Post New

Writing shortly before he died:

PHILIP ROTH: No one I know of has foreseen an America like the one we live in today. No one (except perhaps the acidic H. L. Mencken, who famously described American democracy as “the worship of jackals by jackasses”) could have imagined that the 21st-century catastrophe to befall the U.S.A., the most debasing of disasters, would appear not, say, in the terrifying guise of an Orwellian Big Brother but in the ominously ridiculous commedia dell’arte figure of the boastful buffoon.

When asked about his novel, "The Plot Against America" and its calamitous main character, a president who is "a genuine racist and an anti-Semite and a white supremacist sympathetic to Fascism" but also "an aeronautical Magellan, one of the earliest beacons of the age of aviation," Roth points out that...

Trump, by comparison, is a massive fraud, the evil sum of his deficiencies, devoid of everything but the hollow ideology of a megalomaniac.

I had a conversation with some Aussies today. While encouraging me to visit Australia, they said they don't get Trump's appeal. They see him as your post described, and shake their heads that he is going to be a nominee again.

I had to agree. Even with albaby's comparison to Czervik, it still is bewildering to me. This isn't remotely the same party I left over 20 years ago. They may have the same name, but they would be unrecognizable to conservative luminaries like Goldwater.

You should listen to Bill Maher more.

I had to agree. Even with albaby's comparison to Czervik, it still is bewildering to me. This isn't remotely the same party I left over 20 years ago. They may have the same name, but they would be unrecognizable to conservative luminaries like Goldwater.

Parties shift from time to time. I doubt a Democrat from the 1970's would recognize the Democratic party in the 1990's, for example. It happens.

We're not just seeing it here - right-wing parties across the globe are becoming far more populist than they ever were. Conservatives are jettisoning some of the policy positions that were disliked by working class social conservatives. They're abandoning the business class on issues like free trade, immigration, industrial policy, government austerity and entitlement programs, and military interventionism. They are fighting for - and winning! - the votes of people who are fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

It's the conservative solution to the dilemma in What's the Matter With Kansas?, where the title referred to Kansans' propensity to vote against their economic interests in order to get (often illusory) commitments to the social conservatism they wanted.
They accepted a Devil's Bargain - the social conservative positions they wanted were tied to a fiscal conservatism that was horrible for them. Thomas Frank thought those Kansans should prioritize their economic needs over social issues. Instead, the GOP has now shifted away from the hardcore fiscal conservatism that motivated the Goldwater Republicans, and instead embraced some big swatches of leftist fiscal policy - untouchable entitlements in Medicare and Social Security and protectionist trade policy.

Instead, the GOP has now shifted away from the hardcore fiscal conservatism that motivated the Goldwater Republicans, and instead embraced some big swatches of leftist fiscal policy - untouchable entitlements in Medicare and Social Security and protectionist trade policy.

It's more a nod to reality.
The time to reform Social Security was during the Clinton/Bush43 years while the Baby Boomer Generation was young enough to benefit from a privatization option. Now they've all retired and the program was never reformed, so here we are. Besides that the last democrat who would acknowledge that there was a funding problem with SS was...Bill Clinton.

You're oversimplifying some other things. The average Joe has seen the 'traditional' GOP bulwalk of the Chamber of Commerce outsource all their jobs overseas, donate to democrats and embrace woke DEI bullspit (see Disney and Gilette as shining examples). Why support people who constant crap on your values?

So they're not. All Trump is doing is putting a campaign around it.

You can't have a "trade policy" that doesn't punish cheating by your trade partners. That also doesn't fly. democrats are pouncing on this reality to try and cry "protectionism" but then turn around and cheer that they got the CHIPS act through. That kind of argumentative duplicity is unfortunately how they roll.

amazing how soon 'fiscal conservatives' forget when kansas became a laughingstock for trumpish tax policies.
at first it was dogma ; when it failed it became an 'experiment'. and now enough time has passed for the humiliation to be repeated elsewhere.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/brownback-t...

on a related note, corporations in japan have so improved their governance that the amount they now save on debt is relatively the same as new business tax breaks doled out by trump in america. (this corporate welfare set to expire)
see verdad cap for more info.

Well, sure they realized trying to gut popular programs was not a vote-getter. SS, Medicare, now the ACA. They appear to be on the cusp of learning that about abortion, also.

But I think you are describing more Liz Cheney. Trump has no recognizable policies. Just rants about being persecuted, and punching people in the face (especially reporters). And implying he will seek revenge on those who wronged him.

How does that appeal to anyone who isn't filled with anger and hate? At least in 1932 you could identify the source of the anger, even if it was misplaced. (Though that was economic...devalued currency, inflation, unemployment, etc, all thanks to the Treaty of Versailles.)

Plus, Trump is the business class. He sucks at it, but he is.

I used to listen to him. I liked his interviews before the main panel. I pretty much knew all his positions, so I drifted away.

Interesting you would mention him. He has few kind things to say about Reps. Though he will call out Dems when he sends it necessary, but he excoriates Reps.

Interesting you would mention him. He has few kind things to say about Reps. Though he will call out Dems when he sends it necessary, but he excoriates Reps.

His main message is "Don't hate half the country". The democrats aren't listening.

And when they don't, you get Trump.

Trump has no recognizable policies. Just rants about being persecuted, and punching people in the face (especially reporters). And implying he will seek revenge on those who wronged him.

Oh, that's not true. Or rather, Trump may not have formal policies, but he has lots of positions.

Trump is an immigration restrictionist - an extreme hardliner on that issue. He disfavors American interventionism abroad, almost to the point of being an isolationist. He dislikes regulations and the regulatory state, but generally supports the idea of industrial policy to promote favored sectors or constituencies generally. He is against cuts to the most popular entitlement programs (Medicare, Social Security). He supports appointing conservative judges and justices. Etc.

None of these positions are developed enough that you might call them a "policy" - there aren't any white papers or 16-point plans in his nightstand. But it's very clear that MAGA stands for, in terms of the broad strokes of where his Administration would fall on a number of significant issues.

You're oversimplifying some other things. The average Joe has seen the 'traditional' GOP bulwalk of the Chamber of Commerce outsource all their jobs overseas, donate to democrats and embrace woke DEI bullspit (see Disney and Gilette as shining examples). Why support people who constant crap on your values?

So they're not. All Trump is doing is putting a campaign around it.

But that's a huge shift. That's the point. The Reagan Revolution, which basically crystallized modern conservatism in its current form, was based on the "fusion" of three strands of the conservative movement: social conservatism, free markets, and a hawkish foreign policy.

The free market strand was the principle that the government had no role in telling businesses and other economic actors how to conduct their business. If they wanted to send job overseas, they should be allowed to - after all, the invisible hand of the free market would drive them to make the best of all possible choices! And the government shouldn't be telling them what labor or management practices they should be employing....whether it's woke DEI or any other kind of bullspit. The only proper role for government is to get small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, which bathtub better not be bought with taxpayer money.

Right-wing populism rejects those premises. They very much reject letting private markets determine where the jobs go, where international labor and capital flow, or even the idea of a global free trade system at all. They want the government to intervene against private actors (like, say, a completely private university) rather than leave it up to the markets - they very much want government to be an active and powerful participant in deciding contested issues among private actors. That's an express rejection of the fusionist conservatism that Goldwater, Buckley and the National Review espoused back in the day - where issues of virtue are left to private actors, not the remit of the state.

Trump built his campaign around the huge part of the electorate that is socially conservative but isn't a free-market absolutist - people who want protectionism and Medicare and curbs on immigration and government sticking its nose into the affairs of private enterprise. That faction was not powerful in the fusionist era (roughly 1964 through the Tea Party Movement). They are in charge now.

The Reagan Revolution, which basically crystallized modern conservatism in its current form, was based on the "fusion" of three strands of the conservative movement: social conservatism, free markets, and a hawkish foreign policy.

Sure. Is something appropriate at one point in time supposed to be frozen in amber and *always* kept that way? If that's the standard, what would JFK say about today's democrats? Think FDR would be down with letting criminals have more rights than victims?

Pendulums always swing about a center axis.

Right-wing populism rejects those premises. They very much reject letting private markets determine where the jobs go, where international labor and capital flow, or even the idea of a global free trade system at all. They want the government to intervene against private actors (like, say, a completely private university) rather than leave it up to the markets - they very much want government to be an active and powerful participant in deciding contested issues among private actors. That's an express rejection of the fusionist conservatism that Goldwater, Buckley and the National Review espoused back in the day - where issues of virtue are left to private actors, not the remit of the state.

They don't "reject" letting private markets determine where things go, so I don't think that's correct: what is asked for instead is a fighting chance that's aligned with the national interest.

Is it in the United States' best interest to buy critical products and medicines from China? Or to allow China to willfully evade restrictions under NAFTA and dump cheap components into Mexico? Or to continue to play the game of allowing them to steal American IP at will?

As for isolationism, that's more nuanced. Asking NATO countries to spend what they're required to spend as outlined in the charter is hardly inflammatory (and in fact Gert Wilders' new government in the Netherlands is formalizing doing exactly that).

I'm not sure what your example of 'intervene against private actors' refers to.

The only major departure from conservative ideology is that of fiscal restraint. Trump was horrible on the score, and that's a pre-COVID statement.

Dope: "Is something appropriate at one point in time supposed to be frozen in amber and *always* kept that way?"

Can you say Second Amendment?

Sure. Is something appropriate at one point in time supposed to be frozen in amber and *always* kept that way?

Of course not. This isn't a criticism, it's an observation. My point was that Trump sharply moved the party left on several issues: a much more protectionist trade policy and support for popular entitlement programs that fiscal conservatives have long wanted to trim (like Medicare and Social Security). For example, your criticisms of trade policy are not new - but objections to corporate outsourcing and protests against trade regimes (like GATT and the WTO) have traditionally come from the left, not the GOP.

This is a change. It's not limited to the U.S., either - across the globe, conservative parties are becoming more populist and less accommodating to business leaders. Derogating the Chamber of Commerce and corporate CEOs as representing the moneyed elite instead of the common folk used to be a liberal pastime, but you're starting to see the GOP embrace it as well.

Yes, he has said that for a while. He rightly points out that half the country isn't going to go away.

There is vitriol from both sides, but the Reps are much worse, IMO. Most often what I see is Dems reacting to something hateful Reps said or did, and then the right wing media says "no one hates like a Democrat", omitting what riled up the Dems in the first place.

Most often what I see is Dems reacting to something hateful Reps said or did, and then the right wing media says "no one hates like a Democrat", omitting what riled up the Dems in the first place.

It's one of those classic conundrums, or Catch 22s, that if you don't tolerate the intolerant as they seek to annihilate you, you're intolerant.

Or, if a POC carries a weapon per the 2A, a racist can perceive that as an actionable threat and get away with shooting the POC.

Heck, the POC doesn't even need to be armed if the ammosexual can verbalize a credible fear after killing the POC.

There is vitriol from both sides, but the Reps are much worse,

Not even close. Another topic that's not debatable.
Just look at your fellow travelers on this board.

I agree it isn't debatable. Reps are provocateurs, spouting utter nonsense, and then get offended when that fact is pointed out to them. Reps are, on average, far worse.

Another topic that's not debatable.

What you seem to mean by that is you want to shut down debate, or possibly you don't wanna debate, but it's all debatable.

Reps are, on average, far worse.

Team lib routinely goes for the blood insult, which is why I've ignored so many of them here. You can't claim to want debate and then go down the NaziNaziNaziterroristfascist well all the time. The best response to that is an extended middle finger.

And as far as "utter nonsense", team lib rules there. Not a contest.

Dope:"Not even close. Another topic that's not debatable.
Just look at your fellow travelers on this board."

Dementia Dope is agreeing it's not even close...right wing extremists created the misinforming shock jocks on TV and radio. That style exploded when the internet enabled every dittohead to become a Rush-wannabe, a WallyGeorge tribute blogger.... and now a cultist loyal to an orange rapist/lying fraud/mobster.


Not one of the 'fellow travelers' exalts Democrat Party politicians with the blind zeal of the orange cult.

You can't claim to want debate and then go down the NaziNaziNaziterroristfascist well all the time. The best response to that is an extended middle finger.

Clearly 'you people' are too cowardly or ashamed to stand up for Trump's verbiage and tactics.

Trump and your people are spewing the Hitlerian verbiage. You're cowards if you won't own it or condemn it.

Even a child can see the parallels of Trump and the 3rd Reich.

It's his legacy, your legacy, and sadly a legacy the rest of the world will attribute to the USA for a long long time.

Not one of the 'fellow travelers' exalts Democrat Party politicians with the blind zeal of the orange cult.

I don't think that's what he's saying. He's basically saying that no one hates like a Democrat. I dispute this.

Though I also agree with you. Dems are not in a cult, not prone to following a cult leader, in general.

Trump is like an unimaginative L Ron Hubbard. (Yes, those people are definitely a cult.)

He's basically saying that no one hates like a Democrat. I dispute this.

I don't say "Democrat". Old school, capital-D Democrats are Americans first, party members second.

I *will* say No One Hates Like a liberal. As in, modern, histrionic, ruled by emotions progressive. That's where the constant belching of hate rhetoric comes from.

Oh, by the way.

According to New York's governor, if you went to Trump's rally, you're a clown:

https://x.com/RNCResearch/status/17937668306721715...

Maybe no one does hate like a Democrat.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/philipp...

Isolationists are the last thing we need right now. Because it worked out so well the last time we did that (1939-41).

I think you give Trump too much credit, but I see the point you are trying to make. I wonder who will pick up the mantle for fiscal conservatism and similar positions that defined the party for decades.

I wish Marcos would ask us for help with China. The Philippines aren't required to deal with this alone.

Isolationists are the last thing we need right now. Because it worked out so well the last time we did that (1939-41).

Okay. Should US troops be fighting in the Ukraine right now? If the answer is 'no', does that count as isolationism?

I wish Marcos would ask us for help with China. The Philippines aren't required to deal with this alone.

He has, and they aren't:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-64479712

This btw is one of the few things Biden's actually accomplished. Now if only he'd do something about the Navy while he was at it...

The US has secured access to four additional military bases in the Philippines - a key bit of real estate which would offer a front row seat to monitor the Chinese in the South China Sea and around Taiwan.

With the deal, Washington has stitched the gap in the arc of US alliances stretching from South Korea and Japan in the north to Australia in the south.
The missing link had been the Philippines, which borders two of the biggest potential flashpoints - Taiwan and the South China Sea.
The deal, which in part reverses the US' departure from their former colony more than 30 years ago, is no small matter.

No, that doesn't count. The isolationists wanted to deprive Ukraine of aid. Doesn't mean we (necessarily) have to send troops to be not-isolationists. And we have no treaty with Ukraine to do so (unlike the Philippines).

Yes, I'm aware that we are being invited back to PI. However, Marcos is hesitant to do much more. He won't even arm his Coast guard with water cannons. Yet. He says he doesn't want to escalate, but China is doing that all by themselves. We can only do FoN missions, and such, until he asks for help with Chinese attacks.

I don't think the Chinese would use water cannons on one of our ships...

I wish Marcos would ask us for help with China. The Philippines aren't required to deal with this alone.

I think the Philippines allowing us to use the northern island as part of a defense for Taiwan is very promising. It shows we aren't aware of everything being discussed.

It's his legacy, your legacy, and sadly a legacy the rest of the world will attribute to the USA for a long long time.

Aye, and that's the rub. That's why I use the two quotes to illustrate the USA's racism. They had a profound effect on my understanding of our racism. I wonder what the quotes will be used to illustrate the dangerous mix of isolationism, authoritarianism, etc., we're going through now.

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” Lee Atwater 1981

So, as an exercise, what would a modern one look like?

You start out by firing up the base during the GFC making immigrants into the whipping boy during that crisis. And that never stops, it gets worse. The Iran hostage crisis breeds Islamaphobia, and that never stops, and it gets much worse after 9-11. Trump picks up on the border phobia and uses a wall that becomes a symbol, and building the wall becomes important.

Tired, someone else can finish. :)

Trump picks up on the border phobia and uses a wall that becomes a symbol, and building the wall becomes important.
Tired, someone else can finish. :)

Politically entrenched drug cartels in Latin America finance the arming of large gangs in Haiti. Haitian gangs assassinate the president, overwhelm Haitian police and state military. Haitians flee the soaring violence to Latin America, and then north to the USA.

The USA will not land US Armed forces in Haiti, and instead finance and facilitate the deployment of 2000 Kenyans to commence police actions against the cartel backed militias.

Haitian gang militias whose fiepower is greatly underestimated soon overwhelm Kenyans who are evacuated to US hospitals.

Tired, someone else can finish. :)

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.