• We will be taking the server down at approximately 5:00 AM ET on 5/29/25 (Thursday). We hope to be back up and running in approximately 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Confessions of a Republican Exile

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
32,186
Reaction score
32,126
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Following is a gifted article from Atlantic. My caveat: much of what David Brooks writes I disagree with, but he's a thoughtful conservative, a relatively rare breed, so I find his writing read-worthy. This essay is one of those. It behooves us to listen and understand the thought processes of those who can articulate their positions we disagree with. Brooks, like George Will and Charlie Sykes, are conservative thought leaders (now, there's an oxymoron) who find themselves on the outside of the party they grew up with and represented their entire adult lives.

So, I offer:


And, some excerpts:

"Politically, I’m a bit of a wanderer. I grew up in a progressive family and was a proud democratic socialist through college. Then, in the Reagan-Thatcher era of the 1980s, after watching the wretched effects some progressive social policies had on poor neighborhoods in Chicago, I switched over to the right—and then remained a happy member of Team Red for decades. During the era of social thinkers like James Q. Wilson, Allan Bloom, Thomas Sowell, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Irving Kristol, the right was just more intellectually alive. But over time I’ve become gradually more repulsed by the GOP—first by Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, then by the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus, and now, of course, by Donald Trump.

So these days I find myself rooting for the Democrats about 70 percent of the time. I’ve taken up residence on what I like to call the rightward edge of the leftward tendency, and I think of myself as a moderate or conservative Democrat. But moving from Red World to Blue World is like moving to a different country. The norms, fashions, and values are all different. Whenever you move to a new place or community or faith, you love some things about it but find others off-putting. So the other 30 percent of the time a cranky inner voice says, “Screw the Democrats, I’m voting for the GOP.”

(Much of the essay articulates such curmudgeonly outbursts.)

"I think of myself as a Whig, part of a tradition that begins with Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party in the 18th century, continues through the Whig Party of Henry Clay and then the early Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln in the 19th, and then extends to the Republican Party of Theodore Roosevelt in the 20th. Whigs put social mobility at the center of our politics. If liberals prioritize equality and libertarians prioritize individual freedom, Whigs ask: Which party is doing the most to expand opportunity, to help young people rise and succeed in our society? Which party is doing the most to cultivate energy, ambition, creativity, and daring in the citizenry?"

I have followed a similar path, for similar reasons.

"Today, Whigs don’t have a permanent home. During the Reagan-Thatcher years, Republicans were the party of dynamism, but now they have become backward looking and reactionary. At the Democratic National Convention, I watched Michelle Obama talk about the generations of mothers who sacrificed so their children could rise and realize their full potential. Those are the people that Whigs like me want the American government to support. So here I find myself, almost all the way to joining Team Blue.

But my new suit is ill-fitting. I’m still not fully comfortable as a Democrat. And given that there are many other former Republicans who have become politically homeless in the Age of MAGA, I thought it might be useful to explain, first, what it is about the left that can make a wannabe convert like me want to flee in disgust—and then to explain why, ultimately, I’ve migrated in that direction despite sometimes having to suppress my gag reflex.
....
Spending time in Blue World makes me realize how socially conservative I am. I don’t mean socially conservative in the way that term gets used to describe certain stances on hot-button cultural matters like gay marriage or trans issues. (On those topics, I hold what would be considered progressive positions.) Rather, I am a social conservative in believing that the universe has a moral order to it, that absolute right and wrong exist, and that we are either degrading our souls or elevating our souls with every little thing we do. I also believe that the strength of our society is based on the strength of our shared moral and social foundation. And I believe that any nation’s moral culture comes before politics and economics, and when the moral culture frays everything else falls apart. This places me in a conservative tradition that goes back to Edmund Burke and David Hume."
 
yawn...

A talking potato head is still nothing more than a talking potato head, no matter what they tell themselves to justify themselves.
 
After discussing the myriad ways he disagrees with progressivism (much of which I find slanderous and silly), he comes around to the hub of the issue:

"At this point you might be wondering why I don’t just stay in Red World. After all, maybe once Donald Trump’s desecration of the Republican Party ends, the GOP can once again be reconstituted as the most congenial home for a wandering Whig like me. But in the meantime, despite everything that sometimes drives me away from Blue World, there’s more that’s drawing me toward it.

For starters, it has a greater commitment to the truth. This may sound weird, but I became a conservative because of its relationship to knowledge and truth. In the 1980s, I looked around at all those progressive social-engineering projects, like urban renewal, that failed because they were designed by technocratic planners who didn’t realize that the world is more complicated than their tidy schemes could encompass. Back then, the right seemed more epistemologically humble, more able to appreciate the wisdom of tradition and the many varied ways of knowing.

But today the Republican relationship to truth and knowledge has gone to hell. MAGA is a fever swamp of lies, conspiracy theories, and scorn for expertise. The Blue World, in contrast, is a place more amenable to disagreement, debate, and the energetic pursuit of truth.
....
Second, I’ve come to appreciate the Democrats’ long-standing tradition of using a pragmatic imagination. I like being around people who know that it’s really hard to design policies that will help others but who have devoted their lives to doing it well. During the Great Depression, FDR recognized that bold experimentation was called for, which led to the New Deal. During the financial crisis of the late 2000s, I watched the Obama administration display pragmatic imagination to stave off a second depression and lift the economy again. Over the past four years, I’ve watched the Biden administration use pragmatic imagination to funnel money to parts of America that have long been left behind.
....
Another set of qualities now drawing me toward the Democrats: patriotism and regular Americanness. This one has surprised me. Until recently, these qualities have been more associated with flag-waving conservatives than cosmopolitan members of the progressive aristocracy. And I confess that I went to the Democratic convention in August with a lot of skepticism[.]
....
But ultimately what’s pulling me away from the Republican Party and toward the Democrats is one final quality of Blue World: its greater ability to self-correct. Democrats, I’ve concluded, are better at scrutinizing, and conquering, their own shortcomings than Republicans are."

He conclude with this: "My advice to other conservatives disaffected by MAGA is this: If you’re under 45, stay in the Republican Party and work to make it a healthy, multiracial working-class party. If you’re over 45, acknowledge that the GOP is not going to be saved in your lifetime and join me on the other side. I don’t deny that it takes some adjustment; I find it weird being in a political culture in which Sunday brunch holds higher status than church. But Blue World is where the better angels of our nature seem lately to have migrated, and where the best hope for the future of the country now lies."
 
yawn...

A talking potato head is still nothing more than a talking potato head, no matter what they tell themselves to justify themselves.
Even when it is painted orange??
 
Spending time in Blue World makes me realize how socially conservative I am. I don’t mean socially conservative in the way that term gets used to describe certain stances on hot-button cultural matters like gay marriage or trans issues. (On those topics, I hold what would be considered progressive positions.) Rather, I am a social conservative in believing that the universe has a moral order to it, that absolute right and wrong exist, and that we are either degrading our souls or elevating our souls with every little thing we do. I also believe that the strength of our society is based on the strength of our shared moral and social foundation. And I believe that any nation’s moral culture comes before politics and economics, and when the moral culture frays everything else falls apart. This places me in a conservative tradition that goes back to Edmund Burke and David Hume."

The universe has a moral order to it? It might but I see no moral order inside the GOP or with its supporters. Absolute right and wrong and a whole lot of gray area. Absolutes only create extremists. I do not believe in souls nor the Christian god and Christ should be kept in christmas and out of our politics. What the GOP has given America over the decades are slogans that sound good to Republicans but as one person wrote about the GOP, it's all been a lie. They are not the party of morals, just look at their candidate and then tell me they are. They run up the debt and crash the economy, reagan did it and w did it too. Beliefs is what the average Republican voter is voting for, it certainly isn't actions, just look at the republican controlled states in the south. Poor decade after decade.
 
I apologize in advance for getting maybe a little too philosophical here. But these are topics I have thought about quite a bit, and this essay seems to be hitting on a lot of it those ideas. I wish I could meet this guy in person and have a nice talk with him about all this.

I agree with much of what he says. But he keeps talking about “truth”, and then about pragmatism. I think he is circling around a very interesting potential conflation of these two ideas, and yet he may not have seen the connection.

I agree there is a big problem with the postmodernist understanding of “truth”, which is admittedly embraced by much of the left today- a very relativistic, irresponsible, and nihilistic understanding of the term. In some ways, I think it’s a reactionary backlash to the often very rigid, narrow, and intolerant traditional understanding of the concept by the right- sort of religious fundamentalist understanding that they have ultimate truth, and everyone else is misguided.

But I think between these two conceptions of truth, there is a third way- namely, the pragmatic understanding of truth- laid out by American philosophers such as Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. More recently, Charles Rorty has incorporated some of the valuable insights of postmodernism, I wish there are a few, into American pragmatism as well. I believe these thinkers articulate a valuable way of understanding and working with the concept of truth and navigates well between these two traditional extremes of dogmatism and irresponsible relativism.

To explain the pragmatists’ philosophical understanding of the truth would take too long to present a single post here. But in summary, it is not too far removed from the scientists understanding of the term: namely, it is not something immutable, unquestionable, sacred and unchangeable- but something instrumental, never fully achieved, and always open to observation, experiment, and new models and ideas.

Scientists are not dogmatic in the sense of religious fundamentalists. Your community are always open to new observations and new understandings. , and yet they’re also not irresponsible relativists. They can become very dogmatic and rigid in their understanding of the latest science- as any college freshman who has flunked freshman chemistry can tell you. And yet new ideas, observations, and paradigms can propagate surprisingly quickly in their community.

Anyway, this essay just brought up a lot of these issues which I have spent some time studying. I wish I could share those with the author of the essay in the OP.
 
I agree there is a big problem with the postmodernist understanding of “truth”, which is admittedly embraced by much of the left today- a very relativistic, irresponsible, and nihilistic understanding of the term. In some ways, I think it’s a reactionary backlash to the often very rigid, narrow, and intolerant traditional understanding of the concept by the right- sort of religious fundamentalist understanding that they have ultimate truth, and everyone else is misguided.
The left may have a problem with truth, but the right abandoned it completely.
But I think between these two conceptions of truth, there is a third way- namely, the pragmatic understanding of truth- laid out by American philosophers such as Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. More recently, Charles Rorty has incorporated some of the valuable insights of postmodernism, I wish there are a few, into American pragmatism as well. I believe these thinkers articulate a valuable way of understanding and working with the concept of truth and navigates well between these two traditional extremes of dogmatism and irresponsible relativism.

To explain the pragmatists’ philosophical understanding of the truth would take too long to present a single post here. But in summary, it is not too far removed from the scientists understanding of the term: namely, it is not something immutable, unquestionable, sacred and unchangeable- but something instrumental, never fully achieved, and always open to observation, experiment, and new models and ideas.
Sounds like a very "left" view.
Scientists are not dogmatic in the sense of religious fundamentalists. Your community are always open to new observations and new understandings. , and yet they’re also not irresponsible relativists. They can become very dogmatic and rigid in their understanding of the latest science- as any college freshman who has flunked freshman chemistry can tell you. And yet new ideas, observations, and paradigms can propagate surprisingly quickly in their community.
Freshmen don't fail chemistry because scientists are dogmatic.
Anyway, this essay just brought up a lot of these issues which I have spent some time studying. I wish I could share those with the author of the essay in the OP.
 
The left may have a problem with truth, but the right abandoned it completely.

Sounds like a very "left" view.

Freshmen don't fail chemistry because scientists are dogmatic.
That's not the reason why freshmen fail chemistry. Science can and does change in light of better evidence. The reason you failed chemistry is because the concepts you got wrong have yet to be shown wrong via the scientific method.
 
That's not the reason why freshmen fail chemistry. Science can and does change in light of better evidence.
Yes. Constantly.
The reason you failed chemistry is because the concepts you got wrong have yet to be shown wrong via the scientific method.
How do you know the concepts freshmen get wrong will be proved wrong? This is ridiculous. Freshman chemistry isn't quantum physics.

Also, I didn't fail chemistry or anything else in college. Stop projecting.
 
The Blue World, in contrast, is a place more amenable to disagreement, debate, and the energetic pursuit of truth.
A lot of conservatives refuse to accept this truth. They can only see “the left” as an almost Stalinist party in perfect lockstep.
 
Yes. Constantly.

How do you know the concepts freshmen get wrong will be proved wrong? This is ridiculous. Freshman chemistry isn't quantum physics.

Because the scientific method has shown that most concepts in chemistry obey the rules of how each chemical will react when given a set of perimeters. Science is still open to the possibility a chemical reacting differently than excpected. It's just that we haven't observed such a case to my knowledge. Science is an open ended question with the ability to change it's mind in light of better evidence.
Also, I didn't fail chemistry or anything else in college. Stop projecting.
"you" was intended to be in general, although it could be specific to you if you actually did failed.
 
I agree there is a big problem with the postmodernist understanding of “truth”, which is admittedly embraced by much of the left today- a very relativistic, irresponsible, and nihilistic understanding of the term. In some ways, I think it’s a reactionary backlash to the often very rigid, narrow, and intolerant traditional understanding of the concept by the right- sort of religious fundamentalist understanding that they have ultimate truth, and everyone else is misguided.
Can you elaborate on this?

They can become very dogmatic and rigid in their understanding of the latest science- as any college freshman who has flunked freshman chemistry can tell you.
What does this even mean? When you take a freshman chemistry class you are being graded on your understanding of the course material which is based on our best understanding of the science currently. You aren’t trying to shake the foundations of basic chemistry in a 101 class.
 
Can you elaborate on this?
Sure, I can try. But I am really trying to fit a lot of philosophy reading I have done the past few years into a few posts on an internet chat site, so my apologies if it's not too clear. But let me try.

The late Richard Rorty, in trying to explain this, created two distinct categories of truth: Ultimate Truth (which he always spells with imposing capital letters), which is the kind of truth that you know is true, and which you are convinced there are no further new observations or models which can change this. This is a Platonic conception of truth- something you see with your "mind's eye", like the truths of mathematics or Euclidean geometry, the kind of conception of truth which was later imported into the Judeo-Christian tradition by transitional thinkers like St. Augustine- but who thought that it could be reached through the concept of "faith", rather than Plato's "mind's eye". But regardless, people in this tradition are suspicious of empirical knowledge, because it is always fallen. The truths of a higher realm, like those of mathematics or God, were of a higher realm- of a higher, eternal, sacred, immutable truth- which you knew were Ultimately True, and which you knew could never be overturned by any further observations or more clever models/paradigms of trying to understand the world.

In contrast to this, Rorty elaborates on the concept of just plain old "truth": like that I know I am sitting on a chair typing on a computer. Now the Ultimate Truth could turn out to be that I am dreaming all this, or it's a sort of information being fed into my brain via a wire, like in the Matrix movies. The real Truth could be that my brain is really just a brain in a vat, connected to a bunch of wires inputting all this data that makes it thinking I am sitting here typing on a computer. I don't really ultimately know. But there are always further observations which I might make which may make me realize that the truth may be something other than what I understand it to be.

The philosopher John Dewey called this the "instrumental" understanding of truth: I accept as "truth" that which I use to function in the world, but it is always a two-way street, because if the world's input starts looking a little different than what I understand it to be, then I realize that I have to modify my understanding of it, or ditch it altogether and develop a different model.

But isn't that how science works? Its emphasis is not in the ultimate claims being made. That's not what is sacred. Those claims are always subject to further observations.
What does this even mean? When you take a freshman chemistry class you are being graded on your understanding of the course material which is based on our best understanding of the science currently. You aren’t trying to shake the foundations of basic chemistry in a 101 class.
Sure. I was talking about the chemistry professors being very dogmatic and rigid about the most current state of knowledge they are teaching those freshmen. They are definitely not teaching relativism, it is not "anything goes", it is not nihilism. These are the kinds of things conservative thinkers like Jordan Peterson accuse of "postmodernism", and accuse the left of succumbing to this.

But that's misunderstanding the pragmatist mindset, as well as the scientific one: if one of those chemistry professors' own colleagues comes up with newer observations which may make them question their most basic assumptions and models, they are open to examining that as well. It's not that every truth claim is as good as any other.

There are things that are sacred in science, but that is not the latest truth claims being made. Those are always changing and being reviese- "truths" with a small "t", as Rorty would express it. They are always contingent. In fact, that's why a lot of scientifically illiterate people, still under the mindset of the "Ultimate Truth" claims of religion, look at all the changes in science, the revisions, the addenda, etc... and claim that "scientists don't really know what they are talking about". They are changing their mind all the time". But that's missing what is really important in science and why it works so well.

What is sacred there is the METHOD: if the observations are good, the reasoning is good, etc... then that is going to be the latest truth claim. And that method has become sacred only because it has been found to be so fruitful and work so well, that's all. In the next post, I am going to put up a quote by Richard Feynman, the Nobel laureate in physics, explaining this sort of scientific mindset.
 
  • "The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.
    Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don't know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.
  • If we take everything into account — not only what the ancients knew, but all of what we know today that they didn't know — then I think that we must frankly admit that we do not know.
But, in admitting this, we have probably found the open channel.This is not a new idea; this is the idea of the age of reason. This is the philosophy that guided the men who made the democracy that we live under. The idea that no one really knew how to run a government led to the idea that we should arrange a system by which new ideas could be developed, tried out, and tossed out if necessary, with more new ideas brought in — a trial and error system. This method was a result of the fact that science was already showing itself to be a successful venture at the end of the eighteenth century. Even then it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown. If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar.
  • We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.
    ...It is our responsibility to leave the people of the future a free hand. In the impetuous youth of humanity, we can make grave errors that can stunt our growth for a long time. This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so young and ignorant as we are. If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming "This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!" we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.
    ...It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed; and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations."
-Richard Feynman
 
Can you elaborate on this?


What does this even mean? When you take a freshman chemistry class you are being graded on your understanding of the course material which is based on our best understanding of the science currently. You aren’t trying to shake the foundations of basic chemistry in a 101 class.

Interesting dialogue between Rorty and a philosophers who is a "scientifuc realist" who is claiming that the truths of science ARE "Ultimate Truths"- in the same way religious doctrines and claims used to do in the past. It really helps flesh out these ideas nicely, and not too long a read. would recommend.

1728915184341.webp
 
Interesting dialogue between Rorty and a philosophers who is a "scientifuc realist" who is claiming that the truths of science ARE "Ultimate Truths"- in the same way religious doctrines and claims used to do in the past. It really helps flesh out these ideas nicely, and not too long a read. would recommend.

View attachment 67537633
I read all three replies, and kudos on the writing. Excellent posting. I have no disagreement, but philosophy of science and the scientific method are distinct.

The scientific method does not seek to answer existential questions. It assumes what we observe is real. When we get into subjective consciousness, we are limited only by our imagination in finding possibilities.

Here's a question. As the brain in a jar metaphor suggests, my existence may be a figment of my imagination. Existence in mind only.

Can my existence be a figment of your imagination? From my point of view. In other words, is my perception of my own existence actually something YOU are imagining in YOUR mind?

The logical problems with this are apparent from the start, but if we abandon logic and accept this on faith, it becomes no less real than any other belief that accepts impossibility using blind belief.
 
A lot of conservatives refuse to accept this truth. They can only see “the left” as an almost Stalinist party in perfect lockstep.
It get remarkably stupid and vitriolic... and constant.
 
Can you elaborate on this?


What does this even mean? When you take a freshman chemistry class you are being graded on your understanding of the course material which is based on our best understanding of the science currently. You aren’t trying to shake the foundations of basic chemistry in a 101 class.
This.
 
Here's a question. As the brain in a jar metaphor suggests, my existence may be a figment of my imagination. Existence in mind only.

Can my existence be a figment of your imagination? From my point of view. In other words, is my perception of my own existence actually something YOU are imagining in YOUR mind?

The logical problems with this are apparent from the start, but if we abandon logic and accept this on faith, it becomes no less real than any other belief that accepts impossibility using blind belief.
Actually I don't see any logical problem with this. It's logically possible. This sort of solipsistic mindset cannot really be disproven by logic alone- or by anything else for that matter. It's logically and theoretically POSSIBLE that my consciousness is the only one in the universe, and what I see as other people are just sort of biological robots, or even some sort of hallucination by my brain. How could one know for sure? Especially since neuroscience has not really been able to explain the mechanism of how the phenomenon of consciousness even works or is generated by electrical activity in a brain.

But the way I see it is: who cares? What difference does it possibly make? There are lots of things that are logically and theoretically possible: like that our whole universe is a dust particle stuck on the fur of some much bigger cosmic dog. It just seems with my interactions with you and others that there is some sort of consciousness there similar to mine with which I am interacting, and I am going to go with that until I have some empirical observations to the contrary.

As a pragmatist, if something doesn't make a difference in what I do or act, it's not worth worrying too much about, except maybe as some games to keep ourselves amused. Those are the kinds of hyperrational over-philosophizing which is probably a waste of time. There are many other things more pressing things to worry about and do in the world.
 
Actually I don't see any logical problem with this. It's logically possible. This sort of solipsistic mindset cannot really be disproven by logic alone- or by anything else for that matter. It's logically and theoretically POSSIBLE that my consciousness is the only one in the universe, and what I see as other people are just sort of biological robots, or even some sort of hallucination by my brain. How could one know for sure? Especially since neuroscience has not really been able to explain the mechanism of how the phenomenon of consciousness even works or is generated by electrical activity in a brain.

But the way I see it is: who cares? What difference does it possibly make? There are lots of things that are logically and theoretically possible: like that our whole universe is a dust particle stuck on the fur of some much bigger cosmic dog. It just seems with my interactions with you and others that there is some sort of consciousness there similar to mine with which I am interacting, and I am going to go with that until I have some empirical observations to the contrary.

As a pragmatist, if something doesn't make a difference in what I do or act, it's not worth worrying too much about, except maybe as some games to keep ourselves amused. Those are the kinds of hyperrational over-philosophizing which is probably a waste of time. There are many other things more pressing things to worry about and do in the world.
Yes, "who cares" is not only pragmatic, but it's the only reasonable conclusion. That's essentially my point. We can imagine as many different realities as we wish, but science has to operate on the assumption that what we observe is real, and we have to assume our logic is in fact, logical.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom