miscegenation

"Rising autocrats have declared democracy obsolete. They argue that popular government is too slow to respond to the rapid pace of the modern world, or that liberal democracy’s focus on individual rights undermines the traditional values that hold societies together, values like religion and ethnic or racial similarities. Hungarian president Viktor Orbán, whom the radical right supports so enthusiastically that he is speaking on August 4 in Texas at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), has called for replacing liberal democracy with “illiberal democracy” or “Christian democracy,” which will explicitly not treat everyone equally and will rest power in a single political party." (HCR)

There was a woman from Ivory Coast in my neighborhood (black), who married a Hungarian man (white). We got along well until we started talking politics. She said January 6th was a protest, not an insurrection, and I told her I couldn't talk to someone whom I didn't share a reality. She told her babysitter I couldn't talk to her either. She move to Hungary.

Yesterday I read the Hungarian Prime Minister is not for non-european immigrants moving to Hungary. Opse. The whole program doesn't allow blacks, wants racial purity. Opse. I guess she likes the authoritarian ways, the right wingers, but what she can't like if she's truly married, is the racial element. Right wing is against miscegenation. Uncomfortable little detail for someone in a mixed racial marriage. 

I can't also help but think about Clarence Thomas and his wife, who participated in the January 6th insurrection, and should have made Clarence Thomas recuse himself for decisions, but he didn't. I think he should be impeached for that. 

Right wing ideology is against gay marriage, and contraception and all that, but opse, there's this nasty little bit about being anti-miscegenation.

Miscegenation is the mixing of races. Being against that is part of the whole right wing identikit. Right wing people who are in mixed marriages, what do they think about that?

I always celebrate Loving Day, June 12th, when the Supreme Court, recently under fire for it's swing right, made it OK to mix races in 1967. The decision struck down all anti-miscegenation laws remaining in sixteen U.S. states.

I'm pretty sure a conservative can find end result contradictions in their version of the progressive agenda. I read r/conservative all the time and they attribute thoughts to me, that I don't identify, don't agree with. So to characterize the other side, it's maybe speculation, not fact. Connecting dots for the other side is perhaps not really intellectually fair. Someone went onto r/Buddhism and speculated the influence of the Buddha on Jesus. I mean maybe, but let the Christian tell me what they make of Jesus. Even if they don't understand the roots of the Buddha in Jesus, that's not really up to us as Buddhists to point it out to them. Maybe in an academic setting.

So my question is at what point, say you've read some bible and you've seen some quotes that seem to indicate they want to treat the poor good, and then you apply that to the "Christian conservative" who is actively anti-poor. At what point can you point out the contradictions in the other sides actions and ideology? CNN agrees. Conservatives see CNN as far left, even if it's near the center on the media bias chart. By painting anything not far right as far left, they erase the idea of balanced reporting, so their slant gains more power.

I think you can but it's soft knowledge. Soft knowledge is the stuff that could be wrong a percentage of the time, that are trends, and maybe sociological or psychological trends. To call it soft isn't to put it down, it's to point out that it's complicated and not cause and effect, and not always true. Political reasoning is a kind of soft knowledge because reasoning doesn't always carry the world. Political thinking is about ideas of how to govern the people. 7.8 billion humans might not need to be organized, but we do appreciate roads and garbage removal and sewage. Society can do good things for itself, act in it's own best interest.

Conservatives in America used to be against federalism, and that is manifest in the pushing abortion rights off to the states. Since the majority of people want it legal, they feel they have more of a chance of outlawing it by states that are often controlled by republican legislatures. 

Is it fair to opt out of crucial parts of a political ideology? Can Clarence Thomas take away abortion and contraception and environmental safeguards, but want the hippy dippy ideas of allowing blacks to marry whites being OK? He's living it, so I guess you can. Maybe politics is about what contradictions you see in others. 

I'm reading a book about Buddhism and the various changes that happen to it as it hits the west over the last 100 years. What are essential aspects of Buddhism, and what aren't. The more superstitious aspect found in Buddhism are discarded by the western mind, that's not necessary. As people secularize Buddhism, there's another force trying to traditionalize Buddhism. Certain ideas seem to cling together, and we bring our worldview and personality to our discourses about what is important to us. 

My friend is a leave me alone republican. They're similar to don't tax me republicans. An upstairs neighbor is a libertarian too. The majority of the people in the park I take my daughter to are apathetic don't care people. The orthodox Jews are don't tax me Republicans, don't wear masks. The nice guy didn't think Trump was responsible for 40% of the deaths. 

The Ukranian woman wants America to help defend the country against Russia. My leave me alone republican friend thought if we didn't have the war in Ukraine maybe it's bad but not so many people die and have the traumas of war.

In the end it comes down to who decides? Who are the best leaders? I think a good leader understands her limits, and also tries to do simple things that make positive differences. Upaya means skillful means. I think governing is a skill that can be developed. To go into government to kill it, like Ron Swanson, is kind of weird to me, as fun a character as he was. 

I like the idea of people voting and deciding. Even if democracy is perhaps slow and inchoate, what people want seems important. That 2/3 of the people want abortion legal seems important to me. That 73 million people wanted Trump is really scary. 

George Will suggests that conservativism suggests doing the unpopular but right thing is more important, and that's why it's more flexible with democracy. I respect that he's a never Trumper. That there are some conservatives that find him disgusting. I hope Cheney, who's not just good and pure sunshine, gets re-elected in Wyoming. Did you know after she voted for the impeachment of Trump the second time, she had to spend $58K in security? I mean it's a write off and puts her into a different tax bracket, and she comes from a wealthy family but that just seems wrong to me.