…supports third party challenges that would forcing the Democrats to lose a presidential election in order to produce a change in the party’s ideological direction:
In the spring of 1983, the magazine ran a cover story…declaring that the Democratic Party needed to lose the 1984 election. Longtime liberal subscribers recoiled with horror. But Fairlie wanted a defeat that would shock a sclerotic party into reform and recovery, not a Republican triumph. In fact, the essay did a good job laying out the path that Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council would follow on the way to the election of 1992.
When The New Republic makes this argument from the right, TNR-style liberals like David Bell, writing in the LA Review of Books above, welcome it as a healthy dose of clear-eyed realism.
When leftists make this sort of argument from the left, TNR-style liberals like Sean Wilentz, murmuring darkly of “left-wing utopianism,” invoke Dostoevsky. Seriously.
{ 118 comments }
MPAVictoria 12.29.14 at 4:54 pm
Proving once again that there is no one that neoliberals hate more than actual leftists.
Barry 12.29.14 at 5:20 pm
More and more I feel that it’d have been better for the world if TNR had literally been flushed down a huge toilet, along with all of the former writers there who threw a hissy fit in the past few weeks.
Rob in CT 12.29.14 at 6:27 pm
Third parties in the US are a joke, no matter if they are lefty pipedreams or “centrist” pipedreams.
Insurgencies within one of the two parties, via the primaries, can work out. Note that the “Tea Party” is not actually a party. It’s a part of the Republican party, and always has been.
Western Dave 12.29.14 at 7:18 pm
Gee, how did that work out in 2000? You want to force the Democrats left? Show up and do the long-term grunt work organizing of the kind documented on the right by Rick Perlstein.
Barry 12.29.14 at 7:27 pm
Adding on, in the end this TNR stuff is just a bunch of right-wing ratf*ckers and liberals-who-hate-liberals defending their ratf*cking and backstabbing.
christian_h 12.29.14 at 7:51 pm
I suppose “Western Dave” is a robot programmed by the Dissent editorial board in collaboration with Eric Alterman to post a “Nader did it” comment on every thread mentioning the words “third party” and “left”? On the other hand he did us a service by getting it out of the way I guess. (Note he seems to have no problem with the right-wing version – which, after all, worked! Losing elections in the 80ies and, of course, an infrastructure of neo-liberal power in the party constructed to toke advantage of said losing to suppress what passed for “the left” in the party DID force the Democratic party to the right.)
David 12.30.14 at 12:21 am
Difficult question: Who hates the American Left more, fervent Obama supporters or Republicans?
Thornton Hall 12.30.14 at 1:23 am
None of this means that “real liberalism” isn’t utopian nonsense that fails to understand how politics works.
Thornton Hall 12.30.14 at 1:27 am
What the f is the political plan of the “American Left”? What local races have they won?
otpup 12.30.14 at 1:53 am
You can’t really drive the Democrats to the left (or right) over the long run because the ideological equilibrium dynamics of the 2 party system (and the intrinsically related level of political mobilization – er, demobilization) is a structural feature of the electoral/legislative system.
On a related note, right wing organizing and left wing organizing are not symmetric. The right only has to organize enough of a marginal populist bloc to help glue together an obstructionist minority, the Left has to organize a large super-majority to be legislatively effective. Two completely different things.
David 12.30.14 at 2:03 am
”What the f is the political plan of the “American Leftâ€? What local races have they won?”
That would be a much more incisive question if the American center-left appeared to have any sort of a plan/coherent worldview.
Bernard Yomtov 12.30.14 at 2:27 am
Indeed.
If only the conservative elements of the Democratic Party hadn’t broken off and supported old what’s-his-name Mondale would surely have ousted Reagan in 1984.
Chip 12.30.14 at 4:13 am
To move an entire party in any direction, you pretty much need to have about 25% minimum, of the American electorate sufficiently angry/ hopeful/ energized to apply pressure.
The Left, strictly defined, is less analogous to the Tea Party as it is to the Libertarians.
That is, rightly or wrongly, it can fairly lay claim to only a tiny percentage of the electorate. Its not a criticism of the Left or its ideas- its just a recognition of the work needed.
Before entertaining grand notions of reshaping a national party, or more absurdly, throwing a national election into catastrophic defeat- how about winning a few city councils and state offices and building a movement?
politicalfootball 12.30.14 at 5:25 am
I think christian_h does a lovely job of capturing the essential incoherence of the Third Party left. Democrats in the 80s got beat by candidates further to the right, thus pushing the party further to the right. What this proves, christian_h tells us, is that Democrats getting beaten by the right pushes them to the left.
Martin Bento 12.30.14 at 6:00 am
The decisive in-party insurgency of the postwar period was Reagan’s continued to the last minute challenge to Ford in 76. Ford lost the general very narrowly, so it is entirely fair to say Reagan probably cost him the election. And deliberately so. By refusing to back the moderate, even to the point of costing the party the election, the Reaganites laid the groundwork to take over the party at the next election and did. So the next Republican victory really counted, and the conservative movement got in the driver’s seat, where it has remained.
William Berry 12.30.14 at 7:39 am
Just wondering if christian h. thinks there has ever been a good response to EA’s oft-repeated “Thanks, Ralph”?
Let me make it easy: Hell, no.
Once more, for emphasis: “Thanks, Ralph”, you arrogant, egotistical piece of shit.
novakant 12.30.14 at 10:40 am
Here’s an answer:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/06/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth
More generally, this whole lesser evil, tactical voting shtick just helps ease the relentless shift to the right – it’s time people voted their conscience again and proudly so.
MPAVictoria 12.30.14 at 2:12 pm
“More generally, this whole lesser evil, tactical voting shtick just helps ease the relentless shift to the right – it’s time people voted their conscience again and proudly so.”
If we are going to be fair Obama is more left than Clinton was.
Barry 12.30.14 at 2:29 pm
Chip 12.30.14 at 4:13 am
“To move an entire party in any direction, you pretty much need to have about 25% minimum, of the American electorate sufficiently angry/ hopeful/ energized to apply pressure.”
And massive subsidies and massive bias on the part of the financial/economic/military-industrial-religious elites and even more massive bias on the part of the Evul Librul Meedya.
The latter treated the Tea Party as an honest group of people with honest grievances rather than a group of angry losers who were angry because they lost.
Can anybody imagine how a corresponding group on the left would have been treated in 1981?
Thornton Hall 12.30.14 at 3:20 pm
This whole debate is premised on the idea that “Democrats moved to the right” is both coherent and true.
Personally, I think it’s nonsense because the left right spectrum had no consistent meaning and does not map to actual people.
But if you think it’s coherent, what makes it true? Welfare reform? Is that it?
Did Democrats move right on Social Security? Medicare? Support for public education? Support for unions? Taxing the rich? Women’s right to choose?
Where’s the change?
Austin Loomis 12.30.14 at 3:25 pm
Barry asks: “Can anybody imagine how a corresponding group on the left would have been treated in 1981?”
I can. They’d have been treated as giving aidandcomfort to the International Communist Conspiracy™, and probably as making the baby Jesus cry.
There was a brief window in this country — I’d position it between November 9, 1989, and August 2, 1990 — when we considered allowing an actual meaningful Political Left here in Unistat, but like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, somehow we missed it.
Thornton Hall 12.30.14 at 3:29 pm
@David
Is there an empirical argument for “coherent worldview”? There’s no a priori moral argument that I can imagine.
That leaves you with one of two claims:
A. Coherent worldviews are better at improving society than less-coherent worldviews.
B. Coherent worldviews are better at winning elections.
I’m prejudiced against this view so it’s very possible I’ve missed the evidence.
TM 12.30.14 at 3:52 pm
“Did Democrats move right on Social Security? Medicare? Support for public education? Support for unions? Taxing the rich?”
Is that supposed to be a rhetorical question? Obviously yes, Democrats did move right on all these issues (even wrt to Social Security, there is an oft expressed willingness among so-called centrists to slash benefits in order to “compromise” with the right). So what’s your point TH?
Also, what the heck is “real liberalism†(TH at 8) supposed to mean? Nobody else uses that kind of language.
Thornton Hall 12.30.14 at 4:08 pm
@TM
One President, who did not run on the issue of Social Security at all, and so whose views on the matter can’t be said to represent any voters, was willing to trade cuts in SS benefits in exchange for higher taxes on the rich. Most elected Democrats disagreed with this position.
So your claim is that, in the past, Democrats would have demanded higher taxes and expanded benefits? When was that? Who were those Democrats?
My claim is that the calls for “real liberalism” are problematic because they are bad politics, but because they amount to incoherent, ahistorical, elitist nonsense.
Thornton Hall 12.30.14 at 4:09 pm
Should read “not problematic because they are bad politics”
Thornton Hall 12.30.14 at 4:24 pm
@TM
We’re you one of the ones making fun of my googling skills in another context? No one says “real liberal”? Not even the Daily Kos?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/26/1010833/-A-real-Liberal-in-Congress#
TM 12.30.14 at 4:33 pm
TH, nobody around here except for you used that term. I’m not using it. Your statement that “the calls for “real liberalism†are problematic” would make more sense if you explained what calls you are even talking about.
Are you seriously saying that the Democratic party’s support for unions, public education, and taxing the rich is unchanged (compared to say the 1980s)? And a Democratic president’s stance on Social Security doesn’t count as representative of his party? Moving the goal posts quite a bit, eh?
Bernard Yomtov 12.30.14 at 7:58 pm
Novakant@16,
Can you link to the cross-tabulations that support the point about how Nader voters would have split between Gore and Bush?
The exit poll data I tracked to does not seem to have this data.
Roger Gathmann 12.30.14 at 8:11 pm
Far from being the reason Gore lost the election, Nader is, I think, the reason he won it. In June, the Gallup poll showed, pretty consistently, Gore losing: http://www.gallup.com/poll/9898/2000-presidential-election-midyear-gallup-report.aspx
What brought about the turnaround? It was visible to political reporters: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/09/us/2000-campaign-democratic-candidacy-populist-pitch-helps-gore-woo-back-his-party.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar
I think the gadfly tactics of Nader finally started to effect the way Gore’s people plotted their campaign. Remember, in 2000, Clinton was signing off on de-regulating the mortgage market and dissolving the divide between investment and real banks. Clinton had long toyed with the individual accounts approach to social security: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/08/us/social-security-nudges-onstage.html
Gore in fact started out to the right of Clinton, but moved during the campaign, on issues like social security, to the left – he accused Bradley, in the primaries, of supporting the individual account idea, for instance.(although he, like Clinton, was still fixated, fatally, on “balancing the budget” – a shift to Hooverism that made it possible for Bush, when he became president, to do the obvious thing and give the budget surpluses to the rich.) And as he went left, his poll numbers rose. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/11/us/2000-campaign-polls-latest-national-surveys-reflect-even-race-limited-supply.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D
True, his strategy also included coldshouldering Clinton – in retrospect, the one move that probably sank him in the electoral college. The cold shouldering had to do with Gore’s stupid priggishness, which was the reason Joe “Clinton is a dirty old man” Lieberman was on the ticket. Like all dc-centric dems, Gore couldn’t get the results of the 1998 vote through his head – people didn’t care about Clinton’s sex life. So he tried to gain points with the Broder class by distancing himself from the prez.
novakant 12.30.14 at 8:37 pm
Obama is more left than Clinton was.
Obama has presided over Guantanamo, kill-lists, indefinite detention without charge, a general amnesty for torturers and war criminals, unprecedented corporate bailouts …
say what you want about Clinton, but the new normal is somewhere way to the right.
novakant 12.30.14 at 8:41 pm
Bernard, not at hand but I can take a look.
Thornton Hall 12.30.14 at 8:45 pm
Ok, fine. Say Obama is representative of Democrats generally. Trading one liberal priority for another isn’t becoming less liberal. Unless you have an argument he could have got both simultaneously.
And wtf: you can label one person as “the Democrats”? That isn’t shifting the goal posts, that’s a self-sealing argument. If Obama is liberal enough then you switch to Schumer. He takes a liberal stand and you switch to Reid. There’s no winning.
Of course my claims sound crazy! I’m challenging an article of your faith. But give me some examples of anti-liberal votes.
The best you can do is NAFTA and other free trade agreements. But according to the economic dogma supported by John Quiggin and Paul Krugman (at the time), free trade raises real wages by making consumer goods cheaper. They are wrong as shit, but you can’t blame non-economists for believing them?
I take that back. I’m sure you can and do blame them. But you shouldn’t.
MPAVictoria 12.30.14 at 9:02 pm
“Obama has presided over Guantanamo, kill-lists, indefinite detention without charge, a general amnesty for torturers and war criminals, unprecedented corporate bailouts …
say what you want about Clinton, but the new normal is somewhere way to the right.”
On the other side of the ledger:
– Vastly expanded LGTBQ rights
– Expanded Medicaid
– Expanded women’s protection for equal wages for equal work
– Increased regulation of the big banks
– Passed the Stimulus Bill (even if it was too small)
– Appointed 100s of liberal judges
– Greatly reduced the number of US troops in the Middle East
-Greatly eased the prosecution of millions of undocumented immigrants
– Used the EPA to great effect
Now is Obama the raging leftist I would want? No. But until we hoist the red flag over city hall he is much better than the alternative.
novakant 12.30.14 at 9:10 pm
You are a prime example of how society has moved to the right, MPAVictoria.
MPAVictoria 12.30.14 at 9:16 pm
“You are a prime example of how society has moved to the right, MPAVictoria.”
I disagree. I am a proud social democrat. Now would you care to refute my points?
J Thomas 12.30.14 at 9:27 pm
#26 Bernard Yomtov
Can you link to the cross-tabulations that support the point about how Nader voters would have split between Gore and Bush?
The exit poll data I tracked to does not seem to have this data.
Have you ever heard a good explanation about the exit poll data?
The way I heard it, exit poll data compared to actual votes has given about a 5% Democrat bias consistently for decades. To me the obvious explanation would be that the GOP has stolen about 5% of the votes, year after year, election after election, pre-Diebold, Diebold, post-Diebold. And the Democrats have never found out how they did it or how to stop it. But no reputable citizen would claim that!
So the second obvious alternative is that after voting, people who vote Republican are more likely to avoid exit polls. Like, maybe exit polls are manned by cheap disreputable-looking skanks that Republicans don’t want to talk to, so they don’t get polled. Or the cheap skank pollsters just naturally sample Democrats more because they can tell by looking at them that they would be more pleasant to talk to. And over decades no pollsters have ever found ways to fix that bias, by getting their poll workers to shower and dress better, or getting them to roll dice to try to approach voters more randomly, etc.
I would hesitate to use exit poll data given my limited knowledge. I know it’s biased. I don’t know why it’s biased, so any attempt to “correct” for the bias is suspect.
Unless of course it’s the actual votes that are biased.
Thornton Hall 12.30.14 at 9:36 pm
@no vacant
Defining liberalism as “my priorities” is so tedious. Which is one of the reasons I think it is a useless idea. The people who do this always seem to be men, for some reason. At least in the U.S. I think it’s different in Britain.
novakant 12.30.14 at 9:42 pm
What are you proud of? Obama? The Democratic Party? Do you think they are social democrats? Gimme a break.
I mention kill-lists and doing away with habeas corpus – you say, look over there: gay marriage etc. and talk about raging lefties with red flags. You know, I wasn’t particularly left-wing in the 90s, but it seems that today merely insisting on human rights and basic principles of justice makes me a raging radical. Your apparent readiness to compromise on such matters proves my point.
MPAVictoria 12.30.14 at 9:44 pm
“What are you proud of? Obama? The Democratic Party? Do you think they are social democrats? Gimme a break.”
Please tell me where I said that? I am not even an American.
“I mention kill-lists and doing away with habeas corpus – you say, look over there: gay marriage etc.”
Ah. Things are becoming clearer….
MPAVictoria 12.30.14 at 9:50 pm
Why is it that some supposed “leftist” always view women’s, LGTBQ and minority rights as less important than other parts of left wing goals?
/I want no part of your revolution if it involves the continued oppression of these groups.
Ze Kraggash 12.30.14 at 9:56 pm
“Obama has presided over Guantanamo, kill-lists, indefinite detention without charge, a general amnesty for torturers and war criminals, unprecedented corporate bailouts …”
Not to mention organizing and installing, then financing, and glamorizing, and now arming a neo-nazi regime in Kiev. Thanks, Democrats.
http://www.arretsurimages.net/breves/2014-12-30/La-combattante-ukrainienne-est-aussi-neonazie-Elle-id18357
http://fortruss.blogspot.hu/2014/12/french-elle-publishes-photograhs-of.html
MPAVictoria 12.30.14 at 9:59 pm
Our those sources supposed to be believable?
/Oh wait it is Ze. Never mind. Carry on
Thornton Hall 12.30.14 at 9:59 pm
It’s unAmerican not to be proud of Obama. The country where every morsel of food was bought by the blood of African slaves for 300 years elected an African American President of the United States. He prevented anothe Great Depression, advanced the causes of the marginalized, and laid the groundwork for future prosperity by pushing us forward on immigration and climate change.
He never ordered totture. He made the decision that punishing it would limit his ability to do the above. He is, of course, obviously right. You can still disagree but you may not, as an intellectually honest person, claim he could have done all those things together.
His record on domestic surveillance is so far superior to that of LBJ it’s laughable. I’m sure you disagree. Whatevs.
The bottom line is you have a definition of liberal that can only be held by elite white straight males in the United States.
MPAVictoria 12.30.14 at 9:59 pm
Bah. Are not our.
/In other news I am looking to hire a copy editor. No pay and even worse benefits.
Thornton Hall 12.30.14 at 10:03 pm
@Novakant
One more thing. Both LBJ and FDR ordered more human rights violations against the innocent than could be accomplished by 1000 years of drone strikes.
You put drones against Dresen and prefer Dresden? You prefer deliberately fighting a war that you were quite convinced was a futile death machine?
LFC 12.30.14 at 10:21 pm
novakant 30
Obama has presided over Guantanamo
I don’t really get the Guantanamo charge. The situation is that Congress, early in his term, barred any transfers of Gitmo detainees to the U.S. mainland. That means the admin has had to find other countries to accept them. Not surprisingly, it’s proved difficult. The number of detainees has gone down, however. Recently several who had been in Gitmo for years were released to Uruguay. Obama has appointed a lawyer as his special rep for the closure of Gitmo and given him an office in the State Dept. Looks to me as if he’s been trying pretty hard on this particular issue.
Chip 12.30.14 at 10:35 pm
Ta- Nahisis Coates on the different topic of police militarization makes an appropriate point that the excesses of the police is not an abberration of the public will, but the embodiment of it.
We can probably agree that Gitmo, extra-judicial assassinations and warrentless wiretapping are horrible, but we should at least be honest with ourselves and admit that our problem is not with Obama executing these things, but the American people in accepting or encouraging them.
Which is to say that throwing support behind a futile 3rd party effort is foolish and ultimately self-serving.
Until we can change public opinion, as was done with feminism and gay rights, these things will end up being done by whatever President occupies the Oval Office.
There is, in American liberalism, a fixation on the Presidency; we focus on that one single elected office, in a left version of Cheney’s Unitary Executive.
Bernard Yomtov 12.30.14 at 10:49 pm
J Thomas,
I wasn’t debating the accuracy of exit polls.
The link novakant provided claims that exit poll data, FWIW, showed that Nader took as many Florida votes from Bush as from Gore. I went to the site they linked as providing this information and didn’t see it. I found a survey that asked relevant questions, but not the implied cross-tabulations.
I don’t know where you heard whatever you’ve heard about exit polls. I’m not interested in discussing it.
Bill Murray 12.30.14 at 11:46 pm
Bernard,
here is a different link (I think) http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf which uses ballot images to estimate that Nader’s votes would have gone between 40 and 60% for Gore.
From the data I saw, Nader likely cost Gore ~10,000 votes, which is certainly more than Bush’s margin of victory, but certainly less than Democratic Clinton voters in 1996 that voted for Bush (~150,000 making an ~300,000 vote difference), and probably less important than the Supreme Court, Katherine Harris and the Secretary of State’s office and maybe the butterfly ballot.
The problem as I see it is that for some reason Nader gets 10x the opprobrium than the more costly areas. Particularly as I think the Supreme Court and Harris were fully committed to stealing as many votes as needed to get Bush the win.
In the end I guess I don’t see why one would believe that voters for a campaign based around there being no difference between the parties would not be split their votes fairly evenly in the absence of that campaign.
Bill Murray 12.30.14 at 11:47 pm
I should make clear that in paragraph 2, the data I was talking about was not that in the link provided but elsewhere that I can not now easily find on the internetz
Thornton Hall 12.30.14 at 11:55 pm
I agree that the “Thanks, Ralph” story hid some other important issues. But one of the responses from the Naderites has had a deeply pernicious effect on elite understanding of American politics:
Gore couldn’t even win his home state of Tennessee.
This notion, combined with Clinton’s success in some Southern states has greatly contributed to absurd ideas about Southern White Male Voters who would go Democrat for the right candidate with populist message. The reality is that racists who voted for Clinton (proud executor of the cognitively disabled) were not going to be fooled again.
Bernard Yomtov 12.31.14 at 12:46 am
Bill Murray,
Thank you. That looks interesting.
I will say I would find it troublesome if the exit polls cited the post novakant linked to, and by others, do not in fact exist.
As for opprobrium, I suppose Nader voters get a lot because of the presumption that they did in fact prefer Gore to Bush, but decided, for reasons of their own, to vote for Nader at the obvious risk – certainly in Florida – of having Bush win. The same does not apply to Democrats who voted for Bush, even though Nader defenders make a lot of this. Presumably they did not prefer Gore, so I don’t see the parallel.
The whole “what about those other guys” defense of Nader is nonsense anyway. How often is there only one cause for a loss? Lots of things contribute, including, here, the Nader voters. Because that contributing factor has a face, and because its effect was the result of willful behavior, not mistakes, it draws attention.
Roger Gathmann 12.31.14 at 12:49 am
It is no fantasy, but a poll driven fact that the Gore of the second half of the campaign, who absorbed Nader’s issues, did much better than the Gore of the first half of the campaign. Without Nader, I think Gore would never have made that change, and Bush would have won by a couple of points in the popular vote. With Nader, Gore changed the dynamic of his campaign and won the popular vote, no doubt about it. Florida was a prime state for Gore to have used Clinton to the max, but his prissiness and stubborn feeling that Clinton was somehow “tainted” made Florida even close.
I don’t blame Nader at all for 2000. I do blame Nader for 2001-2003 – the failure to capitalize and mobilize opposition to Bush, especially on foreign policy; this was where Ralph hugely fell down.
John Quiggin 12.31.14 at 1:53 am
Care to provide a link in which I have said this? In fact, as I’ve pointed out many times the Stolper-Samuelson theorem (about as mainstream as you can get) provides conditions under which the opposite is true.
http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/news97/Illiterate9709.html
Barry 12.31.14 at 2:33 am
Bill Murray: “In the end I guess I don’t see why one would believe that voters for a campaign based around there being no difference between the parties would not be split their votes fairly evenly in the absence of that campaign.”
Bullsh*t.
J Thomas 12.31.14 at 2:59 am
#48 Bernard Yomtov
I don’t know where you heard whatever you’ve heard about exit polls. I’m not interested in discussing it.
OK, fair enough. The exit polls bother me because they don’t make sense. I haven’t heard of a plausible explanation for those results. I’d like it if somebody knowledgeable would discuss it.
I usually feel more comfortable when I have at least two good explanations for things. I’m not as likely to believe I know the one true reason when I have two that work. I get a little bothered when I only have one explanation, that’s a danger sign. When there aren’t any, it’s like an itch I can’t scratch.
cassander 12.31.14 at 4:14 am
The idea that the electorate, or political parties, are moving to the right is demonstrably false. There are 3 areas of policy on which there has been some rightward movement in the past few decades, monetary policy, crime policy, and the partial deregulation of a few industries. All of these were only partial reversals of previous leftward moves, and on everything else, social spending, social issues in general, the conduct of foreign affairs, taxation, non-industry specific economic regulation, environmental protection, things have either not moved, or moved to the left.
Take taxes, for example. taxes as a share of GDP were 16.7% of GDP in the 50s, 17.3% in the 60s, 17.4% in the 70s. And after reagan’s tax slashing frenzy, they were….17.7% in the 80s and 17.9% in the 90s. and after bush doubled down on those massive tax cuts, taxes again plunged to 17.4% of GDP. And no, taxes have not gotten less progressive either. the high rates of the pre-86 tax code were illusory, because there were also more and larger deductions. the top 1/5 made 45% of the income in 1979 and paid 55% of the taxes. today, they make 55% of the income and pay 70% of the taxes.
On almost any other issue, you see the same thing. Every president from FDR to Nixon ordered entire countries carpet bombed in service of american foreign policy. no one would even consider doing something like that today. And can you imagine the things Nixon would have said about gay marriage? on anything you can quantify, regulatory pages, social spending, it’s all trending to the left. So can we please put this fantasy of the country being hijacked by the right to sleep?
js. 12.31.14 at 5:23 am
Roger Gathmann,
Thanks for your comment @29. No one’s bothered to respond to it, but it makes a good and important point that’s not made often, if ever (and one that I e.g. was not aware of).
Thornton Hall 12.31.14 at 5:30 am
@JQ
I’m not sure if I stand corrected or not. The dogma is fairly stated “free trade, absent special circumstances, makes both sides richer”. In the debate you describe in the linked article, it’s quite clear that economists are asserting that proposition. You come in and say, “well this is one of those special cases.”
This is what I call, pulling a Brad DeLong. This is the defense of mainstream economics that always has an article to point to that says “so and so at the U of C is wrong because he fails to notice that this is a special case.” But is there a finite number of special cases that would cause you to question the underlying dogma?
Because the dogma that you support says that govt interference, all things being equal, is inefficient and makes us all poorer. It’s bullshit, and no matter how long your list of circumstances where all else is not equal gets, the underlying dogma is still bullshit.
John Quiggin 12.31.14 at 5:49 am
TH. I don’t see any point in discussing this further with you. If you can read this blog and my other writings and impute to me the dogma that “govt interference, all things being equal, is inefficient and makes us all poorer” I think you need some lessons in comprehension.
Thornton Hall 12.31.14 at 5:55 am
@JQYou have said more than once that you seek to criticize mainstream economics but from within the mainstream.
And, you’re making the flame that all your posts endorsing this or that cost benefit analysis aren’t implicitly endorsing the assumption that govt interference causes inefficiency? Can you point to a cost benefit analysis that doesn’t make that assumption?
I’m not claiming that you aren’t a social democrat. I know you are. But are you a mainstream economist or are you not? The failure to own up to the assumptions that mainstream econ adopts is how the ongoing disconnect with reality is maintained.
Thornton Hall 12.31.14 at 5:55 am
The claim, not the flame.
John Quiggin 12.31.14 at 10:11 am
TH, this is a waste of time, of which my supply is limited. Please, no more comments on my posts or referring to me in other threads.
Thornton Hall 12.31.14 at 10:27 am
@JQ So does that mean I should shut down the discussion of philosophical pragmatism that I started recently on your last post?
John Quiggin 12.31.14 at 10:58 am
Yes. Next time you get invited to a party, don’t gratuitously insult the host
novakant 12.31.14 at 10:59 am
It is undeniable that the US has moved to the right since 9/11, e.g.:
A majority of Americans now support torture and the numbers have been rising steadily.
The president reserves the right to kill anybody anywhere and people are willing to accept these god-like powers as long as the word “terrorist” or “militant” is mentioned.
Habeas corpus has been suspended and the US government can lock anybody up indefinitely without charge.
The Patriot Act curtails basic civil liberties and has been renewed for the umpteenth time.
Opponents of the government are pursued ruthlessly and silenced behind bars.
I am saddened by the fact that some here are either supportive of the developments, ignorant of these facts or simply delusional – maybe the cognitive dissonances are just too hard to bear, but bloody hell, wake up people.
Oh, and Happy New Year.
Earwig 12.31.14 at 12:24 pm
Nader? Nader???
It is astounding that this discussion never dies. More astounding still that when it occurs there is virtually never any recognition of what the press role in the election was.
Doggy pills, discovering Love Canal, union labels, licking the floor, Love Story, raised in a hotel, inventing the internet — one could and should go on. The press — the mainstream press, not some right-wing echo machine, but the press that reached most voters — were quite active in creating the fable that Gore was a serial liar who would stoop to anything to win an election to which he felt self-entitled.
If you imagine the impact of third-party voting in the election outweighed this, you have quite an imagination.
Sherparick 12.31.14 at 1:00 pm
It was a stupid article when Fairlie and Peretz wrote it 1983, and it is stupid when Corey and Novakant suggest that it would be wonderful progress for the American Left to see Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz elected president in 2016 with a Grover Norquist Congress. Since I expect bringing back “Enhanced Interrogation techniques” and supporting “policemen defending themselves from thugs” will be part of the Republican Platform, joining the flat tax, Social Security privatization, war with Iran, eliminating food stamps, abolishing the EPA, and other fabulous plutocratic wet dreams. I know, “heighten the contradictions.” Worked real well in Germany from 1928-1933. This I am sure sounds very sad to you Corey and Novakant, but Obama is the most liberal President with progressive accomplishments since LBJ (a guy the Left had its problems with as well) and probably ranks up their with FDR (who by way was more of Civil Liberties nightmare then Obama on his worse day – see Korematsu. Reference Guantanamo, three more detainees were transferred out, reducing the population to 27, this in face of 6 years of implacable demagogic opposition from Republicans and almost zero support from Congressional Democrats. Expecting any President, after 75 years of the National Security State’s existence, to dismantle that State with all the factions and interests that exist, is kind of delusional.
Third parties such as Nader are ego trips. If you want to advance the Left, organize, protest, boycott, and primary to get the most progressive Democrat elected who can win a particular county supervisor seat, state legislature seat, Congressional House seat, Senator, or President. Also, try to make life difficult for Republicans and their plutocrats supporters (for instance boycott Mr. Art Pope’s businesses where ever they are: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-Art-Popes-Companies/607718659260597 . ) Corey and Novakant often write as if Republicans don’t exist. The fact is any Party that seeks win democratic elections for a Government sovereign over 3 million square miles with a population of 315 million people of various races, regional, and class interests. It is particularly hard when southern white working class is particularly attached to the privileges of whiteness.
Sherparick 12.31.14 at 1:11 pm
By the way, regarding Fairlie and TNR, it was always likely for Reagan to win with the economy rapidly recovering in 1983 and 84. Further, the whole premise of his article was wrong, since it aimed at taking government benefits from middle class people and turning against unions. These New Democrat and neoliberal tropes had the opposite effect on the Democratic Party. I don’t think it helped the Democrats long term one bit. And of course, Reagan got to make Rehnquist Chief Justice and appoint Scalia and Kennedy. (Further, ahead were 1988, 2000, and 2004 Presidential defeats and Congressional and state house defeats in most off-year elections from 1994 onward as the generation attached the FDR’s and Harry Truman’s Democratic Party died out and the next generation of whites born from 1935-1975 aged from hippie flirtations into fundamentalist evangelicals firmly attached to white privilege and scapegoating minorities for social and economic problems, while being taught memes that Government programs were facilitating this irresponsibility and immorality.)
Ze Kraggash 12.31.14 at 1:23 pm
“The fact is any Party that seeks win democratic elections for a Government sovereign over 3 million square miles with a population of 315 million people of various races, regional, and class interests.”
Can’t say I fully understand this statement, but it sure sounds like an argument for more federalism and less centralism. Actually, maybe Rand Paul could help with that.
Brett Bellmore 12.31.14 at 1:42 pm
“It is undeniable that the US has moved to the right since 9/11”
Ironically, you want that to change, you’re going to need a Republican President. Not so much because a Republican President would be inclined to be better, but because the MSM have no inclination at all to hold a Democratic President accountable.
Take a serious look at Rand Paul if these are really your concerns.
Barry 12.31.14 at 1:47 pm
Ze Kraggash, I for one have no idea what he means. His sentences are so run-on that I suspect that there is no real logic behind them.
Austin Loomis 12.31.14 at 2:02 pm
Earwig, you forgot about the Buddhist temple.
Brett Bellmore: “the MSM have no inclination at all to hold a Democratic President accountable.”
If you’d said “no inclination to hold a Democratic President accountable on the expansion of the National Security State“, I’d have had to agree (with the caveat that holding any President accountable on that is a dubious proposition at best). But you said “no inclination at all to hold a Democratic President accountable” (emphasis added), and that’s so jaw-droppingly at odds with the universe I’ve spent the last six years living in that I can only shake my head and say “At least you didn’t use ‘Democrat’ as an adjective.”
“Take a serious look at Rand Paul if these are really your concerns.”
Every time I take a serious look at Rand Paul, I run into Brother Charles Pierce’s five-minute rule so hard that I need to check for a nosebleed.
LFC 12.31.14 at 2:30 pm
novakant
Habeas corpus has been suspended and the US government can lock anybody up indefinitely without charge.
Afaik, it’s true some Gitmo detainees have not been formally charged, but SCOTUS said they all had the right to file habeas corpus petitions:Boumedienne v. Bush. Again afaik, lower cts, spec. the DC Circuit, have put up some practical obstacles to this, but it is inaccurate to say “habeas corpus has been suspended.” The Bush admin tried, the SCOTUS said it couldn’t.
LFC 12.31.14 at 2:36 pm
from Wikipedia entry for Boumediene v. Bush:
Habeas corpus has not been suspended. The Bush admin tried, and the 5-4 Boumediene decision said it couldn’t.
LFC 12.31.14 at 2:43 pm
novakant 66
I am saddened by the fact that some here are either supportive of the developments, ignorant of these facts or simply delusional
The statement “habeas corpus has been suspended” does not a state a fact. It is an incorrect statement (see above).
LFC 12.31.14 at 2:51 pm
cassander
Every [sic] president from FDR to Nixon ordered entire countries carpet bombed in service of american foreign policy.
The high level of discussion of the history of US foreign policy, so characteristic of CT comment threads, continues.
Plume 12.31.14 at 2:52 pm
Rand Paul?
Too much like his despicable, racist father. Though he seems less the absolute true believer, and a bit more politically savvy. Both men are still dangerous phonies and racist creeps.
Both men are all too worshipful of Ayn Rand, easily one of the most vile writers of the 20th century. If they ever got their way, we’d had a virtually all privatized society, with no social safety net, and the natural rapaciousness of the capitalist system would be set free to do its worst. It’s horrific enough as it is, with the current all too inadequate checks on its powers. Propertarians like Paul would release the hounds and destroy any chance of mitigating the increased destruction they’d inflict.
And if they got all they wanted, the system itself would soon collapse, with a likely directionless revolution from all angles being the result.
Rand Paul, like his father, is a menace.
novakant 12.31.14 at 3:53 pm
LFC
OK: “habeas corpus has de facto been suspended.”
Not that it really makes any difference.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_06/is_habeas_corpus_dead037877.php
And keep in mind Obama can have you killed on a whim.
novakant 12.31.14 at 3:55 pm
And if you want to get beyond AFAIK, you might want to have a look e.g. here:
http://www.closeguantanamo.org/
http://www.reprieve.org.uk/topic/guantanamo-bay/
Ze Kraggash 12.31.14 at 4:30 pm
“Rand Paul, like his father, is a menace.”
Everybody is a menace: the lesser evil – remember? And a slick and calculating one might cause far more damage than a straight and dogmatic one, as long as his dogma is pointing to the right direction. And perhaps Rand Paul, in regard to foreign policy (which is my main concern at the moment), is that guy.
LFC 12.31.14 at 4:34 pm
novakant @79
That Wash. Monthly blog post is accurate at least as of June 2012, i.e., the D.C. Circuit was denying virtually all the petitions, and the SCOTUS refused to hear the appeals from those denials. I’m not sure what the situation has been since then re habeas petitions, but in any case the major part of the blame (not all of it) would appear to fall on the Republican appointees on the US Ct of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
LFC 12.31.14 at 4:38 pm
The appointment power to the federal courts, incidentally, being one of the strongest arguments for why having a flawed Dem. in the White Hse is better than having a Republican.
Plume 12.31.14 at 4:48 pm
Ze @81,
We’d be hard pressed to come up with a single American president who didn’t attempt to extend empire militarily, or at least take the toys out for a (massively destructive) spin. All of that firepower goes to their heads. And I have no reason to believe that Paul would be any different. His father’s idea of isolationism, for instance, included trying to destroy UNICEF and all foreign humanitarian aid, and he kept trying to do this for decades. So the likely result is that we’d get the rotten without the good. In this age of austerity, funding for humanitarian concerns gets the axe, but no American president has been able to curb military arrogance, etc. etc.
I wish the Dems would push for the opposite scenario. Pulling back empire, the surveillance state and military adventurism, while extending humanitarian aid abroad and public goods and services domestically. There is huge vacuum in our politics right now that could be filled by a left-libertarian. The right’s version is all too cold, self-centered and creepy when it comes to human rights, compassion, generosity of spirit, etc. etc. Their version really amounts to “I’ve got mine, leave me alone and go fuck yourself.” Not wanting to go to war is just a natural extension of that worldview. In a sense, it’s doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons.
Ze Kraggash 12.31.14 at 4:58 pm
“The appointment power to the federal courts, incidentally, being one of the strongest arguments”
If all’s hanging on the divine attitude of some lawyer appointed for life, how is this different from the house of Bourbon.
Austin Loomis 12.31.14 at 6:08 pm
Plume@84 skrev:
“I wish the Dems would push for the opposite scenario. Pulling back empire, the surveillance state and military adventurism”
I do too, but the last Dem who made any real effort in that direction got shot through the forehead from behind.
“There is huge vacuum in our politics right now that could be filled by a left-libertarian.”
The moment such a creature stepped onto our national political stage, “The Liberal Press and The Press Not So Liberal and The Press Reactionary” would tear him to bloody ritual shreds, whether out of a sincere belief that he represented the second coming of Karl Marx, a knowledge that painting him that way would put them over with the Teapublican base, or the desperate delusion that there’s something, anything they could say or do that would make the right stop squawking “liberal bias” every time somebody reported that two and two do not, in fact, make five just because Rupert Murdoch says they do.
Austin Loomis 12.31.14 at 6:12 pm
(* The Liberal Press and The Press Not So Liberal and The Press Reactionary Scream approval: “Above all the myth of other-level experience must be eradicated….” And speak darkly of certain harsh realities . . . cows with the aftosa . . . prophylaxis. . . . Power groups of the world frantically cut lines of connection. . . . The Planet drifts to random insect doom.
— William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch, “Atrophied Preface: Wouldn’t You?”)
novakant 12.31.14 at 6:43 pm
LFC
Your narrative that Obama desperately wants to end Guantanamo and is hindered by cowardly Congress and the evil GOP is simply not true (though it is understandable why Obama supporters would cling to it so desperately, must be tough to face reality).
You should familiarize yourself with Hedges vs Obama and the NDAA provisions regarding indefinite detention – also instructive: the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap.
I really don’t know why I have to spoonfeed all this, it is pretty common knowledge.
cassander 12.31.14 at 6:58 pm
@novakant
>The president reserves the right to kill anybody anywhere and people are willing to accept these god-like powers as long as the word “terrorist†or “militant†is mentioned.
is a less extreme claim to power than the authority to carpet bomb countries, which they have implicitly renouced.
>Habeas corpus has been suspended and the US government can lock anybody up indefinitely without charge.
The Patriot Act curtails basic civil liberties and has been renewed for the umpteenth time.
Opponents of the government are pursued ruthlessly and silenced behind bars.
are, again, nothing compared to Woodrow Wilson locking up eugene debs (imagine Bush throwing nader in jail in 2003 for opposing the Iraq war) and thousands of others for “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the US government, or FDR locking up all the japanese people in california on nothing more than an executive order.
herm 12.31.14 at 8:23 pm
@Sherparick says: “it is stupid when Corey and Novakant suggest that it would be wonderful progress for the American Left to see Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz elected president in 2016 with a Grover Norquist Congress.”
Wait, so what, Democratic losses are the fault of Corey and other Democratic critics on the left? I am sorry, but that is the most ridiculous statement possible that can be said about the Democratic party here at the close of 2014.
The Democrats cannot attract enough voters to win national elections for many reasons, but there is only one place responsibility can be taken up: the Democratic party. It is not Corey Robin’s fault the Democrats cannot inspire their voters (or much of anyone, for that matter) to get out to the polls.
When The Democrats have nothing but statements like Thornton Hall’s: “None of this means that ‘real liberalism’ isn’t utopian nonsense that fails to understand how politics works” (and I say this because statements like TH’s, and Sherparick’s, are all I have heard from Democratic quarters) one has to wonder. So the only thing standing in the way of massive Democratic landslides are the Corey Robins of the world who won’t shut up and clap louder?
No, this is continuing backlash against leftist critics is simply the sound of the rats scurrying off a sinking ship. There is no basis for it. You people can scream about Ralph Nader until you are blue in the face but it is entirely meaningless when Democrats can’t get voters to the polling booth.
James Conran 12.31.14 at 8:55 pm
Not sure there is necessarily any hypocrisy involved in TNR-Man favoring a centrist third party against Mondale but seeing an equivalent leftist strategy as irrational. A right wing Democrat is to Mondale’s right and (further) to Reagan’s left, so that risking a Reagan win would be a downside of a 3rd party candidacy. But that downside for a leftwing Democrat is clearly far worse, because the ideological distance to Reagan is so much greater than for TNR-Man.
Thornton Hall 12.31.14 at 9:36 pm
@JQ
I will certainly follow your request from here on out, but I must admit I don’t quite see the justification.
Three crimes have been alleged:
A. I am wasting your time.
B. I insulted you.
C. I accused you of holding economic views that you do not in fact hold.
A. Obviously, me commenting on your blog is more likely to be a waste of my time rather than yours. This accusation only makes sense if you are obligated to respond. This obligation might arise because your own blog should not spread misinformation about your views.
But am I capable of doing that. My claims, according to you, will be known to be false by anyone with reading comprehension skills. Moreover, I am a newbie at CT and you have many loyal followers who presumably know exactly where you stand. And my credibility can’t possibly exceed yours on the subject of your views. Thus, the time required is simply that needed to type “you are wrong”. My continued protestations aren’t likely to convince anyone of anything even if you don’t re-engage, are they?
B. The insult? I guess this would be the claim that I insulted you by saying you don’t sufficiently challenge the economic orthodoxy’s basic assumptions that lead to pro-free trade conclusions. It isn’t an insult to call you “mainstream” is it? I think you apply that label to yourself.
C. False claims about your views. This charge is not explicit in your request that I shut up, but is clearly part of the story. I am probably guilty of this charge. From your perspective, you are not a free trader and anyone who reads you in good faith knows that. Either I don’t read or I lack good faith.
The problem I see with this last charge is that it seems to be part and parcel of the way mainstream economics maintains authority despite a constant disconnect with reality. Isn’t it at least possible that “zombie economics” walks the Earth because of foundations that you do not challenge? Isn’t it possible that you are implicitly defending the aspects of economics that in turn cause the zombie survival of bad ideas? It’s like the Catholic Church and pedophile priests: just because no Catholic condones such abuse doesn’t mean that there aren’t articles of the Catholic faith (eg, celibate priests) that in turn cause these problems. And if that’s true, shouldn’t one point that out not just to the abusing priests but also to the “innocent” supporters of the system that produced those priests?
The last point is simply this: if true, are A, B and C together more than one should expect or tolerate in the comments of a blog whose purpose is to inspire debate?
mattski 12.31.14 at 9:54 pm
@ 86
How could you say something so untutored?!
mattski 12.31.14 at 9:56 pm
TH @91
Better to quit while you’re behind.
mattski 12.31.14 at 10:02 pm
Whoops.
At 92 I meant to quote this first:
I do too, but the last Dem who made any real effort in that direction got shot through the forehead from behind.
cassander 01.01.15 at 7:23 am
@Austin Loomis
>I do too, but the last Dem who made any real effort in that direction got shot through the forehead from behind.
You think kennedy was some sort of dove? “bear any burden, meet any hardship” Kennedy who worshipped toughness? the guy who campaigned on a non-existent missile gap despite eisenhower showing him u-2 photos proving it was false? Who invaded cuba practically as his first action in office then proceeded to massively expand conventional military capacities? The guy who was assassinated by a communist? Truly, the kennedy mystique addles the mind.
Bernard Yomtov 01.01.15 at 7:42 pm
herm @90,
The Democrats cannot attract enough voters to win national elections ..
Not so. Look at the popular vote in Presidential elections, among other things.
Ze Kraggash 01.01.15 at 8:34 pm
“You think kennedy was some sort of dove?”
Here I have to agree with cassander. As far as foreign policy is concerned, the Democrats, on average, are more power-hungry, devious, and arrogant than the Republicans. There are exceptions, of course; nevertheless: many Republicans do have isolationist streak (perhaps because they are sponsored by domestic industries), shared by a large majority of the population.
Brett Bellmore 01.02.15 at 1:19 pm
” (perhaps because they are sponsored by domestic industries)”
Perhaps because Republicans have a tendency to think the sole purpose of American government is to advance the interests of Americans, and to a large extent, foreign interventions are justified as furthering the interests of non-Americans. (Whether they do actually further them is debatable, but that’s the justification.) So Republicans have a tendency to think we should mind our own business, and let the rest of the world go to Hell if that’s what it is going to do.
MPAVictoria 01.02.15 at 3:17 pm
Oh yes, with notably rare exceptions the republicans are truly the party of peace.
Brett Bellmore 01.02.15 at 3:41 pm
Oh, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that. More, the party of what’s good for America, and the rest of the world can take care of itself. Though there’s a substantial interventionist wing, of course.
Ze Kraggash 01.02.15 at 4:40 pm
“Perhaps because Republicans have a tendency to think the sole purpose of American government is to advance the interests of Americans, and to a large extent, foreign interventions are justified as furthering the interests of non-Americans.”
I don’t believe politicians act their convictions, I think for the most part they act on interests of their sponsors. Of course the big business sponsors all of them, but still some give more to the Democrats, and others to the Republicans. Thus, they are not exactly the same.
What you’re talking about is different PR for different segments of the population: Republican neo-conservatives sell wars in nationalistic terms (glorious America conquering the world), and Democratic liberal hawks sell then in terms of civilizing savages for their own good. But like I said, Republicans at least have a few isolationists; the Democrats have none, as far as I know.
John F Kennedy was, IMO, the worst king of all times; he almost blew up the world, by deploying mid-range nuclear missiles in Europe, which led to the Caribbean Crisis. But Obama, with his Ukrainian adventure, looks more and more like a close contender.
mattski 01.02.15 at 5:38 pm
The staggering ignorance of cassander & Ze Kraggash concerning JFK compels this last contribution from me. I urge readers of Crooked Timber to get up to speed with the ongoing scholarship concerning the assassination & the nature of Kennedy’s presidency.
Here are a couple of outstanding resources.
A film by John Barbour on Jim Garrison’s investigation into the assassination. Please, watch this outstanding piece asap.
See this power point presentation by Jim DiEugenio on JFK’s foreign policy.
See the best book on the assassination, Jim Douglass’s, ‘JFK and the Unspeakable.’
See Donald Gibson for corroboration of the nature of the Kennedy presidency.
And enjoy this press conference from April 1962. Because it isn’t often that a US president does battle with powerful business interests in public.
Good luck in 2015 to all.
mattski 01.02.15 at 5:40 pm
The staggering ignorance of cassander & Ze Kraggash concerning JFK …
Thus begins a comment in moderation on account of containing too many links I suspect.
Bye all.
Eli Rabett 01.03.15 at 2:38 am
The Nadar campaign was not a necessary condition for Gore to lose, but it sure was sufficient.
Potere Occulto 01.03.15 at 9:15 pm
@96 cassander
‘The guy who was assassinated by a communist? Truly, the kennedy mystique addles the mind.’
LBJ was a communist?!
Brett Bellmore 01.04.15 at 12:11 pm
“I don’t believe politicians act their convictions, I think for the most part they act on interests of their sponsors.”
It’s difficult to distinguish acting to further the interest of your sponsors, and being sponsored because you’re acting to further somebody’s interests. Barring the sponsor’s interests changing, and the politician switching course in response, they look pretty much the same.
What does seem clear to me is that sponsors are probably better off supporting people who actually agree with them to begin with, as such people are less likely to double cross you at some critical juncture. And they are well positioned to expend considerable resources evaluating sincerity, unlike the average voter.
Are you sure that your conviction in this regard isn’t due to just assuming that positions contrary to your’s are so obviously wrong that nobody actually holds them?
Ze Kraggash 01.04.15 at 2:00 pm
107, you’re right: some are sincere, some internalize useful attitudes and ideas, and others are mercenaries, cynical professionals. But this is mostly irrelevant, because they are impossible to distinguish, and it doesn’t affect the outcome. What’s important is that only the ideas and attitudes supported by powerful interests are represented in mainstream discourse. Isolationism is useful to some, powerful enough, interests, so it is present. Though barely.
Brett Bellmore 01.04.15 at 2:38 pm
I think it’s actually a mix of things. There are still some remnants of real democracy, grassroots challengers still sometimes prevail, not all movements are astroturf.
And, while politicians are heavily influenced by “powerful interests”, politicians wield the power of government, and so are a “powerful interest” themselves, capable of punishing those who don’t support them. Both bribery AND extortion are going on, IOW.
And some of the powerful interests are actually membership organizations which are only powerful because they represent the interests of large groups of people, and in any functioning democracy ought to be powerful interests.
It’s a complex world out there, and cynicism is too simple to be an accurate description of it.
cassander 01.05.15 at 5:34 am
@ Ze Kraggash
the failure of immigration reform legislation seems to put a big chink in that theory. all of the powerful interests were lined up in favor of something, and it went down anyway. A house majority leader lost a primary for the first time in history, despite outspending the guy 40:1 at least partially because of the issue.
Ze Kraggash 01.05.15 at 9:17 am
@cassander,
I was describing my understanding of the general structure: why some attitudes are present and persistent, and some aren’t. It’s quite trivial. If all of the powerful interests want to change the status quo of the undocumented workforce, and they are all aligned in the same direction, I think it’s obvious that it’ll happen, sooner or later.
Brett Bellmore 01.05.15 at 10:12 am
You seem to be implicitly ruling out the possibility that, in a democracy, the voters themselves can be a “powerful interest”, and that doing what the voters want can be a source of political power. I think this is a pretty basic mistake.
Ze Kraggash 01.05.15 at 11:15 am
In a multi-party proportional representation parliamentary system voters do have some influence. Not a very strong influence, because, still, party advocacy needs financing, because the incumbent has a strong advantage, because, in general, powerful interests have a lot of ways to minimize/negate that influence (see the elections in Moldova last year, for example, where a major party was banned 3 days before the elections, and a fake party was created to confuse and split the vote), and because there is no way to hold those already elected to their word. But still, things do happen once in a while, like the recent elections in Greece, for example.
But in the US I don’t see it at all, sorry. I don’t see a mechanism for it, nor do I see any empirical signs of it: the approval rate of the parliament is often below 20%, for years. Dysentery could probably get the approval rating this high.
Brett Bellmore 01.05.15 at 11:34 am
I would say that genuine democracy in the US is definitely deteriorating, due to the firewalls that got set up after the 70’s to block any third party movements from succeeding. (AKA ‘campaign reform’) But if it were as toothless as you portray, we’d already have another amnesty for illegal immigrants written into the law, gun control would have succeeded, a few other things would have happened.
At present, democracy is more of a blocking mechanism, slowing the advance of policies the political class want, but which run too contrary to the electorate’s preferences. It has trouble accomplishing anything affirmative, unless the group wanting it is extremely large and well motivated. (Like gun owners.)
But I don’t think we’re completely lost yet. I expect we’ll have a constitutional convention in the next decade or so, and how that goes will determine if democracy has a future in America.
J Thomas 01.05.15 at 12:51 pm
#114 BB
But if it were as toothless as you portray, we’d already have another amnesty for illegal immigrants written into the law, gun control would have succeeded, a few other things would have happened.
Why do you think “the political class” wants amnesty for illegal immigrants? Wouldn’t some of them prefer to have illegal immigrants with no rights, who can be individually deported if they ask for rights or cause any trouble whatsoever?
And whyever would you think “the political class”would want gun control? As long as there are fanatical minorities who want it and hate it, they can use the possibility of gun control to motivate both of them and to distract them both from other issues. As soon as they have gun control, or provide a guarantee it won’t happen for a reasonably long while, they lose that control over two blocks of voters.
Surely the uproar over gun control is worth more to them than actual gun control. Except for the very few politicians who were present when a few politicians got shot, of course. When politicians get shot by irate voters or crazy people that creates a strong visceral preference for gun control among the ones who see it happen with their own eyes.
Barry 01.05.15 at 2:15 pm
cassander 01.05.15 at 5:34 am
“the failure of immigration reform legislation seems to put a big chink in that theory. all of the powerful interests were lined up in favor of something, and it went down anyway. A house majority leader lost a primary for the first time in history, despite outspending the guy 40:1 at least partially because of the issue.”
IMHO, this is notable for being one of the very, very few times when the GOP base went up against the elites and won.
cassander 01.06.15 at 1:46 am
@jthomas
>Why do you think “the political class†wants amnesty for illegal immigrants? Wouldn’t some of them prefer to have illegal immigrants with no rights, who can be individually deported if they ask for rights or cause any trouble whatsoever?
Clearly not, since just about every single interest in the country besides republican primary voters has lined up in favor of amnesty, repeatedly.
@barry
>IMHO, this is notable for being one of the very, very few times when the GOP base went up against the elites and won.
Most of the time, the GOP elite doesn’t get so far out of line with its base, so such incidents are pretty rare, but it’s hard to look at the situation and conclude, as Ze Kraggash has, that voters are largely irrelevant. Especially since the republican primary voters aren’t just winning against their own party, but their own party plus pretty much all the democrats.
Brett Bellmore 01.06.15 at 11:36 am
Pretty much all the Democratic leaders. Depending on the aspect of illegal immigration, (Amnesty, wall, work permits, and so on.) anything from a plurality to a majority of Democrats agree with Republican primary voters on this subject, and a majority of Democrats who actually show up to vote agree with the Republicans, according to exit polls. This is not a case of even Democrats attempting to represent their base, but only of Democrats facing less overwhelming opposition.
I don’t thing there’s any topic besides illegal immigration where the disconnect between the political class and the public is as stark. The people don’t want to be dissolved, and have a new people elected in their place.
Agreed, the GOP establishment usually has a finely tuned sense of what they can get away with. Their problem is that it’s finely tuned in the short term, and with every year, more of the base figure out that the party establishment is on the wrong side of a bunch of issues. I think it really started back in 94, when the GOP suddenly ‘caught the car’, and in the majority, their normal “take a dive and pretend to have fought the good fight” approach to issues where they disagreed with the base didn’t work anymore. People will believe you did your best and lost when you’re in the minority a lot quicker than they’ll believe it when you’re in the majority, and still contrive to lose.
Once the base realized their party leaders weren’t being beaten, but were taking dives instead, they started noticing it even when the GOP were in the minority.
Comments on this entry are closed.