2016 Presidential Horse Race

[NorthDakota]

He's one of the biggest frauds of all time. He absolutely advocates for this kinda stuff. It's in his economic DNA.

I bet he sucks at Sim City

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The NYT's Ross Douthat recently published an article titled "The Crisis for Liberalism":

THE 2016 campaign was a crisis for conservatism; its aftermath is a crisis for liberalism. The right, delivered unexpectedly to power, is taking a breather from introspection as it waits to see what Trumpism means in practice. The left, delivered unexpectedly to impotence, has no choice but to start arguing about how it lost its way.

A lot of that argument already revolves around the concept of “identity politics,” used as shorthand for a vision of political liberalism as a coalition of diverse groups — gay and black and Asian and Hispanic and female and Jewish and Muslim and so on — bound together by a common struggle against the creaking hegemony of white Christian America.

This vision had an intuitive appeal in the Obama era, when it won the White House twice and seemed to promise permanent political majorities in the future. And the 2016 campaign was supposed to cement that promise, since it pitted liberalism’s coalition of the diverse against Donald Trump’s explicitly reactive vision.

But instead 2016 exposed liberalism’s twofold vulnerability: to white voters embracing an identity politics of their own, and to women and minorities fearing Trump less than most liberals expected, and not voting monolithically for Hillary.

So now identitarian liberalism is taking fire from two directions. From the center-left, it’s critiqued as an illiberal and balkanizing force, which drives whit-cis-het people of good will rightward and prevents liberalism from speaking a language of the common good. From the left, it’s critiqued as an expression of class privilege, which cares little for economic justice so long as black lesbian Sufis are represented in the latest Netflix superhero show.

Both of these critiques make reasonable points. But I’m not sure they fully grasp the pull of an identitarian politics, the energy that has elevated it above class-based and procedural visions of liberalism.

It’s true that identity politics is often illiberal, both in its emphasis on group experience over individualism and, in the web of moral absolutes — taboo words, sacred speakers, forbidden arguments — that it seeks to weave around left-liberal discourse. It’s also true that it privileges the metaphysical over the material, recognition over redistribution.

But liberal societies have always depended on an illiberal or pre-liberal substructure to answer the varied human needs — meaning, belonging, a vertical dimension to human life, a hope against mortality — that neither John Stuart Mill nor Karl Marx adequately addressed.

In American history, that substructure took various forms: The bonds of family life, the power of (usually Protestant) religion, a flag-waving patriotism, and an Anglo-Saxon culture to which immigrants were expected to assimilate.

Each of these foundations often manifested illiberalism’s evils: religious intolerance, racism and chauvinism, the oppressions of private and domestic power. But they also provided the moral, cultural and metaphysical common ground that political reformers — abolitionists, Social Gospellers, New Dealers, civil rights marchers — relied upon to expand liberalism’s promise.

Much of post-1960s liberal politics, by contrast, has been an experiment in cutting Western societies loose from those foundations, set to the tune of John Lennon’s “Imagine.” No heaven or religion, no countries or borders or parochial loyalties of any kind — these are often the values of the center-left and the far left alike, of neoliberals hoping to manage global capitalism and neo-Marxists hoping to transcend it.

Unfortunately the values of “Imagine” are simply not sufficient to the needs of human life. People have a desire for solidarity that cosmopolitanism does not satisfy, immaterial interests that redistribution cannot meet, a yearning for the sacred that secularism cannot answer.

So where religion atrophies, family weakens and patriotism ebbs, other forms of group identity inevitably assert themselves. It is not a coincidence that identity politics are particularly potent on elite college campuses, the most self-consciously post-religious and post-nationalist of institutions; nor is it a coincidence that recent outpourings of campus protest and activism and speech policing and sexual moralizing so often resemble religious revivalism. The contemporary college student lives most fully in the Lennonist utopia that post-’60s liberalism sought to build, and often finds it unconsoling: She wants a sense of belonging, a ground for personal morality, and a higher horizon of justice than either a purely procedural or a strictly material politics supplies.

Thus it may not be enough for today’s liberalism, confronting both a right-wing nationalism and its own internal contradictions, to deal with identity politics’ political weaknesses by becoming more populist and less politically correct. Both of these would be desirable changes, but they would leave many human needs unmet. For those, a deeper vision than mere liberalism is still required — something like “for God and home and country,” as reactionary as that phrase may sound.

It is reactionary, but then it is precisely older, foundational things that today’s liberalism has lost. Until it finds them again, it will face tribalism within its coalition and Trumpism from without, and it will struggle to tame either.

I lol'd at "Lennonist utopia".

 

[Buster Bluth]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VWMmBG3Z4DI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I think Mark Blyth crushed it in this talk about Trumpism. His piece starts at 13:13.

 

[Bluto]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VWMmBG3Z4DI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I think Mark Blyth crushed it in this talk about Trumpism. His piece starts at 13:13.

Really good stuff. Agree that Blyth was spot on.

 

[Shamrock Theories]

Care to back any of that up?

Don't hold your breath

 

[IrishLax]

Thoughts on Krugman calling it a scam?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/o...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region



I have a feeling the Norquist worshippers within the GOP Congress are going to want to break the back of the Davis-Bacon Act if they go along with one trillion in infrastructure spending.

Well, I don't read Krugman anymore, so this is a bit of a moot point for me. I made the mistake in the past of taking his stuff at face value as an "expert" until one of my friends explained 1) his Nobel prize was a sham and has nothing to do with what he writes about 2) that within the greater community of academic economists he's considered a total buffoon. I don't know if any of that is true, but the friend who told me this is literally the smartest person I've ever met, has a Ph.D. from Stanford in economics, and is now a professor at a top school... so I'll take his word for it.

Reading what you linked, there seems to be a whole a giant, unsupported jump-to-conclusion of what would be in a bill that no one has seen. His entire premise of it being a "scam" rests on the singular assumption about how the programs will be financed. So I'll reserve judgment until I actually see a bill.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Really really skeptical of DeVos for Secretary of Education.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Well, I don't read Krugman anymore, so this is a bit of a moot point for me. I made the mistake in the past of taking his stuff at face value as an "expert" until one of my friends explained 1) his Nobel prize was a sham and has nothing to do with what he writes about 2) that within the greater community of academic economists he's considered a total buffoon. I don't know if any of that is true, but the friend who told me this is literally the smartest person I've ever met, has a Ph.D. from Stanford in economics, and is now a professor at a top school... so I'll take his word for it.

Reading what you linked, there seems to be a whole a giant, unsupported jump-to-conclusion of what would be in a bill that no one has seen. His entire premise of it being a "scam" rests on the singular assumption about how the programs will be financed. So I'll reserve judgment until I actually see a bill.

Were Our Enemies Right?

Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Wall Street Journal editorial page between 2000 and 2011, and someone in the same period who read only the collected columns of Paul Krugman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of the current economic crisis? The answer, I think, should give us pause. Can it be that our enemies were right?

Keep in mind, this is a former GW Bush speechwriter suggesting that you would have been better served reading Krugman. Nothing in the past 5 years suggests that has changed, as none of the hyperinflation or any of the other evils conservative economists have been predicting have materialized.

I do think that any economist who begins writing for a broader audience is usually going to be shat on by those in the community. I know Steven Levitt is also looked down on in academic circles. Kind of a natural consequence of the simplifying you have to do to reach the general population (or even just well-educated non specialists).

 

[IrishLax]

Were Our Enemies Right?

Keep in mind, this is a former GW Bush speechwriter suggesting that you would have been better served reading Krugman. Nothing in the past 5 years suggests that has changed, as none of the hyperinflation or any of the other evils conservative economists have been predicting have materialized.

I do think that any economist who begins writing for a broader audience is usually going to be shat on by those in the community. I know Steven Levitt is also looked down on in academic circles. Kind of a natural consequence of the simplifying you have to do to reach the general population (or even just well-educated non specialists).

What? Why would I care what a Bush speechwriter says? Like I said, I used to read him and take him at face value... until people I respect (and who aren't conservative in the slightest) said he's a buffoon.

It seems like you and Jayhawk are firmly in his camp. That's fine. But to that stuff above about the housing bubble quote, I have no clue how you're taking that source at face value. Here's a rebuttal:

It is important to be clear on what Krugman was saying here. His earlier record on the housing bubble is unambiguous. He had repeatedly advocated that the Fed should lower interest rates for the explicit purpose of creating a boom in housing as a route to economic recovery. Here, he was implicitly acknowledging that the numerous interest rate cuts that had already been made had not solved the problem. The reason he offered was that people were still not spending enough, and his argument had been that the Fed should cut interest rates even further. He attributed the view that the Fed “needs to create a housing bubble” to Paul McCulley, but there can be no mistake, reading his remark in context, that Krugman was in agreement.

I mean, I understand why he tried to walk that back and why people on his side make excuses for him. But even when he walked it back, he still couldn't escape the inarguable truth that he supported measures that directly led to the housing bubble:

So did I call for a bubble? The quote comes from this 2002 piece, in which I was pessimistic about the Fed’s ability to generate a sustained economy. If you read it in context, you’ll see that I wasn’t calling for a bubble — I was talking about the limits to the Fed’s powers, saying that the only way Greenspan could achieve recovery would be if he were able to create a new bubble, which is NOT the same thing as saying that this was a good idea. Of course, I know that this explanation won’t keep the haters from pulling up the same quote out of context, over and over.

But did I call for low interest rates? Yes. In my view, that’s not what the Fed did wrong. We needed better regulation to curb the bubble — not a policy that sacrificed output and employment in order to limit irrational exuberance. You can disagree if you like, but that doesn’t make me someone who deliberately sought a bubble.

Good grief... my favorite Krugman gem though has to be...

The growth of the Internet will slow drastically... By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.

... that's a real quote, and he can't "context" that one away. He was also sucking Europe's dick right before their financial crisis. And there are dozens of other examples of him being a total clown who is perpetually wrong.

So yeah... no, I don't put stock in his half-baked bullshit.

 

[ulukinatme]

Don't you dare shit in my cheerios on Blackout Wednesday.

You get drunk the Wednesday before Thanksgiving?????? Or just every Wednesday?

Blackout Wednesday!?!?!

Sounds amazing. Do tell

Wednesday night before Thanksgiving, when everyone is back in town for the holiday, you go out to bars and drink. Thought that was a common thing...?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_Wednesday

Blackout Wednesday and Black(out) Friday are part of local vernacular.

Nah man...You go get hammered AFTER spending Thanksgiving all day with your family.

At least that's what I used to do. Nothing worse than being hungover and having to deal with your entire family on thanksgiving.

But, I applaud your dedication. Reps

Is that enough quotes?

I can confirm Blackout Wednesday is a thing, although I didn't realize it was a thing until I saw this thread. I only know it's a thing because it's been tradition for the last 5 years for my wife, myself, and a few sister-in-laws to get together the night before Thanksgiving. I work to get the house in order and they cook food so her family can come invade tomorrow. We get stupid drunk in the process. Festivities kick off momentarily.

I did not realize that there was also a Blackout Friday. We'll see how recovery goes tomorrow before I suggest such a thing.

 

[kmoose]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1sufgWZK5c4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[BGIF]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1sufgWZK5c4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Whoa! Grump?

Grump won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote.

 

[Cackalacky]

So this is real

 

[GATTACA!]

So this is real

The grammar in this is too good for it to be real.

 

[NorthDakota]

So this is real

Just some of the good ol' boys getting together and working out.

 

[loomis41973]

Is that enough quotes?

I can confirm Blackout Wednesday is a thing, although I didn't realize it was a thing until I saw this thread. I only know it's a thing because it's been tradition for the last 5 years for my wife, myself, and a few sister-in-laws to get together the night before Thanksgiving. I work to get the house in order and they cook food so her family can come invade tomorrow. We get stupid drunk in the process. Festivities kick off momentarily.

I did not realize that there was also a Blackout Friday. We'll see how recovery goes tomorrow before I suggest such a thing.

...are they hot?

 

[wizards8507]

So this is real

Seems legit.

 

[loomis41973]

Just some of the good ol' boys getting together and working out.

Never meanin' no harm.....

 

[Cackalacky]

Seems legit.

I thought so to until I went to read the rants and raves section of Craigslist. Lol.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Illness as indicator | The Economist

 

[connor_in]

Looks like they finally called MI

The numbers are in: Trump wins Michigan by 10,704

 

[Legacy]

Among democracies, U.S. stands out in how it chooses its head of state (Pew Research)

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

Among democracies, U.S. stands out in how it chooses its head of state (Pew Research)

The second longest republic in history behind the Romans.
We have our issues of course as a nation, but we at least have gauranteed to us the ability to protest and make our voices heard unlike a lot of countries.

 

[Irish YJ]

Among democracies, U.S. stands out in how it chooses its head of state (Pew Research)

That's probably why nobody wants to come here....

 

[ulukinatme]

So this is real

Meh, until I see men in hoods fighting back against rioters, I'm going to believe this is more nonsense created to stir up trouble. We've seen a lot of social media bullshit in the last few weeks, there's no reason to believe this wasn't created by Hillary supporters/anti-Trumpers.

 

[ulukinatme]

 

[yankeehater]

We host my wife's family after the actual Thanksgiving day usually on the Saturday following. My wife's hardcore liberal Aunt is not coming this year because "she is in a funk" over the election. OMG....libs need to grow a pair. Plus we had to listen to her tell us how great President Obama was for the last 8 years.

 

[Irish YJ]

Meh, until I see men in hoods fighting back against rioters, I'm going to believe this is more nonsense created to stir up trouble. We've seen a lot of social media bullshit in the last few weeks, there's no reason to believe this wasn't created by Hillary supporters/anti-Trumpers.

It's the Myrtle Beach Craigslist so it must be real lol. At least as real as the previous fake news of want ads for protestors that is. Stupid either way even if there are a few idiots out there.

 

[Irish YJ]

We host my wife's family after the actual Thanksgiving day usually on the Saturday following. My wife's hardcore liberal Aunt is not coming this year because "she is in a funk" over the election. OMG....libs need to grow a pair. Plus we had to listen to her tell us how great President Obama was for the last 8 years.

You should look at it as a blessing. The election is the gift that keeps giving.

 

[IrishLax]

Apparently it's not over... now Clinton joining up with Stein for Wisconsin recount...

Thought Trump's surrogates comment was spot on:<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">First comment from Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway on Clinton joining Wisconsin recount: "What a pack of sore losers." <a href="https://t.co/fFAGRMn4FH">pic.twitter.com/fFAGRMn4FH</a></p>— Kevin Cirilli (@kevcirilli) <a href="https://twitter.com/kevcirilli/status/802583778615029760">November 26, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>