Washington Post: The worst thing to be in many Dem primaries?

[Cake4Breakfast]

Trump and bernie showed that populism is the winning hand.

Jobs, jobs, jobs.
People are most happy when they feel financially secure and feel like they can plan for the future.

If they say middle class jobs are gone again like last election, they're going to have a tough time.

Exactly. Bill Clinton's folks knew that from James Carville "it's the economy stupid."

 

[Not A Theist]

Well the West won and built the best society by most measures on its family values. The left's insistence that the structure that lead to great society had nothing to do with anything is offensively backwards, anti-intellectual, and cultish to follow.

I think there is quite a strong case for this. I also think you're calling the game early by saying "the West won." Are you one of those "end of history" people?

 

[Not A Theist]

Lol ok. What I meant by substandard was people who abandon their family or otherwise harm them. All family values mean to me is being loyal to your family and considering their best interests in your decision making. I clearly mentioned my Buddhist Asian family so I don’t know why you would think I’m referring to some “coded” language exclusively pertaining to European/Western people.

I personally identify as socialist so I’m not sure why you’d assume that I wouldn’t include socialists when I wrote, “To care for and properly respect your family is not exclusive to white or Christian people, it's been the bedrock of literally every society for all of human history.”

I actually was pretty clear in what I was saying and it reads to me like you decided to respond to some boogieman residing in your mind rather than me so I’ll try not to take too much offense at your unkind words.

Fair enough. Though, I think you see what I'm saying here - that the "Family values" that have been peddled on American ballots since the foundation of the U.S. have been very particular ones and not, say, those associated with Confucianism, Hinduism, etc. As soon as we start to say things "all family values mean to me is being loyal to your family and considering their best interests in your decision making" we've departed from what that ballot-friendly notion of "family values" was, because different cultures may think that includes arranged marriage rather than white picket fences.

Heck, go back to the cornerstone of the West, the ancient Greeks, and you'll see part of family values being a set of parents wanting their underage (by today's standards) son to get involved - physically - with a prominent man who would serve as a sort of mentor for him through their romantic relationship. That was strong family values way back when - but it is obviously *wildly* different from what defines family values now.

 

[Amerikuracana]

I think there is quite a strong case for this. I also think you're calling the game early by saying "the West won." Are you one of those "end of history" people?

As soon as enough of the principles and people that built it are gone, and it is no longer the destination of those wishing to move to someplace better, then a new game starts.

 

[sub_thug]

The most important thing in any organization is to have a group of highly qualified people with a diversity of ideas and thought patterns. The fascination with the level of melanin in people's skin and what genitals they have is mind-bending in today's society.

 

[Not A Theist]

As soon as enough of the principles and people that built it are gone, and it is no longer the destination of those wishing to move to someplace better, then a new game starts.

While you consider the terms of this "game" you're presenting, consider this. Rome "won" by any number of measures at one point. There comes a point where the ones who "won" are best represented by certain ways of doing things and an old, worn down statue proclaiming themselves "the king of kings" and "to gaze upon my works, ye mighty, and despair." If that's enough of a win for you, I suspect you have a very happy life ahead of you, and your expectations for the future will be met.

 

[SleepyBoy]

Exactly. Bill Clinton's folks knew that from James Carville "it's the economy stupid."

Ha, i had lots of Maslow's higher needs questions when I passed the SPHR

 

[Amerikuracana]

While you consider the terms of this "game" you're presenting, consider this. Rome "won" by any number of measures at one point. There comes a point where the ones who "won" are best represented by certain ways of doing things and an old, worn down statue proclaiming themselves "the king of kings" and "to gaze upon my works, ye mighty, and despair." If that's enough of a win for you, I suspect you have a very happy life ahead of you, and your expectations for the future will be met.

Rome crumbled under humans degeneracy when given the chance to be lazy enough to indulge it, and expansion into areas where people would resist long term.

I realize there are peaks and valleys.. But the basic Roman system, combined with less degeneracy is the model that allowed for a gigantic middle class and a high standard of living for a majority of those willing to work.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Fair enough. Though, I think you see what I'm saying here - that the "Family values" that have been peddled on American ballots since the foundation of the U.S. have been very particular ones and not, say, those associated with Confucianism, Hinduism, etc. As soon as we start to say things "all family values mean to me is being loyal to your family and considering their best interests in your decision making" we've departed from what that ballot-friendly notion of "family values" was, because different cultures may think that includes arranged marriage rather than white picket fences.

Heck, go back to the cornerstone of the West, the ancient Greeks, and you'll see part of family values being a set of parents wanting their underage (by today's standards) son to get involved - physically - with a prominent man who would serve as a sort of mentor for him through their romantic relationship. That was strong family values way back when - but it is obviously *wildly* different from what defines family values now.

Oh yes, I definitely see what you're saying. Although I certainly wasn't considering comparing current politics to ancient times in my initial response, I do recognize that "family values" in American politics has traditionally been associated with a far more narrow definition than I interpreted the phrase to mean.

 

[Amerikuracana]

The most important thing in any organization is to have a group of highly qualified people with a diversity of ideas and thought patterns. The fascination with the level of melanin in people's skin and what genitals they have is mind-bending in today's society.

Hard truth? Those differences evolved right alongside other differences. Those things are representative of a different environment people evolved in for a long enough period of time to make them different.

 

[Not A Theist]

Rome crumbled under humans degeneracy when given the chance to be lazy enough to indulge it, and expansion into areas where people would resist long term.

I realize there are peaks and valleys.. But the basic Roman system, combined with less degeneracy is the model that allowed for a gigantic middle class and a high standard of living for a majority of those willing to work.

I honestly have no idea whether this post is in agreement with my last one or in opposition to it.

 

[Not A Theist]

Oh yes, I definitely see what you're saying. Although I certainly wasn't considering comparing current politics to ancient times in my initial response, I do recognize that "family values" in American politics has traditionally been associated with a far more narrow definition than I interpreted the phrase to mean.

Fair enough. My position is that this is a tribal definition and, in fact, there is a Foucaultian character to the definition because tribal definitions like that of "family values" is part of what actually constitutes the tribe. (A particular notion of) American identity simultaneously creates this notion of family values, and is itself created by that notion of family values - each instance of someone saying "these are my values as an American" creates the American values that they reflect in their adoption of the value.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Guess I won't run as a Democrat.

 

[Not A Theist]

Guess I won't run as a Democrat.

Real risk of that, I'm guessing

 

[superpunch]

No one told me it was Through-The-Looking-Glass day on Sherdog.

But OK. Here's mine.

Females just want to randomly bang men. But males want to establish meaningful, long term relationships. Females are only focused on looks. But males are attracted to women who possess wealth and power regardless of their age or weight.

Take any of the Democrats' racist policies like affirmative action. Require a white person to have 400 or an Asian applicant to have 500 more SAT points than a black applicant. That's where we are. Reverse it. Require a black applicant to have 400 more SAT points than a white applicant. All the sudden it's not called affirmative action, it's called Jim Crow. That's where Democratic identity politics are today and, hopefully, people see past the racism.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Real risk of that, I'm guessing

You're right. I'm never gonna run.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Ha, i had lots of Maslow's higher needs questions when I passed the SPHR

And the R's messaging is all at the safety level, keeping the base scared of everything.

Dems messaging has been focused on higher levels, and unfortunately "acceptance of facts" is in the self-actualization level, which unfortunately as Rod Rosenstein experienced today, is irrelevant to the GOP base.

 

[lifelessheap]

I think you'll find a lot of communists/socialists have their family values, but those family values are very much also subject to a notion of the state taking primacy above the nuclear family unit. It's the whole "it takes a village" mentality which can come into conflict with family values.

Also, and this is the crux of my original point, "family values" in the U.S. is coded European/Western. You go abroad and you'll find core elements of what you consider to be family values to vary greatly beyond the Judeo-Christian structure. You ask a guy from certain areas in India what he means by "family values" and he might rattle off a bunch of things you agree with - and then say something about age of consent or arranged marriage that will have you screaming "pedophile!" because the what your tribal group identifies as family values are quite contrary to his. He would be immediately dismissed from a U.S. election because his "family values" don't match the ones that the White men running on a "family values" platform for centuries now have done.

Ironically, that you're so quick to judge those who have other views on the role of family than what you perceive as normal as "substandard people" plays directly into the point I'm making here - that there is one script of "family values" that holds primacy in the Western political dialogue, and it is central to/shares space with all sorts of notions of consent, marriage, who can labour, who earns the paycheque, and any number of other things. This is a core element of tribal identity - and you jumping to "well, those who don't hold an approximation of the view I do are substandard people" while recognizing that there are other ways of doing it makes my point ring even more clear - that the "family values" angle is part of a distinctly Western tribe, as American politicians have played it.

Is there crossover between many different cultures' and philosophy's versions of "family values"? Of course. The differences are what draw tribal lines though, and American politics certainly has a very, very Western version of family values, and a tribe surrounding and defending it.

To some of us "family values" is simply having parents that love and take care of their children and try to ensure a good future for them.

The details of how it happens don't matter as much as just raising the children to be respectful and productive. So it doesn't matter if it is India or the US.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Fair enough. My position is that this is a tribal definition and, in fact, there is a Foucaultian character to the definition because tribal definitions like that of "family values" is part of what actually constitutes the tribe. (A particular notion of) American identity simultaneously creates this notion of family values, and is itself created by that notion of family values - each instance of someone saying "these are my values as an American" creates the American values that they reflect in their adoption of the value.

Bear with me here, as I'm just a dumb cop and not a scholar of philosophy, but by "Foucaultian" you are referencing power relationships? That the politicians campaigning on "family values" are doing so in order to command obedience and respect from voters, or rather to order and classify their tribe, or both? Sorry if I sound dense but this definitely isn't my area of expertise and some clarification would be appreciated just for my own education.

 

[Not A Theist]

Bear with me here, as I'm just a dumb cop and not a scholar of philosophy, but by "Foucaultian" you are referencing power relationships? That the politicians campaigning on "family values" are doing so in order to command obedience and respect from voters, or rather to order and classify their tribe, or both? Sorry if I sound dense but this definitely isn't my area of expertise and some clarification would be appreciated just for my own education.

It's pointless jargon which displays only what a pretentious twat I am. Nothing dense about what you're saying, and I actually have a tremendous amount of respect for being willing to appear dense. A lot less for term droppers... My bad here.

That being said, part of Foucaultian discourse is what I'm talking about - and while it's not about power relations per say, it's definitely part of a larger discussion about power relations.

The element of Foucaultian discourse I'm talking about is related to the formation of concepts underlying statements. Let's take a statement like "I have strong family values" as uttered by a nameless American politician. What does that mean? Well, it references a set of concepts and ideas which, in the terms of the discussion, it is the expectation that the audience he is speaking to will hold. Let's call these "American family values" from here on out.

Now, I think we can agree that American family values aren't universal family values. So, where did this concept of American family values come from?

Did they come from the American people? Yes they did - it's a shared set of beliefs that the (hypothetical) American people have adopted and hold and we can sum up and say "American family values" - a statement - and have people have a general idea of what we're talking about. How did they originate as distinct from, say, Confucian family values? Well, some Americans started identifying them as their family values creating a distinct subset of family values. At this point, consider how this concept was produced - it didn't come from on high or some such. It came from a bunch of people acting in a certain way and entering into a discourse with others, describing what American family values were. After people discussed the idea there was give and take, negotiation, clarification, etc etc, and a corpus of American family values was established. The process of discourse created this recognizable concept of "American family values" that we all just sort of get when an American politician says "I'm a family man" - and we know he's not talking about child marriage, he's talking about white picket fences and Apple pie.

Consider, then, being an individual in American society. You adopt American family values because you're an American - you enter the discourse, negotiating it, partaking in it, constituting it, creating it. When you describe American family values in this discourse, you say "American family values are thus" - and, in describing it, you also create it. Consider above, the process by which the statement of values were created - the discourse that both describes the thing in question, while creating it. The description is the creation.

This is Foucaultian discourse - that American family values is a discursive process, people in a discussion about American family values are. What we often miss as we talk about a discursive subject - say, American family values - is that when we describe American family values, we also create - or take part in the process of creation - American family values. The discussion of the thing isn't solely describing some existing part of the world around us - it is the action by which that element is created. The whole point is - in describing something like "American family values" we essentially create it, as it functions in society. We enforce the value by declaring it thus - and we change the nature of American family values by renegotiating them through discourse and then describing them with discourse. We aren't simply the conduits of the idea - we are its constant creators.

Edit: In the case of the "defining the tribe", the Tribe just doesn't exist on its own. Why I described it as Foucaultian is that in describing American family values as part of the "American tribe" I am not just describing the tribe - I am creating the tribe. It's not like the tribe is just some monolithic idea floating there in space, whatever people say. The tribe is created (active, continuing process) every time an American politician say "I'm a good family man" and a bunch of Americans say "Yep, that's what he is, that's what a family man is" - thus describing their communal identity, the tribe, and in doing so, creating it. To point out the creative power of the discourse though, consider when someone says "Wait - he says he's a good family man, but he doesn't want to let his child have a relationship with a person of the same sex - a good family man wouldn't do that!" - and the discursive process has now described "American family man" as having a different quality than the politician said, and the definition changes, along with the tribe. The discourse, in describing the "American family man" and his qualities, also creates the concept, and the unifying axis of the tribe.