Die Fossilindustrie in den USA fürchtet einen Paradigmenwechsel weg vom Primat von Öl und Gas vor allem, weil er Kapital aus ihrem Sektor abziehen würde. Deshalb unterstützt sie Trump gegen Harris, obwohl die USA unter der Biden-Administration zu einem Rekord-Ölproduzenten und zum führenden Gas-Exporteur wurden. Analyse von Jonathan Mingle mit Details zur interessenverquickung von Big Oil und Republikanern https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/21/opinion/oil-gas-exports-climate-change.html

If true, this means that the active destruction of memory ought to further splinter the Republican party in the Trump-era (2016- ?).

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/13/trump-musk-x-climate

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/05/climate-change-denial-congress

Definitely this, but the majority of the right doesn't care about plans, choices, or strengths and weaknesses. They've bought into a cult of personality that washes out the ability to make informed decisions.

Project 2025

Dans, Paul, and Steven Groves, eds. Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise - Project 2025: Presidential Transition Project. The Heritage Foundation, 2023. https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf.

ᔥ[[Clive Thompson]] in @clive@saturation.social) (accessed:: 2024-07-04 10:20 AM)

I'm reading the entirety of the #project2025 book: https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

The intro lays things out very clearly -- full-blown attacks on trans and queer folks of any stripe; utter dismissal of climate change; disdain for any form of expertise and education (wonderfully incoherent, given the sparkling pedigrees of the document's many authors); economic thinking that's equally incoherent, if not at times magically-realistic; christian nationalism; and incessant, self-pitying grievance politics

Jul 07, 2024, 10:03 · Edited Jul 07, 12:42

Der neue Sprecher des US-Repäsentatntenhauses Mike Johnson ist ein aktiver Klimaleugner, der von der Öl- und Gasindustrie im vergangenen Jahr mehr Spenden erhalten hat als von jeder anderen Branche. Der Klimaleugner Steven J. Milloy nannte Johnson eine "Quantensprung-Verbesserung" gegenüber seinem republikanischen Vorgänger. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/26/climate/mike-johnson-climate-policies.html

Zum Hintergrund des Rückzugs großer Investoren der Wall Street aus dem Netzwerk Climate Action 100+. Der Rückzug ist vor allem das Ergebnis zunehmenden Drucks aus der Republikanischen Partei. Er hängt auch damit zusammen, dass Climate Action 100+ in einer Phase 2 von seinen MItgliedern nicht nur Informationen über die Klimafolgen von Investitionen verlangte, sondern Aktionen gegen fossile Emissionen. Dem Journalisten David Gelles zufolge werden die Wall Street-Firmen ihre bisherige, auf Redukton von Emissionen ausgerichtete Linie aber nicht völlig aufgeben. Weitgehend ist und bleibt diese Firmenpolitik aber kosmetisch. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/20/climate/wall-street-environmental-pledge-retreat.html

Vorschau der New York Times auf die wichtigsten Klimathemen 2024. Erwartet werden viele Extremwetterereignisse duch die Kombination von weiterer Erhitzung durch Treibhausgase mit dem aktuellen El Niño. Zu den wichtigen Themen gehören die Präsidentschaftswahlen, weitere fossile Expansion in den USA und weltweit, darunter die LNG-Expansion, das Wachstum der Erneuerbaren, globale Finanzreformen, Klimaprozesse und Klima-Aktivismus. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/02/climate/the-big-climate-stories-in-2024.html

Der Finanzausschuss des amerikanischen Senats hat über einen Bericht zur Klima-Desinformation durch die Öl- und Gasbranche debattiert. Der Bericht führt detailliert auf, wie die Öffentlichkeit über Jahrzehnte manipuliert wurde. Inzwischen hätten „Täuschung, Desinformation und Doppelzüngigkeit“ die Klimaleugnung abgelöst. In der Debatte verwendeten republikanische Senatoren die traditionelle Rhetorik der Klimaleugnung. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/may/01/big-oil-danger-disinformation-fossil-fuels

Bericht; https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fossil_fuel_report1.pdf

In den USA unterscheidet sich die Regulierungspolitik der Biden-Administration in der Energiepolitik drastisch von der der Trump-Administration. Ein Sieg Trumps im Herbst würde zu einer weiteren Kursumkehr führen. Diese Veränderung enbedeuten für die amerikanische Wirtschaft ein großes Risiko. die New York Times berichtet über Einschätzungen der Schädlichkeit der politischen Kurzwechsel aus wirtschaftlicher Sicht und informiert dabei über die wichtigsten regulierungsmaßnahmen der demokratischen Administrationen. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/climate/biden-trump-environmental-regulations.html

Die Vorsitzenden der Energie-Ausschüsse des amerikanischen Senats und des Repräsentantenhauses , beide Republikaner:innen, haben die International Energy Agency und ihren Vorsitzenden Fatih Birol scharf angegriffen, weil er sich gegen den weiteren Ausbau fossiler Infrastruktur wendet. Hintergrund ist offenbar die Entscheidung der Biden-Administration, wenigstens vorerst keine weiteren Genehmigungen für LNG-Export-Terminals zu erteilen.

Opinion - Trump Is Financially Ruining the Republican Party by [[Michelle Cottle]]

https://www.liberation.fr/environnement/pollution/presidentielle-americaine-une-victoire-de-donald-trump-mettrait-fin-a-lespoir-de-limiter-le-rechauffement-climatique-a-15-c-20240306_5LRFUT3RXVBODCHS6NAHOFBVRM/

Fachleute rechnen damit, dass ein Sieg Trumps bei den Präsidentschaftswahlen zu einem Rollback bei den Projekten für saubere Energie führen würde, die die Biden-Administration eingeleitet hat. Der Inflation Reduction Act hat bereits zu Investitionen von etwa 200 Milliarden Dollar in solche Projekte geführt. Wie weit der Rollback gelingen würde, ist unklar, zumal besonders republikanisch dominierte Regionen von den Projekten der aktuellen Administration profitieren. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/19/us/politics/inflation-reduction-act-republican-attacks.html

Sollte Trump zum zweiten Mal Präsident der USA werden, wird er wesentlich systematischer und ideologischer gegen alle Regelungen vorgehen, die die Treibhausgasemissionen einschränken. Der Guardian beschreibt die wahrscheinlichsten Maßnahmen aufgrund von Gesprächen mit Republikaner:innen. Schon jetzt sind die USA der größte Öl- und gasproduzent der Welt. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/06/trump-climate-change-fossil-fuels-second-term

Alle drei republikanischen Kandidaten bei den US-Vorwahlen treten nachdrücklich für eine weitere Steigerung der Förderung von Öl und Gas ein. Sie wollen Subventionen für erneuerbare Energien und Elektromobilität zurückfahren. Nur für 13% der republikanischen Wähler ist die Klimakrise eine Top-Priorität. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/18/trump-republican-rivals-climate-crisis

This sort of Whig History example seems to be cropping up again in the early 21st century as Republicans are basing large pieces of their beliefs/identity/doctrine on portions of The Federalist Papers which were marginally read at the time they were written, but because those historical documents appear to make their current positions look "right" today, they're touting them over the more influential Federalist tracts at the time of the founding of America.

Link this to example of this (which I can't seem to find right now.)

Is it possible that many on the far right don't believe science or facts about how people live because they've got a fabulist streak in themselves? They're so used to lying about basic facts about themselves that their first thought is that "everyone else is doing it".

Now compound this with their utter lack of context as well as their privilege and you've got a terrific cocktail for bad decisions.

Mike Johnson, der neue Sprecher des amerikanischen Repräsentantenhauses, ist ein Klimaleugner, den die Fossil-Lobby-Organisation American Energy Alliance zum „energy champion“ erklärt hat. Amerkanische Liberale halten ihn für einen Rechtsexetrmisten. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/25/who-is-mike-johnson-house-speaker-election-denier-climate-anti-abortion

The threat of physical violence is silencing those in power even on the right. We're already at war except for the bullets.

Pat Buchanan ran for the Republican nomination in 1992 and in a prime-time speech at the Republican convention that summer he declared a "cultural war" for the "soul of America".

Pat Robertson, Who Gave Christian Conservatives Clout, Is Dead at 93 by Douglas Martin

What is the current separation of political and civil society in America in 2023? Do the differences in these two (particularly with respect to Antonio Gramsci's framing) still have distinguishing features?

Is there potentially a worry amongst Republicans that by losing the "culture wars" that they'll somehow lose control of society and the capitalist order which funds their party and helps to keep them in control?

Link to Gramsci's idea about cultural hegemony: https://hypothes.is/a/pRnPLPTtEe2_pyt2-Z7pwg

Is there a better direct quote from Locke for this indirect one?

Oddly, large portions of the religious right and Republican right are highly subservient to authority while simultaneously espousing the idea of "freedom".

Apparently the base definition of "freedom" on the right has shifted in large portions of American culture.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/01/marjorie-taylor-greene-congress-georgia-election-background/672229/

https://www.axios.com/2022/10/24/tucker-carlson-fox-news-tom-emmer-buckley

Middle Americans, and particularly those in suburbia and rural parts of America that account for the majority of poverty in the country, tend to make their poverty invisible because of the toxic effects of extreme capitalism and keeping up appearances.

Has this effect risen with the rise of social media platforms like Instagram and the idea of "living one's best life"? How about the social effects of television with shows like "Keeping up with the Kardashians" which encourage conspicuous consumption?

More interesting is the fact that most of these suburban and rural poverty stricken portions of the country are in predominantly Republican held strongholds.

Is there a feedback mechanism that is not only hollowing these areas out, but keeping them in poverty?

Context: Lindsey Graham had just proposed a bill for a nationwide abortion ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

McConnell's position seems to be one that choice about abolition is an option, but one which is reserved for white men of power over others. This is painful because that choice is being left to people without any of the information and nuance about specific circumstances versus the pregnant women themselves potentially in consultation with their doctors who have broad specific training and experience in the topics and issues at hand. Why are these leaders attempting to make decisions based on possibilities rather than realities, particularly when they've not properly studied or are generally aware of any of the realities?

If this is McConnell's true position, then why not punt the decision and choices down to the people directly impacted? And isn't this a long running tenet of the Republican Party to allow greater individual freedoms? Isn't their broad philosophy: individual > state government > national government? (At least with respect to internal, domestic matters; in international matters the opposite relationships seem to dominate.)

tl;dr:<br /> Mitch McConnell believes in choice, just not in your choice.

Here's the actual audio from a similar NPR story:<br /> https://ondemand.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/me/2022/09/20220914_me_gop_sen_lindsey_graham_introduces_15-week_abortion_ban_in_the_senate.mp3#t=206

McConnell is also practicing the Republican party game of "do as I say and not as I do" on Graham directly. He's practicing this sort of hypocrisy because as leadership, he's desperately worried that this move will decimate the Republican Party in the midterm elections.

There's also another reading of McConnell's statement. Viewed as a statement from leadership, there's a form of omerta or silent threat being communicated here to the general Republican Party membership: you better fall in line on the party line here because otherwise we run the risk of losing power. He's saying he's leaving it up to them individually, but in reality, as the owner of the purse strings, he's not.

Thesis:<br /> The broadest distinction between American political parties right now seems to be that the Republican Party wants to practice fascistic forms of "power over" while the Democratic Party wants to practice more democratic forms of "power with".

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/06/politics/joe-biden-donald-trump-maga-republican/index.html

The "red mirage" is a phenomenon in which it appears that the Republican party candidate will win an election based on early returns on election day because Republicans are statistically more likely to vote in person on election day and Democrats are more likely to have voted by absentee ballot or via mail. Many states don't begin counting mail in ballots until late on election day or after and the manual process takes more time than in person balloting.

How does this happen?

Is it the idea of "personal responsibility" and "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" philosophy combined with lack of any actual support and/or education?

There has to be a better phrase or word to define the perverse sort of philosophy espoused by many in the Republican party about this sort of "personal responsibility".

It feels somewhat akin to the idea of privatize profits and socialize the losses. The social loss is definitely one that is pushed off onto the individual, but who's profiting? Is it really so expensive to fix this problem? Isn't the loss to society and public health akin to the Million Dollar Murray problem?

Wouldn't each individual's responsibility be better tied to the collective good as well as their own outcomes? How can the two be bound together to improve outcomes for everyone all around?

Some might see the 98,000 preventable medical error deaths reported by the Institute of Medicine in To Err is Human (1999) now and laugh at the farcical number of deaths due to coronavirus since 2020, a large proportion of which could have been prevented due to better communication and coordination?

What if a more pragmatic anthropological viewpoint could be given to the current fractured state of American politics? If anthropologists are taught not to make value judgements on the way other cultures have come to live their lives, but simply to appreciate and report on them accurately, then perhaps we should leave those on the far right who believe in top down, patriarchal rule to their devices?

What if we nudged (forced) them all to actually live by their own rules by enforcing them to the nth degree? Republican politicians can only get away with badmouthing abortion or homophobic viewpoints because their feet are not held to the fire when those issues impinge upon their own families or even themselves. They have the wealth and the power to flout the laws and not face the direct consequences personally. Would their tunes change if forced by their own top down patriarchal perspectives applying to them?

The forms of rational, skeptical, empirical and conversational forms of debate popularized by the Enlightenment which saw the rejection of arbitrary authority were influenced by the Haudenosaunee nations of Americans.

Interesting to see the reflexive political fallout of this reoccurring with the political right in America beginning in the early 2000s through the 2020s. It's almost as if the Republican party and religious right never experienced the Enlightenment and are still living in the 1700s.

Curious that in modern culture I think of the Jesuits as the embodiment of rationalist, skeptical argumentation and thought now. Apparently they were dramatically transformed since that time.

We definitely need aphorisms like this embedded into our political and economic spheres.

Is this a general feature of the conservative far right of constantly denying our humanity and care for each other?

Given the prevalence of people towards making mistakes and practicing extreme hypocrisy, we really ought to move toward restorative justice. Especially in the smaller non-capital cases.

GOP members go “doctor shopping” for Covid-19 deniers. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2021, from https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/09/22/gop-officials-doctor-shopping-reality-check-avlon-newday-vpx.cnn

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1439615491174141965.html

Apparently Chuck Todd has been captured by Republican Party PR?

Perhaps not so funny, but I said this same thing yesterday in regard to the Texas law relating to abortion.

They just want physical power and control over everyone.

Trumps margin.

How can this gap be closed in the future?

The deregulation part has hurt us immensely. Cross reference this with the thesis found in American Amnesia by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson.

Which parts of the Democratic party went along with this? Evidence? More of the deregulation parts seemed to be identified with the Republican party.

This is another solid example of the hypocrisy of large portions of the Republican party. Do as we say, not as we do. How far can these laws drift from our overarching principles before there is a schism?

How does this fit into the [[beyond the pale]] idea going from small communities to a much larger internet-connected society?

Interesting.

I've found myself looking at statements from Republicans over the past several years and tagging them as "hypocrisy".

I wonder what the actual overlap of the two groups is?

I feel like this is the general case...

A lot of inflammatory dog whistle rhetoric here (not to mention the poor use of en dashes posing as em dashes).

He calls out destructive repercussions of identity politics, but fails to notice that everyone wants to feel safe in their identity, not just cis-gendered white male Republicans.

He calls out censorship of dissenting opinion while writing on his own website. When did the government censor his opinions or any other opinions? Republicans are so pro-corporation and pro-enterprise, but then get upset when those same great companies enforce basic social norms?

And then, in the same breath: "rewriting American history?!" Perhaps we just taking a more nuanced perspective of the actual truths? Maybe we're hearing the stories and perspectives of those who's dissenting opinions have been not only been censored out of the media, but never allowed in for almost 250 years?

Now tell us how you do both of these things well? What do you think funds a safe and secure community and a strong military?

An interesting example with some inflamatory rhetoric, but coupled with his resignation which is all he has left...

But surely in the multi-millions of Republicans, they could find someone who could also appoint those judges, but not have the myriad moral failings that Trump does. For surely if they can't, then they're doomed to failure and misery sooner or later.

Cookson, J. A., Engelberg, J. E., & Mullins, W. (2020). Does Partisanship Shape Investor Beliefs? Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/rwhse

Meliora students, how and why did the Republican Party get founded? What were the initial "planks" in its platform? Summarize and cite your source(s).