WaPo says no

[adrina]

There are conservatives that are. Perhaps those folks are on their way out...but that just makes me mad.

Conservatives that are actually conservative? It would have to be pre-Reagan. And one could even argue the decade before that, as the late 60s and early 70s marked the shift of republican/conservatives toward corporatism and plutocracy.

 

[ll74]

Conservatives that are actually conservative? It would have to be pre-Reagan. And one could even argue the decade before that, as the late 60s and early 70s marked the shift of republican/conservatives toward corporatism and plutocracy.

Not all conservatives are Republicans.

 

[adrina]

Not all conservatives are Republicans.

Again, what does conservatism even mean as practiced by these unicorns? Because if we're going by the dictionary, all actual "conservatives" I have met are more likely to be hippy dippy liberals. But that's not what conservatism means in America.

 

[adrina]

 

[ll74]

Again, what does conservatism even mean as practiced by these unicorns? Because if we're going by the dictionary, all actual "conservatives" I have met are more likely to be hippy dippy liberals. But that's not what conservatism means in America.

Ok, I get that you are speaking about MAGA. I'm not. I'm saying there are actual conservatives who I see online cheering on the lack of endorsements coming out.

It really isn't worth an argument to me.

 

[adrina]

Ok, I get that you are speaking about MAGA. I'm not. I'm saying there are actual conservatives who I see online cheering on the lack of endorsements coming out.

It really isn't worth an argument to me.

I'm not arguing. Again, what is conservatism? What do actual conservatives believe? How is that applied in America?

I'm not talking about MAGA. I'm going back 50 years into conservative history in America. Before MAGA even existed.

 

[ll74]

I'm not arguing. Again, what is conservatism? What do actual conservatives believe? How is that applied in America?

Conservatism is typically free market ideologies with an emphasis on small government. Mix in law and order (the true sense)

I'm not talking about MAGA. I'm going back 50 years into conservative history in America. Before MAGA even existed.

Conservativism doesn't really change all that much. People who aren't conservatives call themselves conservatives ... Same with liberals.

 

[adrina]

Conservatism is typically free market ideologies with an emphasis on small government. Mix in law and order (the true sense)

That is what the libertarians claim to be. However since they majority support Republican candidates that is not what they achieve.

Conservativism doesn't really change all that much. People who aren't conservatives call themselves conservatives ... Same with liberals.

I'm not sure if that isn't a bit of both sidesism. We have questioned liberals, raked them over the coals, demonize them, and in general have tried to make liberals a four letter word.

I think that attention may be better spent questioning conservatives and conservatism. Because honestly I am seeing overwhelming numbers of Republicans define themselves as conservatives but follow absolutely none of the purported classic principles of conservatism.

 

[ll74]

That is what the libertarians claim to be. However since they majority support Republican candidates that is not what they achieve.

Many are. And you are correct. Many progressives support Democratic candidates which don't achieve their favored policies. That doesn't mean they aren't progressives.

I'm not sure if that isn't a bit of both sidesism. We have questioned liberals, raked them over the coals, demonize them, and in general have tried to make liberals a four letter word.

It happens for all ideological views. Mostly when oppositions attempt to diminish their political capital.

I think that attention may be better spent questioning conservatives and conservatism. Because honestly I am seeing overwhelming numbers of Republicans define themselves as conservatives but follow absolutely none of the purported classic principles of conservatism.

Conservatism exists whether people subscribe properly to it or not. Certainly it's worth calling out someone who is claiming to be one but truly is not. Many call out 45 for that very reason.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Bezos is correct in his assertion that Americans now trust the media even less than they trust Congress. He’s correct in his assertion that institutions like WaPo have been sliding into irrelevance for years. His own paper has lost $77 million in the past year.

As the defection of over 200,000 subscribers indicates, its customer base is primarily an echo chamber for liberals seeking confirmation bias dressed up as news. Post readers and disgruntled staffers aren’t mad because the Post has stopped doing endorsements. They’re mad because the paper didn’t endorse the candidate they are voting for.

While it’s obvious that Bezos’ Op Ed is a desperate attempt at damage control, the points he makes about the state of the media are undeniable. His paper is Exhibit A.

I think his stated goal of restoring public trust in WaPo is going to be impossible to achieve. The liberal ideological fervor is too deeply embedded in the organizational culture. The alternative to striving for journalistic legitimacy would be to try and stop the bleeding by issuing a mea culpa and doubling down on the paper’s long standing tradition of left wing advocacy.

Ownership and management has placed this rag in a deep hole. Its former subscribers will have no problem finding other progressive media sanctuaries. Its staff will have a harder time transitioning off the sinking ship.

 

[ll74]

Bezos is correct in his assertion that Americans now trust the media even less than they trust Congress. He’s correct in his assertion that institutions like WaPo have been sliding into irrelevance for years. His own paper has lost $77 million in the past year.

As the defection of over 200,000 subscribers indicates, its customer base is primarily an echo chamber for liberals seeking confirmation bias dressed up as news. Post readers and disgruntled staffers aren’t mad because the Post has stopped doing endorsements. They’re mad because the paper didn’t endorse the candidate they are voting for.

While it’s obvious that Bezos’ Op Ed is a desperate attempt at damage control, the points he makes about the state of the media are undeniable. His paper is Exhibit A.

I think his stated goal of restoring public trust in WaPo is going to be impossible to achieve. The liberal ideological fervor is too deeply embedded in the organizational culture. The alternative to striving for journalistic legitimacy would be to try and stop the bleeding by issuing a mea culpa and doubling down on the paper’s long standing tradition of left wing advocacy.

Ownership and management has placed this rag in a deep hole. Its former subscribers will have no problem finding other progressive media sanctuaries. Its staff will have a harder time transitioning off the sinking ship.

It's not impossible to achieve. It takes people who work to restore trust rather than advocate for the elimination of trusted entities. The "tear it all down" attitude is dangerous just as the self defeatist attitude.

(It's about as annoying as "we can't do it and it's their fault" bullshit )

Guess I'll just doom scroll twitter while Netflix feeds me my next binge ¯⁠\⁠(⁠°⁠_⁠o⁠)⁠/⁠¯

 

[RobDownSouth]

Ok, I get that you are speaking about MAGA. I'm not. I'm saying there are actual conservatives who I see online cheering on the lack of endorsements coming out.

It really isn't worth an argument to me.

These dwindling number of remaining "real conservatives" have shrunk almost to the point of irrelevancy, as their membership has plummeted as followers decamp to either the "Christian Nationalist" or "nihilistic MAGA mob" factions.

In any event their cheering has largely been drowned out by the bellowing of the MAGA crowd, who are once again claimin' "victory" and "stiggin' it to teh Libtards".

The relevancy of newspaper endorsements has largely gone away as a cultural influence, not unlike the six o'clock news on television.

 

[adrina]

These dwindling number of remaining "real conservatives" have shrunk almost to the point of irrelevancy, as their membership has plummeted as followers decamp to either the "Christian Nationalist" or "nihilistic MAGA mob" factions.

In any event their cheering has largely been drowned out by the bellowing of the MAGA crowd, who are once again claimin' "victory" and "stiggin' it to teh Libtards".

The relevancy of newspaper endorsements has largely gone away as a cultural influence, not unlike the six o'clock news on television.

I still don't know what a "real conservative" is. If they voted for Reagan or either of the two Bushes and supported that fiscal policy they cannot be called conservative.

I don't even think that "small government" and "free market ideologies" are really "conservative". I think that's corporatism wrapped in marketing.

 

[ll74]

These dwindling number of remaining "real conservatives" have shrunk almost to the point of irrelevancy, as their membership has plummeted as followers decamp to either the "Christian Nationalist" or "nihilistic MAGA mob" factions.

They're on the outside of the party now. I don't believe they have disappeared....maga is just louder and more obnoxious.

In any event their cheering has largely been drowned out by the bellowing of the MAGA crowd, who are once again claimin' "victory" and "stiggin' it to teh Libtards".

Yep

The relevancy of newspaper endorsements has largely gone away as a cultural influence, not unlike the six o'clock news on television.

The relevancy is journalism has declined with the trust segregation. If people worked to address issues with media companies I stead of the tribalistic warfare, we might get somewhere ...but as you and others have shown.....it's more trendy to be defeatists these days. "Their side won't let our side"

(And yes, I am both sidesing that one)

 

[ll74]

I still don't know what a "real conservative" is. If they voted for Reagan or either of the two Bushes and supported that fiscal policy they cannot be called conservative.

I don't even think that "small government" and "free market ideologies" are really "conservative". I think that's corporatism wrapped in marketing.

If you're defining ideologies based on trending party bullshit, then of course you will have an issue understanding those ideologies.

Ideologies ebb and flow in popularity. They get combined with other modern takes on them...but at their core, their political approaches to government don't change....

To be Republican has never meant to be conservative. It's just that modern conservatism has subscribed more to the party.

 

[adrina]

If you're defining ideologies based on trending party bullshit, then of course you will have an issue understanding those ideologies.

Ideologies ebb and flow in popularity. They get combined with other modern takes on them...but at their core, their political approaches to government don't change....

To be Republican has never meant to be conservative. It's just that modern conservatism has subscribed more to the party.

I'm trying to actually get some kind of working definition of "conservatism" that doesn't follow along the lines of "woke".

Earlier you stated that classical definitions of conservatism were free market ideologies and smaller government. Historically I have never seen an instance of that being true in America. It has always been used as a tool by the rich to amass wealth. That's why I'm calling it corporatism dressed up in some marketing.

In essence, I'm at the point of thinking that "conservatism" is essentially a scam used to exploit the masses, the wolf in the sheep's clothing. It's usage today is matching the historical one.

Liberalism is at least based in the essence of liberty. Conservatism is based in capitalism.

 

[ll74]

I'm trying to actually get some kind of working definition of "conservatism" that doesn't follow along the lines of "woke".

Earlier you stated that classical definitions of conservatism were free market ideologies and smaller government. Historically I have never seen an instance of that being true in America. It has always been used as a tool by the rich to amass wealth. That's why I'm calling it corporatism dressed up in some marketing.

Parties don't align perfectly with ideologies. You won't see a straight conservative administration/Congress because America has a two party system. Just as you'll never see a straight liberal or straight progressive administration/Congress.

You can call it whatever you want....it's an ideology just as communism and marxism and libertarianism and anarchy ...etc...etc.

In essence, I'm at the point of thinking that "conservatism" is essentially a scam used to exploit the masses, the wolf in the sheep's clothing. It's usage today is matching the historical one.

If that's how you view the ideology, then it is. I'm not dismissing your opinion...but logically, ideologies are sets of values of governing that exist in the world. In their own, they've never purely been exercised nor has any single approach been the best for governing on its own.

Liberalism is at least based in the essence of liberty. Conservatism is based in capitalism.

Fair statement.

 

[Politruk]

Mike Lofgren writes:

Americans would doubtless prefer to think that nothing like that could happen in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. But the reactions of our own elites to the behavior of the Republican Party in general, and the Trump phenomenon in particular, have increasingly given the lie to such complacency. We have seen over the last eight years how journalists for prestige publications have assiduously normalized Donald Trump. Is it a case of rote journalistic convention that turns Trump’s demented ravings into something resembling the blandly acceptable “policy statements” of a typical gladhanding pol? Is the press merely operating in Pavlovian fashion, in the same manner they clean up grammar and usage according to the AP style manual? Or is something else happening; is the press manifesting an unadmitted genuflection to raw power, exercised arbitrarily, out of calculated self-preservation? Or are we seeing, perhaps, a kind of masochistic admiration for the bully?
This journalistic kowtow reached a new depth with the decision of the Washington Post – the newspaper that famously brought down Richard Nixon – to withdraw a planned endorsement of Kamala Harris. The commentary on this action, even from some liberal outlets, was curiously tentative: that newspaper endorsements don’t really matter, anyway, and “We can’t know for certain what went into these decisions.” On the contrary, what went into Post owner Jeff Bezos’s decision is a metaphysical certainty.

It was a calculated decision to protect his other business interests from spiteful retaliation by a potential president Trump, and it was presaged for almost a year by Bezos’ move to hire a new publisher, Will Lewis. The latter made his bones in the UK division of Rupert Murdoch’s lying machine as a Mr. Fixit, cleaning up the remnants of Murdoch’s phone-hacking scandal by deleting inconvenient emails and sowing the landscape with red herrings.

Why else would a savvy mogul like Bezos hire a person against whom UK police have now launched a preliminary investigation, except to serve as hatchet man at the Post newsroom when unpleasant decisions have to be taken? Democracy dies in darkness, indeed.