Every political division has some aspect of us vs. them. What makes populism unique is the argument about good pure masses vs. corrupt illegitimate elites, and therefore lack of any interest in negotiating. It speaks to the popular will and can be very seductive, but obviously also leads down lots of anti-systemic and non-democratic directions.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Aux Armes, Citoyens!
- Thread starter MLipton
- Start date
Every political division has some aspect of us vs. them. What makes populism unique is the argument about good pure masses vs. corrupt illegitimate elites, and therefore lack of any interest in negotiating. It speaks to the popular will and can be very seductive, but obviously also leads down lots of anti-systemic and non-democratic directions.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Really, there is a rationality, or at least a rationale, to political beliefs. Finding ways of calling those who disagree with you either hypocritical (thought there is plenty of hypocrisy in politics as practiced) or irrationally close-minded increases tribalism rather than explaining it.
There is a rationale to everything if you look hard enough. But the just-so story that you spun does not translate to other countries (or time periods). So any given constellation of political beliefs is not part of an abstract ideological purity but rather part of a very specific context (that will change in due time).
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Obviously different times and places create different alignments. I was speaking to Christian's connections, which were pretty clearly about post Reagan alignments in the U.S. Do you really believe those alignments are merely aleatory?
It's not about being random, it's about whether positions are inherently left-wing/progressive or right-wing/conservative. Sure, you can trace the logic of why those things came together in the US, but they could have also gone a different way. So the story is more about the US than it is about 'the left wing'.
Maybe this is a case of crossed communication, with you guys caring more about US politics and me caring more about the broader picture.
Back to wine I suppose...
Maybe this is a case of crossed communication, with you guys caring more about US politics and me caring more about the broader picture.
Back to wine I suppose...
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
woah, I'm in 100% agreement with Loesberg on this. Savor it!
That said, I do think it is very interesting to think about why things shake out the way they do. The examples in the original question weren't great examples for exactly the reasons the Professor mentions - it's fairly easy to figure out how things managed to align that way from first principles. But there are other examples where there is much less internal logic and it could just as easily have shaken out the other way, and this is where things get very interesting. It's not so much about chance, but about tribalism. You have maybe 2 or 3 really big reasons for picking your team - in rare cases, this is based on ideological reflection, more frequently it's based on tribal identity.
So you migrate to your team on the basis of those 2 or 3 things and then you discover the other 99 things that come bundled with it. Maybe you instinctively agree with your team's Official Position on all 99, more likely you have to give it some thought, and the process of giving it some thought is not a neutral process because you've already chosen your team. So your primate brain tends to decide your team is pretty much right about everything and the other team is pretty much wrong about everything, and your brain would have been just as likely to reach the opposite conclusion on all of those issues if the board had been aligned differently from the get-go. (Clinical example: Max Boot, who decided the GOP was wrong about Trump and then immediately decided the GOP was wrong about absolutely everything.)
But that only accounts for how the cluster perpetuates itself (which is an interesting enough question), not for how it formed in the first place. There are a lot of plausible accounts for this, and sheer random chance is one of them. But the bigger one of them is sheer personality - or, if you want to put a more positive spin on it, leadership. One of the things mentioned above was military interventions. At this point, the Trump wing of the GOP (in other words, the majority of the GOP) is probably more firmly against foreign military interventions than the Democrats (how's Tulsi Gabbard doing in the polls?). The opposite was true 10 years ago when the most prominent GOP leader was Dubya. This is not because the GOP rank-and-file was persuaded by the sheer logical force of Trump's arguments about how the Iraq war was a disaster. It's because Trump is charismatic, said the magic words that activated the "5th Avenue Rule" with respect to the 2 or 3 things on which people base their tribal identity, and then everything else he said came along with the bundle. It is *that* easy to change the opinions of tens of millions of people on an issue you would expect to be of exceptional importance.
Note that this is basically a constant of human psychology and not a phenomenon unique to any party or clique.
That said, I do think it is very interesting to think about why things shake out the way they do. The examples in the original question weren't great examples for exactly the reasons the Professor mentions - it's fairly easy to figure out how things managed to align that way from first principles. But there are other examples where there is much less internal logic and it could just as easily have shaken out the other way, and this is where things get very interesting. It's not so much about chance, but about tribalism. You have maybe 2 or 3 really big reasons for picking your team - in rare cases, this is based on ideological reflection, more frequently it's based on tribal identity.
So you migrate to your team on the basis of those 2 or 3 things and then you discover the other 99 things that come bundled with it. Maybe you instinctively agree with your team's Official Position on all 99, more likely you have to give it some thought, and the process of giving it some thought is not a neutral process because you've already chosen your team. So your primate brain tends to decide your team is pretty much right about everything and the other team is pretty much wrong about everything, and your brain would have been just as likely to reach the opposite conclusion on all of those issues if the board had been aligned differently from the get-go. (Clinical example: Max Boot, who decided the GOP was wrong about Trump and then immediately decided the GOP was wrong about absolutely everything.)
But that only accounts for how the cluster perpetuates itself (which is an interesting enough question), not for how it formed in the first place. There are a lot of plausible accounts for this, and sheer random chance is one of them. But the bigger one of them is sheer personality - or, if you want to put a more positive spin on it, leadership. One of the things mentioned above was military interventions. At this point, the Trump wing of the GOP (in other words, the majority of the GOP) is probably more firmly against foreign military interventions than the Democrats (how's Tulsi Gabbard doing in the polls?). The opposite was true 10 years ago when the most prominent GOP leader was Dubya. This is not because the GOP rank-and-file was persuaded by the sheer logical force of Trump's arguments about how the Iraq war was a disaster. It's because Trump is charismatic, said the magic words that activated the "5th Avenue Rule" with respect to the 2 or 3 things on which people base their tribal identity, and then everything else he said came along with the bundle. It is *that* easy to change the opinions of tens of millions of people on an issue you would expect to be of exceptional importance.
Note that this is basically a constant of human psychology and not a phenomenon unique to any party or clique.
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
It's not so much about chance, but about tribalism. You have maybe 2 or 3 really big reasons for picking your team - in rare cases, this is based on ideological reflection, more frequently it's based on tribal identity.
....
Note that this is basically a constant of human psychology and not a phenomenon unique to any party or clique.
Of course tribal identity matters. But remember that the concept of 'teams' is a fairly narrow 2-party US style of thinking. It's a lot harder to form the same type of teams when there are 10-12 parties competing every election, or when those parties evolve and re-form every few years.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Can we finally bring this conversation to its intended destination?
RIGHT WING
Bordeaux & Napa
High intervention
Oak
High alcohol & concentration
Expensive tastes
Point scores
Guigal
Beaucastel
LEFT WING
Loire & Sonoma
Low intervention
No oak
Low alcohol & concentration
Cheap tastes
No point scores
Chave (if you could afford it)
Rayas (if you could afford it)
Do any of you not recognize yourselves fully? Then here's your chance to get with the program.
RIGHT WING
Bordeaux & Napa
High intervention
Oak
High alcohol & concentration
Expensive tastes
Point scores
Guigal
Beaucastel
LEFT WING
Loire & Sonoma
Low intervention
No oak
Low alcohol & concentration
Cheap tastes
No point scores
Chave (if you could afford it)
Rayas (if you could afford it)
Do any of you not recognize yourselves fully? Then here's your chance to get with the program.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Rahsaan:
It's not about being random, it's about whether positions are inherently left-wing/progressive or right-wing/conservative. Sure, you can trace the logic of why those things came together in the US, but they could have also gone a different way. So the story is more about the US than it is about 'the left wing'.
Maybe this is a case of crossed communication, with you guys caring more about US politics and me caring more about the broader picture.
Back to wine I suppose...
Your getting too hung up on the seating arrangement in the National Assembly during the First Republic. It's better to think in terms of interests and ideologies. They may be self-contradictory, hypocritical and self-blinded, but they are usually rationally calculable. The problem of disagreeing with one's "party" is simply that parties are too large to represent all the interest groups they contain, and, of course, their beliefs shift. European politics, by the way, doesn't seem that alien to me despite some pointed hiccups.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Can we finally bring this conversation to its intended destination?
RIGHT WING
Bordeaux & Napa
High intervention
Oak
High alcohol & concentration
Expensive tastes
Point scores
Guigal
Beaucastel
LEFT WING
Loire & Sonoma
Low intervention
No oak
Low alcohol & concentration
Cheap tastes
No point scores
Chave (if you could afford it)
Rayas (if you could afford it)
Do any of you not recognize yourselves fully? Then here's your chance to get with the program.
Why is Beaucastel on your bad guy list? Other than having, inexcusably, cleaned the brett out of their wines, they make their two flagship wines the way they always have. And la Vielle Ferme may be one of the best bottles of cheap plonk out there. I could see Cambie on that list or Isabel Ferrando or--if you are of such a mind--all of CdP. But Beaucastel wouldn't be the domaine I'd single out.
Mike Evans
Mike Evans
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Can we finally bring this conversation to its intended destination?
RIGHT WING
Bordeaux & Napa
High intervention
Oak
High alcohol & concentration
Expensive tastes
Point scores
Guigal
Beaucastel
LEFT WING
Loire & Sonoma
Low intervention
No oak
Low alcohol & concentration
Cheap tastes
No point scores
Chave (if you could afford it)
Rayas (if you could afford it)
Do any of you not recognize yourselves fully? Then here's your chance to get with the program.
Chave and Rayas are as close to universally loved as any wines I can think of and are as beloved by reactionaries as progressives. Maybe sitting down with large quantities of Chave and Rayas is the path to global harmony?
OTOH, I’m not sure I’d want to spend time with anyone who categorically dismisses either Bordeaux or the Loire.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Can we finally bring this conversation to its intended destination?
RIGHT WING
Bordeaux & Napa
High intervention
Oak
High alcohol & concentration
Expensive tastes
Point scores
Guigal
Beaucastel
LEFT WING
Loire & Sonoma
Low intervention
No oak
Low alcohol & concentration
Cheap tastes
No point scores
Chave (if you could afford it)
Rayas (if you could afford it)
Do any of you not recognize yourselves fully? Then here's your chance to get with the program.
Why is Beaucastel on your bad guy list? Other than having, inexcusably, cleaned the brett out of their wines, they make their two flagship wines the way they always have. And la Vielle Ferme may be one of the best bottles of cheap plonk out there. I could see Cambie on that list or Isabel Ferrando or--if you are of such a mind--all of CdP. But Beaucastel wouldn't be the domaine I'd single out.
Have to agree, an a surprise to see on such a list as Beaucastel is quite unique among the CdP properties.
originally posted by Rahsaan:
...you guys caring more about US politics and me caring more about the broader picture..
You mean there's other Countries out there?!
Peter Creasey
Peter Creasey
It's hard to imagine how anyone can be aspersive toward Beaucastel. Marc Perrin has wines that can rival some of the better (best?) wines from France (or anywhere?). And the Beaucastel CNdP '16 has been available here for around $70. Needless to say, I loaded up.
Marc should be saluted for holding the line on his pricing for such premium wine offerings. The '16 might be the best Beaucastel CNdP since the exalted '89 (at least that is my opinion).
I plan to applaud his marketing plan (read: pricing) over dinner soon. And I'm looking forward to learning how he reacts to my opinion on the '16 versus the '89.
. . . . . . Pete
Marc should be saluted for holding the line on his pricing for such premium wine offerings. The '16 might be the best Beaucastel CNdP since the exalted '89 (at least that is my opinion).
I plan to applaud his marketing plan (read: pricing) over dinner soon. And I'm looking forward to learning how he reacts to my opinion on the '16 versus the '89.
. . . . . . Pete
Christian Miller (CMM)
Christian Miller
originally posted by MarkS:
originally posted by Rahsaan:
...you guys caring more about US politics and me caring more about the broader picture..
You mean there's other Countries out there?!
I fear we are surrounded by foreigners.
Jay Miller
Jay Miller
Eh, Beaucastel has gotten a bit boring in more recent vintages. I still like them much more than grenache based CdPs (duh) but it's nothing I'd buy.
LVF white is one of the unrecognized supreme wine values in the world. LVF red is a perfectly decent cooking wine.
Oak, as always, depends. I'm not about ban Clos Rougeard from my drinking list for any reason other than price.
LVF white is one of the unrecognized supreme wine values in the world. LVF red is a perfectly decent cooking wine.
Oak, as always, depends. I'm not about ban Clos Rougeard from my drinking list for any reason other than price.
originally posted by Jay Miller:
Oak, as always, depends. I'm not about ban Clos Rougeard from my drinking list for any reason other than price.
The Clos, sure. The others are too oaky. And the white is as over-oaked as the worst over-oaked California wines. It is IMO undrinkable.
originally posted by mark e:
And the white is as over-oaked as the worst over-oaked California wines. It is IMO undrinkable.
Blatant Monkey bait!
Jay Miller
Jay Miller
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Jay Miller:
Oak, as always, depends. I'm not about ban Clos Rougeard from my drinking list for any reason other than price.
The Clos, sure. The others are too oaky. And the white is as over-oaked as the worst over-oaked California wines. It is IMO undrinkable.
We will have to agree to disagree on this. A 1998 Chace opened last year was wonderful. But I'm not as oakaphobic as you or Brad.
originally posted by Jay Miller:
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Jay Miller:
Oak, as always, depends. I'm not about ban Clos Rougeard from my drinking list for any reason other than price.
The Clos, sure. The others are too oaky. And the white is as over-oaked as the worst over-oaked California wines. It is IMO undrinkable.
We will have to agree to disagree on this. A 1998 Chace opened last year was wonderful. But I'm not as oakaphobic as you or Brad.
Well, that is 20 years old and I don't think I've had one quite that old. I don't doubt that it was great, but I'm not really sure I'd have liked it. I have had one that was 10 years old; I found the oak overpowered everything else about the wine. Older white Graves, which was undoubtedly oaky in its youth, can be lovely, but somehow it seems to integrate better.
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Jay Miller:
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Jay Miller:
Oak, as always, depends. I'm not about ban Clos Rougeard from my drinking list for any reason other than price.
The Clos, sure. The others are too oaky. And the white is as over-oaked as the worst over-oaked California wines. It is IMO undrinkable.
We will have to agree to disagree on this. A 1998 Chace opened last year was wonderful. But I'm not as oakaphobic as you or Brad.
Well, that is 20 years old and I don't think I've had one quite that old. I don't doubt that it was great, but I'm not really sure I'd have liked it. I have had one that was 10 years old; I found the oak overpowered everything else about the wine. Older white Graves, which was undoubtedly oaky in its youth, can be lovely, but somehow it seems to integrate better.
Back to wine. Phew. I have to admit I’ve been ignoring this thread. My brain didn’t have the bandwidth to process.
The 1998 Chace was very good and had integrated its wood. But agreeing with Mark, I also tend to think Rougeard and other whites from that Saumur camp see way too much toasty wood. On reds i always wondered, when pricing didn’t make wondering an academic exercise, what CR Poyeux and Bourg would achieve with the wood dialed down.