by russell
A couple of things I stumbled on in my daily random walk through the internet seemed relevant to topics under discussion here.
So, for your reading pleasure:
Michael Goldfarb tries to unpack the Trump phenomenon to readers of the BBC magazine. Bonus points if you are a Springsteen fan, which I'm not in any significant way. He hits predictable points, but all in all it seemed like a good piece.
Washington Monthly tries to square the "what's wrong with liberalism" circle by harking back to the Populist movement of the late 19th / early 20th C's. An interesting take on the intersection of democracy and economic markets, and one which I find congenial.
We're at some kind of inflection point in public life. I'm not sure where it will all land, but I don't think the categories we've been working with for a generation or two or three are really working well right now. Understanding and unpacking all of the reasons why is somewhat above my pay grade, but as a nation, and a community of nations, and a nation of communities, we need to get some clues.
There could be a lot at stake.
Happy 4th, everyone. Don't blow yourselves up, and enjoy the weather!
I don’t think the categories we’ve been working with for a generation or two or three are really working well right now.
I’d say the liberal/conservative split is in the process of changing. My guess is that we are moving towards an open/isolationist split.
Trump won a nomination, and Sanders didn’t. Which suggests that the GOP is somewhat more likely to become the isolationist party, while the Democrats become the party more willing to be open to the world. But I definitely wouldn’t bet the ranch on things shaking out that way in the end.
We definitely live in interesting times.
I don’t think the categories we’ve been working with for a generation or two or three are really working well right now.
I’d say the liberal/conservative split is in the process of changing. My guess is that we are moving towards an open/isolationist split.
Trump won a nomination, and Sanders didn’t. Which suggests that the GOP is somewhat more likely to become the isolationist party, while the Democrats become the party more willing to be open to the world. But I definitely wouldn’t bet the ranch on things shaking out that way in the end.
We definitely live in interesting times.
I don’t think the categories we’ve been working with for a generation or two or three are really working well right now.
I’d say the liberal/conservative split is in the process of changing. My guess is that we are moving towards an open/isolationist split.
Trump won a nomination, and Sanders didn’t. Which suggests that the GOP is somewhat more likely to become the isolationist party, while the Democrats become the party more willing to be open to the world. But I definitely wouldn’t bet the ranch on things shaking out that way in the end.
We definitely live in interesting times.
Russell,
Truly a post that will unleash the furies of bloviation. I can’t wait to jump in.
contra wj: the split we are moving toward is the haves vs the have nots in a overarching context of onrushing possible human extinction.
bobbyp, arch bloviator.
Russell,
Truly a post that will unleash the furies of bloviation. I can’t wait to jump in.
contra wj: the split we are moving toward is the haves vs the have nots in a overarching context of onrushing possible human extinction.
bobbyp, arch bloviator.
Russell,
Truly a post that will unleash the furies of bloviation. I can’t wait to jump in.
contra wj: the split we are moving toward is the haves vs the have nots in a overarching context of onrushing possible human extinction.
bobbyp, arch bloviator.
The Goldfarb piece could be reduced for British readers to the single word “Brexit” and it would pretty much encapsulate everything. This is a case where British people absolutely should not find the US foreign or incomprehensible.
What he de-emphasizes is that the specific appeal of Trump to people feeling this anger pretty much only exists for white people, and that’s why, while Trump can win, he probably won’t win: the US isn’t as white as the UK.
The Goldfarb piece could be reduced for British readers to the single word “Brexit” and it would pretty much encapsulate everything. This is a case where British people absolutely should not find the US foreign or incomprehensible.
What he de-emphasizes is that the specific appeal of Trump to people feeling this anger pretty much only exists for white people, and that’s why, while Trump can win, he probably won’t win: the US isn’t as white as the UK.
The Goldfarb piece could be reduced for British readers to the single word “Brexit” and it would pretty much encapsulate everything. This is a case where British people absolutely should not find the US foreign or incomprehensible.
What he de-emphasizes is that the specific appeal of Trump to people feeling this anger pretty much only exists for white people, and that’s why, while Trump can win, he probably won’t win: the US isn’t as white as the UK.
this has been nagging me for a while. i know The Narrative says that anti-establishment sentiment is all the rage right now. but is there any actual data that shows the relative level of the anti-establishment/populist sentiment in the US this year? any that compares it to other election years?
polls taken early in the race would be better because it’s important to distinguish actual voter sentiment from the bandwagon effect. for example, Trump has to run with a outsider/populist message because he needs a way to spin his complete lack of political experience into a positive. all inexperienced candidates do that. but Trump is also a very famous, charismatic, Alpha, so some people would be inclined to like him without any regard to his actual policies. and, if you’ve signed up for Trump the celebrity you can probably be persuaded to buy into Trump’s “I’m A Outsider” schtick as well.
and Sanders’ support came largely from a demographic that isn’t typically associated with populism: young, white, people. and of course a 30 year Congressional career should be a disqualification for “outsider” status. most importantly, he was running against borin ol Hillary Clinton – not the coolest choice in the world.
so, back to my question: do we know if populism actually was stronger this year than others?
this has been nagging me for a while. i know The Narrative says that anti-establishment sentiment is all the rage right now. but is there any actual data that shows the relative level of the anti-establishment/populist sentiment in the US this year? any that compares it to other election years?
polls taken early in the race would be better because it’s important to distinguish actual voter sentiment from the bandwagon effect. for example, Trump has to run with a outsider/populist message because he needs a way to spin his complete lack of political experience into a positive. all inexperienced candidates do that. but Trump is also a very famous, charismatic, Alpha, so some people would be inclined to like him without any regard to his actual policies. and, if you’ve signed up for Trump the celebrity you can probably be persuaded to buy into Trump’s “I’m A Outsider” schtick as well.
and Sanders’ support came largely from a demographic that isn’t typically associated with populism: young, white, people. and of course a 30 year Congressional career should be a disqualification for “outsider” status. most importantly, he was running against borin ol Hillary Clinton – not the coolest choice in the world.
so, back to my question: do we know if populism actually was stronger this year than others?
this has been nagging me for a while. i know The Narrative says that anti-establishment sentiment is all the rage right now. but is there any actual data that shows the relative level of the anti-establishment/populist sentiment in the US this year? any that compares it to other election years?
polls taken early in the race would be better because it’s important to distinguish actual voter sentiment from the bandwagon effect. for example, Trump has to run with a outsider/populist message because he needs a way to spin his complete lack of political experience into a positive. all inexperienced candidates do that. but Trump is also a very famous, charismatic, Alpha, so some people would be inclined to like him without any regard to his actual policies. and, if you’ve signed up for Trump the celebrity you can probably be persuaded to buy into Trump’s “I’m A Outsider” schtick as well.
and Sanders’ support came largely from a demographic that isn’t typically associated with populism: young, white, people. and of course a 30 year Congressional career should be a disqualification for “outsider” status. most importantly, he was running against borin ol Hillary Clinton – not the coolest choice in the world.
so, back to my question: do we know if populism actually was stronger this year than others?
Although I appreciate the Washington Monthly and enjoyed reading the article, much of it seems factually incorrect to me, and based on a nostalgic and idealized view of the past. Or maybe I’m just really not a populist at all.
For example, airline deregulation was meant to curb, not create, monopolies, and certainly did so, at least for awhile. Flying is inexpensive now, and very efficient in terms of filling up planes with passengers (which should please people interested in carbon footprint). As a business, the airline industry seems to have been a crapshoot, not a monopolistic sure-fire road to profit.
Although I’m not at all a fan of deregulation for its own sake, bad regulation is certainly not any better than deregulation, and I think it’s sometimes difficult to get regulation right since the nuts and bolts of most industries are only understood by a handful of people who are either insiders, or have studied the industries extensively (probably as academics). Environmental regulations are extremely important and necessary. Economic regulation, however, has unintended consequences, so has to be done carefully, and reviewed frequently.
I have very mixed feelings about the Uber phenomenon, which is new, and probably needs to evolve some in order to protect drivers, but the idea of flexible work opportunities is very attractive to many people who don’t want to be locked into a scheduled work environment for a variety of reasons. Cracking down on the availability of those opportunities isn’t a movement to “take back leisure”.
The article states that “Besides neutralizing large online retailers, a True Populist would revive the laws Americans used to localize banking, farming, and retail through the heart of the twentieth century.” Why? Food is now cheap, plentiful and various, as are consumer items. Vegetable farming is becoming less resource intensive than it ever has been, and technology (including genetic modification) is improving outcomes. The environmental advantages can be improved by regulation. (I don’t approve of factory farming of animals because it is inhumane, but that is a completely separate issue.) There’s certainly a place for local farming, and promotion of vegetable gardening, etc., in that it encourages plant variety, and it’s a defense against disaster. But as a national model of economic prosperity, I don’t think localization is the answer.
Anyway, there are a lot of ways to look at these issues, but the article convinced me that I’m populism-skeptical.
Although I appreciate the Washington Monthly and enjoyed reading the article, much of it seems factually incorrect to me, and based on a nostalgic and idealized view of the past. Or maybe I’m just really not a populist at all.
For example, airline deregulation was meant to curb, not create, monopolies, and certainly did so, at least for awhile. Flying is inexpensive now, and very efficient in terms of filling up planes with passengers (which should please people interested in carbon footprint). As a business, the airline industry seems to have been a crapshoot, not a monopolistic sure-fire road to profit.
Although I’m not at all a fan of deregulation for its own sake, bad regulation is certainly not any better than deregulation, and I think it’s sometimes difficult to get regulation right since the nuts and bolts of most industries are only understood by a handful of people who are either insiders, or have studied the industries extensively (probably as academics). Environmental regulations are extremely important and necessary. Economic regulation, however, has unintended consequences, so has to be done carefully, and reviewed frequently.
I have very mixed feelings about the Uber phenomenon, which is new, and probably needs to evolve some in order to protect drivers, but the idea of flexible work opportunities is very attractive to many people who don’t want to be locked into a scheduled work environment for a variety of reasons. Cracking down on the availability of those opportunities isn’t a movement to “take back leisure”.
The article states that “Besides neutralizing large online retailers, a True Populist would revive the laws Americans used to localize banking, farming, and retail through the heart of the twentieth century.” Why? Food is now cheap, plentiful and various, as are consumer items. Vegetable farming is becoming less resource intensive than it ever has been, and technology (including genetic modification) is improving outcomes. The environmental advantages can be improved by regulation. (I don’t approve of factory farming of animals because it is inhumane, but that is a completely separate issue.) There’s certainly a place for local farming, and promotion of vegetable gardening, etc., in that it encourages plant variety, and it’s a defense against disaster. But as a national model of economic prosperity, I don’t think localization is the answer.
Anyway, there are a lot of ways to look at these issues, but the article convinced me that I’m populism-skeptical.
Although I appreciate the Washington Monthly and enjoyed reading the article, much of it seems factually incorrect to me, and based on a nostalgic and idealized view of the past. Or maybe I’m just really not a populist at all.
For example, airline deregulation was meant to curb, not create, monopolies, and certainly did so, at least for awhile. Flying is inexpensive now, and very efficient in terms of filling up planes with passengers (which should please people interested in carbon footprint). As a business, the airline industry seems to have been a crapshoot, not a monopolistic sure-fire road to profit.
Although I’m not at all a fan of deregulation for its own sake, bad regulation is certainly not any better than deregulation, and I think it’s sometimes difficult to get regulation right since the nuts and bolts of most industries are only understood by a handful of people who are either insiders, or have studied the industries extensively (probably as academics). Environmental regulations are extremely important and necessary. Economic regulation, however, has unintended consequences, so has to be done carefully, and reviewed frequently.
I have very mixed feelings about the Uber phenomenon, which is new, and probably needs to evolve some in order to protect drivers, but the idea of flexible work opportunities is very attractive to many people who don’t want to be locked into a scheduled work environment for a variety of reasons. Cracking down on the availability of those opportunities isn’t a movement to “take back leisure”.
The article states that “Besides neutralizing large online retailers, a True Populist would revive the laws Americans used to localize banking, farming, and retail through the heart of the twentieth century.” Why? Food is now cheap, plentiful and various, as are consumer items. Vegetable farming is becoming less resource intensive than it ever has been, and technology (including genetic modification) is improving outcomes. The environmental advantages can be improved by regulation. (I don’t approve of factory farming of animals because it is inhumane, but that is a completely separate issue.) There’s certainly a place for local farming, and promotion of vegetable gardening, etc., in that it encourages plant variety, and it’s a defense against disaster. But as a national model of economic prosperity, I don’t think localization is the answer.
Anyway, there are a lot of ways to look at these issues, but the article convinced me that I’m populism-skeptical.
Elie Wiesel died.
Garrison Keillor’s last show was today.
Elie Wiesel died.
Garrison Keillor’s last show was today.
Elie Wiesel died.
Garrison Keillor’s last show was today.
Donald Trump commemorates Wiesel’s demise by tweeting poison gas from his mouth.
https://mic.com/articles/147711/donald-trump-s-star-of-david-hillary-clinton-meme-was-created-by-white-supremacists#.tHvpaLiBv
Donald Trump commemorates Wiesel’s demise by tweeting poison gas from his mouth.
https://mic.com/articles/147711/donald-trump-s-star-of-david-hillary-clinton-meme-was-created-by-white-supremacists#.tHvpaLiBv
Donald Trump commemorates Wiesel’s demise by tweeting poison gas from his mouth.
https://mic.com/articles/147711/donald-trump-s-star-of-david-hillary-clinton-meme-was-created-by-white-supremacists#.tHvpaLiBv
It’s kind of hard, when Clinton is having a bad day and Trump does something like this tweet to distract from it.
I hate conspiracy theories! Really, really hate them. (Not just that they are so routinely implausible. Not to mention wrong. But the people who enthuse about them seem to see them everywhere. Yeech!)
But I watch Trump and keep thinking: Is he working for Clinton? Because it would explain so much — not only about what he does, but about its timing. After a while, a pattern emerges which “coincidence” just doesn’t seem to be able to stretch to fit. And I just don’t want to go there….
It’s kind of hard, when Clinton is having a bad day and Trump does something like this tweet to distract from it.
I hate conspiracy theories! Really, really hate them. (Not just that they are so routinely implausible. Not to mention wrong. But the people who enthuse about them seem to see them everywhere. Yeech!)
But I watch Trump and keep thinking: Is he working for Clinton? Because it would explain so much — not only about what he does, but about its timing. After a while, a pattern emerges which “coincidence” just doesn’t seem to be able to stretch to fit. And I just don’t want to go there….
It’s kind of hard, when Clinton is having a bad day and Trump does something like this tweet to distract from it.
I hate conspiracy theories! Really, really hate them. (Not just that they are so routinely implausible. Not to mention wrong. But the people who enthuse about them seem to see them everywhere. Yeech!)
But I watch Trump and keep thinking: Is he working for Clinton? Because it would explain so much — not only about what he does, but about its timing. After a while, a pattern emerges which “coincidence” just doesn’t seem to be able to stretch to fit. And I just don’t want to go there….
I agree that we shouldn’t let political correctness run amok:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-tweet-political-correctness-amok
Which is why I believe white supremacist, Jew-burning Polack refugees like Lewandowski from fascist political campaigns shouldn’t be hired by American news networks to jackboot their filth all over us.
I agree that we shouldn’t let political correctness run amok:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-tweet-political-correctness-amok
Which is why I believe white supremacist, Jew-burning Polack refugees like Lewandowski from fascist political campaigns shouldn’t be hired by American news networks to jackboot their filth all over us.
I agree that we shouldn’t let political correctness run amok:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-tweet-political-correctness-amok
Which is why I believe white supremacist, Jew-burning Polack refugees like Lewandowski from fascist political campaigns shouldn’t be hired by American news networks to jackboot their filth all over us.
two thirds of the GOP still thinks Trump is qualified to be President. that’s all you need to know about the GOP.
two thirds of the GOP still thinks Trump is qualified to be President. that’s all you need to know about the GOP.
two thirds of the GOP still thinks Trump is qualified to be President. that’s all you need to know about the GOP.
wj:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/07/03/open-thread-the-gop-world-turned-upside-down/
Well, if the Trump phenomemon is the biggest Clinton-engineered rat-f*cking in the history of political rodent riddance, it’s about time someone did it right and f*cked the right Republican rats for a change.
I get the feeling though that Hillary might be telling Trump to lighten up a bit on the “crooked” campaign insults.
“I said f*ck the rats, Donald,” Hillary complains, “not do an 18-month reality show about Hillary the ratf*cker.”
wj:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/07/03/open-thread-the-gop-world-turned-upside-down/
Well, if the Trump phenomemon is the biggest Clinton-engineered rat-f*cking in the history of political rodent riddance, it’s about time someone did it right and f*cked the right Republican rats for a change.
I get the feeling though that Hillary might be telling Trump to lighten up a bit on the “crooked” campaign insults.
“I said f*ck the rats, Donald,” Hillary complains, “not do an 18-month reality show about Hillary the ratf*cker.”
wj:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/07/03/open-thread-the-gop-world-turned-upside-down/
Well, if the Trump phenomemon is the biggest Clinton-engineered rat-f*cking in the history of political rodent riddance, it’s about time someone did it right and f*cked the right Republican rats for a change.
I get the feeling though that Hillary might be telling Trump to lighten up a bit on the “crooked” campaign insults.
“I said f*ck the rats, Donald,” Hillary complains, “not do an 18-month reality show about Hillary the ratf*cker.”
To the degree that my libertarian viewpoint allows, what sapient said. 🙂
To the degree that my libertarian viewpoint allows, what sapient said. 🙂
To the degree that my libertarian viewpoint allows, what sapient said. 🙂
Anyway, there are a lot of ways to look at these issues, but the article convinced me that I’m populism-skeptical.
That’s cool, I don’t line up with everything in the article either. Certainly as far as some of the specific policy proposals.
The idea that I find of interest there is the criticism of concentration of ownership, for both economic and political reasons. It’s efficient, but it’s also anti-competitive, and it leads to concentrations of wealth that are anti-democratic.
As far as particulars, it’s true that air travel is often less expensive than it was, say, 40 years ago, but not so much if you don’t live in a place that lots of people want to fly to or from. And, now that we’ve consolidated down to four major carriers, the costs are creeping back up. Without any particular increase in the quality of the air travel experience.
It’s a mixed bag.
Food is cheap, for commodity items anyway – households pay much less for food as a percentage than they used to. Economies of scale are great, and improved agricultural technologies are great. They also bring with them a fairly extensive and complicated supply chain, and in the case of “improved technologies” an almost monopolistic reliance on techniques and products that are the closely held intellectual property of a really small number of actors.
Also, we devote an astounding amount of agricultural effort to producing (a) alcohol to improve gasoline octane, (b) corn syrup, and (c) feed for feedlot livestock. I drive and I like to eat meat, but I’m not sure that’s an optimal allocation of resources.
Clothing and consumer goods are cheap, because they are mostly made in places where labor is really, really, really cheap. Again, a complex supply chain, and quite often some complicated ethical issues.
All mixed bags.
What I’m interested in as far as the issues raised in the article are two things:
1. Distributing, rather than re-distributing, the wealth that is created by our economy. Since we’re a capitalist economy, that means the distribution of ownership. And, via ownership, governance.
2. Reducing the influence of concentrated wealth on public policy.
The benefit of localization, generally, is that it tends to distribute ownership broadly, and brings economic activity closer to social and political institutions that are relatively more responsive to people.
Anyway, there are a lot of ways to look at these issues, but the article convinced me that I’m populism-skeptical.
That’s cool, I don’t line up with everything in the article either. Certainly as far as some of the specific policy proposals.
The idea that I find of interest there is the criticism of concentration of ownership, for both economic and political reasons. It’s efficient, but it’s also anti-competitive, and it leads to concentrations of wealth that are anti-democratic.
As far as particulars, it’s true that air travel is often less expensive than it was, say, 40 years ago, but not so much if you don’t live in a place that lots of people want to fly to or from. And, now that we’ve consolidated down to four major carriers, the costs are creeping back up. Without any particular increase in the quality of the air travel experience.
It’s a mixed bag.
Food is cheap, for commodity items anyway – households pay much less for food as a percentage than they used to. Economies of scale are great, and improved agricultural technologies are great. They also bring with them a fairly extensive and complicated supply chain, and in the case of “improved technologies” an almost monopolistic reliance on techniques and products that are the closely held intellectual property of a really small number of actors.
Also, we devote an astounding amount of agricultural effort to producing (a) alcohol to improve gasoline octane, (b) corn syrup, and (c) feed for feedlot livestock. I drive and I like to eat meat, but I’m not sure that’s an optimal allocation of resources.
Clothing and consumer goods are cheap, because they are mostly made in places where labor is really, really, really cheap. Again, a complex supply chain, and quite often some complicated ethical issues.
All mixed bags.
What I’m interested in as far as the issues raised in the article are two things:
1. Distributing, rather than re-distributing, the wealth that is created by our economy. Since we’re a capitalist economy, that means the distribution of ownership. And, via ownership, governance.
2. Reducing the influence of concentrated wealth on public policy.
The benefit of localization, generally, is that it tends to distribute ownership broadly, and brings economic activity closer to social and political institutions that are relatively more responsive to people.
Anyway, there are a lot of ways to look at these issues, but the article convinced me that I’m populism-skeptical.
That’s cool, I don’t line up with everything in the article either. Certainly as far as some of the specific policy proposals.
The idea that I find of interest there is the criticism of concentration of ownership, for both economic and political reasons. It’s efficient, but it’s also anti-competitive, and it leads to concentrations of wealth that are anti-democratic.
As far as particulars, it’s true that air travel is often less expensive than it was, say, 40 years ago, but not so much if you don’t live in a place that lots of people want to fly to or from. And, now that we’ve consolidated down to four major carriers, the costs are creeping back up. Without any particular increase in the quality of the air travel experience.
It’s a mixed bag.
Food is cheap, for commodity items anyway – households pay much less for food as a percentage than they used to. Economies of scale are great, and improved agricultural technologies are great. They also bring with them a fairly extensive and complicated supply chain, and in the case of “improved technologies” an almost monopolistic reliance on techniques and products that are the closely held intellectual property of a really small number of actors.
Also, we devote an astounding amount of agricultural effort to producing (a) alcohol to improve gasoline octane, (b) corn syrup, and (c) feed for feedlot livestock. I drive and I like to eat meat, but I’m not sure that’s an optimal allocation of resources.
Clothing and consumer goods are cheap, because they are mostly made in places where labor is really, really, really cheap. Again, a complex supply chain, and quite often some complicated ethical issues.
All mixed bags.
What I’m interested in as far as the issues raised in the article are two things:
1. Distributing, rather than re-distributing, the wealth that is created by our economy. Since we’re a capitalist economy, that means the distribution of ownership. And, via ownership, governance.
2. Reducing the influence of concentrated wealth on public policy.
The benefit of localization, generally, is that it tends to distribute ownership broadly, and brings economic activity closer to social and political institutions that are relatively more responsive to people.
Happy Fourth of July!
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0703/Why-one-Arab-country-is-telling-its-travelers-to-forgo-traditional-clothing
I love that this man was looking for a hotel room in Ohio because the Republican National Committee had commandeered it for their uses.
Maybe Trump’s speechwriters were going to bunk there and come up with vicious demonizations of Muslims and deportation threats for the Donald to vomit up for four days running.
Really good piece on how we came to our current nominating and electoral process for both parties:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/04/conventions-primaries-and-the-presidency
Turns out it’s been full of corrupt crap from the get go, because that’s who we are.
The article might fill in some of the discussion on the subject in a previous thread.
Full of delicious details, and lots of quotes. Mencken is not ignored.
My favorite tidbit is the one about the Anti-Masonic Party, formed to end the reign of secret cabals, and which held the first Presidential-nominating Convention in 1831.
Unfortunately, the man chosen as the party’s nominee was .. wait for it … a Mason.
Erick Erickson is quoted about this election season: “The will of the people is crap!”, which I agree with but only because he and his nemesis Trump are counted among the people, rather than as livestock.
Mencken said that going to a Convention was something between attending a revival and watching a hanging.
This year might revise that assessment downward.
In 1876, the Democrats nearly nominated a character named Roscoe Conkling (played by Groucho Marx decades later in one of their early films, I wish). Conkling chose his Vice President before the convention, one Rutherfraud B. Hayes.
Conkling was defeated by his own running mate.
Don’t blow yourselves up!
Save the explosives for those who deserve it.
Happy Fourth of July!
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0703/Why-one-Arab-country-is-telling-its-travelers-to-forgo-traditional-clothing
I love that this man was looking for a hotel room in Ohio because the Republican National Committee had commandeered it for their uses.
Maybe Trump’s speechwriters were going to bunk there and come up with vicious demonizations of Muslims and deportation threats for the Donald to vomit up for four days running.
Really good piece on how we came to our current nominating and electoral process for both parties:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/04/conventions-primaries-and-the-presidency
Turns out it’s been full of corrupt crap from the get go, because that’s who we are.
The article might fill in some of the discussion on the subject in a previous thread.
Full of delicious details, and lots of quotes. Mencken is not ignored.
My favorite tidbit is the one about the Anti-Masonic Party, formed to end the reign of secret cabals, and which held the first Presidential-nominating Convention in 1831.
Unfortunately, the man chosen as the party’s nominee was .. wait for it … a Mason.
Erick Erickson is quoted about this election season: “The will of the people is crap!”, which I agree with but only because he and his nemesis Trump are counted among the people, rather than as livestock.
Mencken said that going to a Convention was something between attending a revival and watching a hanging.
This year might revise that assessment downward.
In 1876, the Democrats nearly nominated a character named Roscoe Conkling (played by Groucho Marx decades later in one of their early films, I wish). Conkling chose his Vice President before the convention, one Rutherfraud B. Hayes.
Conkling was defeated by his own running mate.
Don’t blow yourselves up!
Save the explosives for those who deserve it.
Happy Fourth of July!
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0703/Why-one-Arab-country-is-telling-its-travelers-to-forgo-traditional-clothing
I love that this man was looking for a hotel room in Ohio because the Republican National Committee had commandeered it for their uses.
Maybe Trump’s speechwriters were going to bunk there and come up with vicious demonizations of Muslims and deportation threats for the Donald to vomit up for four days running.
Really good piece on how we came to our current nominating and electoral process for both parties:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/04/conventions-primaries-and-the-presidency
Turns out it’s been full of corrupt crap from the get go, because that’s who we are.
The article might fill in some of the discussion on the subject in a previous thread.
Full of delicious details, and lots of quotes. Mencken is not ignored.
My favorite tidbit is the one about the Anti-Masonic Party, formed to end the reign of secret cabals, and which held the first Presidential-nominating Convention in 1831.
Unfortunately, the man chosen as the party’s nominee was .. wait for it … a Mason.
Erick Erickson is quoted about this election season: “The will of the people is crap!”, which I agree with but only because he and his nemesis Trump are counted among the people, rather than as livestock.
Mencken said that going to a Convention was something between attending a revival and watching a hanging.
This year might revise that assessment downward.
In 1876, the Democrats nearly nominated a character named Roscoe Conkling (played by Groucho Marx decades later in one of their early films, I wish). Conkling chose his Vice President before the convention, one Rutherfraud B. Hayes.
Conkling was defeated by his own running mate.
Don’t blow yourselves up!
Save the explosives for those who deserve it.
I, for one, look forward to ignorant Trump delegates staying in a Ramada Inn.
I, for one, look forward to ignorant Trump delegates staying in a Ramada Inn.
I, for one, look forward to ignorant Trump delegates staying in a Ramada Inn.
Maybe even a Ramada inn named The Alhambra…?
Maybe even a Ramada inn named The Alhambra…?
Maybe even a Ramada inn named The Alhambra…?
my dear count,
Roscoe Conkling was a stalwart Republican, and actually turned down two chances to be on the Supreme Court, preferring instead the power and patronage of the New York GOP political machine.
Actually quite the character.
How many Democrats does it take to make a city? There will be 4,769 delegates attending in Philadelphia. Who will watch the children?
my dear count,
Roscoe Conkling was a stalwart Republican, and actually turned down two chances to be on the Supreme Court, preferring instead the power and patronage of the New York GOP political machine.
Actually quite the character.
How many Democrats does it take to make a city? There will be 4,769 delegates attending in Philadelphia. Who will watch the children?
my dear count,
Roscoe Conkling was a stalwart Republican, and actually turned down two chances to be on the Supreme Court, preferring instead the power and patronage of the New York GOP political machine.
Actually quite the character.
How many Democrats does it take to make a city? There will be 4,769 delegates attending in Philadelphia. Who will watch the children?
bobbyp: Thanks for the correction. My bad, but the paragraph in the article was a bit of a confusing mash-up.
And for the interested, the Muslim gentleman accosted by the police gave up his apartment to the RNC, thus he needed a hotel room.
If I were him, I’d make sure stuff hasn’t been stolen and I’d sweep for surveillance and incendiary devices when he returns home, given the quality of terrorist he’s subletting to.
bobbyp: Thanks for the correction. My bad, but the paragraph in the article was a bit of a confusing mash-up.
And for the interested, the Muslim gentleman accosted by the police gave up his apartment to the RNC, thus he needed a hotel room.
If I were him, I’d make sure stuff hasn’t been stolen and I’d sweep for surveillance and incendiary devices when he returns home, given the quality of terrorist he’s subletting to.
bobbyp: Thanks for the correction. My bad, but the paragraph in the article was a bit of a confusing mash-up.
And for the interested, the Muslim gentleman accosted by the police gave up his apartment to the RNC, thus he needed a hotel room.
If I were him, I’d make sure stuff hasn’t been stolen and I’d sweep for surveillance and incendiary devices when he returns home, given the quality of terrorist he’s subletting to.
Economic regulation, however, has unintended consequences, so has to be done carefully, and reviewed frequently.
Absolutely. Take the system of private property for just one example. Without heavy handed government intervention and regulation, it would not exist. Capitalism, too, is heavily dependent on government intervention and support, and I’d agree it needs to be reviewed frequently, as it has a marked tendency to break down.
Other than that, pretty much what Russell said.
Economic regulation, however, has unintended consequences, so has to be done carefully, and reviewed frequently.
Absolutely. Take the system of private property for just one example. Without heavy handed government intervention and regulation, it would not exist. Capitalism, too, is heavily dependent on government intervention and support, and I’d agree it needs to be reviewed frequently, as it has a marked tendency to break down.
Other than that, pretty much what Russell said.
Economic regulation, however, has unintended consequences, so has to be done carefully, and reviewed frequently.
Absolutely. Take the system of private property for just one example. Without heavy handed government intervention and regulation, it would not exist. Capitalism, too, is heavily dependent on government intervention and support, and I’d agree it needs to be reviewed frequently, as it has a marked tendency to break down.
Other than that, pretty much what Russell said.
Take the system of private property for just one example. Without heavy handed government intervention and regulation, it would not exist.
Absolutely! And most people are quite happy that they have some of that pie. They just want a little more of it.
Take the system of private property for just one example. Without heavy handed government intervention and regulation, it would not exist.
Absolutely! And most people are quite happy that they have some of that pie. They just want a little more of it.
Take the system of private property for just one example. Without heavy handed government intervention and regulation, it would not exist.
Absolutely! And most people are quite happy that they have some of that pie. They just want a little more of it.