• FahrenheitGhost@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    Didn’t read the article, but I’m just going to take a wild guess… Greed.

    Edit: Read the article. I didn’t think I’d ever agree with Hawley. Also… Yep. Greed.

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I didn’t think I’d ever agree with Hawley

      Hawley represents the future of the Republican party, in my opinion: populist conservatism that is willing to bend on party orthodoxy on how taxes and regulations shouldn’t be captured by big corporate interests, but is just completely abhorrent on cultural issues (and whether the government should be involved in those issues).

      In an earlier political era, there would be opportunities for cross-party dialogue on the issues that the parties have deemed non-partisan (where divisions don’t fall within party lines and party leadership doesn’t care that their members hold a diversity of views on), but the number of issues that fall within that category have plummeted in the last 20 years.