Friday, March 09, 2018

Today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals

In case Principled Conservatism's capitulation on same-sex marriage wasn't convincing enough, the following graph shows support for marijuana legalization, by political orientation, over time (three-year rolling average; N = 32,371):


Conservatives are as supportive of legalization today as liberals were during Bill Clinton's second term.

The Respectable Right couldn't even conserve women's restrooms.

Standing athwart history yelling "stop"? Hah! Timidly, in hushed tones, asking if we might ease up on the accelerator just a hair, more like. Has Jonah Goldberg penned the conservative case for 35 genders yet?

GSS variables used: YEAR, GRASS, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

22 comments:

Andrea Daley said...

I don't think people should be smoking too much of that stuff. I'm not a user but I've supported legalization based on observation of users.
I can't say it's worse than alcohol.

That said, a society doped on pot all the time will tend to be hazy and stupid.

One thing for sure, Jews will rake in tons more profits since they set up the networks already.

In the end, I don't care about 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. Based on evidence, I really can't say pot is worse than alcohol.
But I do worry about about too many potheads being out of it.

Andrea Daley said...

As for 'gay marriage', Conservative caving was totally craven.

But it wasn't so much bending over for homo power as for Jewish power.

Homomania was a Jewish thing, and Conservatism Inc is just a trained dog of Jews.

rien said...

This illustrates the "ball and chain" function of conservatives. Without an ideology of their own, conservatives are relegated to slowing down the leftward move of society. But they are powerless to prevent it.

I am pretty sure you can find charts like this for _every_ political standpoint.

That is why the left fears the alt-right, because they will not only resist, they will also revert.

Sid said...

rien,

"Without an ideology of their own, conservatives are relegated to slowing down the leftward move of society. But they are powerless to prevent it."

Paul Ryan's election year statement, "I'm not there yet," can easily be applied to how cucks handle leftist ideas.

Gay marriage, drug use, transgender nonsense? They're not things we'll encourage on our own, but we'll accept them before too long and then will insist that they have always been part of the American Proposition!

"That is why the left fears the alt-right, because they will not only resist, they will also revert."

It is funny how, in retrospect, McCain and Romney were accused of being in bed with racist and sexist forces. The name of the alt-right is still fairly new, but the underlying urge for realism to prevail in racial and sexual issues has been there for a long time. Alt-right, HBD, red pill... Whatever you call it, it's visible in the light here and now.

Andrea - The old Ron Paul supporter in me thinks that marijuana should be left up to the states to decide.

That said, I readily agree that marijuana use is bad for the body and mind. People using it on the occasion isn't a problem in of itself, but potheads have lots of problems.

Blue cities are trying to find ways to normalize the use of hard drugs on the margins. "Safe sites" for heroin is being pushed through Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, and San Francisco. It has been and will continue to be a disaster, and it's only the first step.

And of course, we all know leftists aren't satisified with the initial policies they propose. Everything is a first step, and they soon compete within their ranks to see how far they can go.

In isolation, I suppose it's better for people to be able to smoke marijuana if they choose, knowing the costs involved. But I'm wary of getting on board any policy that appears to be an escalator that would inexorably take us to a left wing hell.

Feryl said...

My two cents:

- Generational factors:
1) The 1990's liberal boost can be put down to Gen X-ers being more flippant about drugs than Boomers. Millennials are even more flippant than X-ers are, as you can tell by recent responses.
2) GIs and earlier Silents, who came of age during the vice crackdowns of the 1920's-1950's and took those values to heart, matter less and less in these surveys as time goes on.

- Crime rate:
1) During the high crime 70's-mid 90's, Conservatives stuck to their guns. Among liberals, there was still a decent amount of opposition to vice, though I think that by the mid 90's liberals were beginning to be nostalgic for the LSD and pot trips of the one time counter culture. Liberals in the 90's would've been much more hostile to cocaine and crack, as they associated these drugs with yuppies and youthful crime waves.

2) Conservatives started cucking on vice (drugs, prostitution, sodomy) when crime began declining in the late 90's. When your butt (or your kid's butt, or your neighbor's butt) is no longer at serious risk of being harmed, the urgency of dealing with weirdos and criminals declines. Interestingly, the generation of youngsters who were so out of control in the 70's and 80's (Boomers and early X-ers) now report fairly conservative opinions, relative to later X-ers and Millennials. When most of your peers are not frequently breaking into cars, getting raped, or getting jacked up on drugs, it's a lot easier to be flippant about vice issues.

Who's president, and political cycles:

1) Liberal opinion of pot correlates heavily with whoever is in office. During Carter, Clinton, and Obama liberals become much more enthusiastic, while during Reagan and under either Bush their mood is more sober, literally and figuratively ,

2) We get the worst legislation (and worst ideas, in general) during a period of low crime and high inequality. The late 30's-early 60's were a period of low crime and falling inequality, so our elites intended to protect the masses by cracking down on vice. As crime rose in the 60's and 70's due to Boomers, GIs and Silents remained committed to protecting public safety (GI college presidents famously fought campus radicals to maintain public order). Into the 80's and early 90's, GIs, Silents, and by then maturing Boomers all agreed that discouraging and stigmatizing drugs remained very important. But by the time you get to the late 90's, inequality had risen dramatically while crime fell. Elites began to vacate their duty to protect us by that time. During the current high inequality/low crime era, the war on drugs has been ret-conned as a nefarious plot to send more people to prison, and as a counter-productive attempt to do something that's impossible (change human behavior away from vice). This paranoid and defeatist attitude towards vice was not possible in the 1940's-1980's, when we had more idealism about encouraging wholesome behavior. Granted, young Boomers in the 60's and 70's chafed against these restraints, but the overall attitude of elites was still admirable back then.

Audacious Epigone said...

Andrea,

Yeah, it's symptomatic of a deeper civilizational rot. I can't get exercised about legalization one way or the other. It's relatively easy to nab bad guys on drug charges, while it's often harder to nab them on the charges that actually make them dangerous. That presumes the people doing the nabbing are on our side, though, and increasingly they're not.

rien,

Indeed. It's why hatred for the Alt Right is so much stronger than it is for any of the other putative 'movements' on the right. We actually represent a potential threat to the existing order. The Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation, though--at best they slow things down by a few years.

Sid,

Several years ago I recall John Derbyshire crafting a metaphor along the lines of a ship heading towards an iceberg. The left is eagerly paddling towards the iceberg while the Respectable Right is playing penuckle in the lounge. Even that might be too generous an assessment of the Respectable Right, though...

Feryl said...

"Gay marriage, drug use, transgender nonsense? They're not things we'll encourage on our own, but we'll accept them before too long and then will insist that they have always been part of the American Proposition!"

I dunno your age, but something that a lot of people born after the mid-80's can't remember (and something that older people often forget) is that people didn't take issues of perversion or corruption lightly in the 80's. Why? Because awareness of the rampant violence of the 70's and 80's, and the effect it had on people, was at the forefront. And what really hit close to home were all the stories of kids being kidnapped, disapperaing, and sometimes their mutilated bodies being found. True stories.

Emphasizing the gravity, and urgency, of drugs, prostitution, teen runaways, gangs, etc. was very important back then. Hell, if John Walsh's young son could be lured from an arcade and beheaded, then well, we better have our guard up around homos, druggies, burnouts, whores, pervs, etc.

While contemp. people are still superficially concerned about pedophilia, concern for all manner of vices has generally declined. A lot of X-ers and Millennials think that *anyone* could be a sick pedophile, yet they look the other way when it comes to cross-dressers and drug addicts. Hey, who are we judge? Or assume that those who have slight perversions are more likely to be all-out sickos, Kitty F'ers?

The reality is that the "ignorant" stereotypes of the 1980's were all......True. Based on the accumulated wisdom and experience gathered from the elevated crime levels of the 60's-80's, not to mention the fact that people had more friends and got out more often in the 60's-80's, so we were more personally in touch with people who's lives were ruined by vice and criminals. Actors who got popular in the 70's and 80's were extremely heterosexual for a reason, and the exceptions (John Travolta, Tom Cruise, Eddie Murphy) could pass for straight pretty well. As crime began declining in the 90's (and people started to get out less often), Hollywood began casting more fags and trannies. Our weirdness detector becomes less effective when we don't hear enough about people, including family and friends, being harmed by weirdos.

Dan said...

I am really inspired by Ethan Ralph. Got locked up, spent 7 months in the pokey.

So what did he do? Lose 100 pounds and go from lard to hard. Read it on his blog. Awesome. Meanwhile, Steve Bannon gets wrecked by Potus and Breitbart so he goes over to Europe to kick ass. Real men, badly smacked down, standing up strongly. Inspiring.

Anonymous said...

The anti-drug argument is seen as fatally weakened by the celebration of alcohol in contemporary society. Those who want cannabis to remain criminalized rarely argue in favor of higher restrictions on alcohol. Though at the same time, tolerance for tobacco smoking has decline rapidly.

Tobacco advertising on television is verboten, and I will presume cannabis ads will never be allowed. Banning alcohol advertising would be a good way of throwing thousands of liberals working in Madison Avenue out of a job. It would also kneecap the Big Media conglomerates.

The US and New Zealand are the only developed countries to allow direct-to-consumer prescription drug ads.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

We are about the same age, and I can remember the tail end of the high crime era. Unsolved Mysteries haunted my dreams (yet I felt compelled to watch it and pretend that it didn't scare me so that my parents wouldn't turn it off) when I was probably around 6 or 7. People born after 1990, though, have almost no recollection of a high-crime period. My wife, born in 1990, will occasionally get spooked by some heinous crime that happens somewhere in the metro area in a way that a child of the (early) eighties wouldn't.

Sid said...

AE,

Derbyshire's analogy is superb, but I would say "Dems R The Real Racists" conservative pundits are also there to justify the leftward moves after the fact.

Gay marriage is the epitome of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Drug War was actually a PROGRESSIVE idea championed by Nixon all along, and TRUE conservatives never supported it! The Founding Fathers structured the Constitution in such a way that transgendermania would emerge inevitably, and it's only been recently that we've achieved the loftier heights of their vision.

So in a sense, I would say they know full well where the left is taking the ship. It's just that they will be Panglossians, telling people freezing to death in the ice waters that the ship had always been meant to strike the iceberg.

Feryl,

Born at the end of 88.

Don't worry, I hated Harry Potter as a kid.

One of the unspoken aims of "progressive" education is to systematically destroy the sense of disgust and sanctity in young people. It's done gradually and in tandem with the pozzed elements of culture, but it happens inexorably.

While I was a stubborn mule in high school, and accepted HBD as the truth by the time I was 17, I could still recognize over time how my sense of disgust was being eroded throughout high school.

It wasn't until after university that my sense of disgust was restored, and I now have the same revulsion to degeneracy that normal people have.

I have explained what happened to me, but not the how. I'll need time to reflect on all of the steps before I commit it to writing. It's akin to recognizing the steps you took in becoming brainwashed: it requires a lot of time and introspection.

Feryl said...

"Reality" TV in the late 80's/early 90's was Cops and Unsolved Mysteries. There was a real shift in the later 80's that happened, which I think can be put down to maturing Boomers ganging up on Gen X-ers. Many things got really screwed up in the 70's and early 80's because of Boomers, but society didn't start to laser focus on these problems until most Boomers were well past their peak crime years and Gen X-ers were adolescents. And thus the still ongoing animosity between Boomers and X-ers started. Who were Boomers to sanctimoniously lecture X-ers about behavior and responsibility? In addition, the outright morbid and flippant nature of many Gen X kids freaked Boomers out. "Sure, we dropped acid back in the 60's and caused some trouble, but it's not like we didn't celebrate love and Mother Earth, man".

Blank faced Gen X-ers driving heavy metal and grunge to the top of the charts, and driving 1980's and early 90's films to have more per capita incidents of violence than we'd ever seen before (or would see in later periods), really did spook older generations.

WRT ur comment about Millennials being easily spooked, Boomers aren't all that different. Gen X stoicism in the face of terrible things was often mistaken for tolerating and even enjoying such things. By the late 80's, Gen X-ers were deliberately playing up their "bad" reputation in order to annoy the moral watchdogs. Teenagers in the 80's and 90's grew up learning to be authentically tough. Not Boomer LARPing as B-movie greasers or bikers, but the real thing...Ya know, not being a whiny pussy when things don't go your way. The kids of the 70's and 80's, who grew into the teens of the 80's and 90's, from day one saw and heard that the world out there could be a nasty place that could cut you, and scar you. Why pretend that the world should or even could be any different? Just deal with it, have a little fun (but not too much fun).

It's always struck Gen X-ers as kinda funny that sermonizing about the world's problems ever would make any difference, or would compensate for our flaws. As they'd be quick to point, Boomers sure talked a good game but ultimately they are as dysfunctional, maybe more so, than any other generation.

Feryl said...

The anti-drug argument is seen as fatally weakened by the celebration of alcohol in contemporary society. Those who want cannabis to remain criminalized rarely argue in favor of higher restrictions on alcohol. Though at the same time, tolerance for tobacco smoking has decline rapidly. "

Booze is essentially harmless in smaller quantities. Key word here being "smaller". It's going to take a thousand more years for Northern Euros and Asians to handle higher quantities of alcohol, and weed out the "mean drunks". Light alcohol use, esp. in certain populations, is not associated with long-term negative changes in behavior or mental function.

Tobacco ended up with a terrible rep because the tobacco industry lied it's ass off for decades, and this became public knowledge during a time (the 70's and 80's) when Americans had their guard up about being lied to by institutions, what with Vietnam era military officials promising a cake walk and the whole Watergate thing. Also, second hand smoke is noxious and would not be tolerated by a society in which more and more elites were abstaining. Smoking is tolerated more in Europe, esp. Southern Europe, and oddly enough Europe does no worse on measures of basic well-being and health than tobacco phobic North America. The still present Puritan streak in America just finds....something wrong with the pollutants produced by tobacco. Obama is probably a closet smoker, but we'll never know.

Cannabis certainly has been linked to short and long-term alteration in cognition and behavior. I've heard some experienced drinkers say that they didn't care for the mood changes caused by pot, or for what it did to some of the burnouts they were around. A (clean-cut) actor in a teen horror movie said that his character was supposed to be smoking pot, and he decided to legit smoke some and get high before a scene. He said he regretted it pretty fast, because of how jumpy he got. The whole idea of palliative pot use ain't that surprising, considering that it can warp your conscious senses and perception of reality. No wonder some people claim that it eases their pain. Prayer, meditation, exercise, group camaraderie, and so forth can also help ease pain and stress, but that takes effort. What's the deal with people since the 90's being so fixated on doing drugs to take care of problems? Artificially altering the chemicals in your bloodstream might do some good but it also is going to have drawbacks. In exchange for easing pain (allegedly), we've now got potheaded goof balls running amok and being credulous and paranoid. Pro-pot people claim that you're some kind of Reefer Madness hysteric for badmouthing people on the drug, but plenty of scientific and anecdotal evidence points to pot inducing reduced cognition. The alleged "expanded consciousness" provided by the drug is oftentimes a sign of a brain that's no longer functioning on a normal, stable, and rational level.

Feryl said...

"Don't worry, I hated Harry Potter as a kid."

To quote a Gen-xer, fantasy needs blood, steel, fire, and tits. Harry Potter had fire, and....That was it (at least the early stories, young shitlords were too bored with the first couple to get to any of the "good stuff" that might have been in later stories). Kids in the 80's and early 90's (well, the boys anyway) were supposed to play with GI Joe toys, and cap guns, and goof off with their friends out in the woods, on the streets, in the mall, etc. Not become nerdy drones reading gay English Boarding school fan-fic with a campy "fantasy" gloss by a far Left middle aged woman. Also, Harry Potter took off in the very late 90's, so it totally missed Gen X-ers and even borderline Gen X-ers.

"One of the unspoken aims of "progressive" education is to systematically destroy the sense of disgust and sanctity in young people. It's done gradually and in tandem with the pozzed elements of culture, but it happens inexorably."

It may not happen immediately, but eventually we'll be under enough pressure and danger that we'll have to cut the crap. In the late 70's and especially 80's,people started associating "free love" with STDs, and drug experimentation with overdoses and crippling addictions. And the philosophy of "if it feels good, do it" stopped being quite as romantic after umpteen young Boomers and early Gen X-ers were raped or murdered by the early 80's.

Feryl said...

Ralph Fiennes, who plays a big role in the Harry Potter movies and whose career didn't take off until he was in his 30's in the mid 1990's, is likely a closet poofer. He's gaunt, has dead eyes, has no children, and was only briefly married in the mid 1990's (when he got a beard so as to reassure Hollywood that he wouldn't face accusations about his sexuality). Hillariously, he supposedly had a "relationship" with a women in her 50's/60's after the first sham marriage ended. Closeted and bearded actors are as much of a plague now as they were in the 1950's and early 60's. People don't have a life these days like they did in the 80's (or 1920's), and we forget how to read people. When we read people better in the 80's, we were much less accepting of fag actors who had no believable chemistry with female co-stars and were not the type to inspire joy and loyalty in other men. Spielberg, who has a wonderful talent for casting, cast Fiennes as a evil Nazi in Schindler's list. Wholesome directors like Spielberg can and do cast fags for villain roles, but know better than to use them as heroes or ordinary people.

Dan Radcliffe is unquestionably a fag. He's pint-sized and unattractive as an adult, and nobody cares about him as an actor outside of Harry Potter. He looks and sounds like a neurotic and faggy drama queen.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Re: Xers, I distinctly remember going to a Pizza Hut after a football game when I was in fourth grade and some white teenagers--two guys and a girl--cutting in front of us. My mom said something and one of them told her to "shut up, bitch" (my dad wasn't with us but my younger two siblings were). That kind of thing was common, even if middle class suburbs like the one we were living in at the time. Outside of the ghetto, it'd be striking to experience that kind of behavior, even from lower class whites.

Jonathan Centauri said...

Kids have some nasty habits, but they don't just come up. The 1980s was the high point for black "cool". Mr. T and Eddie Murphy. Bad manners were seen as cool and hip back then. Fuddy Duddies were portrayed as well mannered and that old canard of being "square". You don't want it square, man. You have to cheat to win. The Third World was played up as the future and Whiteness and Rules were the "uncool" things.
Like the "false consensus", all these things were dropped into these kids by the "programming". The media even calls it "programming". The Boob Tube is a Dangerous Thing. That lying box induces alpha waves to drop into subconscious levels. The lies seep right into the lizard hindbrain. It goes right past your superego and plays with your ego and id. It drops and ships bad habits straight into your inner programming. It really does "PROGRAM" you.
Today you see people with their eyes GLUED to their smartphone. That mind control has gone a long way. The alternating waves of the screen are hypnotic. Hypnos in your phones and screens. Ever see that movie "Videodrome"? Its more real than you imagine. Its based on a Real Life Guy. Marshall McLuhan.

https://www.themetropolistimes.com/the-metropolis-times/2015/01/10/your-changing-body-videodrome-and-marshall-mcluhan/

https://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-movie-videodrome-and-the-horror-of-mass-media/

Audacious Epigone said...

Jonathan,

I don't see a way short of collapse that allows first-world denizens to pull their heads out of the virtual gourds. It's only going to get worse as the technology gets 'better'.

Sid said...

AE,

The image of a ship moving towards an iceberg is superb. But I would say that conservative pundits are there to not just laze around, but also justify the crash after it happens. Gay marriage is the epitome of Judeo-Christian values! Nixon was actually being a BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERAL when he launched the Drug War, and the REAL conservative view was to legalize drugs! The Founding Fathers structured the Constitution to one day bring about transgendermania, so only now is their vision being realized!

In a Panglossian fashion, the cucks will tell people freezing to death in the ice water that the ship had always been meant to crash into the iceberg.

Feryl,

I never got past the first book/movie, but I've read Steve Sailer's reviews and comments about them. I think one commenter said that Harry Potter's appeal lies in how it presents academic hierarchy and authority as being good and just.

The good guys do well in school or at least put their all into it. The powerful figures like Dumbledore have earned their authority by rising through the academic hierarchy.

This really appealed to Millennial overachievers and to Nice White Lady Boomers. Growing up, there were always a certain number of highly conscientious Millennial females who did well with the make-work they would give you in school. You know, the types who loved student council. School was a total institution for Millennials, unlike Boomers and X-ers, so the ones who really enjoyed the groupthink and tasks of school found their love fully validated in Harry Potter.

The Nice White Ladies (Boomers) also loved the books because it justified their worldview and career choices. Those were the two demographics that seemed to eat those books up.

But right, I don't think it had any appeal for X-ers. I am certainly no X-er, but I always found school to be boring, and less about acquiring information and challenging your beliefs than about getting all of the forms and paperwork done in the right manner.

I agree with you regarding fantasy and the need for more than just fire. Conan the Barbarian (1982) is one of my all-time favorites, and it inspired me to read the original stories written by Robert E. Howard. On a personal level, those stories would then help me accept HBD in high school, because race realism was such a core part of the stories, and they had everything a teenaged shitlord-in-the-making could want.

I have little doubt that if Robert E. Howard has been born 80 years later, he would today be a force in the alt-right and would be forming a creative wing that is still lacking in the movement. He would be rocking Twitter while pounding out redpilled ebooks of fictional yarns.

Anonymous said...

The thing people don't really get about drugs is that they are used to persuade the borderline LGBTWTF to relax and join the poz squad, when they would have straightened up eventually without the chemical assistance. When homosexuals have influence at the elite level, tolerance for drugs becomes part of the culture. The religious right never really put this all together and the left wouldn't have listened anyway.

Sincerely educated strivers are anti-gay because they want to be fairly credited for the grades they earned in school instead of screwed over in their career path by nepotism and cronyism based identity groups. When universities become controlled by perverts and the best students don't get the best jobs, the culture is lost.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl/Sid,

Good take on the HP series. I read the first four books in a couple of weeks so I could watch some of the movies with my brother, who is almost a decade younger than I am. When I was younger I read the Piers Anthony Xanth series, Hobbit and LoTR, and other fantasy/science fiction. HP was a comparative snoozer.

Anon,

Wow, great insight re: alphabet soups. From 2008, since the survey tracked sexual orientation, we have legalization support as follows:

Homosexuals -- 78.7%
Bisexuales -- 82.3%
Heterosexuals -- 51.0%

Zeroh Tollrants said...

The blacks of the early-mid 80s, were *mostly* presently to us as non-threatening types like Arsenio, In Living Color, Cosby, A Different World, Kid n Play, RunDMC, Michael Jackson, Mr.T w/ Nancy Reagan, Sinbad, etc., there was not a lot of NWA, Biggie Tupac until a little later on, starting in the late 80s-early 90s.
It was mental programming for us white, older GenXers or even the young tail end Boomers. They slowly turned it into more and more degenerate, drug fueled, gang banging,viewing.
Culture jamming works.