Re: Partyism

1

Unfortunately, the headline and byline makes the link impossible to read.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 7:44 AM
horizontal rule
2

I have a caricature in my head of the racist/sexist/xenophobic ur-Republican that I want nothing to do with, but most of the UMC Rs I actually know bug me for a different reason: they claim to be not-racist/not-sexist/not-xenophobic, but paying less in taxes is the single most important priority in their lives. This arrangement of priorities and/or, being generous, willful blindness to the actual effects of R policies, seems especially monstrous to me. That said, there's lots of Rs in my extended family and the simple solution to the problem is to restrict all talk to the weather and the parenting failures of persons not present.


Posted by: Yawnoc | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:03 AM
horizontal rule
3

I think all the moderate Republicans in my family have switched over the past decade.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:17 AM
horizontal rule
4

Isn't it that back then, knowing whether someone was a Republican or a Democrat told you much less about whether you sympathized with them politically?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:21 AM
horizontal rule
5

1 unfortunately gets it right -- though I'd read half the article before noticing the byline. I've somehow forgotten when, or even quite why, I conceived a hatred for Sunstein, but there it is.

That said! I'd love for people to ditch the derogatory use of the word "partisan". We seem to have gotten to the point where both a strong liberal and a strong conservative (or Democrat/Republican) are considered extremists, which is arguably the greatest con job the Republican party has pulled off in recent decades.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:36 AM
horizontal rule
6

4: Sorta in 1960, in that the Dixie Democrats were abhorrent. Also, there was a historical window of solid Democratic dominance that created a group of "moderate" Republicans (in order to run against incumbent Dems in the North, for instance)

But Republicans still had a history of opposing the New Deal, Huac and Red-baiting, Robert Taft and union-busting, etc. Palmer raids. Coolidge.

No, I did not even like Edward Brooke, and it is interesting what policy position Wiki doesn't mention. A "liberal" Republican was still a Republican, even if slightly better than a Dixiecrat.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:41 AM
horizontal rule
7

Agree with 2. Also, personally, of course I'd be enraged if my my kids married Republicans, especially of the kind described in 2 (becoming say a hardcore evangelical social conservative would be deeply disappointing, but forgivable; becoming an "I've got mine" anti-tax type equals automatic disowning).

The reason for the historical change isn't hyper-partisanship, it's just that the parties have become ideological and cultural blocs for pretty much the first time ever. If my daughter wanted to marry the reanimated ideological corpse of Republican John Lindsay that'd probably be fine.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:50 AM
horizontal rule
8

the parenting failures of persons not present.

And yet somehow, the subject can still turn to politics, e.g., how the poor people on welfare don't feed their children proper lunches, and that's why welfare is bad.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:52 AM
horizontal rule
9

7: it's just that the parties have become ideological and cultural blocs for pretty much the first time ever

Do you have time or patience to spell this out a bit? I'm reading "ideological" as "partisan" here -- insofar as the latter term has come to carry the taint of the former -- but I'm perhaps ignorantly not understanding what the parties *not* being ideological amounted to back in the day.

That is, again perhaps ignorantly: what was it to be a Democrat vs. a Republican in 1960? What were the issues or positions that decided whether you'd be one or the other, and how were those differentiating positions not ideological?


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:00 AM
horizontal rule
10

4: Right, and at least in MA, Republicans in the well-off suburbs were more likely to be pro-choice and support Planned Parenthood than working class "ethnic" Democrats.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:01 AM
horizontal rule
11

Ugh, the subject of adjusting to who your kids marry is so fraught.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:01 AM
horizontal rule
12

8: While welfare queens are generally not present, we typically restrict discussion to SIL A who spoils here kids and SIL B who doesn't spoil them enough.


Posted by: Yawnoc | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
13

11: Especially if you describe in great detail the type of butt they should have.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:10 AM
horizontal rule
14

Here in Arkansas, my kid goes to school with (mostly) far-Right Republicans. It has gotten fraught, more than once.

When she was about eight, for instance, she came home from school with the news that one of her better friends had told her that *her* mother said that all Democrats were "dirty inside."

Which, wow. Great parenting, Mom.

(OTOH, on my part, I've told my kid I'll love her no matter what she does, but just please don't marry a Republican, okay?

"You're saying you won't love me if I marry a Republican?" she asks.

"No, I'll love you no matter what," I say. "But please. Just don't."

"Oh, Mom," she says, rolling her eyes. "I'm not an IDIOT.")


Posted by: delagar | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:11 AM
horizontal rule
15

I don't want to overstate the case, which I think gets done way too much, in that already by 1960 it was pretty clear that the Democrats were broadly speaking the party of more social democracy and the New Deal and Republicans broadly speaking were not. But there was still a really huge amount if ideological range in the parties; Earl Warren was a Republican and plenty of far-right Dixiecrats were nominally Democrats, so the party labels weren't reliable indicators of whether or not you should disown your children. And the times were just different. The 1960 Republican platform to Nixon looks positively left (on the economy) by today's standards.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:12 AM
horizontal rule
16

Especially at the rehearsal dinner.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:12 AM
horizontal rule
17

*her* mother said that all Democrats were "dirty inside."

To be perfectly fair, my kids pretty much believe this about Republicans.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:24 AM
horizontal rule
18

Ha. Now that I think about it, two years ago Cassidy was hesitant to trick or treat at the (only) house in our neighborhood with a Romney sign in the yard.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:26 AM
horizontal rule
19

The two houses on my street that had Romney signs didn't pass out treats. Which seems about right. The people with Obama stickers on their cars were cutting off enough people that maybe it wasn't helping.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
20

My daughter dated a 9/11 Truther for quite a while. Worse than an I've-got-mine Republican? Actually, not.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:34 AM
horizontal rule
21

I'd be ok with adding John Lindsay to the family.


Posted by: Criminally Bulgur | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:34 AM
horizontal rule
22

Lindsay would be a Democrat today.

It's not just the greed, it's also the suspension of disbelief that I absolutely cannot respect.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:40 AM
horizontal rule
23

Yes. Greed isn't hard for me to relate to.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
24

The reveling in greed is a bit of a stretch. I prefer my greed to be sneaky.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
25

15: But there was still a really huge amount if ideological range in the parties; Earl Warren was a Republican and plenty of far-right Dixiecrats were nominally Democrats, so the party labels weren't reliable indicators

Maybe it's that they weren't reliable indicators of *what we now consider* to be the relevant ideological markers. I'm wondering whether the indicators were different back then, but still might have been called ideological, back then.

It doesn't really seem enough to suppose that party affiliation in 1960 was a matter of something besides ideology, say a matter of tribal or inherited affiliation, because that's still the case today. But I'm having trouble seeing what else there could be: if you don't choose a party because you agree with its policy positions (its ideology), why else do you choose it?


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:50 AM
horizontal rule
26

9-11 trutherism isn't so bad because its rooted in crazy, not evil.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:53 AM
horizontal rule
27

Is there supposed to be a difference between a party's policy positions and its ideology? Is there a suggestion that the parties didn't used to have an ideology (be ideological)?


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:53 AM
horizontal rule
28

"The two houses on my street that had Romney signs didn't pass out treats."

This was true here in AR also. Except it was a lot more than two houses.


Posted by: delagar | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 10:00 AM
horizontal rule
29

My stepdaughter is engaged, but the wedding seems to be put off indefinitely. I'm relieved, as I suspect if/when it happens she'll want a much bigger production than I'll be comfortable with, but I do recognize I am unreasonable in thinking everyone should just elope. Or go to City Hall at most. I mostly though feel a bit bad for the guy, who seems perfectly nice and absolutely in love with her, whereas I'm never quite certain she is as committed to him. I cannot tell if it is an expressiveness thing or just she's not that gaga over him. This is tricky as her father and I continue to be immoderately, passionately in love with each other and it is impossible not to want the same for all three kids. And for their partners! And everyone in the world! But awkward to say "are you sure you really love this guy?", no that is not a conversation I am going to have.

My stepson has had a girlfriend for several years who we've never seen much of, but the one holiday meal she came to several years ago I found her frankly alarming. She kept on telling fantastical, impossible to believe stories about herself that weren't even flattering, they were just worrying and bizarre. And clearly, plainly, on their face impossible to believe. I kept on frantically trying to factor in all the nervousness I could for her and then re-run each alarming utterance, hoping to conclude that when properly weighted for what must have been a highly stressful evening for her each statement on its own was not in fact waaaaaaay far out there. But no, never worked.

Also, she kept on going on and on and on about being obsessed with babies, pregnancy, children and it was VERY VERY WORRYING but nothing seems to come of that thus far.


Posted by: sisi of bavaria | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 10:04 AM
horizontal rule
30

Nice butt?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 10:12 AM
horizontal rule
31

I think I've mentioned this before, but I seem to know quite a few Republicans who have horrible views on issues like immigration and taxes, but are pretty decent in their personal conduct. (With the obvious caveat that pretty much all my friends are kind of weird, and probably nothing like real people.)

I think I have an easier time dealing with people who vote the other way every two years, than people who are selfish or unkind in their everyday lives. And I have an easier time understanding Republicans whose views come from direct experience, than those whose views come from Fox News.

Generally, though, I think there can be a pretty big discrepancy between how someone thinks government should behave, and how they think ordinary people should behave.


Posted by: torrey pine | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 10:12 AM
horizontal rule
32

I blame KR for 30.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 10:13 AM
horizontal rule
33

Both stepchildren's partners are personally very attractive. As are all our children. So if we end up having to take a more active role than preferred in the raising of the next generation due to the bat shit craziness of parents then at least they will likely be easy on the eyes.


Posted by: sisi of bavaria | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 10:17 AM
horizontal rule
34

Halford gets it right. In New England and the Deep South especially, party affiliation was an expression of sectional and/or ethnic identity, more than ideological sympathy. It blows my mind that, going by party registration, Vermont was the most Republican state in the Union and Mississippi the most Democratic until fairly recently.

I think Sunstein misses a couple of points, though. First, he ignores the dramatic growth of unaffiliated voters. The 1960 version of the survey includes a lot of people with weak partisan affiliations. Those people are likely to be independents now. (The fact that most nominal independents are in reality closet partisans only strengthens the argument; voters who openly declare party affiliation are likely to have the strongest allegiance.)

Also, in downplaying the significance of race, he overlooks the fact that party affiliation is a highly accurate proxy for race in certain parts of the country. When 85-90% of whites in Alabama and Mississippi vote GOP and 95% of blacks vote Dem, a declaration that you wouldn't want your son or daughter to marry a Democrat is tantamount to saying you don't want them to marry a Blah.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 10:27 AM
horizontal rule
35

34: KR, by "sectional" you mean regional?


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 10:30 AM
horizontal rule
36

35: yes. Deliberate anachronism, commonly used in the context of the conflict between the free and slave states.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
37

32: hey now! Don't drag me into this. Take your abuse like a man. Ermm, I mean... Awww, fuck it.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
38

36: How is that different now? Aren't party affiliations regionally and ethnically aligned now? In what way was it not ideological then, but it is now?


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
39

In the absence of any answers from the "it's ideological now!" crowd, I'll consider that among the significant changes since 1960 is that fewer and fewer people are self-identified Christians. How many people, after all, would be dismayed to learn that their child proposed to marry an atheist?

I've just finished reading the Sunstein piece, and the term "party prejudice" is just annoying.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
40

Because the parties used to be more or less* sorted by ideology except in the regions where they weren't. So the South represented an anomalous block of very conservative Dems, and the Northeast (extending to the lower rim of the Great Lakes) a rich vein of liberal republicans. Now that the great sorting out is largely complete, party identification is well correlated with ideology almost everywhere.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
41

One more time: Ornstein and Mann charts on political polarization.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 11:29 AM
horizontal rule
42

Yes, 40 is right. Though even in regions where party affiliation wasn't so identified with regionalism, party affiliation could mask a really wide range of ideological diversity. E.g., Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, on the one hand, and Earl Warren and Thomas Kuchel (now obscure figure, liberal California Republican who as Senate whip helped pass the 65 Civil Rights Act), on the other, were all California Republicans in 1960 (even though the California Republican party was still clearly the more anti-union, anti-social-democracy party).


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
43

One of the guys from my writing group has just started dating a Republican.

Well, "just." It's been about six months now.

The transformation is abysmal. She's pretty awful* and he's getting worse by the day. About a month ago, he posted something really hateful on FB (about how welfare mothers were like leeches, basically) and when I called him on it, went off on me.

*By awful: she's isolating him from his friends, she's inculcating him with some pretty terrible political opinions, and she's a 2nd Amendment /Ayn Randite / survivialist who won't shut up about it.


Posted by: delagar | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
44

Thanks, Witt. Polarization is real (and asymmetric).


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 11:41 AM
horizontal rule
45

39: If you mean what I think you mean, I think you overestimate the tolerance of most Americans for atheists.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 11:42 AM
horizontal rule
46

[S]he's isolating him from his friends, she's inculcating him with some pretty terrible political opinions, and she's a 2nd Amendment /Ayn Randite / survivialist who won't shut up about it.

"Now it's just 'fugue' this and 'concerto' that: I don't even recognize him anymore! The other day he posted something on FB about Sir Simon Rattle and I told him that I don't think adults ought to admit reading the Harry Potter books."


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 11:51 AM
horizontal rule
47

45: No, I was unclear or you didn't read me correctly. I'm aware of the intolerance. My point was that atheists are anathema these days among the electorate, and since most atheists affiliate with the Democratic party, there looks to be a shift from regional/ethnic allegiance to something people are calling ideological.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
48

So the South represented an anomalous block of very conservative Dems,

But southern Dems were pretty ideologically diverse, except on the issue of segregation.


Posted by: Criminally Bulgur | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 12:29 PM
horizontal rule
49

Yeah, on government works and infrastructure stuff, they were FDR's best allies.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 12:41 PM
horizontal rule
50

Yep, 48 and 49 are also true.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 12:42 PM
horizontal rule
51

Still wouldn't want my daughter to date a Republican, though.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 12:45 PM
horizontal rule
52

I agree that the polarization in the last fifteen years or so has been asymmetrical, but if you look at the longer period since 1960, there has been a polarization in both directions. In broad brushstrokes, the political center in 1960 can be described as anti-communism, moral traditionalism*, and acceptance (if grudging) of the New Deal. The cross-party consensus on all three of those has since collapsed, and on the first two it was the Democrats who broke it.

The collapse of the Soviet Bloc has fractured foreign policy debates along different lines, but before it did, a significant part of the Democratic party had moved away from reflexive anti-communism as a guide to foreign policy. Also with respect to moral traditionalism, it was Democrats that moved away from the consensus 1960 (and appropropriately so!). These two developments had the effect of creating fissures in the Democratic coalition that were exploited by Nixon and later Reagan, leaving the Democrats who remained more dovish and more socially liberal on the whole. (I'm leaving out the role of racial politics here, which is obviously central to any explanation of the realignment of the parties.)

Acceptance of the New Deal is a different story. Movement may have conservatives quietly chafed at the New Deal consensus in 1960, but it wasn't until the last decade that the GOP made an overt programmatic commitment to rolling it back. The Reagan administration was unabashed about dismantling the achievements of the Great Society and the 1970s regulatory state, but their attacks on the fundaments of the New Deal (e.g. Wagner Act unionism) had to be pursued more covertly. Today's Republicans have no such compunction, and that's a primary driver of the recent polarization.

*Traditional gender roles, primacy of Christianity in public life, etc.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 1:00 PM
horizontal rule
53

"Movement conservatives may have"


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
54

But southern Dems were pretty ideologically diverse, except on the issue of segregation.

Sure, no doubt. Just as Northeastern Republicans were ideologically diverse. In fact, there was a greater diversity of views on segregation among Southern Democrats than is commonly supposed. But with a few brave exceptions, successful politicians knew to keep their heterodox thoughts on racial matters to themselves.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
55

I might be OK with my daughter dating an apolitical Republican. I know plenty of people who have adopted without particular reflection the political sympathies of their parents or the milieu they grew up on, and I get along just fine with some of them. But anyone who has actively considered the issues and concluded what this country needs is voter ID laws and more tax cuts for the rich would find an icy reception in my house.

Ironically, I get along great with Fleur's French relatives, who AISIHMHB are borderline neofascist. We don't really have a stake in each other's polities, and they politely avoid all discussion of politics with us, even gritting their teeth and accepting our married gay friends.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
56

||
Oh my god, am I ready for this election to be over so I don't have to hear any more of Thom Tillis' stupid-ass Senate campaign ads. The RNC must be dumping truckloads of money into this race because they are just non-stop.
|>


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
57


A common species in my work milieu is the Republican (or Republican-voting independent) who feels alienated from the Republican party because of all the intolerant yahoos, but not so much that they could vote for the tax and spend party. These people invariably believe themselves to be part of a hidden majority of centrist voters that neither party represents, and can't understand why we can't elect a Michael Bloomberg to represent the will of the people. Occasionally I like to yank their chain by explaining that their views are have disproportionately influence already and that a plebiscitary democracy would produce a candidate contrary to their preferences on both economic and social issues.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
58

57: This is basically the people I'm describing in 2. "I'm basically centrist but I hate taxes so much I'll vote for the intellectually dishonest racist demagogues."


Posted by: Yawnoc | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
59

It is mildly gratifying to reprove the 57&58 attitude as free-lunch-ism. & when they argue that gov't is corrupt, double down on participation as part of the cost. Behooves one to order one's own house first.

60hr/wk precarious jobs & changing city every seven years makes participation really hard, of course.


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 2:09 PM
horizontal rule
60

What does aisihmhb stand for?


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 2:21 PM
horizontal rule
61

It may help to imagine that for Republicans, the "Southern Strategy" had been a horizon for decades.

What was a Southern Democrat in 1948 to do, if Southern blacks, committed Democrats since FDR, got the vote? They would certainly drive the Democratic Party far to the left of what Dixiecrats could tolerate.

And Northern Republicans understood this, and their supposedly "principled" support for Civil Rights, never accompanied by increases in gov't spending in their own agenda, was always first and foremost about breaking apart the Democratic Coalitions, first in the South, then next in Northern Urban areas.

And then, by taking New Deal Federal spending projects off the table in the 80s with tax cuts, denying Democrats any possibilities of rebuilding a coalition.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
62

Any hypothetical son or daughter in law who says "I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal" is gonna have to eat Thanksgiving dinner with somebody besides me.

55.2-- I'm Facebook friends with this French cheese vendor here (also sells dried meats, that's why he's my FB friend) who combines (a) posts in English with standard US liberal platitudes, including being pro gay marriage, anti-war, anti-Republican etc. and (b) posts in French that are openly pro-Front National, with attractive racial politics to match. Not quite sure whether one or the other is a sham, whether he's just happy to live with the contradictions for different coointries, or whether there actually aren't that many true inconsistencies.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
63

60: Took me a bit to puzzle that one out, but "As I'm sure I have mentioned here before." Also AISIMHB. Seems unique to Unfogged, possibly started by Sifu.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
64

Yes, started by Sifu, and it seems like it's finally starting to catch on (unfortunately).


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 2:56 PM
horizontal rule
65

I don't really agree with the sequence of events in 52. the Republicans were moving towards polarizing to the right faster than Democrats were to the left for basically the entire post-WWII period. Worth remembering that the Republicans nominated Goldwater in '64 and supported Nixon and McCarthy in the 1950s. There was definitely a much wider range in the Republican Party but I do think that Bob's basic instinct is right -- even many liberal/moderate Republicans were basically anti-union corporate shittheads who were more than happy to move to the right when political space opened up for them to do so, and were happy to push in that direction. The fact that the Republican Party of 1960 was way better and less conservative than the Republican Party of today (which is true) shouldn't make us romanticize it too much.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 2:58 PM
horizontal rule
66

I thought it was "As I suspect..." rather than "As I'm sure..."


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
67

62.2: Maybe racist French and liberal Americans are the biggest buyers of cheese.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
68

OT: Air travel is a wretched, suffocating misery. Sure, let the security checkpoint personnel disperse for coffee breaks during a terminal lockdown--that makes a world of sense.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
69

Air travel through JFK is especially miserable, IME.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 3:30 PM
horizontal rule
70

Yeah, pretty much.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
71

The Republicans were moving towards polarizing to the right faster than Democrats were to the left for basically the entire post-WWII period.

I dispute that. The faction that ultimately took control of the party started out hard right, and stayed there, but they didn't bring the rest of the party under their firm control until 1980. The Goldwater nomination in 1964 was a freakish accident. He amassed a huge delegate lead going into the convention with a modest plurality of the vote - candidates to his left collectively outpolled him by a good 10 points (we're talking about people like William Scranton, Nelson Rockefeller, Henry Cabot Lodge, George Romney, and Margaret Chase Smith, most if not all of whom would be Democrats if they returned to life today).

Again, taking 1960 as the starting point, look at Nixon's candidacy in 1960 and 1972. If anything, he was a more centrist candidate in 1972 than he was in 1960, while McGovern was starkly to the left of Kennedy on both cultural and foreign policy and defense matters. And Ford was yet further to the center than Nixon.

I don't romanticize any of them. They all sucked, in my book. But I don't think it's historically accurate to say that the Republicans bolted to the right while the Democrats stayed put, viewed over a 50 year horizon.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
72

Maybe racist French and liberal Americans are the biggest buyers of cheese.

I think Fleur's French cousins lack of identification with U.S. Republicans is in part a function of their knowledge that Francophobia has such currency in that crowd.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 3:42 PM
horizontal rule
73

The phrase "mentioned here before" sure does get a lot of Google hits when restricted to this site. We like to repeat ourselves, don't we?


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
74

73 pwned by dsquared in a righteous snitfir, long ago


Posted by: tu | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:02 PM
horizontal rule
75

As dsquared has mentioned here before.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
76

I wonder if dsquared ever mentioned it before.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:09 PM
horizontal rule
77

And if so, where.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
78

Is "tu" someone old, new, or typing poorly.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
79

Is there some bizarre distinction between meat and cheese in the paleo pantheon?

In M experience French people generally see zero correspondence between USian racism and their own. Strange but consistent across class, background, political affiliation, etc.


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:16 PM
horizontal rule
80

Further to 71, the GOP also brought their foreign policy lunatic fringe to heel between 1952 and 1960. The anticommunist consensus that prevailed in 1960 was a Democrat-forged consensus, that of containment and collective security, with a thread of Kennedy-esque idealism running through it. The Republican fringe in the 1960s wanted to cross the Yalu and use nuclear weapons in Korea, "unleash Chiang" on Red China, roll back the Soviets in Hungary, and all manner of crazy.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:17 PM
horizontal rule
81

my


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:17 PM
horizontal rule
82

Do I repeat myself? Very well, then repeat myself. I am large. I contain multitudes of really tedious things.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:18 PM
horizontal rule
83

Is there some bizarre distinction between meat and cheese in the paleo pantheon?

That seems a really common distinction made by nearly everyone.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:19 PM
horizontal rule
84

s/b "the Republican fringe in the 1950s"


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:19 PM
horizontal rule
85

You can't melt ham and mix it with other ham, for starters.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:21 PM
horizontal rule
86

But within the paleo world view of carbohydrates = trilateral commission/satan/all that is unholy?


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:24 PM
horizontal rule
87

That ceremony was done in under ten minutes. I'm impressed.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:25 PM
horizontal rule
88

Respect!

Still think universal elopement the way to go.


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:27 PM
horizontal rule
89

Further to 79.2, not that anyone is interested, but general French view is USian racism attributable to original sin of chattel slavery, whereas French racism just pragmatic, hard headed realism born from bitter experience.


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:30 PM
horizontal rule
90

How is that Unfogged, alone amongst all blogs of a political bent, ended up with no trolls from the right? Am I forgetting some big purge from the Golden Age (before Ogged left us, and before he returned and absolved us of our sins)?


Posted by: Yawnoc | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:43 PM
horizontal rule
91

I appreciate the clarification on AISIHMHB, because I thought it was pronounced "here comes a story about hacking in the olden days."


Posted by: Todd | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:51 PM
horizontal rule
92

James B. Shearer is the only long-lasting one I can remember. And even he wasn't that bad.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:51 PM
horizontal rule
93

Oh, right. He was the one who was always being a little bit racist, right?


Posted by: Yawnoc | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 5:01 PM
horizontal rule
94

Yes, racist and philosophically opposed to teachers getting paid money.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 5:03 PM
horizontal rule
95

89 is completely correct, and also applies in an attenuated fashion to Canadian racism.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 5:06 PM
horizontal rule
96

You guys totally don't have to use AISIMHB. I was making fun of myself for telling the same damn stories over and over, but I've probably made my point. The next time I post nearly this exact comment I'm totally prepending it AISIMHB, though.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 5:25 PM
horizontal rule
97

94: You forgot the sexism.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 5:30 PM
horizontal rule
98

AISIMHB is the new fetch.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 5:33 PM
horizontal rule
99

AISIFTMHHB AISIMHB


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 5:35 PM
horizontal rule
100

If we're repeating ourselves, you guys have seen tilde.club, right? This should bring back some memories.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 5:41 PM
horizontal rule
101

I don't actually get too hung up about this, in part because I expect my kids to reject me (and to some degree they already do) and in part because I think my parents have to be okay with at least three of the four of us being atheist rather than Catholic and the last mostly just being polite, and I'd hope I could extend the same grace to my children. My parents are clear about how they wish I were religious and conservative, and probably that matters more than for my brothers since I have children, but they're more or less happy with how the girls are being raised and we get along okay. As long-time readers may recall, there was a time when Mara was first placed with us when my mom was really upset because it was one thing for us to foster teens, but a healthy (in some respects) toddler should have gone to a "normal" home, and so we were ready to cut them off but then of course they fell in love with her and have been good as grandparents since.

In other news, I'm writing this as the older girls fall asleep, and the last 8 minutes where none of them have talked to me have been my first in the last 13 hours, because I didn't even rate any totally unaccompanied bathroom time today. I am so impressed by single parents. (Though in fact Lee was with me for much more than a normal weekend day, but this time around it didn't particularly lighten my load.)


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:11 PM
horizontal rule
102

Further to 101.1 is come on, how conservative can the black kids of queer/poor (whichever they choose to identify with more as adults) parents really get without being nonsensically self-hating to a degree that's hard to imagine? So I realize I'm grading on an imagined curve here.


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:13 PM
horizontal rule
103


102: I see fraternity bros in their dating future.



Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:18 PM
horizontal rule
104

103: I haven't even told the blog about Mara's imaginary boyfriend, Bar/be/cue Sa/uce Jon/es, right? They go out every night and eat shrimp and drink wine and have similar adventures. Seriously, we got through 18 months of Nia's crush on Justin Bieber and have dealt with various less-than-hoped-for relationships in their birth families fine. I think we can cope, right?


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:22 PM
horizontal rule
105

Also, and perhaps unsurprisingly, Lee is drawn to the broiest bros in the world, the kind of people Mallory Ortberg considers too dirtbag to be worthy of dirtbag quotations, so between the two of us we cover a lot of ground.

But seriously, Lee never came out to her parents, (bio grandparents who adopted her, so born to sharecroppers about a century ago). I think they would have liked me as a person even if they wouldn't have liked me as a partner for her, but I don't think that has any bearing on me or our relationship or on them as worthwhile people. I don't know; maybe I'm not good at this thing about imagining children's future partners.


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:29 PM
horizontal rule
106

If it hadn't been for hyper-partisans, everybody in Russia would be speaking German right now.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:30 PM
horizontal rule
107

102: To the extent that I rebelled against my parents, I've become more liberal/radical, so there's always that.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:33 PM
horizontal rule
108

I rebelled against my parents by doing the sorts of things they did, but less successfully.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:37 PM
horizontal rule
109

AISIMHB. Seems unique to Unfogged, possibly started by Sifu.

Does anyone else mentally pronounce this "a-him-sub"? Like a sub-ahimsa level of nonviolence?


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:38 PM
horizontal rule
110

No. That's all you.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:38 PM
horizontal rule
111

Perhaps the lurkers support him in email.


Posted by: Kreskin | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:39 PM
horizontal rule
112

I mean "Ay-eye sim hub" sounds like some kind of computery thing, so I suppose that would fit with it's ultimate origin.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:40 PM
horizontal rule
113

-'


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:40 PM
horizontal rule
114

(That's the emoticon for "meh Odin")


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:41 PM
horizontal rule
115

My politics are embarrassingly similar to those of my parents, except that I'm less eerily like bob mcmanus than my mother, and I am for generational reasons less racist/anti-immigrant/anti-gay than either of them. (They're not terrible -- they're not embarrassing in public -- but there's stuff they need to get over. And of course I'm nowhere near perfect.) But on the basic economics/class/come the revolution, blood will flow in streets like borscht issues, I haven't rebelled at all.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:42 PM
horizontal rule
116

I'm a lot further left than my parents, but they've always kinda egged me on. Pretty sure they would have been welcoming, if perplexed, if I had brought home a Republican.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:45 PM
horizontal rule
117

What if the Republican was alive?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:47 PM
horizontal rule
118

My delightful niece had a very longterm relationship with a super-smart, comes-from-money, super-nice guy who was also brought up to be liberal in the normal, sensible way. Great guy.

She broke up with him, changed her own politics and married a rightwing religious Southerner whose prospects in life are mediocre at best and who, by all appearances, is also a great guy.

I spent a long time talking her mother down from a ledge. She had spent years bragging about the first guy, and essentially planning their wedding. She had a hard time accepting the breakup and subsequent events, but she ultimately worked it out.

My own daughter isn't old enough yet for this to be a concern, but I have little confidence that I will react with equanimity if I am similarly tested.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 7:12 PM
horizontal rule
119

It's possible that I'm slightly to the left of my parents on economic issues but we pretty much have exactly the same politics. I remember my Mom telling me at age 6 or so that I was much smarter than President Reagan. I thought it was meant as a compliment but of course it wasn't.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 7:13 PM
horizontal rule
120

My grandfather was a for real commie though. I used to think I was to his right but now I'm not sure, except of course in my choice of soul-crushing occupation. But also held elected office and sold a horse racing betting system to Texas Instruments, so was pretty all around awesom.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
121

I'm trying to figure out which parts of 120, if any, seem below Halford. And I'm also a little sad the thread got beyond 117, but at least it did it well!


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
122

Beneath, I suppose, rather than below. I blame exhaustion but wish I could blame alcohol. Maybe if I stayed up later drinking I could blame both.


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
123

From way, way, way up above:

I think I've mentioned this before, but I seem to know quite a few Republicans who have horrible views on issues like immigration and taxes, but are pretty decent in their personal conduct...I think I have an easier time dealing with people who vote the other way every two years, than people who are selfish or unkind in their everyday lives. And I have an easier time understanding Republicans whose views come from direct experience, than those whose views come from Fox News. Generally, though, I think there can be a pretty big discrepancy between how someone thinks government should behave, and how they think ordinary people should behave.

I base a lot of my life on this difference. There are many genuinely lovely people with awful views on public policy. But when you're talking about my inner circle of friends: nope, it's a deal-breaker. I will not get that close to you. I totally get this discrepancy, but I also seriously hope my kids don't marry one of these sorts.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
124

Also, we should have a Commies In The Family competition because I consider it a bragging point. AISIHMHB. Aren't I novel.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
125

Also the tigers are at the Mirage, not the MGM, and they're not free to see in the lobby anymore, but rather in a newly built sanctuary that's rather nice. And given that Vegas charges you $60 to sneeze, $20 to see some white tigers seemed reasonable, and then we paid $30 for some ice cream, because fuck you Vegas.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:28 PM
horizontal rule
126

At the large family gathering for breaking the fast this evening I asked my daughter what role politics played in her breaking up with her college boyfriend. She said it was ultimately how she knew they'd never make it work. He insisted that he would not want to send his kids to an urban public school, and she realized that not only had that system produced her, but she was preparing to devote her life to it. She says a lot of other opinions: taxes, race, urban/country, class were rolled up in it but that made it stark.


Posted by: idp | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:32 PM
horizontal rule
127

My dad considered himself a democratic socialist, but definitely not a commie. He had gone to volunteer to fight in Spain and backed out when he realized how CP the reps in Nova Scotia were.

Had by some weird chance Anarchists with POUM connections been the people he encountered he'd have gone, I think. Canada certainly has an Anarchist tradition but not in the Maritimes.

No blood relative I know about has ever been to the left of my dad and I, and my son and daughter. Most, including my brother and sister, quite a bit to the right of us on every conceivable issue.

That first detail is probably AISIMHB; I know I mention my dad a lot.


Posted by: idp | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
128

Huh, I had never actually heard that about your dad. Neat! Probably just as well, if he wasn't comfortable going along with the Party -- lots of people like that got shot in the back. One of these days I am going to make it up to Thunder Bay and go to the fabled Italian anti-fascist taverns. Although probably the actual guys are all in nursing homes now.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:47 PM
horizontal rule
129

My dad was PL in 1969 - I can never remember if that meant Stalinist or Trotskyite, but it was one of the two, and he got on the front page being led out of a briefly occupied university building thanks to his big hair. He's no longer politically active in any way, that burned out I think, but he's still quite the lefty, formerly more than me but maybe not anymore.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 9:38 PM
horizontal rule
130

On the quien es mas communisto front there's some family legend that someone in my Grandfather's family, who stayed in Russia, didn't just stop at party affiliation but became a full-on Red Army general under Trotsky in the teens and 20s. I've never known if there's any truth to the claim and don't even know the details, it seems like it should be pretty easy to check these days but it's pretty impossible to Google around for Russian sources and no one has maintained any memory or connection to family history. It does seem true that the folks who came here were OG Russian communists or socialists well before coming to America in about 1914.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 11:07 PM
horizontal rule
131

Some of my favorite anecdotes about Simone Weil turn on the combination of her extraordinary clumsiness and obsession with the virtues of manual labor. She was eager to fight in the Spanish Civil War, but friends were deeply concerned about the thought of her wielding a firearm. Her parents secretly followed her to Spain, and it didn't take long for her to get badly injured stepping into a pot of cooking oil at a camp. It was then a real effort to find a hospital that would treat a combatant on the socialist side, and her father, who was a doctor, had to run interference to get her admitted. They took her back to France as quickly as possible, where she resumed her efforts to find some kind of factory work where she would have any chance at all of keeping up, not breaking everything, not shutting down the assembly line, etc. The work she finally found did give her real insight into labor conditions and human condition, although she absolutely sucked at it (despite giving 150% all the time).

I met a Spanish Civil War veteran in Madison, during my periods home from college. He was pretty old at the time but still gave presentations about his experiences at all the local schools; I visited his house once, in the company of a mutual friend, and remember reading his 2-volume biography of Eleanor Marx while the friend fixed his computer.


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 11:54 PM
horizontal rule
132

what was it to be a Democrat vs. a Republican in 1960? What were the issues or positions that decided whether you'd be one or the other, and how were those differentiating positions not ideological?

Ask Jackie Robinson.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 10- 5-14 1:53 AM
horizontal rule
133

132 was me.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 10- 5-14 2:21 AM
horizontal rule
134

So, late-night show? I'm here and I'm dear.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 5-14 2:56 AM
horizontal rule
135

How's your eye today, heebie?


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 10- 5-14 4:42 AM
horizontal rule
136

My maternal grandfather was planning to ship out to Spain to join the commies in 1936, but got cold feet when his wife got pregnant. He stayed in Brooklyn and did some fundraising. Late in life he voted for Giuliani (although not Reagan).

My paternal grandparents were active in the Yiddish commie scene in Brooklyn in the 1940s. They were friends with Woodie Guthrie, and possibly in the same party cell, through his Yiddish speaking, activist wife. My paternal grandfather was also a typesetter and occasional writer for the communist Daily Forward, and was active in the commie international typographer's union. By the time I knew him he was mostly cursing the commie union leadership for making lousy investments that gave him too small of a pension.


Posted by: Unimaginative | Link to this comment | 10- 5-14 5:43 AM
horizontal rule
137

I hope the pension fund managers have business cards reading, "The capitalist wing of the Communist party."


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 5-14 6:06 AM
horizontal rule
138

we should have a Commies In The Family competition

I'm the first in my family!


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-14 6:51 AM
horizontal rule
139

My wife's paternal grandmother was a well-off Jewish supporter of communism in Vienna between the wars. She happened to be back at her ancestral shtetl in then-eastern Poland during the Anschluss (her mother was dying) and stayed there. According to family legend her experience with the Soviets after invasion/partition pretty well soured her on the ideology. She ultimately made it to the US with her young daughter via Trans-Siberian Express to Vladivostok and then boats to Tokyo and Seattle.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 5-14 7:24 AM
horizontal rule
140

I have the exact same politics as my parents, which is that the Republican party is deeply immoral because it wants to increase poverty and inequality. I think this situation is a lot more common in Britain and other countries where right-wing Christians haven't somehow monopolized "morality" in politics.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 10- 5-14 7:28 AM
horizontal rule
141

137: really that's what should be on the card of every banker, though


Posted by: turgid jacobian | Link to this comment | 10- 5-14 7:33 AM
horizontal rule
142

My great-grandfather fought in the streets of Ekaterinaslav (now Dnipropetrovsk) in 1905. After the failure of that revolution the Tsar's secret police tried to kill him, so he had to sneak out of Russia through Finland to get to America. He was actually a Menshevik, while his brother was a Bolshevik, and after they had both immigrated to the US they used to have huge fights over ideology in which they would throw shoes at each other and stuff. The Bolshevik brother's kids grew up as true red-diaper babies, and one of them went on to become a prominent composer in Hollywood who was blacklisted in the 1950s. I'm sure I've mentioned at least some of this before, but I'm not going to use the acronym.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 5-14 9:40 AM
horizontal rule
143

My wife's maternal grandmother's family spent some time in Ekaterinaslav, but I believe it was in the 1880s. They ended up moving back to the NW reaches of Ukraine,


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 5-14 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
144

My dad's outlook didn't start with him. Most of his childhood before he was about 10 was spent in Springhill, the most famous coal mining town in Canada. My grandfather was an above-ground carpenter and member of the UMW in the early 20s, when it was an embattled and radical organization. My dad went to school with the immigrant miners' children, and never forgot their proud high culture: art songs, and violin--not fiddle--music at home. It was like growing up in John Sayles' Matewan.


Posted by: idp | Link to this comment | 10- 5-14 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
145

Paternal grandfather fired for union organizing amongst Fresno's auto mechanics in the 1930's. Parents solidly left no signs of rightward drift.


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 10- 5-14 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
146

My father was a card carrying member of the CP for a few months as a teen, but then again he was a card carrying member of the BUF for few months before (or after, I can't remember which) so I don't take it seriously. He settled down as a centrist before WWII but moved strongly left under Thatcher, almost meeting my sister and me half way, but not quite.

On the broader question, you guys are just going to have to suck up the polarisation thing. The US is as far as I know the only "democratic" country on earth where parties haven't been ideologically defined since the Napoleonic Wars, so join the gang. The old gag: "Mama, are Tories born wicked or do they become so?" "My dear, they are born wicked and grow worse." is of c.19 provenance.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 5:30 AM
horizontal rule
147

"French" views on racism apply equally to Britain, except for the liberal intelligentsia and ethnic minorities who blame the empire (and never the twain shall meet). I suspect this applies pretty much across as much of Europe as regards open racism as requiring an excuse or explanation.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 5:49 AM
horizontal rule
148

I am fairly unapologetic about my atavistic tribal hatred of Tories, though. If my son, in 20 years, came back and said he was marrying a Tory, I'd be fucking disgusted.

104 is completely great.

My Dad was a Trotskyist in his teens, he'd describe himself as an anarchist, now. There's a fair bit of hippy-tinged nihilism/misanthropy in there, though. Mum is a fairly straight down the line old Labour type. I don't particularly disagree politically with either of them. I suppose I'm less pessimistic than my Dad, but that's about it.

I'd guess my paternal grandparents would also have been Labour [working class Glaswegian Catholics, so that'd have been the norm]. My maternal grandfather is, I think, fairly liberal. He used to vote either Liberal or Labour. I don't think he's voted Tory, although if he had done in 1979, it probably wouldn't surprise me. He did stop taking the Daily Mail and switched to the Independent some time in the 1980s because of the Mail's politics [my grandmother read it]. My grandmother died before I was politically aware, but I'm fairly sure she had some racist and/or right-wing opinions. I've never heard opinions like that from grandfather [who is, as mentioned before, OLD. He's 100].



Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 5:54 AM
horizontal rule
149

My father's parents were firm but moderate Tories; so was my dad until he followed the Clem Attlee route to the Labour Party (private school, Oxford, first job, holy shit there are a lot of really poor and miserable people around!, therefore: socialism). My mother's side are more tribal Labour, I think: because, you know, what else would you be? (Coal-town teachers and doctors, that kind of thing.) Paternal grandfather given to occasionally mildly racist statements ("I'm glad to see that Malcolm Rifkind has done so well, he's a good man and very bright, but of course he's Jewish and they tend to be pretty sharp") but nothing worse than that, at least not in my hearing. Fairly firmly anti-communist though. That, I suspect, comes from the war and its aftermath, especially Greece, and the way the Poles were treated - he always had a very soft spot for the Poles.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 7:42 AM
horizontal rule
150

146.1: Aren't there people who won't vote Labour, despite policy preferences, simply because they have cooties, and that's why the Lib Dems are still around?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 7:47 AM
horizontal rule
151

re: 150

Maybe. Although I suspect post-Blair, there may be more people who won't vote Labour, because of the residual brimstone.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 7:51 AM
horizontal rule
152

124. My grandfather was a member of the CZ communist party when it was illegal under the Nazis, they were an organized resistance. He quit in 1948 when they seized power, not a great career move. He was later imprisoned.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
153

150. Sorta kinda. The Liberals survived the really hard yeas as a sort of peasant party. When they were down to half a dozen seats those were mostly in places like Cornwall and the Northern Isles. Their revival really started with the split in the Labour Party after 1983, when they realigned with the Social Democrats. That meant that moderate, anti-Thatcher Tories started to vote for them. Come Blair, they made a pitch for the social (not socialist) left vote as well, which is why they're such a political mess now.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
154

My Dad once mortified some rather conservative acquaintances he was dining with by coming out as an anarchist. It's a bit of a weird political position for a conservative christian, but he was an odd duck anyway. My Mom is hereditary Labour, though she hasn't voted in the UK since 1960-something.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
155

. Although I suspect post-Blair, there may be more people who won't vote Labour, because of the residual brimstone.

Ditto Liberals, post-Clegg. They're at 7% in the polls now...


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 7:59 AM
horizontal rule
156

re: 155

Yeah. I can't say I'm displeased.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:00 AM
horizontal rule
157

154: anarchist-Tory is a thing in the UK political tradition - or rather minarchist-localist Tory, I suppose.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:01 AM
horizontal rule
158

"Hereditary Labour" sounds like a euphemism for serf.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:01 AM
horizontal rule
159

158 reminds me of my antipathy towards the term "investor in people".


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:04 AM
horizontal rule
160

156. I'm displeased to the extent that too many of them will vote UKIP.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:14 AM
horizontal rule
161

159: A professor once called me "a resource".


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:16 AM
horizontal rule
162

I would like to see the research on who has moved where since 2010. It's gone from roughly C40-L30-LD20-UKIP5 to C31-L38-LD7-UKIP15.
The obvious conclusion is that 10 Conservatives have moved to UKIP and 10 Lib Dems have moved (back?) to Labour, but I wonder if that's the case?


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:18 AM
horizontal rule
163

The beginning of the end of civilisation was when Personnel departments started being re-badged as Human Resources.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:27 AM
horizontal rule
164

Another term I hate. Makes me think "gold fillings".


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:28 AM
horizontal rule
165

I'm kind of curious how my parents are going to vote next election, the first time they'll have been able to vote in UK national elections. Their constituency is overwhelmingly Tory, though (and without much UKIP support at the last election, though maybe that's changed), so it probably won't make any difference.


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:40 AM
horizontal rule
166

How are the liberals even at 7%? How stupid do you have to be to vote for those clowns? Also, how, in a country with such a proud tradition of drunken brawling, has Nick Clegg not been beaten up?


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:41 AM
horizontal rule
167

How are the liberals even at 7%? How stupid do you have to be to vote for those clowns?

People who are voting for locally specific reasons, i.e. they have a Lib Dem MP or local councillor and they think she's really good.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:43 AM
horizontal rule
168

166. He had to move house because of the permanent picket on it. Also people were accosting him in his local supermarket, getting in his face and screaming, "I voted for you, you bastard, now look what you've done!"


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
169

163: Wow, hella defamiliarization. I never actually broke that phrase down (probably because everyone here just uses the acronym). Now I can't stop thinking "Meatbag Supply".


Posted by: Awl | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:45 AM
horizontal rule
170

Soylent green on the hoof.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:47 AM
horizontal rule
171

re: 167

Ironically, during the high Blairite period, when I'd rather have been booted in the nads than voted Labour, I also didn't vote Lib Dem because our local MP* was a Lib Dem, and was dreadful.

* Evan Harris.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Harris#Defeat_in_2010_general_election

It doesn't mention there, but probably should, that he was a shit constituency MP.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:47 AM
horizontal rule
172

Nick Clegg is so lame that he hasn't even gone full throttle with "I'm a worthless venal traitor, everyone hates me, so let's play the villain to the max." If I were him I'd go to Rob Ford level and beyond -- orgies in the parliamentary office, smoking crack on the floor of the House of Commons during questioning time, drinking wine from the skull of a suicided earnest young anti-Blairite who thought voting for him would be a good idea. Why not.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
173

168: I wonder what he thought would happen.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
174

re: 173

I expect he believed the whole Cameron niceynicey Tory-without-the-dripping-fangs-and-stench-of-pure-evil schtick. Which makes him an idiot, I suppose. Then once he was in coalition, not torpedoing the whole fucking thing, makes him pretty much as bad as the Tories.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:55 AM
horizontal rule
175

174: mutatis mutandis, I'm with Phil Sheridan on the quality necessary for a Tory to possess in order to be a good Tory.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 8:57 AM
horizontal rule
176

I would pause-play this, but it's not so far off topic: is anti-vaxx stereotypically liberal? I thought it was one of those things that didn't quite fit neatly into the red-state/blue-state culture war.


Posted by: L. | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:13 AM
horizontal rule
177

I think it's statistically non-partisan, but people trying to look evenhanded blame it on liberals because it's the most obvious anti-science thing that people on the left participate in at all.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:17 AM
horizontal rule
178

Here's a map of percentage of kindergarteners with non-medical vaccine exemptions by state. Obviously, by state isn't by political affiliation, but, e.g., Idaho and Vermont are both hot spots.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:22 AM
horizontal rule
179

178: Ashland, Oregon is full of people who refuse to vaccinate their kids. The CDC has actually tried to study their reasons.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
180

So...stereotypically white people?


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:28 AM
horizontal rule
181

I have a batshit insane family member who is red-state/right-wing-ish (that is, lots of Obama-hating on FB, I don't actually know how she votes) and works with disabled children, and firmly believes that vaccines cause autism because she's SEEN IT. OVER AND OVER AGAIN. KIDS WHO WERE JUST FINE, AND THEY THEY GET THE SHOTS, AND THEN THEY NEVER MAKE EYE CONTACT AGAIN.

Not really sure what's going on there. She also works as a substitute teacher, and firmly believes that middle school girls wear colored bracelets to indicate which sex acts they will perform on anyone who asks them.


Posted by: Dilma Rouseff | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:30 AM
horizontal rule
182

It's actually really hard to think of a common thread to that set of states more specific than that. Not left, not right, ruralness seems to help but isn't required. Being Southern counts against it, although Georgia stands out (lots of in-migration, perhaps, but then why not e.g. NC?). Why not Indiana? Or Wyoming?


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:30 AM
horizontal rule
183

In the UK, the pro-Wakefield, anti-MMR campaign was driven to a large extent (but by no means exclusively) by organs somewhat associated with the left, most shamefully Private Eye* but also the Independent and for a while the Guardian. But the Mail was even more anti-MMR than the Graun in the long run, so it was hardly a partisan divide,


*To be fair, Private Eye is not really liberal, just anti-establishment, as evidenced by a history of homophobia among other things,


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:32 AM
horizontal rule
184

There was a pensions Tory who was slightly balding who always seemed nice and thoughtful (not Iain Duncan Smith) Just looked the person up. It's David Willets.

I find Kenneth Clarke sort of charming. Lobbying for tobacco is obviously evil, but, since he smokes himself, he's not a hypocrite.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:33 AM
horizontal rule
185

Right, you look at the map and wonder what's the difference between Michigan and Indiana?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:33 AM
horizontal rule
186

Head injuries?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
187

Thanks for the link, LB.


Posted by: L. | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
188

182: Hippies who are into auras and believe that eating organically is enough to keep their children healthy are also prone to being anti-vaxx.

I think that the common strain is a belief that healthcare is such a personal, private decision that the government ought to stay out of it. Concern for their own children but not society as a whole.

I wonder how many of the lefty ones are pro-choice.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:39 AM
horizontal rule
189

You say "hippies eating organically," BG, but I wonder if granola has been co-opted. I mean conservatives are pretty invested in the idea that health outcomes are mostly or exclusively the result of personal choices. And somehow the whole project of trying to engineer perfect children seems very Republican. Plus, you know, look at John Mackey.

I'm not really the right demographic to know any "natural"-fetishist mothers, though, so you guys can tell me whether I'm right.


Posted by: L. | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:49 AM
horizontal rule
190

184. David Willetts was dumped at the last reshuffle because he has no friends in the Tory party. QED.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:49 AM
horizontal rule
191

Right, you look at the map and wonder what's the difference between Michigan and Indiana?

As I understand it, a lot of the anti-vax movement (in terms of actually unvaccinated children) is highly localised (eg Orange County) , with smallish clusters of extremely high rates of unvaccinated children. So it could just be that one state has such a cluster and the other doesn't.


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:51 AM
horizontal rule
192

I'm vaguely acquainted (friends of friends) with a pod of hippie-antivaxxers in my neighborhood. I don't know voting behavior, but I'd strongly expect either Democratic or non-voting because politics isn't important to them.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:54 AM
horizontal rule
193

I think it spreads more within communities than via mass media and Internet, so it's very randomly clumpy. And the reason it's lefty-associated is that some of the earliest places it got a foothold are Marin and the like.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 9:54 AM
horizontal rule
194

My parents are the Northeastern Republicans discussed upthread, which means they vote Democratic and campaigned for Obama and single-payer health care. Vermont has open primaries, so what they're registered as, if anything, doesn't matter so much.

Like most people here apparently, firmly held right-wing views would be a deal-breaker for me in a close friend if I knew about them. It hasn't been an issue. Call me Paul Kael. I don't talk about politics with cousins I haven't seen in more than a year anyway. I'm told a neighbor of ours is a Republican despite being a 70-year-old black woman (and her son is disabled, just to add one more reason it's contrary to self-interest) and I'm morbidly curious about how she squares that circle, but I'm too polite or conflict-averse to ask. (And, realistically, it's probably not an interesting story, just family or something.)

A couple co-workers of mine identify as libertarians or whatever. I find this funny, considering that this office writes regulations. I asked one of them about it once, and he told me that he tries to only work on corrections and stuff like that. L'Espirit d'escalier: I wish I had pointed out that those projects are often given to new, inexperienced, or generally unreliable people, because they're so easy.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 10:17 AM
horizontal rule
195

Illinois is the surprising one to me. Otherwise white+outdoorsiness seems to predict it. (Michigan being the outdoorsy part of the Midwest.)


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in." (9) | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 10:27 AM
horizontal rule
196

Though I guess LA is like chicago in being antivax but not outdoorsy. So there is some big city exception going on.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in." (9) | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 10:31 AM
horizontal rule
197

189: L. You're absolutely right about the right-wingers who emphasize personal choice as the determinant of health outcomes. John Mackey of Whole Foods believes that if you eat right, you'll never get sick. Therefore there's no need for good health insurance--especially not behavioral health.

It's a weird crossover that doesn't fit neatly along party lines.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
198

189: I missed that you mentioned John Mackey and went straight to him, because I have strong feelings. I personally hate him, because he didn't offer WF employees behavioral health coverage.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 10:56 AM
horizontal rule
199

It's apoliitical rich hippies here, though they probably vote Democratic when they vote. People whose other big pet issues would be raw milk use and no-kill animal shelters. The Democratic vote is a pure cultural affiliation, these are people who are abstractly in favor of poor people building wells in Nicaragua or wherever but would never let their kids play with a Nicaraguan immigrant on a public playground, except of course for their nannies.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
200

198: Wow - I just did some research, and it looks like while behavioral health is part of the essential benefits required for individual and small-group plans under the ACA, large employers can decline to provide it and still not be subject to the penalty that starts next year, because their minimum requirements are worse-defined.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
201

200: I thought that had changed. My experienc predates both the ACA and MA healthcare reform.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
202

And now I know the group noun for hippie-antivaxxers.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 11:44 AM
horizontal rule
203

A contagion of anti-vaxxers?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
204

How do you get to be a rich hippie, unless it's all inherited? Or do you just mean new agers?


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
205

Drug sales.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 12:22 PM
horizontal rule
206

Or, I guess, perfume.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
207

204 -- I take it you have never been to California.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
208

More detail here. In a nutshell: super rich Westside-of-LA schools have vaccination rates comparable to South Sudan.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 1:17 PM
horizontal rule
209

I was wondering if the map in 178 might correlate with % home-schooled. Not that there would be a causal relationship one way or another, but that both were stances that cut similarly across standard political categories.* But am not finding any good home-schooled by state data**.

*Although I guess the actual home-schoolers would not show up in the data in that map (probably not a big direct effect unless the percentage in that population is very high).

**Here is a map of home schooling regulation by state--not well-correlated, for instance both Michigan and Indiana are low-regulation states by their measure.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
210


200: Weirdly, they are required by the Mental Health Parity Act of 2008 to offer behavioral health benefits on a nondiscriminatory basis if they offer those benefits at all. But they are permitted* under the ACA to simply opt out of providing those benefits all together. The architects of the ACA made a serious error of omission in assuming that large group benefit standards were basically sound and didn't need any minimum regulation, and now big companies that employ a lot of low wage workers are bulldozing right through that loophole.

*That's true if they are self-insured plans regulated under ERISA. Large group fully insured plans are subject to state regulation, and some states have certain mandated mental health or substance abuse benefits. In those cases, the Mental Health Parity Act provisions do apply.


Posted by: kermit roosevelt, jr. | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 1:42 PM
horizontal rule
211

210: Thanks.

And not surprisingly, Whole Foods does indeed use an ERISA plan.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 1:48 PM
horizontal rule
212

The amount of home school regulation has some weird historical artifacts based on when the laws were passed. E.g. PA's law was one of the first modern homeschooling laws passed, and so it was quite unrestrictive for its time, but is restrictive now. So if you want to measure whether this correlates with something homeschooling related you're going to need some other measure on the homeschooling side.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in." (9) | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 2:59 PM
horizontal rule
213

210: there was parity before 2008, and they opted out earlier.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
214

211: just spoke to an ERISA lawyer 2 minutes ago who reminded me that almost all commercial plans are ERISA even when they are not self-insured.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 3:07 PM
horizontal rule
215

210: Can people buy stand-alone mental health coverage on the exchanges, because, honestly. Ridiculous.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
216

just spoke to an ERISA lawyer 2 minutes ago who reminded me that almost all commercial plans are ERISA even when they are not self-insured.

In the sense that most employee welfare benefits are subject to ERISA rules (non-discrimination and the like), sure. But the relevant issue is whether state insurance regulation is preempted by ERISA, i.e. whether the plans are exclusively regulated by federal law; and that is generally the case only for self-insured plans.

Also, he would be correct to say "most covered lives" are covered by plans exclusively regulated by ERISA, but not "most commercial plans", much less "almost all commercial plans", except in the very limited sense noted above.


Posted by: kermit roosevelt, jr. | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 3:33 PM
horizontal rule
217

216: right. I had always thought that state insurance regulation was preempt ex , because all ERISA plans were self-insured. But I was wrong about that.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
218

Not goverment plans and not individual plans, obviously. But fully insure business plans are still subject to ERISA.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 3:44 PM
horizontal rule
219

But fully insured business plans are still subject to ERISA.

Yes, in the limited sense I noted in 216. But fully insured employer group plans are also subject to state insurance regulation, not merely ERISA. If California wants to mandate coverage of harmonic crystal therapy, ERISA will not preempt that.


Posted by: kermit roosevelt, jr. | Link to this comment | 10- 6-14 3:56 PM
horizontal rule
220

219: I get it. The whole conversation we had was about how he deals exclusively with ERISA plans and appealing denial of coverage, but if it's a fully insured plan, he still refers people to the state office. The O/P/P can tell people how to file appeals before suing anyone. Their information is irrelevant for self-insured plans, of course.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 7-14 5:30 AM
horizontal rule
221

German Green party antivax is similar, in being an elite taste, but there you have the extra weirdness of anthrosophy chucked in. (German-speaking link: http://scienceblogs.de/weitergen/2008/04/masernepidemie-in-osterreich/ English shorter: http://anthonycox.org/?p=1757)

The UK version's social profile is rather different: http://anthonycox.org/?p=2687


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 10- 7-14 6:28 AM
horizontal rule
222

Huh. My comment didn't post. The lawyer's point was that he still referred people to the O/P/P for information on how to file a state appeal before suing--if the plan was fully insured.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 7-14 6:31 AM
horizontal rule
223

You down with O/P/P?
Yeah, before you sue me.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 7-14 6:38 AM
horizontal rule
224

Of/fice of Pat/ien/t Pro/tect/ion. Newly moved from DPH to the Hea/lth Pol/icy Com/mis/sion.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 7-14 7:13 AM
horizontal rule
225

I know. I like my joke anyway.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 7-14 7:19 AM
horizontal rule
226

Anthroposophy has a pretty strong influence on the US version as well, but only as one of the distinct (and sort of unrelated) groups that make up the anti-vaxxers here. (It's just less explicit because the Waldorf schools keep a lot of that stuff hush hush due in order to masquerade as just another Montessori style set of schools.)


Posted by: MHPH | Link to this comment | 10- 7-14 8:38 AM
horizontal rule