Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Republicans are not at all in any way pro free market, that's just a propaganda ploy, a Jedi mind trick for the weak. They are, have always been, classist. They believe in retaining class distinctions. Everything they do is a preservation of differentiation of the American version of the caste system. And it's why some people seem to vote against their economic interests, like coal workers. They voted Republican to preserve their class, not actually get ahead, and to preserve the class of their company's owners, rich landed elite.

So now the calculus will be, which party will sign on to protecting the human worker vs the robot, in a variation of the H-1B program. The really dangerous jobs will go to the robots, ostensibly to protect the worker, so that there's still this differentiation of class preservation.

Naturally, anyone who disagrees with this is a traitor to their class, because everyone should want to be preserve the class caste system. Know your proper place. Some people are in fact better than others. Equality is P.C. bullcrap.




When Republicans talk about supporting innovation and removing "burdensome regulations", and this is the kind of protectionist agenda they support, it's clear they have no real interest in true innovation. They merely want to protect the antiquated business models of sluggish industries that actually refuse to innovate. Real innovation is difficult, it requires revolutionary thinking, and the coal industry certainly doesn't want to think too hard about changing their business. They just want to extract more coal cheaply and sell it at the same profit. Because they refuse to innovate, they are threatened by competitors who have invested in renewables and made progress such that their prices are now close to fossil fuels.

Why don't Republicans champion the innovation of the renewables industry? If they truly cared about innovation they would, but it's clear that they hide behind this rhetoric only to protect their powerful lobbyist friends.


It might not be because they're republicans. It might be because their constituents are the beneficiaries of the local coal industry. The politicians are just doing what their voters want. They're puppets of the people who live there and want to keep their jobs at the expense of everyone else.


As much as I considerably support the transition toward renewables - I agree: this is fundamentally the job of state and local politicians. They can actively attempt to shape the conversation on a local level - but they are "hired" as a representative of the people and the people's will. It's the people, on a local level, that must be convinced that change is necessary.


> They are, have always been, classist.

Except for that time they freed the slaves.

Yeah, yeah, I know that's 19th century, but I hope to show your generalizations are absurdly broad.

Hell, even 21st century, we have a populist Republican president appealing to blue-collar workers. Characterizing the Republican party as elitists oppressing the masses is woefully incomplete.


To be fair, the Republican party is widely viewed as having gone through a major shift in policy and makeup with Nixon's 'southern strategy'[1] in the 60s. Comparing the modern Republican party with anything pre-1960 requires taking things with a whole truckload of salt. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy


Absolutely. Which is what makes They are, have always been so blatantly false.


You are the one who imputed that 'cmurf referred to all parties named the Republican Party, rather than the more logical interpretation as the current party named the Republican Party.


"The logical interpretation"? There's not much logical about using the word "always" and expecting everyone understand "currently" was actually meant, when no caveat like "modern" was included.

This gets my goat more on the grounds of using sweeping absolute statements, than any care for the reputation of Republicans, current or pre-1960.


Did your old Republican Party dismantle? No. It evolved. Ergo, same party. Ergo, the use of "always" applies to it.


Grand Old Party ;)

https://www.gop.com


The Parties switching is a myth. Only handful changed sides. Way to rewrite history.

Well sourced: https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Debunking-the-Myth-GOP-and...

Dinesh D'Souza The Switch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJCVVbDlYhQ

You shouldn't downvote just because it doesn't fit your narrative.


Perhaps the former chairman of the Republican party can inform you of exactly what the Republican party stands for:

https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-inf...


On the other hand, the fact that a blowhard troll like Dinesh D'Souza passes for an intellectual in the modern Republican party is more evidence that they're definitely not elitists.


That would be convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza, author of such timeless classics as Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party. Didn't he get fired from King's College for cheating on his wife?


>Didn't he get fired from King's College for cheating on his wife?

Education institution that fires people based on their personal life choices that don't affect their work? And I thought we were done with this crap in the 21st century.


(1) Adultery is not your average indiscretion. Breaking a marriage contract is illegal in most jurisdictions (though it is rarely enforced).

(2) When you teach at a religious institution, "personal life choices that don't affect their work?" is less of a thing, because you've deliberately related work and religion (i.e. personal choices).

It might not be your cup of tea, but some students want to attend an institution of high moral standards, as well as high academic standards.


>high moral standards, as well as high academic standards

I don't find cheating to be especially immoral, at least not more than lying or withholding information for any other purpose.


You can bring up D'Souza's getting fired for cheating on his wife with the Board of Trustees of King's College. Their address is:

  56 Broadway, New York, NY 10004
Since King's College is an accredited, Christian liberal arts college, I can only assume that they demand the highest moral character from their professors and administration. And stuff.


Why would I? I don't care about their views on morality, and they can decide whatever they like. I wouldn't regard religious schools as a quality education though.

But I'm not sure why extramarital relations are being brought up as a way to discredit someone, when it's of zero relevance.


It's a Catholic college.


And this would be a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy.


Um, no. An ad hominem argument would be if I were attacking 551199's character which I'm not. Instead, 551199 cited D'Souza as a reliable source and I attacked D'Souza's character. See the difference? Good.

I am however, impeaching D'Souza's credibility as a source.


..based on political views you find odious, rather than directly attacking what you think is right or wrong about the particular (unrelated) statement in question. That is an ad hominem argument.


> ..based on political views you find odious

Well, I didn't know that a felony conviction or cheating on your wife were political views. However, given the current President, perhaps you're right.


Ad hominems are not always fallacious:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Non-fallacious_reas...

Specifically, pointing out the obviously biased nature of a source calls to question the credibility of said source, even before we get to addressing the argument itself.


I agree. Attack the argument not the arguer.


Again, the arguer was+is 551199 and I'm not attacking him. However, he did trot out the odious Dinesh D'Souza and I felt it necessary to put that cretin into his proper context. So I'm not attacking the arguer; I'm attacking his alternate facts.


No, he got paid to speak about the importance of family and the evils of gay marriage.


And this has what to do with the correctness or incorrectness of his analysis?


He makes a living being a partisan Republican. That means he can't be impartial.


Being able to practice what one preaches is a useful heuristic on how authentically one holds that position.


..which is still a poor proxy for correctness or incorrectness.


k, but the people who fired him for it disagree


This whole Dinesh D'Souza tangent is a distraction to avoid talking about the issue at hand.

I think its safe to say that one the guiding principles of the modern Republican party is that less government regulation is better for everyone.

So why is the party that always advocates for less regulation and more competition REGULATING the energy market and RESTRICTING competition? Maybe because they aren't really for less regulation and more competition. Maybe they are about protecting the status quo?

Squaring the less regulation/more competition principles against this Wyoming law, or the anti-Tesla legislation in conservative states seems to indicate that these "principles" are an idealogical front to justify at least what some people want - Protecting their interests.


It's not well sourced. Your sources are from Republican partisans.


Compared to wikipedia article that only scratches the surface what the 'switch' was about?

Wikipedia is far from non partisan.


Reality has strong opinions on things, too.


>You shouldn't downvote just because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Get used to it. Folks on HN often downvote anything that's counter-liberal. I post my Austrian views a lot and I get downvoted a lot.

Voted you up BTW.


That's disingenuous at best, and frankly you should be ashamed to present such a weak argument.

And in the 21st century, as you mention, the "populist Republican president" is pretty blatantly playing an inside game and an outside game, cursing the industry and political establishment to the public, then going inside and shaking hands and sitting down with the same people, going so far as to put them on his cabinet and deep inside his government.


Except for that time they freed the slaves.

Claptrap. It's not the same party, and I don't mean that in the sense of stepping in a river.


In the 1960s the Democrats and Republicans switched places on a lot of issues. It wasn't taught very well to me in school, and for a variety of reasons its not discussed much in the current media. Ovbiously, the parties themselves don't want to make a point out of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy


Lee Atwater, former chairman of the Republican party, on tape, talking about the southern strategy:

https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-inf...


I'm not sure why you had to linkt to this 3 separate times in the same discussion, but for anyone else that just wants the mp3:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thenation/audio/mp3/Full_Audio/LeeAt...


I suspect that the parties might flip again. The Democrats has been very pro-authoritarian lately for example loudly defending the FBI, CIA, drone programs, patriot act and erosion of civil liberties. While the Republicans have recently picked up a small anti-authoritarian streak. Both are now arguing from rather atypical positions for them.


I think the Democratic party is in real danger of being politically encircled. "Knock yourself out, take the center."


I can see that. It would be rather disastrous. I wonder if that because more military officials seem to be Republican might give them an edge in strategic thinking? They have a majority of the electorate and yet still lose from time to time, mostly when the Republicans give them just enough rope to hang themselves with a few years prior.


Right, and it's a disingenuous statement. The current Republican ideologies were not abolitionist back then.


The first Republicans did not focus on abolition because they wanted to change a class structure, they fought for abolition because they feared an unfair imbalance in the labor market as the nation expanded westward while the abolitionist policies of the northern states ensured that there would be a continuous set of compromises between new free and slave states such that over time the slave states would be dominant economically and politically (3/5ths clause).


While it may be true that some Republicans were motivated by economic concerns, I highly doubt all; and, I believe there were noted abolitionists that helped to form the party.


> Except for that time they freed the slaves.

... because only Northern Republicans signed up to the Union army?

Not to mention that only the superficial accounts of the civil war say it was about slavery. Even Lincoln basically said the free slaves thing was basically just an add-on.

If you're going to be literalist in how you read others' comments, then be correct when you do so.


Take the original statement "Everything they do is a preservation of differentiation of the American version of the caste system." If that were really true in the absolute sense it was presented, Lincoln would not have freed the slaves, not even as a side-effect. It's fair to point that out as a counter-example when the original argument was so stark and black-and-white.


Or you could read it as "have always been" as in the commentor's own personal experience. Or as in the current serving representatives throughout their careers.

Taking a counterpoint from over 150 years ago and using a hard literalist interpretation... is a pretty pissweak way to counter the point that the GP was getting at. Extracting 'have always been' from everything that was said and then zeroing in on that like it's the core of the argument? It's an adolescent debating style.


That white savior narrative is bullshit. No matter what Lincoln did, you will see a pretty strong trend of people who fly Confederate flags and what party they support... It also does not excuse or somehow counteract the last half century of Republican actions

The real reason the US "freed" the slaves was because there was a cotton crisis in egypt, making the united States the primary supplier of cotton to Europe. Now, the civil war was a resources game of who could fund their armies the longest, and Lincoln was smart enough to know that Europe would most likely support the south in the war in order to ensure steady flow of suddenly more valuable cotton. So, he made the war about slavery and issued the emancipation proclamation. The language in the EP is very clearly aimed at European interests and it put a moral high ground underneath the north to stand on, to sort of guilt Europe from funding the south in the civil war. It wasn't about civil rights, it was about securing the war effort.


But how did the war start? I seem to recall that a bunch of states seceded for some reason.


That's a really interesting theory on Lincoln's motivations. Any sources that would back that up?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_Cotton_Famine#Polit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_America...

http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincoln-in-d...

The emancipation proclamation was issued in 1863, same year as the Lancanshire Cotton Famine. The language of the document is clearly pointed outwards as much inwards.


>Some people are in fact better than others.

Is this not true? Humans aren't equal. Some people are tall and others short, some are smart and others aren't, some are talented in certain ways and others in different ways. We can't all swim like Phelps and assuming you're a coder, Phelps probably can't code like you. There's nothing wrong with that. I think majority of human beings have something distinct that they can offer and what differentiates how successful one becomes is the graft one puts in. There's never been a greater time to showcase one's talents if sufficient effort is applied.

>They are, have always been, classist

Going back to my earlier point; we aren't equal. Some people will have the will to put in more time, money and effort. This naturally leads to class distinctions and a natural order. You want to entrust a company's leadership, for instance, on the most qualified individuals, not just anyone for the purposes of egalitarian sentiments. If this is the case, you MUST admit that people are different and that some are more qualified than others. This is not to say that one class should act in ways that would harm any other class.

As for the OPs submission, I don't agree with and sort of state or federal intervention. To me, it is wrong. Market forces should indeed determine what gets adopted as an energy source, be it coal or renewable.

EDIT: formatting




Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: