The Political & Philosophy Thread

Regionally speaking, it's still the case. Maybe not state by state, but there's still widespread regional identification, and there's definitely still an identitarian rift between north and south.

Also between urban and rural, clearly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
Yeah, FDR was one of those rugged individualist types.

FDR is overlooked when it comes to his drug policy, but he didn't have a lasting effect on it nor social or police policy in general, it was basically all directed towards economic policy. FDR was more notable in the things he allowed the government to encompass, since most of his actions were ended willingly or ruled unconstitutional by the 50s.
 
FDR is overlooked when it comes to his drug policy, but he didn't have a lasting effect on it nor social or police policy in general, it was basically all directed towards economic policy. FDR was more notable in the things he allowed the government to encompass, since most of his actions were ended willingly or ruled unconstitutional by the 50s.

Gotta el-mow on this one. The New Deal dramatically altered society in a social sense, by creating an expectation of Federal "problem-solving" and covering at least the "to grave" portion of the "cradle to grave" goal of socialist government.

Just because he didn't start the drug war doesn't mean he wasn't terrible.
 
Regionally speaking, it's still the case. Maybe not state by state, but there's still widespread regional identification, and there's definitely still an identitarian rift between north and south.

Also between urban and rural, clearly.

I'm not the greatest personal rep for this, since I don't have a great love for the south and I've never lived in truly rural areas. But the north-eastern seaboard is a generally abhorrent place to me, and at this point, Virginia may as well be Yankeedom, despite hosting most of the Confederate battlefields on the Eastern side, so include it too. I also generally despise hyperurban areas. Concrete rat warrens.

I've seen most of the US other than the north-eastern seaboard, and met people from all over while in the service, and the inner and eastern Rockies is where I'd call my true home, whether desert or northern reaches. Beautiful spaces, comfortable towns, wonderful people (especially Idaho and Montana).

There are four states where I met pretty much nothing but vapid, conceited persons in the Corps: Florida (not a Southern state), California, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. NY has a such a split between east and west can't include it......I will say I only met Penn people from major cities. I know the App range hits Penn too.
 
Last edited:
Gotta el-mow on this one. The New Deal dramatically altered society in a social sense, by creating an expectation of Federal "problem-solving" and covering at least the "to grave" portion of the "cradle to grave" goal of socialist government.

Just because he didn't start the drug war doesn't mean he wasn't terrible.

I never said he wasn't terrible, but I'd put social security under the umbrella of economic policy, even if it has the word "social" in it. He was to Reagan what McKinley was to... well, also Reagan in terms of international policy. You have the guys that set precedent to create legal problems, and then you have the guys that take precedent to create practical problems. FDR was Caesar to Reagan's Nero.
 
I never said he wasn't terrible, but I'd put social security under the umbrella of economic policy, even if it has the word "social" in it. He was to Reagan what McKinley was to... well, also Reagan in terms of international policy. You have the guys that set precedent to create legal problems, and then you have the guys that take precedent to create practical problems. FDR was Caesar to Reagan's Nero.

You're underestimating the social effect of Social Security, paying farmers for nothing, Federal Public Works programs, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TechnicalBarbarity
On the surface it's amazing how dramatically different Teddy and FDR, as relatives, were in their conceptualizations of grand state power. On even a more cursory examination, their personal abilities or lack thereof resolve any amazement. Teddy was Putinesque in his persona, while still privileging many progressive policies. Overall though, the thrust was increasing opportunities for masculinity.

FDR on the other hand, wanted opportunities for as many people as possible to experience being a cripple cared for by the state. Misery loves company.
 
No, Richard Spencer Is Not a ‘Wilsonian Progressive’.
Contrary to recent claims, Richard Spencer is not a “Wilsonian Progressive.” How could he be? Woodrow Wilson pushed for foreign war in the name of “Democracy,” saw the administrative state as the cornerstone of government action, and sought the spiritual uplift of Americans from the “hosts of sin” and a “heartless” economic system.

Spencer on the other hand, despises foreign interventionism, does not support democracy, and says very little on the subject of economics and public administration. It is true, as Dinesh D’Souza notes, that both Wilson and Spencer reject the American Founding. It is also true that both consider European civilization to be a product of something unique and superior in the “blood” of those who built it.

Richard Spencer is my favourite lolcow lately.


 
On the surface it's amazing how dramatically different Teddy and FDR, as relatives, were in their conceptualizations of grand state power. On even a more cursory examination, their personal abilities or lack thereof resolve any amazement. Teddy was Putinesque in his persona, while still privileging many progressive policies. Overall though, the thrust was increasing opportunities for masculinity.

FDR on the other hand, wanted opportunities for as many people as possible to experience being a cripple cared for by the state. Misery loves company.

Teddy was the last true renaissance man as far as I'm concerned. Probably my favorite President in historical terms.
 
On the surface it's amazing how dramatically different Teddy and FDR, as relatives, were in their conceptualizations of grand state power. On even a more cursory examination, their personal abilities or lack thereof resolve any amazement. Teddy was Putinesque in his persona, while still privileging many progressive policies. Overall though, the thrust was increasing opportunities for masculinity.

FDR on the other hand, wanted opportunities for as many people as possible to experience being a cripple cared for by the state. Misery loves company.

Breaking apart dozens of corporations and passing many of the early safety/consumer-protection laws isn't a form of nanny-stating?

No, Richard Spencer Is Not a ‘Wilsonian Progressive’.


Richard Spencer is my favourite lolcow lately.

Wilson tried avoiding war longer than Teddy would have. I won't waste time comparing Richard Spencer to any particular president because from what I've seen, Spencer has no consistent behavior beyond trolling non-white people and praising muh European forefathers.

Teddy was the last true renaissance man as far as I'm concerned. Probably my favorite President in historical terms.

Teddy was an egocentric fuck that sabotaged Taft's reelection to put Wilson in power over a personal slight of Taft being a better progressive than him. He was still an incredible character and despite all his dick-swinging managed to do good with it, but people need to get over his sex appeal.
 
Teddy was an egocentric fuck that sabotaged Taft's reelection to put Wilson in power over a personal slight of Taft being a better progressive than him. He was still an incredible character and despite all his dick-swinging managed to do good with it, but people need to get over his sex appeal.

But DEE-LIGHTED tho
 
Also, basically every golf club 80's comedy villain.

hqdefault.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
Breaking apart dozens of corporations and passing many of the early safety/consumer-protection laws isn't a form of nanny-stating?

I'm not sure I would call trust-busting nanny state. Safety and Consumer protection laws could be conceived of in that way, but I would argue that that is at the margins.
 
Some would argue that public-run pensions aren't the nanny-state and it was LBJ that started the nanny-state-proper. It all starts somewhere.
 
Some would argue that public-run pensions aren't the nanny-state and it was LBJ that started the nanny-state-proper. It all starts somewhere.

You can always find someone who will say a thing. Arguing The New Deal isn't a good point for the start of the nanny state is controversial, but it's not edgy.