On the Democratic students' reluctance to date Republicans, versus the Republican students' relative willingness to date Democrats: You may think this illustrates tolerance in Republicans (and intolerance in Democrats). But it might just illustrate Republicans' limited dating pool. It might be more important to them to have sex than to have principles. Exactly what I would expect, and I don't mean that in a critical way.
You’re probably overthinking it. I’m reminded of a famous quote: “conservatives think liberals are stupid; liberals think conservatives are evil.” I’ve met more than enough progressives in my time (I worked in an environmental nonprofit) where that template completely matched reality. When you think Trump is evil incarnate, it’s really hard to convince yourself that the people who support him are worthy of respect.
Just read a fairly recent poll (April 2025; https://today.yougov.com/society/articles/51962-americans-unwilling-to-date-opposing-views-transgender-rights) where Democrats by a margin of 2:1 or greater would refuse to date people who disagreed with their opinion on Donald Trump, January 6th, or vaccines. But there were some issues where Republicans were more exclusionary, although to a much lesser degree: religion, gender roles, and transgender rights.
Surprisingly, people 65 and older were pickier and more exclusionary than younger Americans. I guess this makes sense if you think of older folks as more stubborn and set in their ways. But this is an online poll, so maybe you’re only getting input from the most tech-savvy retirees, who probably skew really left.
I think it also has to do with who's in the White House/Congress - when your party's in power, you're in an expansive, "everything's going my way" kind of mood, while Dems are still smarting mightily from the last election and boiling with hate for the opposition. When a Democrat is president, I'm pretty sure conservatives are pissed off most of the time, and would the dating dynamic reverse? Hard to say....
When can we stop pretending that the WSJ is conservative. You don't and I don't but lots of people still do. News pages went left long ago and now the editorial pages are following. I only occasionally read their articles now mainly because of the paywall but when I do, I tend to be annoyed. Legacy conservatives while not as dangerous as leftists are more annoying.
Richard, what do you read for news nowadays? I am one of those "lots of people still do" but am always open to change. I read Real Clear Politics but have not found anything consistently dependable there, either. Any suggestions appreciated. Txs.
It is almost like a full time job sifting through all the BS. The deadliest form of bias is the decision about what issues to cover. If you read something and know the ideological bent of the outlet, you can correct for bias. But you can't compensate for silence. Right and Left media not only cover issues differently, they cover different issues. So if you stay in the same space all the time you never find out there is an issue. I save time by ignoring anything about sportsball or celebrities. I scan headlines to see what the current thing is and then investigate further if I care. Increasingly, I gravitate to long form media.
Oren and Heritage, two peas in a pod. The "new" right. Using economic policy as a fig leaf, their real mission has been exposed as a cultural one. No wonder women have fled the R party. It's also no wonder that education level has become the dividing line between the parties, as educated voters flee the crazy culture warrior ethos of the "new" right, perfectly embodied by Heritage. When not defending Nick Fuentes, Heritage finds itself opposing gay marriage and abortion, fighting against oral contraceptives, espousing "administrative state" conspiracy theories, promoting marriage "boot camps", and a host of other loony ideas. Its own staff is fleeing along with many former external partners. I guess limited government is no longer tolerable in so called "conservative" circles:) Especially if it involves the heavy hand of the federal government in the regulation of the bedroom. Perhaps too many guys who can't get dates... Then there is the state taking ownership stakes in major firms, and the dear leader threatening and shaking down the corporate community in myriad ways. Welcome to the "new" right!
Alas, the actual founder and intellectual lodestar of the "new" right, Don, continues to define the movement with his actions. Oren may pretend Don is on a mission to revive the workin class, but last I checked, his leader seemed fixated on other things. Pocketing crypto corruption loot, naming buildings after himself, shredding global alliances with democratic states, sending masked, poorly trained agents to terrorize our neighbors instead of criminals (but only in blue jurisdictions), blowing up fishing boats and invading countries in contravention of domestic and international law, pursuing retribution against political enemies, etc. And tellingly, the revealed economic policy preference of the "new" right is the BBB, a budget-busting hosing of workin stiffs and handout to Don's fellow plutocrats.
Does Oren understand the "other than that Mrs Lincoln" nature of what he writes on these pages? He prattles on about the mistakes of elites in 1985. Meanwhile, he sides with the ruling elites of today, who are basically a throwback to 1885. I wonder if Oren supports the "new" right policy on vaccines and scientific research...
Nope, lifelong R, til Don. And still a conservative, unlike Don. I thought it was MAGA who was backward looking, it's, um, in the name:)
Hang in there. I understand MAGA hates the America of today and would like to return to an earlier era. I'd prefer dominating the coming era, not retreating like Don. Thats the America I know.
Uh…a pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, anti-law and order “conservative” who opposes “backward looking” ideas? I don’t think you know what that word “conservative” means. The fact that it has become obscure enough that you could actually believe it describes you is a big part of how things got as bad as they have over the last 20 years.
Lemme help. I'm for fiscal discipline-Don set the all time debt accumulation record in his first term, and the BBB puts him on track to break his own record. I'm for limited government, and am suspicious of the concentration of power-Don has deployed the military on our streets against the wishes of the states governors. ICE, soon to be the largest federal law enforcement agency in US history, has unleashed it's masked, unidentified federal agents onto our streets to terrorize our neighbors, pull mothers out of school pick up lines, chase down door dash drivers etc, instead of the criminals he promised to target (Imagine the next D prez doing the same, but with his own list of "bad" people). I'm for deregulation-for the boardroom and for the bedroom-it's right wing ideologues, not conservatives, who obsess over the sex lives of others. I'm for the rule of law-Don incited an armed insurrection leading to the first non-peaceful transfer of power in our history, then pardoned participant felons convicted of seditious conspiracy. He lies to this day about the 2020 election, weakening the most important institution needed for a free society-the election process. I think character matters, Don is a thrice married, openly racist creep with a history of exploiting women. I'm for free markets-not only has Don embarked on a silly taco tariff charade, he's taking ownership interests in major corporations, threatening corporations with unilateral retributive actions, sending welfare checks to farmers to compensate for the business they lost to begin with because of his tariffs, and otherwise making Marx proud. I'm for a strong national defense, not retreating into our hemisphere and randomly decapitating countries just for the snuff film value. I'm for building a strong coalition of democracies to confront our actual enemy-China, instead of driving them away. Finally, don't ya worry just a smidge about Don's mental state? He's making Joepa look coherent, which ain't easy. Imagine him at 82...
Lemme help. You are mostly a Libertarian, not a conservative. And judging Trump for his personal life while condemning doing that anyone else seems mighty hypocritical of you. A severe case of TDS can produce cognitive dissonance.
As I said, the word “conservative”, which has a very simple and clear meaning, has been so contorted by politics that for some it means something entirely different from what it is. The same is true of the word “liberal”. Most of what you are describing as “conservative” is classical liberalism, I.e. libertarianism. Some of it is progressivism. A sliver of it is compatible with conservatism.
Nah, libertarians are crazy, silly, dumb, unserious, performative. Like Don. But, I love the TDS surrender. No response on the merits, so lamely bleat TDS... Have you bought any $TRUMP coin, gold sneakers, NFT's, bibles, watches, etc? You seem a likely consumer of the many wares Don pedals to his flock:)
I think that conservative economic policy does not have to choose between being pro-welfare or anti-welfare. Redistribution of that sort is always a band-aid, at best. What people really want, and what conservative policy should be focused on, is something that used to be common language for conservatives: good jobs that pay well. And you could add to that, access to the education and training needed to get those jobs. All of which support family formation. That is what a functioning society actually looks like.
What happened is that over the last 30+ years, an economic agenda took hold which is antithetical to those objectives. It is called "globalization". Republicans could no longer talk about good jobs that pay well, because they know, as everyone does, that outsourcing and immigration exist for the purpose of driving down wages. Cheap foreign labor would drive down incomes and drive people out of work, but they could look forward to low prices on consumer goods (cheap Chinese plastic at Walmart) to soften the blow, as they retrain for a "knowledge based", service based, "information economy". That was the "new deal" of the post-Cold War consensus. Meanwhile, prices for the things that cannot be outsourced, including the central needs of life, like housing, have only continued to rise, out of the range of affordability.
It has been a disaster, leading to the disintegration of the country, economically and socially. And the truest believers in globalization and doctrinaire libertarian economics double down and say that's a good thing, since the nation state is a thing of the past. And why do they have any obligation to their countrymen, or neighbors, or even their family? Let them rot. And the left piled on, as they abandoned the working class, by adding that they're all a bunch of "deplorables" and "bitter clingers" who deserve what they get. It's "social justice" to destroy the "white privilege" for native-born American citizens. And the end result of all of that is the opioid epidemic, and "deaths of despair".
"Protectionism" and immigration restriction were orthodox conservative and Republican policy from the founding of the country until the Great Depression. Anti-trust policy was also Republican in origin. These things are not left wing, and they are not new. It is something that has merely been forgotten. The lesson that needs to be learned is that libertarian economics is all well and good, as long as it stops at the water's edge. Once you open the borders, the money flows out, like water seeking its own level, and doesn't come back. It really is that simple.
The original sin of these family policies are running them though the tax code, because conservatives will only support what can be spun, by enough mental gymnastics, as a tax cut. Romney's plan was way better..repeal the EITC and a bunch of other anti poverty programs targeted to children and just give a child allowance to everyone who has kids. Administer it though the SSA. If you're concerned about rich people getting benefits they don't need then raise their taxes..no muss no fuss..
On the Democratic students' reluctance to date Republicans, versus the Republican students' relative willingness to date Democrats: You may think this illustrates tolerance in Republicans (and intolerance in Democrats). But it might just illustrate Republicans' limited dating pool. It might be more important to them to have sex than to have principles. Exactly what I would expect, and I don't mean that in a critical way.
You’re probably overthinking it. I’m reminded of a famous quote: “conservatives think liberals are stupid; liberals think conservatives are evil.” I’ve met more than enough progressives in my time (I worked in an environmental nonprofit) where that template completely matched reality. When you think Trump is evil incarnate, it’s really hard to convince yourself that the people who support him are worthy of respect.
Just read a fairly recent poll (April 2025; https://today.yougov.com/society/articles/51962-americans-unwilling-to-date-opposing-views-transgender-rights) where Democrats by a margin of 2:1 or greater would refuse to date people who disagreed with their opinion on Donald Trump, January 6th, or vaccines. But there were some issues where Republicans were more exclusionary, although to a much lesser degree: religion, gender roles, and transgender rights.
Surprisingly, people 65 and older were pickier and more exclusionary than younger Americans. I guess this makes sense if you think of older folks as more stubborn and set in their ways. But this is an online poll, so maybe you’re only getting input from the most tech-savvy retirees, who probably skew really left.
I think the evil and stupid changed places over the last 30 years but yeah.
Probably mostly related to gender differences in political afiliation
I think it also has to do with who's in the White House/Congress - when your party's in power, you're in an expansive, "everything's going my way" kind of mood, while Dems are still smarting mightily from the last election and boiling with hate for the opposition. When a Democrat is president, I'm pretty sure conservatives are pissed off most of the time, and would the dating dynamic reverse? Hard to say....
When can we stop pretending that the WSJ is conservative. You don't and I don't but lots of people still do. News pages went left long ago and now the editorial pages are following. I only occasionally read their articles now mainly because of the paywall but when I do, I tend to be annoyed. Legacy conservatives while not as dangerous as leftists are more annoying.
Richard, what do you read for news nowadays? I am one of those "lots of people still do" but am always open to change. I read Real Clear Politics but have not found anything consistently dependable there, either. Any suggestions appreciated. Txs.
It is almost like a full time job sifting through all the BS. The deadliest form of bias is the decision about what issues to cover. If you read something and know the ideological bent of the outlet, you can correct for bias. But you can't compensate for silence. Right and Left media not only cover issues differently, they cover different issues. So if you stay in the same space all the time you never find out there is an issue. I save time by ignoring anything about sportsball or celebrities. I scan headlines to see what the current thing is and then investigate further if I care. Increasingly, I gravitate to long form media.
Oren and Heritage, two peas in a pod. The "new" right. Using economic policy as a fig leaf, their real mission has been exposed as a cultural one. No wonder women have fled the R party. It's also no wonder that education level has become the dividing line between the parties, as educated voters flee the crazy culture warrior ethos of the "new" right, perfectly embodied by Heritage. When not defending Nick Fuentes, Heritage finds itself opposing gay marriage and abortion, fighting against oral contraceptives, espousing "administrative state" conspiracy theories, promoting marriage "boot camps", and a host of other loony ideas. Its own staff is fleeing along with many former external partners. I guess limited government is no longer tolerable in so called "conservative" circles:) Especially if it involves the heavy hand of the federal government in the regulation of the bedroom. Perhaps too many guys who can't get dates... Then there is the state taking ownership stakes in major firms, and the dear leader threatening and shaking down the corporate community in myriad ways. Welcome to the "new" right!
Alas, the actual founder and intellectual lodestar of the "new" right, Don, continues to define the movement with his actions. Oren may pretend Don is on a mission to revive the workin class, but last I checked, his leader seemed fixated on other things. Pocketing crypto corruption loot, naming buildings after himself, shredding global alliances with democratic states, sending masked, poorly trained agents to terrorize our neighbors instead of criminals (but only in blue jurisdictions), blowing up fishing boats and invading countries in contravention of domestic and international law, pursuing retribution against political enemies, etc. And tellingly, the revealed economic policy preference of the "new" right is the BBB, a budget-busting hosing of workin stiffs and handout to Don's fellow plutocrats.
Does Oren understand the "other than that Mrs Lincoln" nature of what he writes on these pages? He prattles on about the mistakes of elites in 1985. Meanwhile, he sides with the ruling elites of today, who are basically a throwback to 1885. I wonder if Oren supports the "new" right policy on vaccines and scientific research...
Good luck America.
Oh look, the last rich, left wing, white Boomer who still thinks it's 1969.
Nope, lifelong R, til Don. And still a conservative, unlike Don. I thought it was MAGA who was backward looking, it's, um, in the name:)
Hang in there. I understand MAGA hates the America of today and would like to return to an earlier era. I'd prefer dominating the coming era, not retreating like Don. Thats the America I know.
Uh…a pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, anti-law and order “conservative” who opposes “backward looking” ideas? I don’t think you know what that word “conservative” means. The fact that it has become obscure enough that you could actually believe it describes you is a big part of how things got as bad as they have over the last 20 years.
Lemme help. I'm for fiscal discipline-Don set the all time debt accumulation record in his first term, and the BBB puts him on track to break his own record. I'm for limited government, and am suspicious of the concentration of power-Don has deployed the military on our streets against the wishes of the states governors. ICE, soon to be the largest federal law enforcement agency in US history, has unleashed it's masked, unidentified federal agents onto our streets to terrorize our neighbors, pull mothers out of school pick up lines, chase down door dash drivers etc, instead of the criminals he promised to target (Imagine the next D prez doing the same, but with his own list of "bad" people). I'm for deregulation-for the boardroom and for the bedroom-it's right wing ideologues, not conservatives, who obsess over the sex lives of others. I'm for the rule of law-Don incited an armed insurrection leading to the first non-peaceful transfer of power in our history, then pardoned participant felons convicted of seditious conspiracy. He lies to this day about the 2020 election, weakening the most important institution needed for a free society-the election process. I think character matters, Don is a thrice married, openly racist creep with a history of exploiting women. I'm for free markets-not only has Don embarked on a silly taco tariff charade, he's taking ownership interests in major corporations, threatening corporations with unilateral retributive actions, sending welfare checks to farmers to compensate for the business they lost to begin with because of his tariffs, and otherwise making Marx proud. I'm for a strong national defense, not retreating into our hemisphere and randomly decapitating countries just for the snuff film value. I'm for building a strong coalition of democracies to confront our actual enemy-China, instead of driving them away. Finally, don't ya worry just a smidge about Don's mental state? He's making Joepa look coherent, which ain't easy. Imagine him at 82...
Lemme help. You are mostly a Libertarian, not a conservative. And judging Trump for his personal life while condemning doing that anyone else seems mighty hypocritical of you. A severe case of TDS can produce cognitive dissonance.
As I said, the word “conservative”, which has a very simple and clear meaning, has been so contorted by politics that for some it means something entirely different from what it is. The same is true of the word “liberal”. Most of what you are describing as “conservative” is classical liberalism, I.e. libertarianism. Some of it is progressivism. A sliver of it is compatible with conservatism.
Nah, libertarians are crazy, silly, dumb, unserious, performative. Like Don. But, I love the TDS surrender. No response on the merits, so lamely bleat TDS... Have you bought any $TRUMP coin, gold sneakers, NFT's, bibles, watches, etc? You seem a likely consumer of the many wares Don pedals to his flock:)
I think that conservative economic policy does not have to choose between being pro-welfare or anti-welfare. Redistribution of that sort is always a band-aid, at best. What people really want, and what conservative policy should be focused on, is something that used to be common language for conservatives: good jobs that pay well. And you could add to that, access to the education and training needed to get those jobs. All of which support family formation. That is what a functioning society actually looks like.
What happened is that over the last 30+ years, an economic agenda took hold which is antithetical to those objectives. It is called "globalization". Republicans could no longer talk about good jobs that pay well, because they know, as everyone does, that outsourcing and immigration exist for the purpose of driving down wages. Cheap foreign labor would drive down incomes and drive people out of work, but they could look forward to low prices on consumer goods (cheap Chinese plastic at Walmart) to soften the blow, as they retrain for a "knowledge based", service based, "information economy". That was the "new deal" of the post-Cold War consensus. Meanwhile, prices for the things that cannot be outsourced, including the central needs of life, like housing, have only continued to rise, out of the range of affordability.
It has been a disaster, leading to the disintegration of the country, economically and socially. And the truest believers in globalization and doctrinaire libertarian economics double down and say that's a good thing, since the nation state is a thing of the past. And why do they have any obligation to their countrymen, or neighbors, or even their family? Let them rot. And the left piled on, as they abandoned the working class, by adding that they're all a bunch of "deplorables" and "bitter clingers" who deserve what they get. It's "social justice" to destroy the "white privilege" for native-born American citizens. And the end result of all of that is the opioid epidemic, and "deaths of despair".
"Protectionism" and immigration restriction were orthodox conservative and Republican policy from the founding of the country until the Great Depression. Anti-trust policy was also Republican in origin. These things are not left wing, and they are not new. It is something that has merely been forgotten. The lesson that needs to be learned is that libertarian economics is all well and good, as long as it stops at the water's edge. Once you open the borders, the money flows out, like water seeking its own level, and doesn't come back. It really is that simple.
The original sin of these family policies are running them though the tax code, because conservatives will only support what can be spun, by enough mental gymnastics, as a tax cut. Romney's plan was way better..repeal the EITC and a bunch of other anti poverty programs targeted to children and just give a child allowance to everyone who has kids. Administer it though the SSA. If you're concerned about rich people getting benefits they don't need then raise their taxes..no muss no fuss..