Ross Douthat on Why Progressivism Has Stalled
[guest post by JVW]
Over at the New York Times, the house conservative has some very interesting thoughts on why the traditional left continues to lose ground:
In Australia a week ago, the party of the left lost an election it was supposed to win, to a conservative government headed by an evangelical Christian who won working-class votes by opposing liberal climate policies. In India last week, the Hindu-nationalist prime minister, Narendra Modi, won an overwhelming electoral victory. And as of this writing, Europeans are electing a Parliament that promises to have more populist representation than before.
The global fade of liberalism, in other words, appears to be continuing. Right-wing populism struggles to govern effectively, but it clearly has a durable political appeal — which, as Tyler Cowen points out in a Bloomberg column, has not yet been counteracted by the new socialism, the new new left.
Mr. Douthat then pivots to the United States, where Democrats have taken it as an article of faith that they are the true majority, their ideas are broadly popular, and they are only being denied power because of institutional quirks particular to our system, a theory that he finds lacking:
The strategic flaw in this reading of the liberal situation is that politics isn’t about casually held opinions on a wide range of topics, but focused prioritization of specifics. As the Democratic data analyst David Shor has noted, you can take a cluster of nine Democratic positions that each poll over 50 percent individually, and find that only 18 percent of Americans agree with all of them. And a single strong, focused disagreement can be enough to turn a voter against liberalism, especially if liberals seem uncompromising on that issue.
Because the left dominates the culture, argues Mr. Douthat, they fail to grasp that their political coalition consists largely of voters with narrow interests which often don’t naturally overlap with each other. This makes it harder for the party to expand their influence beyond the base of true blue believers and attract independents. That voter who believes strongly that we need to make an almost immediate switch to renewable energy may not be too keen on confiscatory tax rates being used to subsidize “free” college and single-payer health care. The voter who believes that the government should mandate higher wages may be turned off by the party’s kowtowing to intersectional grievance-mongering interests. Mr. Douthat suggests that the uncompromising hard line taken by the left is causing the shrillness of tone that is currently de rigueur among party stalwarts:
. . . [I]nstead of recognizing populism as a motley coalition united primarily by opposition to liberalism’s rule, liberals want to believe they’re facing a unitary enemy — a revanchist patriarchal white supremacy, infecting every branch and tributary of the right.
In this view it’s not enough to see racial resentment as one important form of anti-liberalism (which it surely is); all anti-liberalism must fall under the canopy. Libertarianism is white supremacy, the N.R.A. is white supremacy, immigration skepticism is white supremacy, tax-sensitive suburbia is white supremacy, the pro-life movement is white supremacy, anxiety about terrorism is white supremacy … and you can’t compromise with white supremacists, you can only crush them.
If you read the comments to Mr. Douthat’s piece, you won’t be surprised to find that New York Times readers strongly reject the notion that the party’s current obsessions are counter-productive, so once again wise counsel falls upon deaf ears.
– JVW
I’ve always thought progressives had a distinct advantage over conservatives because it’s easier to sell a government program — which always seems to promise “free” something — than it is to sell the notion of individual liberty and personal responsibility. But Douthat here made me consider that the more government you venture to offer the voter, the more likely it becomes that someone’s ox is gored who otherwise might be an ally of progressive ideals. That’s an interesting conundrum.
JVW (54fd0b) — 5/27/2019 @ 12:02 pmWise counsel falls on deaf ears and proves the point.
It’s interesting to consider Douthat’s assessment when looking at the states where Democrats hold super-majorities, and where there is no indication that any change is in the offing.
Dana (779465) — 5/27/2019 @ 12:24 pmI like theories that explain why things happen and this one makes sense. But it also seems that politics (like history) is always swinging back and forth, and not just in the US.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 12:56 pmHere is another theory: Politics has stalled because it cannot deal with Trump’s chaos. The same thing happened with Huey Long in Louisiana and Pa Ferguson in Texas.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 1:02 pmThe pendulum is always moving in politics. It’s why, when it feels like the sky is falling, there is always an assurance that it’s not permanent. That doesn’t mean that damage won’t be inflicted, both long term and possibility permanent, but it does mean that everything, including politics is always in a state of flux.
Dana (779465) — 5/27/2019 @ 1:04 pmTraditional liberalism came about during roosevelts new deal in 1932 when fdr said don’t vote communist we can control capitalists we don’t need to shoot them. It semi worked for a while ;but capitalism over time weakened and corrupted traditional liberalism with clintons greed being the most glaring example of third way corporate crony capitalism taking over democrat party. Aoc and other young progressives are reforming the democratic party to get back to controlling capitalist excesses.
lany (81218a) — 5/27/2019 @ 1:12 pmI find it far more likely that “liberals” corrupted capitalism than the other way around.
JVW (54fd0b) — 5/27/2019 @ 1:18 pmBy “liberals” I of course mean progressive idealists.
JVW (54fd0b) — 5/27/2019 @ 1:19 pm@7 Liberalism protects capitalist from their excesses so they don’t end up in a ditch. Jfk said those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable. Don’t like AOC you will like what is to the left of her far less. Liberalism turns poor people into middle class democrats conservatism turns poor people into communist guerrilla!
lany (81218a) — 5/27/2019 @ 1:28 pmLiberalism turns poor people into middle class democrats conservatism turns poor people into communist guerrilla!
My larger point is that Clinton/Obama-style liberalism is really just crony capitalism, where government sees fit to determine who gets rich and who does not (spoiler alert: it’s party allies who get to be rich). The only difference between this and generic communism is that in communism it’s the party commissars who get to be rich. That’s why, as Douthat points out, hardcore socialism is making a comeback at the expense of traditional progressivism; because today’s progressives can no longer credibly appeal to the “equality of outcome” crowd.
JVW (54fd0b) — 5/27/2019 @ 1:32 pmI think AOC is reforming her party only by bringing it further left, into command and control economy and away from capitalism in toto. She is futilely arguing for more regulation, when Americans are demanding and welcoming the current cutting of regulation. She is of the mind that if one regulation is good, 1000 regulations are 1000 times better. Does not compute in real life.
Ilhan Omar and her gal pal Rashida are making the same big mistake, as Douthat describes it. They are alienating their entire platform because of their galling, incessant hatred of the US and Israel.
Patricia (3363ec) — 5/27/2019 @ 2:00 pmPeople don’t really want free stuff. They would, generally, prefer to feel like they are earning what they get. IMO, the current problem is that they feel like they are earning far more than they are actually getting and so will accept aid programs because they feel they have earned them. It’s like social security, almost everyone gets more out than they put in but they feel they earned it.
I suspect that the reality is that we are cautious progressives. We like a little bit of change a little bit at a time and when things have changed too fast we pull back but if that aren’t changing we push forward. We Americans aren’t stagnant people, if we were, we would have stayed in the old country and never taken on the adventure of moving to a totally different land. However, it takes desperation to make significant, quick, social change.
In the Depression, everyone was desperate. In the civil rights movement, people of color and women were desperate. It could happen again today, if the disparity between the rich and the poor keeps growing, if the middle class keeps disappearing, and if there is a catalyst event. We are hearing warning rumbles, I think, especially when we look at the current trajectory of the far left, but it hasn’t happened yet.
Nic (896fdf) — 5/27/2019 @ 2:04 pmDon’t some like Trump because he promises to get them what they want?
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 2:20 pmthe definition of stalled is when the democrats can’t get their way, even when Obama had practically no opposition, it was a thought crime to consider he was worthy he was other than injurious to the body politic, but agents like holder’s associate at Covington, now in the northern California district will always help out,
narciso (d1f714) — 5/27/2019 @ 2:36 pmIf Americans don’t like free stuff, why is the left getting traction on free college and student debt being paid by the government? I’m not reading anything from young people saying they prefer to be responsible for their own tuition costs. I think most people, once they get free stuff, are not inclined to foot the bill when there is no more provision made.
Dana (779465) — 5/27/2019 @ 3:40 pm13. That is the perfect definition of “Schlichterite.”
Gryph (08c844) — 5/27/2019 @ 3:41 pm15. Americans do like free stuff — as long as it can be obtained discreetly. I think a distinct minority of welfare queens are unashamedly proud, but not enough to constitute a voting bloc.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/27/2019 @ 3:43 pmAs shown by the constant judicial injunctions and rulings against any attempt to enforce the immigration laws, the Left doesn’t NEED to have a majority of Americans with them. As long as they have enough Left-wing Judges, idiot judge worshiping conservatives, they can block any counter-revolution or push through any progressive policy they wish.
Prayer in school is banned. Abortion cannot be banned. DACA cannot be overruled. Affirmative action which discriminates against whites is legal, but discrimination against everyone else is illegal. These are all Judge made rulings. No one ever voted on them.
rcocean (1a839e) — 5/27/2019 @ 3:50 pmthe left doesn’t cotton to Netanyahu, despite he has all the pedigree, combat experience, advanced degrees, diplomatic credentials, for 11 years, orban is the last of the European dissidents in power, and so on and so on,
narciso (d1f714) — 5/27/2019 @ 4:11 pmMy dear comrades, all the things you say is not how elections work. The way elections work is not you get a majority of the population. Is you get more votes than your opponent. In a dispositive election.
What is mean dispositive? For example, in safe district, you win primary. AOC won primary with 16,000 in a district of 731,000 for example. General election was cakewalk because she had D after her name.
Fifth Avenue Fathead got Republican nomination with 14 million votes. Then 100 more million had to choose between him and Hillary. Cripes!
Okay?
If you want win election, get more votes than your opponent. Leave ideas for talk when sit around with friends.
nk (dbc370) — 5/27/2019 @ 4:23 pm@15 Most Americans don’t support free college tuition. I certainly don’t. They do look at tuition and think it’s too expensive.
For most adults who do support free college tuition it’s because, IMO, they don’t think it’s free stuff, they think it’s stuff that’s been paid for in poorly/uncompensated work. For gen X and below, our lives are not keeping up with the lives of our parents. It takes 2 salaries to live a similar life style to them when they used to have one. My public sector salary with the same education is roughly the same as my father’s public sector salary was at my age almost 30 years ago. The house I was living in at the time is twice as expensive and the local public university tuition is almost 5 times as much (I looked these up).
(I am not a proponent of free tuition. People should go to Jr. college first if they can’t afford a 4 year school.)
Nic (896fdf) — 5/27/2019 @ 4:28 pmThis post made me think so kudos to JVW.
I think we all have moments when we want free stuff and the easy way to winning in trade, games, work, life,, etc. But at some point most people accept there isn’t an easy way to winning and, even if there is, it doesn’t last long and isn’t all that satisfying.
Of course, some people never accept that — Trump is a good example — and he’s probably satisfied with the easy choices he made. I doubt he realizes there are people who are equally satisfied they didn’t make the easy choices.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 5:20 pmThis is what 50 years of gramscyite rumbling through the institutions have wrought, and in California and New York no amount of experience changes their minds, but orange man bad.
Narciso (983b87) — 5/27/2019 @ 5:31 pmIdeally, many would go straight into the trades and if they want to make a business out of it someday, take night courses.
The more people that go into tech and other white collar jobs, the more valuable people who can do things with their hands become.
I’ve been on jobs where the laborers command higher wages than the biologists.
The cannabis growers in Carpinteria, CA pay $16HR cash for nursery staff. That has pushed the wages for semi skilled people up to $18-20
steveg (354706) — 5/27/2019 @ 6:38 pm@24 After 30 years of bleeding trade classes out of high schools, they’ve finally started adding them back in the last 5 years. There are also a lot of trade classes being offered at Jr. college and an increase of public/private partnerships for job training. It’s so much better for kids who don’t want to go to college.
Nic (896fdf) — 5/27/2019 @ 6:43 pmI think this is true as a general matter over time. Democrats don’t sufficiently realize that they are lucky, at least in a sense, to have Trump to rally together against. But it is hard to win an election without a credible alternative, which they lacked in 2016, both in terms of their candidate and their policies. Without an Obama — a candidate whose very identity was something they rallied around, independently of anything he actually proposed or did — they’re pretty much dependent upon Trump rage to suffice. I’m not seeing an Obama among the field yet, but then again, it wasn’t until Obama had outlasted his two principal opponents, Biden & Hillary, to actually secured the nomination in 2008 that he magically become the Light Worker, Tamer of the Oceans and Wearer of Sharply Pressed Trousers, the he acquired that magnetism.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2019 @ 6:54 pm“… that he acquired that magnetism,” I meant to write at the end of #26.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2019 @ 6:58 pmI guess Ross Douthat is a white supremacist now.
Jerryskids (702a61) — 5/27/2019 @ 7:12 pmDemocrats campaigning for 2020 seem to have converged on a consensus on issues since there is no Obama figure: abortion without limitations, free college and/or loan debt relief, climate change, and “no one is illegal”. There is a very small variation on how to approach the issues but the issues are a given, save for an outlier or two.
Dana (779465) — 5/27/2019 @ 8:10 pmFor the Dems, I would bet, in the end, there isn’t all that much discussion of abortion. It’s probably going to be mostly green technology jobs and debt relief, probably some class warfare stuff. They need the rust belt back, so I’m betting the focus there. Maybe some discussion of future proofing infrastructure in places like Iowa, Florida, Louisiana. Lots of specific local stuff below presidential level. Bernie’s message will sell OK, but he’s not going to be alone this year, the contrast will be less, and he’ll (hopefully) get less traction. Everyone else at the presidential level (even Biden or Warren) is a slate that can be projected upon.
I think the Republicans below presidential level need to concentrate on not screwing themselves over. There have been a lot of own goals in the last couple of elections where they’ve lost seats they should have won.
Nic (896fdf) — 5/27/2019 @ 8:45 pmThere are a lot of homeless Dems out there just as there are a lot of homeless Republicans. People fleeing both parties in droves. A lot of them fled to Trump.
JRH (52aed3) — 5/27/2019 @ 8:46 pmHow do you figure that?
I’m not seeing how Trump gains more supporters, other than what he had in 2016…
In my eyes, Trump only wins if a really awful Democrat candidate runs against him, ala Clinton. Who fits that bill?
Bernie is the only one, but if it’s Biden, how could he not trounce Trump?
whembly (4605df) — 5/27/2019 @ 8:49 pmDemocrats campaigning for 2020 seem to have converged on a consensus on issues since there is no Obama figure: abortion without limitations, free college and/or loan debt relief, climate change, and “no one is illegal”.
Yep, and I think Douthat is on to something here. Being absolutists on abortion runs the risk of turning off those who have legitimate qualms about the practice, especially in the latter weeks of the pregnancy. Free college and loan relief seems unfair to those of us over 40 who sacrificed to pay off our own student loans, and can’t quite figure out what millennials have done to deserve this special consideration. Climate change is great in the abstract, but when you start talk about prohibiting air conditioning in the summer or heating oil in the winter, it gets to be dicey. And a generous disposition towards illegal immigration only appeals to ethnic chauvinists and people so wealthy that they gain all of the benefits of illegal immigration while sharing none of the burdens. It seems so obvious to me that I am stunned that Democrats could possibly be blind to it.
JVW (54fd0b) — 5/27/2019 @ 8:49 pmI’m not seeing how Trump gains more supporters, other than what he had in 2016…
I disagree, and I think it’s pretty well established that I’m not a huge fan of the President, so please don’t think that this is just me trying to put a positive spin on his chances. The Democrats assured us that the election of Donald Trump would wreck the economy and make us a pariah state worldwide. Given how things have gone the past two-plus years, I think fewer people (and here I mean independents) are going to fall for the Democrats’ henny-penny-the-sky-is-falling routine, provided that things remain relatively stable. It’s certainly true that the scandal-mongering that the Democrats and their media allies have pushed since his election might eventually bear fruit, but if it doesn’t then I don’t really see how the Dems win with a warmed-over Bernie Sanders 2016 platform along with the usual intersectionality appeals. You also discount the fact that the incumbent President always has a built-in advantage over any challenger.
JVW (54fd0b) — 5/27/2019 @ 8:55 pm#32. 2016 Trump pulled in a lot of disaffected Dems. I’m not sure all the reasons. Most of it economy/jobs. I think Biden might pull some of these back, but some might have left for good, esp if the economy remains strong. But agree with you Biden has the best chance.
JRH (52aed3) — 5/27/2019 @ 8:56 pmI think Trump does have a that “built-in” advantage in being the incumbent and that the economy is short of amazballs right now.
However, I think conventional wisdom has taken a hit since Trump’s election and just as unlikely how Trump won in 2016… I’d argue that he can lose it as well.
However, since you posted this:
I think you (and Douthat) on to something.
whembly (4605df) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:03 pmJVW@33
1) Most people understand that late stage abortion is relatively rare, and post birth abortions only happen, if they happen at all, in circumstances that should produce sympathy for the parent.
2) Most people understand that “open borders”, in the sense of accepting all immigrants, is not merely an American value, but a JudeoChrstian value.
3) Most people realize that climate indeed changes. The only question is how much human activity influences the result. And at bottom climate change is just the most recent instantiation of “pollution is bad”.
And 4) most people are turned off by the conservative position on health care, which amounts to “if you don’t have money or connections, you die” (or at least get inferior health care).
Which means the Democrats have an advantage.
Kishnevi (abbfd8) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:14 pm(1) There are some discrete but presently unknown number of people who didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 who might in 2020, because some of the very worst predictions that were made about him by his enemies haven’t come true, and because in terms of changing the law meaningfully in a way that will last (e.g., actually repealing Obamacare), he’s been effectively stalemated in Congress, and yes, the economy is definitely showing the salutatory effects of having a Not-a-Democrat in office, decreased regulatory risk and burden, and a business tax cut.
(2) There will likewise be some discrete but presently unknown number of people who did vote for Trump in 2016 who might not in 2020, because of, for example, the Mueller report. With them will be some discrete but presently unknown number of Dems who couldn’t vote for Hillary in 2016 even while holding their noses, but who’ll return to the fold for practically any Dem in 2020.
Both statements of these statements are true. The question posed, then, is: What’s the state-by-state net, and will it be a big enough change toward the Dems in enough states to change the outcome in the electoral college?
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:24 pmGood question, Beldar. Also, I hope you are feeling better. The flu seems bad this year.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:27 pmWith them will be some discrete but presently unknown number of Dems who couldn’t vote for Hillary in 2016 even while holding their noses, but who’ll return to the fold for practically any Dem in 2020.
Well sure. But imagine if Democrats nominate someone like Bernie Sanders. How will Hillary voters from four years ago respond? Might they still have some hard feelings about how “Bernie Bros” treated their candidate? In a similar vein, what happens if the Dems nominate an elderly establishment white male like Biden? Will young feminists and minorities just blindly go along and support him, or might they be discouraged and stay home this time around? Is the casual voter going to come out for the mayor of South Bend? Will Elizabeth Warren, who barely beat Scott Brown in Massachusetts in a year in which Barack Obama headed up the Democrat ticket, be able to win back states in the upper midwest? There are way too many variables at play to make any confident predictions about what might happen.
JVW (54fd0b) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:36 pm@ Kish: Your item #4 in your comment #37 doesn’t remotely resemble this conservative’s positions on healthcare, but I know you were generalizing and summarizing. And concededly, no one in the Republican Party is currently championing my positions, which are quite radical, since they are focused upon (1) getting the federal government in particular out of healthcare decisions and funding to the greatest possible extent, and (2) restructuring the entire system to make it operate upon more normal free-market principles in which aggregated consumer choices among competitors, with the benefit of market information via the internet, to improve service, penalize administrative drag, and lower prices.
I have no truck with the notion that it’s the government’s job to force everyone to have insurance, or for that insurance to contain particular terms (like “pre-existing conditions are okay”). To anyone uneducated in economics, or anyone who believes in them insufficiently, my positions therefore seem heartless. But the entire existing system, the product of deliberate market distortion by government trying to micromanage policy, is heartless because it will consume itself and our entire economy while inevitably ending up in mandatory shared rationing of healthcare at a level very much lower than current employer-provided plans or, for that matter, Medicare, provide.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:39 pmMy temperature is almost normal, DRJ, thank you.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:41 pm@ JVW (#40): I agree for sure with this: “There are way too many variables at play to make any confident predictions about what might happen.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:43 pmI omitted a verb near the end of the first paragraph of my #41 above, which ought have read: “… combine to improve service, penalize administrative drag, and lower prices.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:46 pmRape and abortion are relatively rare, yet I don’t see you making the same argument. Why is that? Obama supported leaving babies that survived abortions to die from neglect.
NJRob (4d595c) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:48 pmThe Democrats largely supported Obama in 2008, even though there were hard feelings between Obama and Hillary and some of their supporters. It seems to me they will do that again, especially if they nominate Biden. But, thinking about Beldar’s question, I wonder if they can get the turnout they need for any of the current candidates.
(That is good news, Beldar.)
DRJ (15874d) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:49 pm@45 Neither rape nor abortion are relatively rare. Both are far too frequent. Late term abortion, however, is rare. Post birth “abortion” is not a thing. You can, very very very rarely have a failed abortion that results in a medically distressed birth after which the decision is made on whether or not to apply extreme measure.
Medical treatment for those not legally able to decide for themselves is almost always controlled by the next of kin. What you are talking about is taking medical decisions on whether or not to apply extreme measures out of the hands of the next of kin and giving it to the government. Are you sure that is a stance you want to take?
Nic (896fdf) — 5/27/2019 @ 10:38 pm19 you forgot netanhayu is a recently indicted crook.
lany (607ae7) — 5/28/2019 @ 1:08 amSo was Ted Stevens and Tom delay, the first I’d dead, the second merely out of a job.
Narciso (f49361) — 5/28/2019 @ 5:33 amActually 58 million abortions is just the floor for this mass culling, because out of the first generation how many could have had offspring and then the following.
Narciso (f49361) — 5/28/2019 @ 5:39 amThere are several different conservative positions on health care, but the one you mentioned really is:
“The status quo is if you don’t have money or connections, you get inferior health care and can even die; but if we had government run health care most care would be worse, and money might not even help you, at least in some versions, but only connections.” (and you can’t stop connections from helping people.)
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/28/2019 @ 6:25 amSingapore has a very low fertility rate for people born in Singapore (below 1) but a lot of that is not from abortions but from people not having relationships and from contraception.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/28/2019 @ 6:26 amThat;s not the oly question.
Oter questions are:
1) Is the net effect bad?
2) Is the net effect great?
3) Does it make any sense to do something about it?
4) If it does make sense, does cutting back on carbon dioxide make any sense, given the very slight effect each year’s contribution add, and the even slighter effect that any change in the rate of emissions would cause, and the fact that this would not eliminate the need to adapt to more frequent weather disasters, and the disruption it would entail..
5) Isn’t the idea that “it’s just a start” imaginary?
6) If it does make sense to do something about it, doesn’t geo-engineering by adding sulfer dioxide to the atmospherever the Arctic, or fertilizing the Pacific Ocean with iron, make more sense rather than just trying to not do what has been going on, which is also geo-enggineering except that it’s geo-engineering that’s guaranteed not to work (all their computer models, faulty as they are, tell them that.
6) Wouldn’t cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions only serve the purpose of allowing people to have a good feeling because they could plead “Not Guilty”, but it wouldn’t change anything?
Because the effect of humans on climate is the sum total of what’s been going on over the last 150 years and the course correction would be meaningless.
7) Shouldn’t this be subject to cost benefit analysis, as is the case with all otehr pollution?
The math doesn’t add up.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/28/2019 @ 6:40 amnarciso @49 Ted Stevens died later, in an accident.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/28/2019 @ 6:41 amThe gap was off on the coverage of Obamacare by 160% that in itself is a scandal, but it isn’t acknowledged as such.
Narciso (f49361) — 5/28/2019 @ 6:42 amCutting back on electrical production only causes brownouts like in Australia, spiking fuel and food prices in france
Narciso (f49361) — 5/28/2019 @ 6:44 amIn Germany that pied piper moppet thunberg still had an effect, driving their delegation to further ruin.
Narciso (f49361) — 5/28/2019 @ 6:49 amThose are real scandals, the CBO needs to be dismantled and rebuilt otherwise their projections dismissed, the IPCC needs more drastic treatment
Narciso (f49361) — 5/28/2019 @ 6:51 amThe dems are instituting compulsory unionization, add vote harvesting and you will never get them out, except with a flame thrower,
Narciso (56e033) — 5/28/2019 @ 7:11 amAmerican politics has always been a peculiar beast, which over the last few decades has become a grotesque. What Douthat is observing in this article, perhaps unwittingly, is how the duopoly has devolved into party politics. The two-party system is an unintended consequence of the electoral college, which the Founders and Framers could not possibly have envisioned. Their idea was a government “of, for and by the people,” not of, for and by any one party over another. But that’s not how things worked out over the centuries.
In the current duopoly, it is not citizens who determine nominees, but party elites. Thus, each election is really a gladiatorial fight between two political machines, like some sort of robot battle game. The DNC and the RNC program their contestants. In other words, the party elites and donors select the candidates who follow and obey the written codes. It makes for great television, Democrat robot vs. Republican robot, which generates a lot of money for the parties, but does not serve the people well.
In the electorate, it is true that there are strict partisans, blue dogs and yellow dogs, who will vote along strict party lines, Democrat or Republican, no matter who the nominee is. They’re voting for the party, not the nominee (who they had no say in selecting). But those voters only makeup maybe 20% each of the electorate. That means 60% of the electorate is composed of what can be called Independents, but they do not comprise a party. They’re mostly swing voters, who vote one way or the other in any given election. However, there are third parties, the members of which are as equally partisan, but most of them do not have ballot access in all fifty states–they’re regionalized and have no national appeal. The Libertarian Party is the only one that does, but it has yet to nominate a candidate that can win.
That’s because of the power of the duopoly. The party elites select the candidates and who gets to appear in debates. The people are not given a choice, because alternative voices are not allowed to be heard. The reason why is money. It costs a lot to run a state or national campaign, and denied donations and endorsements, what chance do you have? None.
The 2016 election is illustrative. Clinton was the choice of the DNC; Trump was the choice of the RNC. Both against the will of the electorate, and indeed against the will of the electors at both conventions, who were denied by party elites to vote the conscience.
Trump is an anomaly. He barely won the electoral college and lost the popular vote to the worst candidate the DNC could have nominated. Now he’s run amuck, and the RNC will regret it.
I agree with Beldar, although I am far more radical than him. To my libertarian mind, the federal government has only three functions: provide for the national defense, promote the general welfare, and protect the citizens from fraud. That’s it. Let the people prosper, as they may.
Neither party in the duopoly is offering forth a candidate who argues for anything like that. So I am a man without a party.
Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 5/28/2019 @ 8:43 amThat’s one of the Times’ top comments. They’re all of the same mindset. Conservatives are racist and evil, blah blah. They’re no different than any supremacist group in that they believe their way is the only way.
NJRob (2696e6) — 5/28/2019 @ 8:56 amnarciso @55:
That would be if it was deliberately underestimated, but it was. (although that is par for the course in government.)
Part of that was assuming no federal administrative costs, because supposedly, all the states would set up their own health care exchanges. I don’t think there was an intention to actually force states to do so, although there may have been an attempt to scare them. But they probably intended to change the law in the next Congress, by which time nobody would care what the CBO score was, nor would it be necessary to offset it in the budget, but they lost control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 election.
So they had to set up healthcare.gov without a solid grounding in law and there was a lawsuit, King v. Burwell 76 U. S. ____ (2015) (What? They don’t give page numbers any more?) The Supreme Court assumed that Congress meant to have a law that worked. But the truth is, it didn’t, and they often pass train wreck legislation, and here they were probably going to fix later. They could have fixed it in that Cogress too because the repair job, which took out some of the things in the Senate bill, was fixed then but they wanted to wait for the next Congress, hoping in the mean time many states would set up their own exchanges.
Most states use ealthcare.gov, but some of the biggest ones don’t. (By the way, its toll free number for help is 1-800-318-2596. There’s an easy to remember mnemonic for it, but they don’t give it out for some reason: 1-800-F1-UCK-YO(U) The U at the end isn’t necessary. Just remember, it doesn’t start with an F, but with F1. F1 of course stands for help. I don’t know if that’s an Easter Egg, or is the result of intervention from other place.)
Obama did also make an attempt to slow the rise of the oceans but Obama always thought that he couldn’t do it alone, but it required an Act of Congress.
https://www.masterresource.org/climate-policy/waxman-markey-inconsequential-for-sea-level-rise-too
The Waxman-Markey bill, (H.R.2454 in the 111th Congress) which was that attempt, died in the Senate and not because of a Republican filibuster but it didn’t even have 50 votes and Harry Reid never brought it up for a vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act
After that, Obama lost interest. His only priority was health care.
Markey (now in the Senate – the two sponsers of the 2009 bill were both members of the House of Represenatives) is back again this year with the Green New Deal.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/28/2019 @ 8:56 amnarciso @58.
I agree with you on the IPCC but it’s the federal budget that needs to be abolished, not just the CBO, which is essential to having a Congressional role in the budget.
Instead of a budget, just balance all expenditures against revenue (which can include borrowing) If revenue falls short, the money doesn’t get spent. This will force Congress to be honest, and if members of Congress disagree on some economic projections, they can reflect that disagreement in their appropriations.
State and city budgets maybe also ought to be abolished.
They don’t work, but may prevent necessary spending. Spending needs to be adjusted much more on the fly.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/28/2019 @ 9:08 am60. Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 5/28/2019 @ 8:43 am
No, he wasn’t. Now for 2020, he is.
If the RNC had a choice for 2016, it was Jeb Bush.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/28/2019 @ 9:08 amOh, please. The leadership of the RNC and FOX News, made a clear choice before the convention. Nowhere was that more evident that at the convention, when the electors were denied a voice vote.
The fix was in. I don’t know why the RNC selectively chose Trump. It is unfathomable to me, because the man is a total fraud. Everything about him is fake. But that’s who the Republican elites decided to nominate, which reveals more about them than it does anything else. If their intention was to defeat Clinton, they could have nominated a more credible candidate than Trump. Any other Republican candidate would have defeated Clinton in the election, and probably would have won more of the electoral and popular vote as well. Instead, the RNC sold its souls to a fraud for a marginal victory. The DNC sold its soul as well.
That’s politics in America. It’s all about the inter-workings of part machines, robot candidates battling in a game of thrones. None of it serves the people.
Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 5/28/2019 @ 9:31 amWhat do you mean by the “elites”?
The GOP primary voters?
When I think of the elites, I’m thinking the big money donors and established GOP politicians. THEY didn’t want to have anything to do with Trump. It was the primary voters who pulled Trump across the line. The GOP establishment was damn near revolt, up to DURING the GOP convention. Or, did we all forget the Mike Lee tried to get the primary delegates to challenge the nomination???
Once Trump was nominated, you could tell that the GOP establishment held their noises and got behind Trump.
whembly (51f28e) — 5/28/2019 @ 9:40 am*noses. But “noises” could work..lol.
whembly (51f28e) — 5/28/2019 @ 9:41 amThe parties preferences were jeb Christie and kasich not necessarily in that order, they had no truck with Carson Cruz or trump, they disdained Huckabee and santorum,
Narciso (56e033) — 5/28/2019 @ 9:59 amEven the ostensibly conservative bloc couldn’t rally behind Cruz, this tells me that had no clue.
Narciso (56e033) — 5/28/2019 @ 10:01 amHe tried through the EPA sammy with Mr ‘crucity the power plants’ that’s why he put van Jones as clean air czar.
Narciso (56e033) — 5/28/2019 @ 10:07 amIts like when Kashmir ended up largely in indian hands (rushdie still doesn’t understand this)
Narciso (56e033) — 5/28/2019 @ 10:28 amGawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 5/28/2019 @ 9:31 am
Yes, after May 3, after Donald Trump won the primaries they treated him as the presumptive nominee.
It’s delegates, not electors.
It may be a similar idea to what was the original idea in 1787 behind having Electors, but electors are a term from the U.S> Constitution and this term is not used at the national political party conventions.
Part of the reason would have been that to deny him the nomination at that point would be a breakk from the common understanding of the system, and part of it would have been the possibility that Donald Trump would walk out and try to run as a third party candidate and destroy the chances of any other Republican nominee winning..
And also, now with the extensive vetting of a Vice President since George McGovern picked Tomas Eagleton in 1972, how would you pick a Vice President if you didn’t know who the presidential nominee was going to be – if the nominee himself didn’t know, at least several weeks before the convention?
They were more practical at the RNC. It was Donald Trump or nobody. Yes, there were still othere things that could have been done. They might have hoped to throw the election into the House, and Trump would be on the ballot on;y in certain states.
Only after Trump “won” the primaries.
But of course there would be the worry that Trump wouldn’t go quietly. It would be like 1912, or 1948 among the Democrats – or 1860 for that matter. They were worried also that Ted Cruz wouldn’t go quietly.
They had a couple of reasons. Trump might not have let them run a 2-candidate race, and his supporters might have felt cheated.
Now Truman won in 1948 in spite of the 3-way split among the Democrats.
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/28/2019 @ 11:04 am70. Narciso (56e033) — 5/28/2019 @ 10:07 am
Van Jones was not at the EPA – he was a special White House adviser on green jobs, which the White House kept touting, to the annoyance of the people n=in favor of cutting emissions.
http://science.time.com/2010/07/26/why-the-climate-bill-died
Rockefeller Family Fund director Lee Wasserman wrote that was like telling Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr to talk only about the expanded industry and jobs that Southerners would realize after passage of a federal civil rights act.
And he resigned already in Sept, 2009, before he Markey Waxman bill died. So if Obama tried through the EPA he gave up and realzied he neeeded an Act of Congress
Also don’t forget the Paris climate agreement. Which he also abandoned, and never said much about.. Which of course woudn’t do anything anyway according to their own models
What he did at the EPA was propose a rule setting lower emissions limits of coal fired power plants
Whatever he did at the EPA was probably not seriously intended to slow the rise of the sea but just to show goodwill r=toward the PAris climate agreement.
And
Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/28/2019 @ 11:30 amRape and incest leading to abortion are rare yet they are all that is mentioned when trying to justify all abortion on demand attempts. They are what I was referencing in response to Kishnevi.
NJRob (2696e6) — 5/28/2019 @ 7:00 pmRape and incest leading to abortion are rare yet they are all that is mentioned when trying to justify all abortion on demand attempts. They are what I was referencing in response to Kishnevi.
I don’t remember ever seeing rape/incest situations being used to justify all abortion on demand. They are rather cited as the sort of thing which even strict abortion restrictions must make an exception for, along with those cases where the mother’s health is endangered. Not “some women need abortions because they were raped, therefore all women must be allowed to have abortions” but “even if you want a total ban, you must allow these exceptions”.
My original point btw was simply that late term abortions seem to be relatively rare, and usually involve a pregnancy in which either the pregnancy involves a serious and actual risk to the health of the mother, or the baby is discovered to have some condition which renders it nonviable. Abortions which stem from the mother simply not wanting the baby come earlier. A woman usually doesn’t carry a baby in her womb for more than half a year in this day and age unless she wants it.
Kishnevi (fe869b) — 5/28/2019 @ 7:38 pmI think the real reason is that he got different treatement thn is usual for pancreatic cancer..
https://www.newser.com/story/275808/alex-trebeks-latest-cancer-update-is-mind-boggling.html
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 5/29/2019 @ 1:24 pm38. Beldar (fa637a) — 5/27/2019 @ 9:24 pm
I think an incumebent president gains about 3% or 4% for that reason between his original election and his re-election campaign, all other things being equal.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 5/29/2019 @ 1:29 pm