I'm currently reading a book by political scientist John Sides where he analyzes and explains the 2012 presidential race.
http://www.amazon.com/Gamble-Choice-Chance-Presidential-Election-ebook/dp/B00KAJJBRY/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1440894868&sr=1-3&keywords=john+sides
Once I finish with this, I'll read his next book on polarization.
http://www.amazon.com/Political-Polarization-American-Politics-Sides-ebook/dp/B00TQSU4DA/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1440894913&sr=1-1&keywords=john+sides
But taken together it seems that political consultants and campaign managers must not really want these guys around too much during the heat of a campaign. Here's' the bottom line according to political scientists like Sides.
1. For the most part for the incumbent party the election is a referendum on the economy.
2. This is not welcome news because economists tell us there's not that much the President can actually do to control the economy.
So if 1 and 2 are both correct what does that leave you as the President's campaign manager other than to pray to the Corn God for a great harvest?
What it really tells us is that a campaign has very little control. It has to spend millions on attack ads because so will its opponent. But assuming both campaigns are well-funded and professional as Sides says both Obama and Romney were, you basically have to do all this stuff because the other guy does it too.
Yet how do you get yourself in a winning, positive mindset if you believe you have no ability to exert any control over the situation? Praying for a good harvest doesn't exactly give you confidence.
This is yet another way that the Trump campaign is fascinating. Trump so far has totally bucked what we believe is the laws of political gravity.
Now I agree it probably won''t go on forever-I still wouldn't say he's going to win the nomination but then he can do a lot of good work even if he doesn't-the longer he's' in the better it is.
At the end, my guess is the GOP delegates will simply refuse to pledge to him or say his name no matter how many votes he gets an even if he spends his own money. Ie, he could win South Carolina or Florida and yet the state Republican delegates would refuse to pledge for him.
But then that could also lead to a third party which would be the optimum outcome-though him somehow winning the nomination is close.
Still I'd be interested to see what Sides has to say about Trump. He definitely has already broken all kinds of rules and his campaign hardly seems like its dissipating for now.
"After delivering an energetic 50 minute speech using no notes or teleprompter, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump easily won a presidential straw poll conducted at the annual convention of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, garnering 52 percent of the votes cast."
"Tea Party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) finished second with 24 percent, and Dr. Ben Carson, another political outsider and Tea Party friend, finished behind Cruz in third."
"The overflowing crowd of more than 1,000 attendees displayed a number of Trump signs, which they waved with enthusiasm . In his speech, Trump focused on his theme of making America great again through common sense, strength, and negotiations."
http://www.amazon.com/Gamble-Choice-Chance-Presidential-Election-ebook/dp/B00KAJJBRY/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1440894868&sr=1-3&keywords=john+sides
Once I finish with this, I'll read his next book on polarization.
http://www.amazon.com/Political-Polarization-American-Politics-Sides-ebook/dp/B00TQSU4DA/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1440894913&sr=1-1&keywords=john+sides
But taken together it seems that political consultants and campaign managers must not really want these guys around too much during the heat of a campaign. Here's' the bottom line according to political scientists like Sides.
1. For the most part for the incumbent party the election is a referendum on the economy.
2. This is not welcome news because economists tell us there's not that much the President can actually do to control the economy.
So if 1 and 2 are both correct what does that leave you as the President's campaign manager other than to pray to the Corn God for a great harvest?
What it really tells us is that a campaign has very little control. It has to spend millions on attack ads because so will its opponent. But assuming both campaigns are well-funded and professional as Sides says both Obama and Romney were, you basically have to do all this stuff because the other guy does it too.
Yet how do you get yourself in a winning, positive mindset if you believe you have no ability to exert any control over the situation? Praying for a good harvest doesn't exactly give you confidence.
This is yet another way that the Trump campaign is fascinating. Trump so far has totally bucked what we believe is the laws of political gravity.
Now I agree it probably won''t go on forever-I still wouldn't say he's going to win the nomination but then he can do a lot of good work even if he doesn't-the longer he's' in the better it is.
At the end, my guess is the GOP delegates will simply refuse to pledge to him or say his name no matter how many votes he gets an even if he spends his own money. Ie, he could win South Carolina or Florida and yet the state Republican delegates would refuse to pledge for him.
But then that could also lead to a third party which would be the optimum outcome-though him somehow winning the nomination is close.
Still I'd be interested to see what Sides has to say about Trump. He definitely has already broken all kinds of rules and his campaign hardly seems like its dissipating for now.
"After delivering an energetic 50 minute speech using no notes or teleprompter, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump easily won a presidential straw poll conducted at the annual convention of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, garnering 52 percent of the votes cast."
"Tea Party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) finished second with 24 percent, and Dr. Ben Carson, another political outsider and Tea Party friend, finished behind Cruz in third."
"The overflowing crowd of more than 1,000 attendees displayed a number of Trump signs, which they waved with enthusiasm . In his speech, Trump focused on his theme of making America great again through common sense, strength, and negotiations."
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/08/29/trump-wins-nashville-grassroots-straw-poll-with-52-percent/
Look, the usual caveat-it's s straw poll that means nothing. That said, isn't this an embarrassment for Ted Cruz in his own state? Sure it means nothing, but shouldn't Ted Cruz win Texas? Just like both Jeb and Rubio trail Trump in Florida right now.
And 52%?! I understand the party may just simply refuse to give Trump the delegates. They will simply disregard what their own voters told them to do. But wouldn't that lead to simple civil war within the party?
If this happens a third party run doesn't seem so crazy.
P.S. It seems to me that the GOP elites will never support Trump. It's not just that he can't beat Hillary though this is true. It's also because: he''s not a Republican. Immigratoin is actually the only issue in which he agrees with both the establishment and the base on.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-only-issue-trump-is-really.html
Actually on immigration, I think the establishment might have Milton Friedman's attitude: with a "welfare state" only ILLEGAL immigration makes sense (thus their motivation may be to keep the status quo), and thus make empty promises to immigrant haters, but do jack shit in the end. Of course I don't know if that's true, but it occurred to me when I watched that the other night. I remember back in the 90s Limbaugh used to make fun of the anti-immigration crowd: he and the WSJ were on the same page then.
ReplyDeleteWell there are a lot of different cross-currents at work.
ReplyDelete1 The WSJ crowd is pro-immigration and probably even pro total open borders.
2. This libertarian Right would do anything to get this except the one thing it would take: for once break with their partisan hatred of the Democratic party.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-wall-st-journals-war-with.html
3. However, you also have to realize that from the standpoint of what's good for the Republican party as such, Pat Buchanan-and Rush at least today-when they point out that the with every new Latino citizen is likely another Dem voter.
http://buchanan.org/blog/is-the-gop-headed-for-the-boneyard-5347
Not every Latino will be a Democrat but most will.
I think this is a big part of it too. So there are different countervailing forces but on balance I argue the GOP is 'objectively rabidly anti Latino immigration'-even though some of the actors subjectively speaking are actually quite the opposite-the business GOP and libertarian Right.
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
... and most importantly, he doesn't believe in trade wars nor does he hate brown people nor immigrants.
Delete... also, he doesn't seem to even agree with the current "serious" wing of the party, as played out in the pages of the WSJ. I've pointed out to him now twice (well, once he beat me to it himself), that he and Krugman are on the same page with some core issues:
Delete1. Sticky prices and/or wages are real
2. Aggregate demand is real
3. Monetary policy is currently too tight (and has nothing to do with the interest rate), and you can tell by TIPS spreads
4. The Fed (nor any CB) should be in the business of "bubble popping."
He says he's an "anti-Keynsian" but by just about any measure, I think he's a lot closer to Keynsians than he is to RBCers, hard money types, paranoid inflation hawks, "serious" people who want the Fed to raise rates now (because they're worried about bubbles), etc.
DeleteWell, no I don't look at him like a Right wing nut-he;s not Sean Hannity, or Limbaugh or something.
DeleteHe is though a supply sider and has some sharp differences with the Dems on things like taxes and the minimum wage, etc.
I always say he's the most rational Righty I know.
I have a healthy respect for him though which doesn't mean I agree with him.
I would be fine if he wanted to join the Democratic party but doubt he would. In his own words he hates both parties these days and thinks they''re both wrong.
He is sort of a liberal on social issues but a conservative or libertarian on economic issues.
Feel free to ask him directly but I'm sure he wouldn't go for it. So I don't hate it but he might. LOL
He has said lately-maybe with the rise of Trump-that the GOP is so hopeless now he doesn't even bother making fun of them anymore.
I forgot neo-Fisherites... he's not one of those. In fact I pointed out to him a post by John Cochrane which sounded to me like John was blaming recessions on too much debt (like debt and leverage caused the recession). I told him it sounded like a piece by William K. Black rather than John Cochrane. (really it could have even been by Michael Hudson: it just needed a few mentions of "rentiers"). He stressed that he didn't think "excessive" debt caused recessions (which I already knew about his position), but I was disappointed he didn't say more.
DeleteNor is he an Austian, nor does he hate gays. If he's a Republican (judged by how he actually votes), he must be in the tiniest minority there is within the party... one that's eroding away more and more every year.
DeleteI'm not sure he's not a bull-shitter, though I will confess to you I'm not sure how much of a problem I actually have with buill-shitters anyway which I know is a controversial thing to say.
DeleteWhat you just mentioned to me sounds BS-y to me and he does it a lot: certain questions he could say a lot more about but doesn't want to. When I ask him stuff he usually tries to say as little as possible.
Now me and him have a 'special relationship' but as your example shows he does it more generally too.
"He says he's an "anti-Keynsian" but by just about any measure, I think he's a lot closer to Keynsians than he is to RBCers, hard money types, paranoid inflation hawks, "serious" people who want the Fed to raise rates now (because they're worried about bubbles), etc."
ReplyDeleteOn the theoretical level he's closer to New Keynesians, yes. But that's on monetary theory. On fiscal policy he agrees with Cochrane. He agrees with Cochrane about everything he's said except sticky wages.
But both he and Cochrane are Supply Siders.
Supply sider: Well, so is Sadowski and so is Miles Kimball. Sadowski votes straight Democrat and Miles is a self professed "liberal" (although I'm not sure in what sense he means that, but I suspect in the same sense as does Krugman).
DeleteWell the Democratic party is not SSer. If Sadowski is cool with that it means there are other issues that are important enough for him to overook it.
DeleteMiles is Romney's cousin by the way. Miles-like Noah Smith-irritates the heck out of me, I must confess.
http://www.metafilter.com/118369/Mitt-Romneys-cousin-explains-the-history-of-the-GOP-and-Mormonism-through-twitter-and-other-interesting-things
I respect Sumner in a way more than them. Sumner at least is passionate but these guys strike me as just saying 'Well let''s just be polite and not take it all too seriously'-I despise such complacency.
By the way, I don't mind Scott joining the Democratic party-I'm ready to welcome him with open arms. I Just don't think he ever would: ask him. I'll be very surprised if he would go for this one.
Delete"Tyler Cowen pointed me to a excellent interview with John Cochrane. As usual, I agree with Cochrane on most things. He makes excellent points about finance, regulation, health care, etc."
ReplyDelete"But not money"
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=25730
Yes, I know. But like I said, I think he and Cochrane might also part ways on "debt and leverage" being a cause of recessions too. I'll try to find the post by Cochrane. Also, Cochrane's a neo-Fisherite... and a "modeler." I don't think Sumner trusts fancy models much: like the ones Lucas and Prescott put together.
DeleteHere's Cochrane's post on "Too much debt."
DeleteHere's my comment pointing it out to Sumner.
And here's Sumner's response.
"Tom, It’s about debt in the sense that debt defaults rise sharply. But debt is not the underlying cause, in most cases."
Speaking of Trump, Scott has a new great post-called "National-Socialist America'
ReplyDeletehttp://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30386
I will have to write a post about this post!
Thanks for the tip!
DeleteActually given Cochrane's postions on immigration and a few other things (like rationality and science) I don't think he even belongs in the Republican party anymore. I think of him as being to the right of Sumner, but still not right enough to be comfortable in the lunatic asylum that is the modern GOP.
ReplyDeleteI even poked some fun at Cochrane about that... after he wrote that piece in which he hand a tremendous list of radical supply side changes he claimed would get us to Jeb's 4% growth, I asked him what % growth would result from president Trump's multibillion dollar wall and great immigrant witch hunt... 5%? 10%? Sky's the limit? He responded "I think you got the sign wrong on that."
DeleteCochrane certainly doesn't agree with you. This is what I said about the WSJ: a lot of Right wing libertarian types in prinicple should have an issue with the GOP on stuff like immigration yet don't.
DeleteWhich I find very telling. At a minimum they aren't as passionate about open borders as they purport to be. Partisanship trumps-see his name gets into everything now!-their open borders principles.
Cochrane is open borders I'm pretty sure. His response to me (AKA "DDerp") indicated so... plus he has quite a few posts on immigration, and a quick scan of them indicated to me he's open borders. I really doubt he's pro-trade war either. My guess: Cochrane's anti-Trump, although he's probably pro-Jeb.
DeleteAlso I've made fun of right wing religious nuts on Cochrane's blog before, and his response indicated that he didn't disagree with me.
Yes-he's a Republican. Not like Trump-who isn't a Republican but something of a Right wing populist
DeleteYes, but you said the ONLY thing Trump is in tune with Republicans on is his immigration policy. I agree... today's Republicans... not the Republicans of 10 or 15 years ago, back before the current utter dominance of the Old Confederacy branch of the GOP. Cochrane is outdated in the GOP... there's no place for him there anymore. (c:
DeleteRight so on immigration Trump is in tune with the GOP and Cochrane is out of tune. On most other issues-taxes, regulation, entitlements, the deficit- Trump is out of tune and Cochrane is in tune.
Deletemost other issues, except perhaps (now) launching trade wars. Also, Krugman had a link a while back to a blog post on Vox I think it was... showing how being against social security and medicare is VERY unpopular amongst actual voting Republicans... so in spite of having the 1%er desire to eliminate or reduce that shoved down their throats, they really do NOT want that. So that might qualify as something that Trump is actually in line with voting Republicans on (in spite of the plutocratic party line most of the other candidates have been forced to parrot by their big donors).
DeleteRight that's why it's National Socialism-the welfare state but only for white folks, etc.
DeleteWell if so he doesn't realize it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/07/paul-ryan-and-john-cochrane
Again, I'm not sure you're catching my point about the WSJ. It is open borders but in the interests of partisanship it didn't push too hard in 2013 with the Senate immigration bill as Boehner was calling it 'the Senate Democrat' bill.
If they could just admit that Harry Reid wasn't wrong. But though they really supported the bill they couldn't bring themselves to step on GOP toes in the House.
This is what happens time and again on this issue. Libertarians mute their open border views so as not to offend their partisan brethren that they agree on most things.
Like Cochrane agrees totally with the GOP on fiscal policy-cut regulation, cut taxes on the rich, cut entitlements.
If Cochrane agrees with the GOP on five important issues and disagrees on one he might figure though he doesn't like the nativism he'd still rather stay with them then go with the Democrats.
Well, there's trade wars too. I'm pretty sure Cochrane would disagree. Probably on excessive fundy religious nut-baggery too. Also (as I point out above) the voting Republican members are very much against cutting social security (despite the plutocratic party line). Also I bet you he's not a neo-con war monger. Maybe he is, but if he's like Sumner (or even Ron/Rand Paul on that), then there's a good chance he isn't. All positions Cochrane probably finds himself at odds with actual Republican voters on.
DeleteI get what you're saying about the WSJ and libertarian politicians holding their tongue on immigration. It's definitely a case in which Limbaugh felt the wind flowing strong enough that he did a 180 on it. (he can't resist the smell of blood).
That was my point with Cochrane though: "So John, if your "guy" is trump and he tries to follow through on his idiotic immigrant witch hunt, what will that do to your growth projections (I deliberately picked numbers that would completely undo his 4% estimate... which he arrived at though a long laundry list of radical supply side changes). I read his response as "Yep, a moron like Trump focusing his efforts on an immigrant witch hunt would easily add up to enough bad so as to dwarf any good that could possibly come from my theoretical wish list of pie-in-the-sky pipe-dreaming radical reforms." In other words: "Yep, Trump would be an unmitigated disaster."
But when you consider that other candidates are following him down that rabbit hole, it's more than just Trump that would be an unmitigated disaster, even in the eyes of Cochrane... at least if you take their insane demagoguery at face value.
I think the historical nudge nudge wink wink of the Republican party on immigration, going back a long time: maybe 70s, certainly the 80s and 90s, and perhaps even the 00s was: "We'll throw the simians in the base some red meat, but then we'll sit on our hands while in office, and the chumps will have to take it, because who else are they going to vote for? Democrats! Lol"
DeleteThis goes back to Milton Friedman (in my view), who concluded that pre-1914 immigration was ALL good because there was no welfare and entitlements then. Why do people now (1976) think differently? Because of welfare! You can't have unrestricted immigration with a welfare state... so NOW unrestricted immigration is ONLY good if it's illegal!... because illegals can't get their hands on entitlements, and will take the low paying jobs that benefit both them and us."
Now I'm not saying I agree with Milty there (in fact, you might be surprised to know that I'm not "open borders" myself), but that's a compelling arguments for the "thinking plutocrat" conservatives, and they were probably happy to keep the status quo because of it. They didn't realize that their cynical ploy to radicalize the base (or at least allow that radicalization) would come back to haunt them later.
... perhaps that "base radicalization" was one of the insidious unintended consequences of "bullshit" that Frankfurt was talking about.
DeleteIf you dissuade people from using and practicing critical thinking skills long enough (so they're more malleable in the short term), can you really be surprised when they eventually turn into paranoid and enraged superstitious reactionaries? Willing to believe what any bullshitting jackass with a blog or radio show tells them?
Cool, you had some comments while I was sleeping-I like it!
ReplyDelete"Well, there's trade wars too. I'm pretty sure Cochrane would disagree. Probably on excessive fundy religious nut-baggery too. Also (as I point out above) the voting Republican members are very much against cutting social security (despite the plutocratic party line). Also I bet you he's not a neo-con war monger. Maybe he is, but if he's like Sumner (or even Ron/Rand Paul on that), then there's a good chance he isn't. All positions Cochrane probably finds himself at odds with actual Republican voters on."
1. On cutting SS he's on the same side as the establishment so it makes sense for him to vote Republican for that issue as they are the one's who run Congress not the base.
Surely he can't go the Dems on that one.
2. Rand Paul has been criticized for accomidating war-mongering to such an extent unlike his Dad. To show how hawkish Rand has become consider that he opposes the Iran deal.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rand-paul-against-iran-deal-120111
At least Trump admits you can't just 'rip up the deal on day one' like Scott Walker and the rest say.
"That was my point with Cochrane though: "So John, if your "guy" is trump and he tries to follow through on his idiotic immigrant witch hunt, what will that do to your growth projections (I deliberately picked numbers that would completely undo his 4% estimate... which he arrived at though a long laundry list of radical supply side changes). I read his response as "Yep, a moron like Trump focusing his efforts on an immigrant witch hunt would easily add up to enough bad so as to dwarf any good that could possibly come from my theoretical wish list of pie-in-the-sky pipe-dreaming radical reforms." In other words: "Yep, Trump would be an unmitigated disaster."
ReplyDeleteLet's be completely clear-no way does Cochrane support Trump. But then neither does the rest of the GOP establishment. So they agree on that. Trump is actually pushing liberal anti-supply side policies!
That I approve of! This why I love him-he has totally fucked up the GOP nomination process.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122648/republicans-come-terms-their-worst-trump-nightmare
A trade war is not a GOP position. If some candidates are right now making bash China noises that doesn't mean mean that's changed. And you don't hear the rest of the candidates talking about bringing back tariffs
ReplyDeleteSo Cochrane agrees with the establishment GOP on most fiscal policy issues. I'm not sure about foreign policy but even if he doesn't like war-mongering it's not so egregious for him that he can't look past that at the fiscal policies he supports.
ReplyDeleteOk so let me give you the one thing that shows that he may not be a total Republican ideologue like Rush Limbaugh.
ReplyDeleteHe does say he voted for Obama in 2009-because he thought it was good for American society for a black man to be President.
No way would a Rush Limbaugh ever say that.
Still he has since been vociferously against ACA and I doubt he voted for him in 2012.
Here is some commentary of his after Obama won again in 2012.
Interesting, but he said some laughably wrong stuff about debt-which doesn't necessarily relate to our discussion of him and the Republican party though a lot of Republican leaning economists said stuff like this.
"We're still sitting on a debt bomb. Remember 2004, when a few chicken-littles were saying "there is trouble brewing, there is a huge amount of debt (mortgages) that is in danger of defaulting, and the banks are stuffed with it?" And how everyone made fun of them? That is our situation now, but it's sovereign debt. (There's an interesting tidbit in today's news that Exxon and Johnson and Johnson bonds are trading with prices above / yields below US Treasuries)"
"Advice? If you run a business, get a lot of lawyers and lobbysists. He who writes the regulations will make a lot of money. He who does not will lose. Make sure you make the right political contributions and don't say anything critical of those in power. You will need a discretionary waiver of something, and these rules are so huge and so vague, the regulators can do what they want with you. Don't be the one to get "crucified" (EPA). We live in the crony-capitalist system that Luigi Zingales describes so well. Live with it. Political freedom requires economic freedom, taught us Milton Friedman. You don't have the latter, don't expect the former."
"If you're an investor, get out of long term nominal government debt. I have no idea who is holding 10 or 30 year treasuries at slightly negative real rates of interest, and bearing the risk of inflation and interest rate rises. Not me."
"I hope I'm wrong. I really, really hope I'm wrong."
And he was wrong, really, really, wrong.
Here is he is predicting doom and gloom for Obamacare at the WSJ.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304866904579265932490593594
Oh I see I forget to give you the link on his post election comments.
ReplyDeletehttp://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2012/11/predictions.html
He should get out of the prediction game
"I think the historical nudge nudge wink wink of the Republican party on immigration, going back a long time: maybe 70s, certainly the 80s and 90s, and perhaps even the 00s was: "We'll throw the simians in the base some red meat, but then we'll sit on our hands while in office, and the chumps will have to take it, because who else are they going to vote for? Democrats! Lol"
ReplyDeleteI do think there's some truth in that. Still this meant that there could never be any amnesty or any humane and rational immigration reform. Reagan and Bush the First did some amnesty.
But the opposition since then intensified even if it did start with Uncle Milty. I think there is some truth about the welfare state changing it in the mind of conservatives/libertarians.
Then the fact that in recent years we're talking about predominantly non-white immigration further accentuates this.
"Now I'm not saying I agree with Milty there (in fact, you might be surprised to know that I'm not "open borders" myself), but that's a compelling arguments for the "thinking plutocrat" conservatives, and they were probably happy to keep the status quo because of it. They didn't realize that their cynical ploy to radicalize the base (or at least allow that radicalization) would come back to haunt them later."
ReplyDeleteThere is also the perfectly rational-if not ignorantly rational-to see to minimize Latino-or Asian-immigration as these groups have been voting Democrat at very high levels.
Of course by being so opposed to them you make this a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm not sure about open borders. But I'm intrigued by it. It's a theoretical discussion at this point as we can't even secure status for millions of decent, hard-working Latinos in the country already.
ReplyDeleteOB is certainly the last thing the country is ready for at this point. So whatever your goals on reform they have to be more modest than that.
Out of interest what is your case against full Open Borders? Do you think that will kill American jobs or keep down US wages?
Mike, I should have said what you did hear; I'm not sure about open borders. That's closer to my view. I *could* be persuaded that it's a good idea, but at this point I don't know. I'd love to hear some sane people debate the issue. Maybe there's one online on "intelligence squared."
Delete".. perhaps that "base radicalization" was one of the insidious unintended consequences of "bullshit" that Frankfurt was talking about."
ReplyDeleteYes, but I also think that the GOP party is understandably not enamored of Latino immigration-more Democratic votes.
I saw Greg Sargent discuss the relationship of the establishment and the base as one where each side pushes the other into the abyss. Wish I could find that link.
But you are dead right here:
"If you dissuade people from using and practicing critical thinking skills long enough (so they're more malleable in the short term), can you really be surprised when they eventually turn into paranoid and enraged superstitious reactionaries? Willing to believe what any bullshitting jackass with a blog or radio show tells them?"
This is why it's so much fun watching them suffer here-they really have reaped what they have sown over many years.