The Sudden Unpopularity of Neoliberal Centrists

[F250 28,959]

11 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

That is something like the flip side of when SC Republicans booed Ron Paul for citing the Golden Rule:

 

I remember that, bringing up "blowback' to Republicans during the war on terror was like telling Hugo that active measures thrives on confirmation bias rather than the power of persuasion.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Not the best analogy.  Active Measures is the art of maliciously deceptive manipulation to achieve a political objective. Confirmation bias is the low hanging fruit in that form of warfare.  Wholesale persuasion is a bit more challenging.  

And for the record, I’ll be the first one to admit I was susceptible to confirmation bias when I began looking into Active Measures. 

[workswithseed 2,141]

 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

Best book on the original question I've found yet. It outlines the history of the Third Way (neoliberal) movement. This was an article originally published by Harvard.  https://slowrotation.memoryoftheworld.org/Philip Mirowski/The Road From Mont Pelerin_ The Ma (34376)/The Road From Mont Pelerin_ The - Philip Mirowski.pdf

The neoliberals won, so you may as well know who owns you. Trump is a fly in their ointment, but they are excited by King Neoliberal Biden or Her Royal Majesty Harris or Booker. Beto is one, but he is flaming out early in the race.

Biden is your pick if you are a neoliberal - Republican or Democrat. They own both parties. The Donkey v. Elephant circus sideshow is to keep you entertained while they rob the nation blind. 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,688]

What about regular old liberals? Who should we pick washpark?

 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

And a bit of caution  - the definition of neoliberalism is strenuously debated and altered on Wikipedia (as mentioned in the article linked above). As with many things Wikipedia, it is not a reliable source for neoliberalism. It does contain relevant and helpful original sources, which might help readers understand the concept. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,688]

I don't think the concept of "neoliberalism" really means anything. A political or economic system is liberal, or not. Neoliberalism, as such,  seems to speak to a rejection of referees more than anything else, and I certainly don't think anybody in the Democratic field is advocating that, Biden's bankruptcy bill notwithstanding. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

14 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What about regular old liberals? Who should we pick washpark?

 

What kind of liberal are you? Classical? I don't see that libertarian streak in you or the stomach for the consequences for forced austerity (ironic isn't it - the neoliberals took down Chile and some of identify as libertarians).

That is one of the reasons I value your opinion. You live in a middle kingdom, yet still understand life on the fringes is brutal and unforgiving. A classical liberal would take a sink or swim attitude. That's not the BC I've known over so many years and Presidents. You would be the guy giving the new sinkers or swimmers quick lessons on staying afloat. That's your soul, not politics.

Progressive liberal? Before the Third Way, you would have been put in the camp with the Commies.  Today, most "progressives" are nothing more than conservatives looking to protect their wealth. They make lavish promises they cannot keep. They value institutions that have become corrupted and in need of reform.

But, I have to admit, America needs faith in its institutions for its citizens to thrive. Too many of those institutions have become plutocracies. They need reform and a refocus on priorities. Americans still want to build America (and feed the world). Tap into that sentiment with progressive programs designed to give everyone in need a hand up. . .; everyone, no exceptions. A universal basic income would relieve much of the housing and hunger insecurity that has accelerated the epidemic of despair that permeates the nation (once one steps outside the glittering Citadel Cities, which are quickly attempting to eradicate those who have no purchasing power). 

I don't know where you fit in our oligarchical society. Traversing social castes in America is difficult and becoming almost impossible. I believe I remember you beat those odds. Congratulations, but don't ever forget your roots; that is where your soul resides for eternity. My guess is you, like me, would adore a world without wars, poverty, discrimination and ignorance. I think you and I have explored the political universe and we are oddballs that do not match any label or definition. The world is becoming more and more like us - aware, desire change, and frustrated by the lack of progress. 

The accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few is an issue that will need to be dealt with one way or another. (Dear Readers: do not confuse wealth inequality for income inequality - they are two different concepts with different solutions). 

I started off in antitrust work for a firm that employed Robert Bork. Those were the days where we saw the last gasps of antitrust enforcement. With the death of antitrust enforcement, we have seen wealth inequality skyrocket

I look forward to our new antitrust overlords. They are long overdue - not only in the US but around the world.

I am still in the Bernie/Tulsi camp - to the horror of my libertarian friends. Neoliberalism went too far, too fast. We gave away our future and the futures of our children. It is time to rebuild the safety net, reinforce privacy rights, and promote competition through antitrust enforcement as a start. I don't know what that makes me, other than someone whose parents grew up in the heart of the Dust Bowl, survived WWII, Korea and Vietnam, and hoped their children would live better lives than they endured. I think we need that American spirit back and will vote accordingly.

I wish you the best on your decision. 

Back to your question, always lead with your heart and soul. A human who relies on brainpower alone is soulless computer (no offense to our future AI overlords). Pick the person or label that allows you to help move the conversation forward. Play to your strength. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don't think the concept of "neoliberalism" really means anything. A political or economic system is liberal, or not. Neoliberalism, as such,  seems to speak to a rejection of referees more than anything else, and I certainly don't think anybody in the Democratic field is advocating that, Biden's bankruptcy bill notwithstanding. 

Read the Harvard article. It was deliberate and planned. We are living in that world that took root in 1930's America.

Neoliberalism is not getting rid of the referees. Those who used the neoliberal system to their advantage understand the need for referees. They raise barriers to entry into a market by potential competitors. Just one of many unintended consequences of the policy. 

By the way, did you see Breyer's admission Kelo was his worst opinion. He did not go so far to say it was wrong (it wasn't technically), but there were grounds for Breyer to vote with the minority, which would have turned it into the majority opinion. He screwed the pooch. Kudos to him for admitting his discomfort with the decision. The States rectified the problem, which is how federalism is designed to work. But one hell of a way to get to the right outcome. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,688]

What kind of liberal are you? Classical? I don't see that libertarian streak in you or the stomach for the consequences for forced austerity (ironic isn't it - the neoliberals took down Chile and some of identify as libertarians).

That is one of the reasons I value your opinion. You live in a middle kingdom, yet still understand life on the fringes is brutal and unforgiving. A classical liberal would take a sink or swim attitude. That's not the BC I've known over so many years and Presidents. You would be the guy giving the new sinkers or swimmers quick lessons on staying afloat. That's your soul, not politics.

Progressive liberal? Before the Third Way, you would have been put in the camp with the Commies.  Today, most "progressives" are nothing more than conservatives looking to protect their wealth. They make lavish promises they cannot keep. They value institutions that have become corrupted and in need of reform.

But, I have to admit, America needs faith in its institutions for its citizens to thrive. Too many of those institutions have become plutocracies. They need reform and a refocus on priorities. Americans still want to build America (and feed the world). Tap into that sentiment with progressive programs designed to give everyone in need a hand up. . .; everyone, no exceptions. A universal basic income would relieve much of the housing and hunger insecurity that has accelerated the epidemic of despair that permeates the nation (once one steps outside the glittering Citadel Cities, which are quickly attempting to eradicate those who have no purchasing power). 

I don't know where you fit in our oligarchical society. Traversing social castes in America is difficult and becoming almost impossible. I believe I remember you beat those odds. Congratulations, but don't ever forget your roots; that is where your soul resides for eternity. My guess is you, like me, would adore a world without wars, poverty, discrimination and ignorance. I think you and I have explored the political universe and we are oddballs that do not match any label or definition. The world is becoming more and more like us - aware, desire change, and frustrated by the lack of progress. 

The accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few is an issue that will need to be dealt with one way or another. (Dear Readers: do not confuse wealth inequality for income inequality - they are two different concepts with different solutions). 

I started off in antitrust work for a firm that employed Robert Bork. Those were the days where we saw the last gasps of antitrust enforcement. With the death of antitrust enforcement, we have seen wealth inequality skyrocket

I look forward to our new antitrust overlords. They are long overdue - not only in the US but around the world.

I am still in the Bernie/Tulsi camp - to the horror of my libertarian friends. Neoliberalism went too far, too fast. We gave away our future and the futures of our children. It is time to rebuild the safety net, reinforce privacy rights, and promote competition through antitrust enforcement as a start. I don't know what that makes me, other than someone whose parents grew up in the heart of the Dust Bowl, survived WWII, Korea and Vietnam, and hoped their children would live better lives than they endured. I think we need that American spirit back and will vote accordingly.

I wish you the best on your decision. 

Back to your question, always lead with your heart and soul. A human who relies on brainpower alone is soulless computer (no offense to our future AI overlords). Pick the person or label that allows you to help move the conversation forward. Play to your strength. 

Thank you very much for this post and I am honored by your retention of our history.

 

Yes, I did beat those odds but I’m acutely aware of what my hole cards were and how much tougher the table is now.

 

As you know i detest labels and I’m suspicious of ideology, but I know what a progressive is, and I know I am not that, and I know what a neoliberal is, I think, but it doesn’t fit me. “Liberal” was good enough for Daniel Patrick Moynihan and thus probably me and anybody else. To work with reality and believe in something at the same time, you need referees and institutions and a great deal of consensus. You need leadership and organizing principles and just a vast quantity of compelling bullshit to call forth the better angels.

 

I saw Eddie Izzard last night - I think he occupies the same place I do. If he has ideals they are rooted in the post-WWII fantasy that by working together and taking facts and referees and fair play and technical execution seriously we westerners could create a better world. If (for better or worse) that’s not the core of what used to be called the “liberal consensus” I don’t know what is.

He said this, and I liked it- “this could be the last century of human civilization. Or it could be the first.”

 

We can choose to surrender to the abyss or to believe in the fantasy of a just world for 7.5B people. I choose the latter. Whatever ideology that puts me on the side of human beings, that’s what I want to be.

[Biff Tannen 45,778]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Thank you very much for this post and I am honored by your retention of our history.

Yes, I did beat those odds but I’m acutely aware of what my hole cards were and how much tougher the table is now.

As you know i detest labels and I’m suspicious of ideology, but I know what a progressive is, and I know I am not that, and I know what a neoliberal is, I think, but it doesn’t fit me. “Liberal” was good enough for Daniel Patrick Moynihan and thus probably me and anybody else. To work with reality and believe in something at the same time, you need referees and institutions and a great deal of consensus. You need leadership and organizing principles and just a vast quantity of compelling bullshit to call forth the better angels.

I saw Eddie Izzard last night - I think he occupies the same place I do. If he has ideals they are rooted in the post-WWII fantasy that by working together and taking facts and referees and fair play and technical execution seriously we westerners could create a better world. If that’s not the core of the liberal consensus I don’t know what is.
He said this, and I liked it- “this could be the last century of human civilization. Or it could be the first.”

We can choose to surrender to the abyss or to believe in the fantasy of a just world for 7.5B people. I choose the latter. Whatever ideology that puts me on the side of human beings, that’s what I want to be.

Fuck.  Where was Eddie?  Can't believe I missed that.  I will put Dressed to Kill in the top 5 stand ups of all time.

[Brisketexan 105,628]

Thank you very much for this post and I am honored by your retention of our history.
 
Yes, I did beat those odds but I’m acutely aware of what my hole cards were and how much tougher the table is now.
 
As you know i detest labels and I’m suspicious of ideology, but I know what a progressive is, and I know I am not that, and I know what a neoliberal is, I think, but it doesn’t fit me. “Liberal” was good enough for Daniel Patrick Moynihan and thus probably me and anybody else. To work with reality and believe in something at the same time, you need referees and institutions and a great deal of consensus. You need leadership and organizing principles and just a vast quantity of compelling bullshit to call forth the better angels.
 
I saw Eddie Izzard last night - I think he occupies the same place I do. If he has ideals they are rooted in the post-WWII fantasy that by working together and taking facts and referees and fair play and technical execution seriously we westerners could create a better world. If (for better or worse) that’s not the core of what used to be called the “liberal consensus” I don’t know what is.
He said this, and I liked it- “this could be the last century of human civilization. Or it could be the first.”
 
We can choose to surrender to the abyss or to believe in the fantasy of a just world for 7.5B people. I choose the latter. Whatever ideology that puts me on the side of human beings, that’s what I want to be.

The problem is, most human beings aren’t in the side of human beings.

Eddie’s vision was a moment in history. An anomaly. One that we foolishly, optimistically, and naively believed would be the new normal.

Nope. It’s over, and we’re headed back to our baseline. Authoritarianism, tribalism, nationalism, and the bloodshed that always follows...manipulated all the while by the new “aristocracy” so that they further amass and consolidate their wealth and power at the expense of everyone else.

Be careful siding with human beings. We’re a pretty shitty bunch.

[F250 28,959]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Brisket is not a fan of Steven Pinker.

[Brisketexan 105,628]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Brisket is not a fan of Steven Pinker.

What? You have a stinky finger?

And yes, I disagree with Pinker. There are no better angels of our nature. We’re cruel tribalist assholes, waiting for the opportunity to come out and hurt others. It’s what we do, it’s what we are. Any delusion that we’re anything other than cruel animals is just that.

[NBMisha 224]

And now this question, Brisket, Bozo, others.  You have some elite status derived from genetic gifts and how that played out with the society we were born into.  I know that situation, also. Luck beats all.  Now, with everything looking like shit, and all the justifiable critiques out there, we and our kids being beneficiaries.... how now to make the world a better place?   Burning it all down does not strike me as preferred.  Is that my selfishness?

[wildcat09 29,453]

Hold up, this is the original washpark? I thought this was someone else using that name.

[Brisketexan 105,628]

16 minutes ago, NBMisha said:

And now this question, Brisket, Bozo, others.  You have some elite status derived from genetic gifts and how that played out with the society we were born into.  I know that situation, also. Luck beats all.  Now, with everything looking like shit, and all the justifiable critiques out there, we and our kids being beneficiaries.... how now to make the world a better place?   Burning it all down does not strike me as preferred.  Is that my selfishness?

"Burning it all down" is a great slogan.  Until you realize that we'd be burning something down with hundreds of millions of people trapped inside.  That's not acceptable to me.

We've done our damndest to impress upon our kids that they hit the lottery -- they were born into comfort, with every need met.  They were born of two educated parents, who were intelligent to begin with.  They have the advantages of the good genetics, AND the exposure to ideas and ambition from birth.  Those gifts give them power, and with that power comes responsibility.  And, we've tried to live an example for them - we ain't perfect, but we also own our imperfections and failures.

There are a lot of things in this world breeding viruses that attack our collective body.  We need to send out white blood cells to counter that and fight the infection.  Hell, it may be the most important thing we can do: raise informed, kind people with a sense of responsibility and duty to their fellow man.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

12 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

i detest labels

Especially in today's political environment, labels have become increasingly worthless.  The ivory tower types like to come up with the convoluted jargony labels to pigeonhole things that really can't be pigeonholed.  People's views and opinions on political issues change continuously over time.  Labeling a person's ideology assumes there is some rigid dogmatism at play, in some cases yes but people are not born Marxist, neoliberal, postmodern, fascist, or conservative.  Hell, I have no idea what I am ideologically but I like to think I have some liberal and conservative tendencies while being anti-fascist AF. 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[F250 28,959]

14 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

What? You have a stinky finger?

And yes, I disagree with Pinker. There are no better angels of our nature. We’re cruel tribalist assholes, waiting for the opportunity to come out and hurt others. It’s what we do, it’s what we are. Any delusion that we’re anything other than cruel animals is just that.

The better angels are reason, intellect, law, government, science, education and commerce that have driven the evolution of civilization.

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

"Burning it all down" is a great slogan.  Until you realize that we'd be burning something down with hundreds of millions of people trapped inside.  That's not acceptable to me.

We've done our damndest to impress upon our kids that they hit the lottery -- they were born into comfort, with every need met.  They were born of two educated parents, who were intelligent to begin with.  They have the advantages of the good genetics, AND the exposure to ideas and ambition from birth.  Those gifts give them power, and with that power comes responsibility.  And, we've tried to live an example for them - we ain't perfect, but we also own our imperfections and failures.

There are a lot of things in this world breeding viruses that attack our collective body.  We need to send out white blood cells to counter that and fight the infection.  Hell, it may be the most important thing we can do: raise informed, kind people with a sense of responsibility and duty to their fellow man. 

This is how we engage our better angels so that we can continue to extend civilization to the rest of humanity.

[BradInATX 9,208]

Only 13% of the entire Democratic base wants policies left of Obama. There is not a massive backlash against moderate-left policies. It's a very loud group of naive, self-important, extreme leftists that think if they shout louder and more frequently on Twitter that people will stop rolling their eyes at them.

 

There might be a shift against populism and elitism. You see a lot of moderates on both sides growing tired of wealth disparity and corporatism. That's entirely different than being part of the less than 6% of our country that wants a shift towards socialism.

 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,688]

On the other hand, it’s really stupid for guys like Bullock and Hickenlooper and Delaney to waste their breath talking about what’s not the solution to this or that. -isms aren’t the point.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

On the other hand, it’s really stupid for guys like Bullock and Hickenlooper and Delaney to waste their breath talking about what’s not the solution to this or that. -isms aren’t the point.

Isms are always the point (and they're bad)...  Ferris told us that.

[bad_teammate 13,326]

On 6/13/2019 at 12:27 AM, Brisketexan said:

Any delusion that we’re anything other than cruel animals is just that.

This is melodramatic, angsty teen bullshit.

Far more insidiously, it is a view that we use to defend and even promote our cruel social and economic policies. It's the conservative's excuse for religious totalitarianism, economic stratification, and mass incarceration.

Social and economic conditions are what turn humans nasty. There is a reason we are disturbed by a child who is cruel to animals; he is an aberration. A human's first instinct is towards collaboration. Greed and cruelty require thought and planning and our thinking is shaped by what surrounds us.

[Brisketexan 105,628]

16 hours ago, F250 said:

The better angels are reason, intellect, law, government, science, education and commerce that have driven the evolution of civilization.

This is how we engage our better angels so that we can continue to extend civilization to the rest of humanity.

They are.  All of those things.  They should have the greatest value in society.  They don't.  The only thing with real value is power.  Even wealth is just a means to the end of power.

And sure, we raise kids to be enlightened, kind, and dedicated.  Lots of people have done that.  There are mass graves throughout Europe, Cambodia, China, Latin America, filled with such people.  They were put there by people who value power above all else.

33 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This is melodramatic, angsty teen bullshit.

Far more insidiously, it is a view that we use to defend and even promote our cruel social and economic policies. It's the conservative's excuse for religious totalitarianism, economic stratification, and mass incarceration.

Social and economic conditions are what turn humans nasty. There is a reason we are disturbed by a child who is cruel to animals; he is an aberration. A human's first instinct is towards collaboration. Greed and cruelty require thought and planning and our thinking is shaped by what surrounds us.

Naah, it's just history, which repeats itself.  Yes, step ONE is collaboration.  We become a tribe.  Step Two is where we kill the fuck out of everyone who ain't "us."  Not only is inflicting pain and death on "the other" not a problem, it's a POSITIVE. It's your "patriotic duty" in defense of "your people and your way of life, and your father/motherland."  Which is usually a manipulation by (whom?) the people in power.  Who have created the conflict by creating economic and resource conditions that foster such conflict....but also help them consolidate power.

Evil men create conflict and consolidate power.  And the masses cheer them and do their dirty work.  It's like the point that's been made that there are very few good cops -- there are the bad ones who shoot people for no reason, and all of the other cops who cover for them.  

I'm not "using that fact insidiously."  I'm calling it like I see it -- and continuing to (futilely, we all know) work against it.  Rage against the dying of the light and all that.  But the light inevitably dies, all the same.

History will show that the post-WWII liberal world order, and the couple of centuries-long history of what we'd generally call "democratic governance" was a shocking aberration.  Russia is the human baseline -- nihilist, nationalism, and they love a strong man.  They are what the rest of us are -- they're just honest enough to admit it.

Edited June 14, 2019 by Brisketexan

[bad_teammate 13,326]

We are heading in a clear direction, and grandstanding cynicism is based neither in reality nor in any reasonable analysis of our heading.

You're calling it like you see it, perhaps, but you need to take a step back and analyze your own ability to see.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

We’re in the bad part of the cycle.  The technological advancements made since the fall of the Soviet Union have been weaponized by governments, including our own, against populations, including ours.  

Technology always ends up getting weaponized by the assholes of the world to subjugate populations.  The combustible engine, the airplane, the rifle, the tank, radar, nuclear power, the internet. 

The battlefield has changed and we haven’t fully realized it yet.   That great firewall China built was probably a good investment on their part. 

[F250 28,959]

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Far more insidiously, it is a view that we use to defend and even promote our cruel social and economic policies. It's the conservative's excuse for religious totalitarianism, economic stratification, and mass incarceration. 

This is an interesting point. Brisket's view of man is very much aligned with the conservative mindset. One of the pillars of conservativism is that the nature of man is inherently depraved and without strong social institutions to enforce morality, society would plunge into chaos. It is the reason conservatives support so many oppressive social policies. Its also why they consider everyone in opposition to their policies to be naive concerning the nature of man.

 

[F250 28,959]

On 6/13/2019 at 10:45 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I like to think I have some liberal and conservative tendencies while being anti-fascist AF. 

Are you just against the tenets of fascism but ok with the authoritarianism?

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That great firewall China built was probably a good investment on their part.  

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

4 minutes ago, F250 said:

Are you just against the tenets of fascism but ok with the authoritarianism?

I debated how that would come off so let me be clear here. There are no circumstances in which we should build a great firewall for the same reason building a real wall is dumb.   Our strength as a people comes from how open our society is.  We can never make the most of the world around us by cutting ourselves off from it. 

However, if I’m a Chinese authoritarian POS terrified of being overthrown by my own population, that great firewall looks fucking awesome.  

Not having a digital barrier makes us vulnerable to external threats but we are capable of neutralizing those threats without going isolationist.  We are capable of adapting. 

[Brisketexan 105,628]

8 minutes ago, F250 said:

This is an interesting point. Brisket's view of man is very much aligned with the conservative mindset. One of the pillars of conservativism is that the nature of man is inherently depraved and without strong social institutions to enforce morality, society would plunge into chaos. It is the reason conservatives support so many oppressive social policies. Its also why they consider everyone in opposition to their policies to be naive concerning the nature of man.

 

I'm a believer in the Rule of Law.  But I also realize that it's a thin veneer -- laws are only as strong as the willingness of those in power to follow them.  So, interestingly, I AM a strong "law and order" guy -- I just take the higher view of the law as it had evolved in this country for the past 150 years or so: it's more about the process and the application to all than it is specific statutes and such.

I have a working hypothesis -- a certain level of technological and social advancement brings society to a point where it advances forward significantly.  We saw that in the West post WWII.  We're seeing it in other countries that were a bit behind the curve -- they are advancing now.  But my hypothesis is that liberal democracy has a limited lifespan.  Once those countries/economies mature to a certain point....they revert to the norm.

So, we advance, steadily.....until we reach a point that makes us lurch backwards.  We've maxed out on our advancement.  We have nowhere to go but down.

[bad_teammate 13,326]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We've maxed out on our advancement.??  We have nowhere to go but down.?

imgur

The fact that you, personally, might have hit a wall intellectually, socially, and morally doesn't mean that applies to everyone else in the society.

[Brisketexan 105,628]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

 

The fact that you, personally, might have hit a wall intellectually, socially, and morally doesn't mean that applies to everyone else in the society.

I'm not the one gleefully supporting backwards-looking neo-fascists like Orban and Trump, or movements like AfD and Brexit, etc.

We tried liberal democracy.  We clearly can only tolerate so much of it.  Looks to be about a century or so, give or take.  After that point, we want to revert to our old hyper-nationalist authoritarian ways.  It's just my observation.  It has some rather stout evidentiary support.

[bad_teammate 13,326]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

It has some rather stout evidentiary support.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm not the one gleefully supporting backwards-looking neo-fascists like Orban and Trump, or movements like AfD and Brexit, etc.

We tried liberal democracy.  We clearly can only tolerate so much of it.  Looks to be about a century or so, give or take.  After that point, we want to revert to our old hyper-nationalist authoritarian ways.  It's just my observation.  It has some rather stout evidentiary support.

We also end up correcting course and reverting back to liberal democracy.   We might have to go through a civil war or Great Depression to get there but we’ve managed, all things considered.  The system goes through cyclical stress tests.  This current one sucks awful but how we respond over the next 10 years will likely define us for another 70.  However, I’m not going to pretend like it couldn’t go horribly wrong. 

[bad_teammate 13,326]

The pessimism of the privileged is actually a pretty good example of neo-liberalism in action.

 

[Brisketexan 105,628]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

 

Making my point by stopping at 2015.  Let's see what that chart looks like in 2024.  

I'm not saying we've splashed into the ocean yet (of course, by then, it's too fucking late).  I'm saying we're the Air France flight from Brazil that ENDED UP smacking into the ocean.  IT took 6 minutes to get there from 35,000 feet -- that fall took quite a while.  We're at the part of the flight where we've entered a stall and are losing altitude.  We maxed out at 35,000 feet (your chart).  Since then, we've been in a stall and dropped to 32,000 feet.  A response of "hey, we're still at 32k feet, all is well" is a good way to guarantee that we all smack into the sea 6 minutes later. 

We've begun our descent.  That is clear.  Arguing about our flight path up to that point is utterly irrelevant.  We are in a stall-based descent now.  The only question is whether we pull out of it, or whether we're destined to crash.  Being that the forces that have put us into a descent are GAINING steam globally, I think that a heavy smack into the sea is our destiny.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Making my point by stopping at 2015.  Let's see what that chart looks like in 2024.  

I'm not saying we've splashed into the ocean yet (of course, by then, it's too fucking late).  I'm saying we're the Air France flight from Brazil that ENDED UP smacking into the ocean.  IT took 6 minutes to get there from 35,000 feet -- that fall took quite a while.  We're at the part of the flight where we've entered a stall and are losing altitude.  We maxed out at 35,000 feet (your chart).  Since then, we've been in a stall and dropped to 32,000 feet.  A response of "hey, we're still at 32k feet, all is well" is a good way to guarantee that we all smack into the sea 6 minutes later. 

We've begun our descent.  That is clear.  Arguing about our flight path up to that point is utterly irrelevant.  We are in a stall-based descent now.  The only question is whether we pull out of it, or whether we're destined to crash.  Being that the forces that have put us into a descent are GAINING steam globally, I think that a heavy smack into the sea is our destiny.

One thing is for certain, there is no avoiding the crash.  Just don’t know if it will be a mountain crash or a water landing. 

I’m thinking somewhere in between because the egalitarian foundations of our society have always been our life vests and they are getting obliterated.

[bad_teammate 13,326]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Making my point by stopping at 2015. 

I'M NOT OWNED lol

It's from a study published in 2016, so that was the data available. What the fuck are you talking about?

Quote

We've begun our descent.  That is clear.

Based on what? The last Republican president before Trump started a forever-war by lying to the entire world; a war that's cost us trillions and has killed millions. Do you seriously think Trump is a step down from W in any actual, meaningful sense regarding the quality of the world?

This president is a venal, corrupt clown with scarcely more bodies on his hands than his Democratic predecessor. Who is the last president who wasn't a wealth-class-worshiping war criminal?

[Brisketexan 105,628]

Based on what? The last Republican president before Trump started a forever-war by lying to the entire world; a war that's cost us trillions and has killed millions. Do you seriously think Trump is a step down from W in any actual, meaningful sense regarding the quality of the world?
This president is a venal, corrupt clown with scarcely more bodies on his hands than his Democratic predecessor. Who is the last president who wasn't a wealth-class-worshiping war criminal?

1 - I’m not saying you did something sinister by posting a study that stopped in 2015. I’m saying the global tide started turning around then.

2 - it’s not that we’re still electing corrupt, authoritarian shitbags. It’s that for the first time (for us - it ain’t the first rodeo for other countries) we (and other western countries) are celebrating them BECAUSE they are venal authoritarian criminals.

Even the people who supported shitbags in the past did their best to argue that their guy wasn’t a shitbag. Now, it’s “yeah he’s a shitbag - AINT IT AWESOME?!?!”

The direction of the west has changed, both in leadership and the people. Seriously, I’m kind of surprised we’re having an argument here. I’m far from alone in observing this.

[bad_teammate 13,326]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

1 - I’m not saying you did something sinister by posting a study that stopped in 2015. I’m saying the global tide started turning around then.

THUS PROVING MY POINT

Nationalist movements have seen something of a resurgence since the late 80s/early90s, but the "re" matters a great deal here.

We must fight the fascists, always and everywhere, but what's actually changed is that the center has suddenly realized that fascism is real. It has been real all this time. The fact that you just noticed it doesn't mean it just started.

Quote

2 - it’s not that we’re still electing corrupt, authoritarian shitbags. It’s that for the first time (for us - it ain’t the first rodeo for other countries) we (and other western countries) are celebrating them BECAUSE they are venal authoritarian criminals.

Are we? Condemnation for Trump is nigh-universal abroad and his popularity is low here even with a "good" economy. He lost the popular vote my 3 million and his own internal polling shows him losing all swing states to Biden and up only 2 points in Texas.

In the latest European elections, the far-right did poorly.

[bad_teammate 13,326]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Even the people who supported shitbags in the past did their best to argue that their guy wasn’t a shitbag. Now, it’s “yeah he’s a shitbag - AINT IT AWESOME?!?!”

Further evidence that all you actually give a shit about is image and decorum.

Jesus

[F250 28,959]

Interesting argument that makes a lot of sense, at least to me, regarding the mistake of nominating a centrist candidate. Even if the Dems were to win the general election with a Biden or Harris, I think it would further exacerbate the problem with Trumpism.

 

 

There is hard data that shows that a centrist Democrat would be a losing candidate

"nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between."

 

https://www.salon.com/2019/06/02/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-that-a-centrist-democrat-would-be-a-losing-candidate/

 

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13,326]

The 2016 election should've already proven that. Hopefully some will learn eventually.

[Brisketexan 105,628]

14 minutes ago, F250 said:

Interesting argument that makes a lot of sense, at least to me, regarding the mistake of nominating a centrist candidate. Even if the Dems were to win the general election with a Biden or Harris, I think it would further exacerbate the problem with Trumpism.

 

 

There is hard data that shows that a centrist Democrat would be a losing candidate

"nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between."

 

https://www.salon.com/2019/06/02/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-that-a-centrist-democrat-would-be-a-losing-candidate/

 

 

 

 

I tend to agree with this.  I'd like to think there will be a day where reasoned, moderated "within the central 50% band" governance will work.  Today is not that day.

[Biff Tannen 45,778]

21 minutes ago, F250 said:

Interesting argument that makes a lot of sense, at least to me, regarding the mistake of nominating a centrist candidate. Even if the Dems were to win the general election with a Biden or Harris, I think it would further exacerbate the problem with Trumpism.

 

 

There is hard data that shows that a centrist Democrat would be a losing candidate

"nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between."

 

https://www.salon.com/2019/06/02/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-that-a-centrist-democrat-would-be-a-losing-candidate/

 

 

 

 

So essentially the extremes on both sides will decide our fate.  What could go wrong?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,559]

Going with a centrist is the best idea for the Dems.  I haven't read the paper behind the article above and probably won't so perhaps that data shows otherwise.

However just like in 2018, voters are pissed about Trump.  The Dem candidate only needs to have low controversy, and show they won't screw anything up. Put in Bernie or Warren and you will hear from some voters that while they hate Trump, they can't vote for a socialist.

[Biff Tannen 45,778]

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Going with a centrist is the best idea for the Dems.  I haven't read the paper behind the article above and probably won't so perhaps that data shows otherwise.

However just like in 2018, voters are pissed about Trump.  The Dem candidate only needs to have low controversy, and show they won't screw anything up. Put in Bernie or Warren and you will hear from some voters that while they hate Trump, they can't vote for a socialist.

So again, it will be the Dem's fault that they just HAD to vote for the dotard.  FUCK THAT.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

6 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So essentially the extremes on both sides will decide our fate.  What could go wrong?

There’s a flaw with this logic.  The false equivalency of the extremes.

The asymmetrical polarization of the Right has warped our perception of the non-moderate left.

In other words we falsely see the political landscape as this:  If you’re not a centrist democrat, you’re a radical extremist leftist. 

[Biff Tannen 45,778]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There’s a flaw with this logic.  The false equivalency of the extremes.

The asymmetrical polarization of the Right has warped our perception of the non-moderate left.

In other words we falsely see the political landscape as this:  If you’re not a centrist democrat, you’re a radical extremist leftist. 

I agree with this.  Unfortunately I think that people who don't pay attention will have this go over their heads.  Hence the lack of voter participation that the article warns about.

[bad_teammate 13,326]

25 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I agree with this.  Unfortunately I think that people who don't pay attention will have this go over their heads.  Hence the lack of voter participation that the article warns about.

What is it about the populist left movement so far that tells you that enthusiasm among voters is low? The two candidates with the most donors are Sanders and Warren.