I wrote a piece a couple of weeks ago-'None dare call Trumpism National Socialism'-other than Krugman at the time.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/trumpism-none-dare-call-it-national.html
But now, rather ironically, in light of Tom Brown and my current conversation Sumner has gone there. Now Tom had asked me if I could see Sumner in the Democratic party:
"Hey Mike, I've had a thought recently that I don't know how you'll react to: I could see you hating it, loving it, or being indifferent to it. I really have no idea."
"I think Sumner (and people like him) belong in the Democratic party. The right wing (perhaps even the far right wing) of the party maybe, but definitely the Democratic party."
"Like I expressed before, I don't think he's full on delusional, he doesn't despise and fear science, nor do I think he's a liar or even much of a bullshitter. He doesn't think the Earth is flat (or the equivalent: i.e. 6000 years old) or that Obama is a Marxist Kenyan who's directing FEMA to build concentration camps for white people. I'd bet he has no use nor much respect for air heads like Palin, or Bible thumpers like Cruz or Huckabee. He's not a gold bug nor a conspiracy lunatic nor an "End the Fed" Paulite, and he believes in progressive taxes (true, consumption taxes, but still). He literally has no place in today's GOP."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-nobody-likes-political-scientists.html?showComment=1440907380901#c930345278285366990
My basic reaction is no to that. Not that I don't want Sumner in the Democratic party-I'll take anyone who wants to vote Democrat of course. But knowing Scott, that will never happen. From what I get, he probably used to vote Republican but realizes in recent years that the GOP has totally jumped the shark.
Still, he won't join with the Dems. His usual line is that he hates both parties-implicitly he seems to want a third party that would be socially liberal but economically conservative.
His post on National Socialism buttress' my intuition.
"The German tight money policy of the early 1930s led to a surge in vote support for two groups, the nationalists and the socialists. Today in America the nationalists and the socialists have all the momentum. Consider:
"1. Dick Cheney might have been the worst Vice President in American history (at least Agnew didn’t do anything.) Now add to the list his choice to be one heartbeat away from the presidency—Sarah Palin. Palin is now gushing praise over Donald Trump, who campaigns on the same mix of statism and xenophobia that you see among the neo-fascist parties in Europe, with militarism thrown in. For years I could take pride in the fact that America largely avoided that particular policy mix. I don’t think even Pat Buchanan was a militarist."
"Update: Well that must be one of the most epic brain freezes in my 6 1/2 years of blogging, it was obviously McCain who chose Palin. Cheney didn’t chose anyone, unless perhaps himself, when he headed Bush’s VP search committee."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30386
"The official Democratic platform now advocates a nationwide $15 minimum wage. Whatever you think of extreme Reagan era supply-side economics, the GOP never went that far off the rails on economic policy. The GOP platform said considerthe gold standard, not adopt the gold standard. I suppose the Seattle case is debatable, but a nationwide $15 minimum wage law would literally destroy the economy in many low wage/low productivity parts of the country, such as Puerto Rico. It would also create even more crime, a massive underground economy."
We can debate the minimum wage or a $15 MW but in any case this is nothing to do with Socialism. Socialism would be the nationalizatoin of the entire Foruitne 500 and ultimately the entire economy.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/trumpism-none-dare-call-it-national.html
But now, rather ironically, in light of Tom Brown and my current conversation Sumner has gone there. Now Tom had asked me if I could see Sumner in the Democratic party:
"Hey Mike, I've had a thought recently that I don't know how you'll react to: I could see you hating it, loving it, or being indifferent to it. I really have no idea."
"I think Sumner (and people like him) belong in the Democratic party. The right wing (perhaps even the far right wing) of the party maybe, but definitely the Democratic party."
"Like I expressed before, I don't think he's full on delusional, he doesn't despise and fear science, nor do I think he's a liar or even much of a bullshitter. He doesn't think the Earth is flat (or the equivalent: i.e. 6000 years old) or that Obama is a Marxist Kenyan who's directing FEMA to build concentration camps for white people. I'd bet he has no use nor much respect for air heads like Palin, or Bible thumpers like Cruz or Huckabee. He's not a gold bug nor a conspiracy lunatic nor an "End the Fed" Paulite, and he believes in progressive taxes (true, consumption taxes, but still). He literally has no place in today's GOP."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-nobody-likes-political-scientists.html?showComment=1440907380901#c930345278285366990
My basic reaction is no to that. Not that I don't want Sumner in the Democratic party-I'll take anyone who wants to vote Democrat of course. But knowing Scott, that will never happen. From what I get, he probably used to vote Republican but realizes in recent years that the GOP has totally jumped the shark.
Still, he won't join with the Dems. His usual line is that he hates both parties-implicitly he seems to want a third party that would be socially liberal but economically conservative.
His post on National Socialism buttress' my intuition.
"The German tight money policy of the early 1930s led to a surge in vote support for two groups, the nationalists and the socialists. Today in America the nationalists and the socialists have all the momentum. Consider:
"1. Dick Cheney might have been the worst Vice President in American history (at least Agnew didn’t do anything.) Now add to the list his choice to be one heartbeat away from the presidency—Sarah Palin. Palin is now gushing praise over Donald Trump, who campaigns on the same mix of statism and xenophobia that you see among the neo-fascist parties in Europe, with militarism thrown in. For years I could take pride in the fact that America largely avoided that particular policy mix. I don’t think even Pat Buchanan was a militarist."
"Update: Well that must be one of the most epic brain freezes in my 6 1/2 years of blogging, it was obviously McCain who chose Palin. Cheney didn’t chose anyone, unless perhaps himself, when he headed Bush’s VP search committee."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30386
So far in line with Tom's premise as he shows contempt for the GOP. I have nothing to add to his assessment of Cheney except a hearty 'Amen!'
I too was befuddled about Cheney picking Palin. At least he corrected himself.
But listen to how he frames the Democratic party-as nothing more than socialists-as if its just like Chavez's party. When do you think Sumner is going to join a party of socialists?
"2. The heart of the Democratic Party is now with Bernie Sanders, whatever the polls show. And let’s not have anyone accuse me of McCarthyism, he calls himself a “socialist.” When asked, the head of the Democratic Party couldn’t think of a single difference between socialists and Democrats. And please don’t insult my intelligence by talking about Sweden. Sweden is not a socialist country. Venezuela is socialist. When Sanders starts advocating free trade and investment, liberal immigration rules, privatization, zero inheritance tax, 100% nationwide school vouchers, a $0/hour minimum wage rate, then come back to me with your Sweden talk. For now, he just wants the bad parts of Sweden."
So he's not joining the Democratic party anytime soon. His claim that because Bernie calls himself a socialist means that the Democratic party is now socialist, on the same level as Hugo Chavez is a risible case of exaggeration.
First of all, Bernie calls himself a 'democratic socialist' ie, he wants to achieve 'socialism'-and he doesn't really explain what socialism is-via democratic means.
To be sure Chavez did begin with democratic means but even if Sanders won-and he won't-there is not the political infrastructure to do what Chavez did-assuming Sanders wants to nationalize the entire economy-he's said nothing about this.
To be sure, Sweden isn't 'socialist' but you do have politicians there who call themselves socialist-as you do in all of Continental Western Europe. So because Bernie calls himself a Socialist and because he has some supporters among white left-liberals hardly means the party is socialist.
I do know what he means in saying that the ''head of the Democratic party couldn't say what the difference between socialists and Democrats are'-but Debbie Wasserman Schultz was not in the mood to get into a theoretical brouhaha there.
I too was befuddled about Cheney picking Palin. At least he corrected himself.
But listen to how he frames the Democratic party-as nothing more than socialists-as if its just like Chavez's party. When do you think Sumner is going to join a party of socialists?
"2. The heart of the Democratic Party is now with Bernie Sanders, whatever the polls show. And let’s not have anyone accuse me of McCarthyism, he calls himself a “socialist.” When asked, the head of the Democratic Party couldn’t think of a single difference between socialists and Democrats. And please don’t insult my intelligence by talking about Sweden. Sweden is not a socialist country. Venezuela is socialist. When Sanders starts advocating free trade and investment, liberal immigration rules, privatization, zero inheritance tax, 100% nationwide school vouchers, a $0/hour minimum wage rate, then come back to me with your Sweden talk. For now, he just wants the bad parts of Sweden."
So he's not joining the Democratic party anytime soon. His claim that because Bernie calls himself a socialist means that the Democratic party is now socialist, on the same level as Hugo Chavez is a risible case of exaggeration.
First of all, Bernie calls himself a 'democratic socialist' ie, he wants to achieve 'socialism'-and he doesn't really explain what socialism is-via democratic means.
To be sure Chavez did begin with democratic means but even if Sanders won-and he won't-there is not the political infrastructure to do what Chavez did-assuming Sanders wants to nationalize the entire economy-he's said nothing about this.
To be sure, Sweden isn't 'socialist' but you do have politicians there who call themselves socialist-as you do in all of Continental Western Europe. So because Bernie calls himself a Socialist and because he has some supporters among white left-liberals hardly means the party is socialist.
I do know what he means in saying that the ''head of the Democratic party couldn't say what the difference between socialists and Democrats are'-but Debbie Wasserman Schultz was not in the mood to get into a theoretical brouhaha there.
What Scott is doing is not distinguishing between socialist country like Venezuala and a democratic country where a single candidate calls himself 'socialist'-but with no other members of this socialist party.
But regardless, Bernie is not the preference of the whole Democratic party but just a minority of white left-liberals.
"The official Democratic platform now advocates a nationwide $15 minimum wage. Whatever you think of extreme Reagan era supply-side economics, the GOP never went that far off the rails on economic policy. The GOP platform said considerthe gold standard, not adopt the gold standard. I suppose the Seattle case is debatable, but a nationwide $15 minimum wage law would literally destroy the economy in many low wage/low productivity parts of the country, such as Puerto Rico. It would also create even more crime, a massive underground economy."
We can debate the minimum wage or a $15 MW but in any case this is nothing to do with Socialism. Socialism would be the nationalizatoin of the entire Foruitne 500 and ultimately the entire economy.
I'll be very surprised if most Democratic voters are socialists, or even willing to vote for a socialist eventually. Bernie Sanders is (AFAIK) an open socialist, is he not?
ReplyDeleteMy feeling is that Scott isn't correct about where the actual voters are in the Democratic party. I know lots of Democratic voters, and I know very very few socialists. That's why I'd be surprised... but then that's not a good basis for judging the WHOLE party is it? We'll see I guess.
I know fewer Republican voters, and there's a good sizable percentage of them that are not near fully delusional. But I think a MAJORITY of the ones I personally know (now, in 2015) are more than 50% delusional about what constitutes a "fact" and what doesn't, and what kinds of things one should venture to express "certainty" in in the world outside their job and family. I'm not saying they're so bad off that they're a danger to themselves, coworkers or family members, but I would no sooner want them deciding on any public policy than I would a flat-Earther. A big part of that is due to their uncritical acceptance of conspiracy theories and other bullshit. I don't trust their process for knowing things. They seem to be very very certain of the bullshit they believe.
I told Scott I respected his opinion on both races (because frankly I haven't even been interested in the Democratic race yet). For all I know an across the board min wage would be a bad idea. For all I know Bernie is a socialist with terrible ideas. I tend to agree with him that it's a bad sign that Sanders and Trump are popular. It's probably an indication of a "sick" democracy and electorate.
However, I trust that the Democrats will not nominate an asshole, jackass, bullshitter, at least not one of the same order of magnitude as the GOP almost certainly will. Maybe I'm wrong, but I trust that based on experience. Based on other people like me who are utterly alienated from the GOP right now. Where else are people like me going to go? I can't be the only one! Lol.
"We can debate the minimum wage or a $15 MW but in any case this is nothing to do with Socialism. Socialism would be the nationalizatoin of the entire Foruitne 500 and ultimately the entire economy."
Exactly. I don't know if you ever listened to my Boghossian "kid's table" interview, but that's similar to his point. He gives the example that somebody might express the view that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because it causes their kids to do X, Y and Z. He says, that no matter if we find this opinion reprehensible or not, it's a claim that deserves to be at the adult table because it's an empirical claim that we can check against reality. On the other hand, public policy opinions based on firmly held bullshit beliefs that are impervious to empirical checking or rational argumentation, do NOT belong at the adult table! I'm hearing way too much of the latter from Republicans these days. To be sure not everything, but too much.
BTW, not to draw a false equivalence, but there's another worrisome "way of knowing things" that tends to be more associated with left wingers (although I don't think it's as big a problem as what I'm seeing from the right so far). And that's the idea that everybody's reality is somehow equally valid. This attitude implicitly denies there's an objective reality out there. It tends to be associated with statements like "Well, it's true for me." If what you're talking about is purely subjective, like "I like chocolate" then that's fine, but when it refers to something that's claimed to objectively exist or objectively be true (like the effectiveness of some quack medicine), then I don't agree at all that "it's true for me" is a reliable way to go about knowing things. It's just an invitation for bullshit.
DeleteI think I know what you mean though you don't flesh it out good enough for someone who didn't to buy into.
DeleteAny examples of this?
I will confess that sometimes I'm not sure of where the progressives are taking us on things like the transgender phenomenon.
Like I decide I'm a girl even though that's not my anatomy so I;m right and everyone has to agree with me.
Still unlike Buckley I see 'standing athwart history' as a losing proposition.
It's not something I would fight over but I don't get how gender is what ever I say it is.
If I say I'm Napoleon tomorrow no one is going to humor me on that.
I'm not saying these examples aren't different but I haven't seen it explained why it is.
Don't get me wrong, an interesting point the transgender movement makes is that gender is not about anatomy fundamentally but in the structure of the brain.
DeleteStill, I won't lie-I don't want a woman who wasn't born that way. Even if 'she' has the right brain there is the wrong anatomy.
Mike, I wasn't really talking about transgender people. I see that more like "I like chocolate." I mean changing our laws to accommodate nonsense, like medical quackery. But it goes beyond that... ironically it goes to leaving the door open for extreme rightist reactionary attitudes. Our domestic reactionaries sometimes see this and point it out, and sound like bigots (and for the most part they probably are), For example, I think that's what drives some of the "anti-sharia law" nonsense in the US. But at the same time I don't want us to be so much like "'Well, it's true for their culture, so we have to accommodate it." We don't have to accommodate a foreign reactionary culture (where it's incompatible with Western pluralistic ideals), any more than we should tolerate our domestic reactionary culture where it does the same (at least not within our borders). I'm not suggesting we ban burquas, and I'm not suggesting we behave in deliberately insulting ways, but I'm damn sure not going to suggest the people have a right not to be offended.
DeleteThis plays itself out in the classrooms sometimes too (from what I've read). I've seen people from all political backgrounds complain about this "right not to be offended" concept.
I've sometimes seen this whole class of ideas described as "post-Modernist."
Also, a completely different concept I have a problem with: the idea of a "hate crime" makes me a little queasy. If you kill somebody, it DOES matter what your intentions were... was it 100% an accident? Was it negligence on your part? Were you planning to kill them in "cold blood?" Was it an "act of passion?' I think that covers it. I don't see where "hate crime" fits in there. If anything, it should be under "act of passion" if it was really blind hatred that led you down that path. But if there was any planning, then it goes right back under "cold blooded murder."
"Like I decide I'm a girl even though that's not my anatomy so I;m right and everyone has to agree with me."
DeleteThat can get crazy I think. But as long as I'm still allowed to call such a person names I'm OK with it. (not that I'm inclined to do that, but my worry again centers around the "right not to be offended" concept, which I oppose).
"I'll be very surprised if most Democratic voters are socialists, or even willing to vote for a socialist eventually. Bernie Sanders is (AFAIK) an open socialist, is he not?"
ReplyDeleteI think you're dead right here and this is a case of Scott taking some license. For one thing he's not a Democrat. He hasn't advocated any socialist policies-no mass nationalizations, no seizing of the 'means of production.'
The minimum wage doesn't make you a socialist.
You can argue how important his 'socialism' really is but in any case he has only minority support within the party.
Let's say he were elected POTUS_which will never happen. He'd be able to get nothing done with no fellow party members in Congress.
In American as in other liberal democracies like Krugman says 'It takes a party.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html?_r=0
"I told Scott I respected his opinion on both races (because frankly I haven't even been interested in the Democratic race yet). For all I know an across the board min wage would be a bad idea. For all I know Bernie is a socialist with terrible ideas. I tend to agree with him that it's a bad sign that Sanders and Trump are popular. It's probably an indication of a "sick" democracy and electorate."
ReplyDeleteThe $15 min wage at the national level may be a good or bad idea. I can buy there are reasonable arguments that it is. Again, Hillary is probably not hardcore behind this idea but will wait and see how strong it gets.
She might come out for it if she saw a lot of support-but she'd also run it by her friends at the Center for American Progress to make sure it isn't a terrible idea.
There is a case to be made that while a $15 MW might be an ok idea in certain cities, states, or regions, that may not be the case at the national level.
If nothing else, as Noah Smith says, it would lose us the ability to have a natural experiment.
https://twitter.com/noahpinion/status/629309663432065024
But then again, as I've been trying to say in a number of recent posts, it's important not to fall in to the Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/green-lantern-theory-bernie-sanders.html
They will likely be a GOP House at least in 2017 even if Hillary wins so we won't get that just yet.
Sumner goes Green Lantern too by supposing that Bernie means the Democratic party is socialist and that if he were elected this would make us Venezuela. No it wouldn't as he wouldn't have the political mandate for that.
"However, I trust that the Democrats will not nominate an asshole, jackass, bullshitter, at least not one of the same order of magnitude as the GOP almost certainly will. Maybe I'm wrong, but I trust that based on experience. Based on other people like me who are utterly alienated from the GOP right now. Where else are people like me going to go? I can't be the only one! Lol."
ReplyDeleteRight, I mean Bruce Bartlett is kind of like you-an alienated Republican. Though he's totally in with me on the Trump Democrat plan. He's a Trump moderate Republican!
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/bruce-bartlett-makes-moderate-gop-case.html