Talk:The Lincoln Project

Missionality
This doesn't seem missional. 18:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They have recently been exposed as covering up sexual harassment from their ranks, actively antagonized the former president, and have promised explicitly to target GOP members who supported the 45th president, promising to become a fixture of American politics. What isn't missional about it?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Checking back in to say that yeah, you're right now that I see more of it. 23:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir, I appreciate the support. If you think anything else is necessary before moving it to the main space, I would appreciate it.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify your ideas concerning the missionality of political organizations? We are supposed to: 1. Analyze and refute pseudoscience and the anti-science movement; 2. Document the full range of crank ideas; 3. Explore authoritarianism and fundamentalism; 4. Analyze and criticize how these subjects are handled in the media.
 * I don't see sexual harassment, for example, as falling under any of those categories when considered as a personal failing of an individual. Of course exceptions are made where needed. I don't state that as an objection, but as an example of an unwritten extension of the missionality construct. I find the trolley problems of politics interesting, and nowhere in heaven or earth are there more crank ideas than in politics. IMO, with respect to the fight against crank political ideas, the LP deserve an honorable mention. UncleKrampus (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna lawyer it, but I consider grifting and sexual harassment to be missional topics. 16:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They are not explicitly missional, but are acceptable to me. Grifting reported by the NY Post, Washington Times and Fox News is of no interest to me. I suppose if you gave them money you might have concerns. If you did, thank you for trying to save the republic!UncleKrampus (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Liberal schadenfreude
As someone whos is plugged into the liberal twitter-sphere I can assure, there are a lot of lefties that were suspicious of the motives of this group, and in the immediate aftermath, were engaging in a bit of "told you so".-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to say they were stupid, but history shows the enemy of your enemy is your friend. They were stupid. The LP was a big asset in the war against Trumpist politics, whether the douchebag branch of modern liberalism admits it or not. That's OK, I like a big tent. Some of the LP members changed Party Affiliation to Democrat, e.g., Steve Schmidt. Their support was a significant win for Dems. But I am non confrontational. I'll let you make this call.UncleKrampus (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm open to a rewrite of the precise language here. Though I don't think their contributions were that great, i think it's important to highlight there were early suspicions about ethical practices early that paned out for some further left. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for a rewrite Rip. I just want to point out that I was delighted to discover the LP existed. Well, contributions-wise, they produced seemingly hundreds of commercial advertisements against Trump and his acolytes. I know, I watched a new one every day on YouTube for months before and after the election. To address the ethical practices issue: yes, it can be pointed out that some people had certain moral failings. I don't want to be held to an evaluation of that as such except to say it is a defensible position to believe that a political battle can entail ethical compromises where the devil is on the other side. My issue is as follows: when you see a contingent of the enemy trying to surrender with its hands in the air, it's time to stop shooting. I have been aggressively anti-Trump for decades and I welcome fellow voices at arms. I will say this, if an individual commits a moral transgression, then we say so. IMO that shouldn't tag the organization associated with them as morally ambiguous. This is especially true in politics. For now, I am satisfied to point all this out on the talk page. UncleKrampus (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

... which still puts them pretty far to the right from an international perspective.
This phrase is completely OR. What's the standard? It is difficult to agree with European standards. Western Europe and Northern Europe are the regions with relatively most progressive cultures in the world. In East Asia, even right-libertarinans like Ron Paul are perceived progressively. Even some of the moderate conservatives in East Asia have more extreme social positions than Trumpists.--Umaru16 (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One, we're talking about both economic and social politics, and two, one or two countries being a bit farther to the right does not invalidate Republicans being far-right. Plutocow (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The people of almost ALL Asian countries more socially conservative than GOP members. This is by no means limited to South Korea and Japan. (Taiwan is the only country that is socially more progressive than the United States, not just East Asia but also all Asian countries.) And what's the standard of being economically conservative? The reason for economic intervention is to promote the social welfare and rights of Workers and the Minority groups. In this respect, South Korea's labor rights and welfare, which engage in relatively economic intervention, are worse than those of the United States. From this point of view, South Korea's economic policy is more conservative than that of the United States.--Umaru16 (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Asian countries like China and Vietnam that don't have political parties or at least ones comparable to those in democratic countries shouldn't be used for comparisons when we talk about whether a party is right or left wing. Republicans advocate cutting all existing welfare programs and union-busting, which makes them far-right economically, especially considering the Democrats are right-wing economically. Look, if you're going to argue this further, show which policies the Republican Party advocates for that would economically be considered anywhere resembling left-wing, and keep in mind that the Republicans would have to be to the left of mainstream parties in more countries than Korea to not be considered far right. Plutocow (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is true that all liberal democratic countries in Asia except Taiwan are more socially conservative than the United States. Various statistics prove it. What's the standard of "economic right"? To be honest, I don't think Joe Biden is inheriting the New Democrats. Obama and Clinton belonged to this, but Biden is also flexible in cooperating with socialists in Democratic Party. As far as I know, the Minister of Labor of the Biden government is a member of the DSA.--Umaru16 (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And strictly speaking, I don't think the ultra-hard neoliberalism or economic liberalism supported by the Republican Party is Far-right. The criterion for dividing left and right is an attitude toward social equality, but the capitalist system in the United States basically does not prevent opportunities for class rise. Far-rightists support classes that can never be overcome. This is the case with ethnicity, race, and national identity. Anti-Trump Republicans never support that value. After all, the criteria for dividing the far-right should be mainly social issues, not economic issues.--Umaru16 (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's give an example. There is one person who is poor and has an identity of LGBT. There is even a minimum opportunity to overcome poverty. However, LGBT identity is force majeure. Anti-Trump Republicans oppose same-sex marriage or the Gender-neutral bathroom, no matter how economically extreme it may be. However, conservatives in Asia oppose homosexuality itself and deny the existence of transgender people. This difference is not trivial, but a huge difference. This is why I don't see anti-Trump Republicans as "Far-right," even if I see them as "Wingnut."--Umaru16 (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is no further objection, I will rollback again.--Umaru16 (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Republican Party has become increasingly anti-democratic, and bigotry against LGBTQ+ people is still common there. Republicans have been trying to block minors from receiving gender-affirming care and many still oppose bans on conversion therapy. Additionally, even if South Korea is far to the right, that's just one example, and that doesn't make Republicans not far right. Many Asian countries are at least to the left of the Republicans economically, e.g. Japan having universal health care, India having a large social safety net, etc. Please stop cherrypicking here. Plutocow (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't know India and Japan very well. Because you are not Asian, you have a positive prejudice against the two countries. In India, there is a culturally Caste system. Of course, these absurdities are gradually decreasing these days, but the Caste system is still deeply rooted in rural India. Caste system creates classes that can never be overcome. And the Japanese are much more racist than Americans. After World War II, the French granted citizenship to many Algerians living in France. The Japanese government does not give citizenship to Koreans who have been forcibly brought to their country in the past. And many Zainichi people are abused in Japan, but Koreans can't even dare to protest like Black Lives Matter because Japan is extremely conservative.--Umaru16 (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I just disagree that anti-Trump GOP members are far-right on international standards, but I admit that they are far-right enough on European standards. What's the problem?--Umaru16 (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * From context, it should be clear that I was talking about them from an exclusively economic perspective, which has to be considered when discussing whether political parties lean left or right. Also, we are talking about politicians, not rural populations. Plutocow (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think GOP is far-right than India's BJP or Japan's LDP. It's the opposite. The far right means supporting the 'class that can never be overcome'. It is hard to say that Republican economic liberalism belongs to this. Rather, the Republican's attitude toward LGBT would be closer to the far right.--Umaru16 (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * GOP pursues extreme liberal economically. I don't know why that's far-right. According to that standard, the Nazis are left-wing. Since the far right means "class that can never be overcome," economic liberalism cannot be seen as the main factor distinguishing between the far-right and the non far-right. (Of course, I'm never an economic liberal who supports Hayek or Friedman. I basically view socialism and social democracy in a very friendly way, but I basically value cultural progressivism more.)--Umaru16 (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Neoliberalism is far right economically though, it was pursued by fascists like Fujimori and Pinochet. Really, I feel you're just talking in circles around me. Plutocow (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense. Massimo d'Alema, Fwlipe Gonzáles, François Mitterrand, Tony Blair and even Bill Clinton adopted neoliberal policies. They all came from left-wing parties. GeeJayK (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Democrats are not a left-wing party for one, and since neoliberalism grew out of economic liberalism (a.k.a. fiscal conservatism) it's right wing economically. While some neoliberals may have social policies that are more left-leaning, it is ultimately a right-wing ideology. Plutocow (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Neoliberalism is not the far-right, but Pinochet is the far-right fascist. Germany's FDP and France's Emmanuel Macron are also neoliberals, but they are centrist politicians. In that progressive European standard. And as Gee JayK said instead, there are even neoliberals who are centre-left.--Umaru16 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) I'd just like to point out that the GOP economic policy is probably closer to right-populism than neoliberalism. Trump's greatest legacy in economics is rising the American debt in 8 trillion dollars (half of it before the Covid-19 pandemic). His recalcitrant protectionism and anti-immigration position is not something that most neoliberals would agree. Meanwhile, in Northern Europe, many countries chose a very different path. I'm fine calling his economic position right wing (indeed, many of his positions, including those that he failed to implement, are close to neoliberalism, and even if they weren't as historian Richard Evans once said, the Nazi economic program was remarkably similar to Stalin's five-year plans), but I wouldn't call it "hard neoliberalism". Many left-wing government also cut taxes, it's common for populists on the right and on the left to do so, but even neoliberals agree that lowering taxation when you have a high deficit is a very bad idea and maybe you should actually consider raising it. GeeJayK (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ID GeeJayK, what do you think about what is written in the current article that GOP is the far right in international perspective? I think this is really ridiculous.--02:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's an overstatement. The GOP might be on the right of pretty much every mainstream conservative party in the Western world, but most people don't live in Europe and North America. There are indeed people on the far right there, like Trump (right-wing populism), Santorum (ultraconservativism) and Ron Paul (far-right libertarianism), but I'm not sure the bulk of the party is represented by them, and even Trump, disregarding his white nationalist discourse, (which I don't think most white Americans agree, though that might just be wishful thinking) is not that on the right when compared to other leaders arounf the world. In social aspects he's indeed on the right, but there are many other GOP members that are far more socially conservatives than him. People like Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum would probably be considered far-right in the rest of the world when it comes to social aspects, but I'm not sure about Trump. GeeJayK (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's right. Thanks! I totally agree with GeeJayK's opinion! (However, I disagree that Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum is far-right on a global basis.)
 * So this should be erased: "which still puts them pretty far to the right from an international perspective.".
 * Instead, it should be replaced with this content: "which still puts them pretty far to the right from an European perspective.". --Umaru16 (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there's still Canada, Australia, New Zealand, certain parts of Asia and Latin America that at least are more economically progressive, etc. As I've said multiple times, South Korea is only one country and even if it was to the right of the GOP it would not invalidate the GOP being far right because there can be more than one mainstream far-right party. Plutocow (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't it Cherry-Picking that you only consider economic issues? No matter how progressive, how can it be said to be progressive if social discrimination and authoritarianism are serious and civil liberties and civil rights are ignored?--Umaru16 (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think GOP is quite far-right. However, GOP is never far-right on international standards. Also, economic liberalism itself is never far-right. If there is a far-right element in GOP, it will be discriminating against "force majeure identity" like LGBT discrimination. It cannot be established that economic liberalism is extreme right. Rather, classical fascists were corporatists.--Umaru16 (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)