft where it is radiated into space. Convection increases with heating, making the process self regulating. This is why we look primarily for water in three phases in the search for other planets capable of sustaining life.
No one claims there is an unlimited supply of fuel, but there are enough recoverable reserves of gas and oil to last us at least 200 years. By that time we will have developed more efficient ways of using the energy we have.
There is no crisis, and so there is no rush to make draconian changes proposed by the IPCC. Their policies will harm the poorest of the poor most, and many will die if they are implemented. Luckily, they won't really be implemented because even Democrats know it's just a sham. Something else to give lip service to at election time.
Thanks GG for your reply.
As for Kevin McC, his whole leadership role should be about setting clear goals and timelines and metrics, assigning duties, and provide resources to get the job done. Maybe last week was just party extremists blowing off steam, and Kevin will work things out from the back office. I hope so, but he's the leader so we'll have to wait and see. And I guess it's fair to give him time; his shift doesn't actually start til Jan. 1.
As to your comments about climate change, I'm really not educated beyond knowing that glaciers and arctic ice and Greenland etc are melting way beyond normal, which is leading to all kinds of threats to climate patterns. But I recall you substack site has a Disclaimer that really what we think are facts are actually opinions; so I'll have a read through your post about climate change and see what I think. I'm nowhere near a scientist, and my "facts" of course come from media sources, so I'll give it another think. And also because I do believe that sometimes it's the one person out of a thousand who is right while the 999 others are wrong.
My son is an Engineer and he's putting his energy into the issue of battery storage capacity - the company he works for (and a lot of competitors) are shooting for a revolutionary battery. So there's a lot of opinions and people working in a lot of directions. I'll read your stuff asap.
Thanks as always for sharing your thoughts.
And my wife suggested that maybe I tone down the title of my latest post from Den of Snakes to "Swamp Creatures". Ha ha, as if swamp creatures is toning it down.
Anyway, cheers, and be well.
I'm all for better batteries, wind, water, and solar for power. I am not for fooling people into thinking that that will be more affordable and without environmental damage. I'm also certain that it can supplement, but never replace the need for fossil or nuclear generated power. The difference is collecting energy from diffuse sources versus using energy which nature has already focused for us. Collecting energy from diffuse sources uses much more of the ecosystem that collecting energy stored in the earth by nature. For example, a 10 acre oil location can produce oil or gas from beneath several thousand acres of adjoining lands. A wind or solar farm would require thousands of acres of habitat displacement to produce the same energy as that 10 acre well location.
I am preparing to build my own personal wind generator/water well combined. Smaller individual windmills are much less dangerous to birds than the large wind farms. The reason is that the large blades cause the illusion of slow motion, when the blade tips actually travel at 150-200 mph. Motion of large objects is deceptive and birds become victims of that deception. It's deceptive in the same way that a train or jumbo jet seems to be travelling very slowly. Trains kill people often because of this scale illusion. A smaller windmill is obviously spinning quickly and birds avoid them.
Engineering is probably the best field available today. I'm sure you are proud of your son, and expect he will go far in today's economy with his skills. Hopefully I can use one of his batteries as storage for my windmill one day.