The New American Politics thread

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think the word "Libertarian" has a fair bit of brand baggage associated with it that makes it impossible to appeal to Democratic voters broadly. This is exacerbated by their generally anti-gun-regulation, lower taxes policy planks. That could change if they got some mainstream exposure, but I don't think it would move the needle all that much.

I actually think this is the same reason that the Libertarians can't fill the role that's most likely to need filling - if the two major parties continue to migrate toward their own fringes on the right and left respectively, there's going to be room for a "straight up the middle" party. But because of that same baggage, it can't be the Libertarian party, in my view.

I was going to say that the Bernie corps is the perfect example of that. The Dems are doing their absolute damnedest to re-absorb that group by introducing some of Bernie's talking points and policy positions into the platform at the convention.

The problem with the Libertarian party is it is closer to Birchers than it is true libertarianism. I think this is why they gain no traction with Dems. Bircherism is closer to what Trump is suggesting than anything. The American Libertarian party is too far on he fringe right to be of consequence. A third party is needed, but it will have to come from the left as the Dems and Republicans are too close to each other in the political spectrum, and that spectrum has tilted too far to the right. I mean, if Reagan were running today he would be the leftist candidate in this race. That should tell you how far the fulcrum has been shifted to the right.

[Bunk]

American flag tie wearing teenager nails it. It's exactly what it is. Nationalism. Nationalism in the nasty, exclusionary sense.

@ddale8
Patrick Cecil, 19: "Trump is not a Republican, and he's not a Democrat. What he represents to me is nationalism."

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I seriously question how the alt-right, which is heavily invested in free speech with no limits whatsoever, can support this guy. The mental gymnastics necessary to somehow come to terms with his comments about strengthening libel laws so he can sue detractors are one thing, but anti-obscenity legislation? How on Earth can you square that with your most important value?

It's easy for them.

They think Trump is just pandering to the Evangelical wing of the party because he has to pacify them and that once he has the oval, he will go back to doing what he wants. They figure he is just playing the game he has to play to win. He has never displayed these tendencies in his natural life, so why would he change?

Now whether or not this is actually grounded in reality is yet to be determined, but it is pretty easy for this members of this cult of personality to simply brush it off as playing to the base.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Bunk

American flag tie wearing teenager nails it. It's exactly what it is. Nationalism. Nationalism in the nasty, exclusionary sense.

@ddale8
Patrick Cecil, 19: "Trump is not a Republican, and he's not a Democrat. What he represents to me is nationalism."

http://www.theonion.com/video/gop-ma...eady-loo-36778

[Buster]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I seriously question how the alt-right, which is heavily invested in free speech with no limits whatsoever, can support this guy. The mental gymnastics necessary to somehow come to terms with his comments about strengthening libel laws so he can sue detractors are one thing, but anti-obscenity legislation? How on Earth can you square that with your most important value?

I think it's weird. It's a general trend when it comes to his authoritarian leanings.

It's why as a socially liberal, fiscally conservative type (libertarian in practice, if not in party), I could never support Trump. He's an authoritarian. We can argue over the bigotry thing, or the nuclear button, or whatever....but I think his authoritarianism is integral to his ideology.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

It's easy for them.

They think Trump is just pandering to the Evangelical wing of the party because he has to pacify them and that once he has the oval, he will go back to doing what he wants. They figure he is just playing the game he has to play to win. He has never displayed these tendencies in his natural life, so why would he change?

Now whether or not this is actually grounded in reality is yet to be determined, but it is pretty easy for this members of this cult of personality to simply brush it off as playing to the base.

I think they just want to see the Tumblr feminists and SJW's go apoplectic. Everything else is just collateral damage.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Buster

I think it's weird. It's a general trend when it comes to his authoritarian leanings.

It's why as a socially liberal, fiscally conservative type (libertarian in practice, if not in party), I could never support Trump. He's an authoritarian. We can argue over the bigotry thing, or the nuclear button, or whatever....but I think his authoritarianism is integral to his ideology.

Oh crap, I agree with something you just said. I need to shower with turpentine and a brillo pad!

The authoritarianism is the thing that should scare people the most. The President's domestic policy is pretty much held in check by congress, but that has never been tested by someone who doesn't care about the rules and would impose their own rules with sweeping executive orders. It would be interesting to see the result of Trump using some of the loopholes in FEMA laws that could allow for him to send in troops in the event of a declared emergency. A regular politician would never do such a thing because they believe in the systems in place. But the honey badger of politics? He don't give a #### and will do what he wants. I wonder what the response would be from one of those militia types when it's one of their own calling the shots?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

The problem with the Libertarian party is it is closer to Birchers than it is true libertarianism. I think this is why they gain no traction with Dems. Bircherism is closer to what Trump is suggesting than anything. The American Libertarian party is too far on he fringe right to be of consequence.

But they favour marijuana legalization, gay marriage, abortion rights (notwithstanding their view that the government shouldn't pay for it), keeping religious values out of government, and any number of other things that are all incompatible with the fringe right.

Originally Posted by Buster

I think they just want to see the Tumblr feminists and SJW's go apoplectic. Everything else is just collateral damage.

This is probably right, which is why it's currently a troll movement more than a political movement, I think.

[peter12]

The culture that has lead to Trump's politics is defunct, and I fear that while Canadians can watch safely and smugly from a distance, we are only late to the party.

Even though I am a retired political scientist, I obviously find this election fascinating - not only as gross spectacle, but as yet another warning of the massive changes taking place within the world's largest republic, the ancillary global changes both caused, effecting, and supporting these changes, and most importantly, the utter inability for partisans on both sides to make much sense of anything. Not that I have had any luck there either.

First some reading suggestions: The Rise and Fall of American Growth by Robert Gordon; Average is Over, by Tyler Cowen ; The Fractured Republic, by Yuval Levin; Hillbilly Elegy, by J.D. Vance; Lost in the Cosmos, by Walker Percy; and Aliens in America, by Peter Lawler.

What all of these authors say, in one way or another, is that the ways, means, and ideas that invigorated the last century of economic growth, and cultural stability are losing their power. Technological stagnation, cultural diffusion, aging demographics, income inequality, and the failure of large public/private institutions have brought us all to a crossroads.

These all exacerbate each other in one way or another. Technology now has diminishing returns, even with the explosion of computing power and information technology, you don't see much in the way of economic growth. Aging demographics, and increasingly small families lead to mass immigration, but it turned out that culture actually does matter, and you can't change people's habits overnight. Etc... etc... The large public and private institutions that used to provide a solid job with benefits, and a tight social safety net no longer have the large productive tax base to sustain them. Global competition has also taken most of those manufacturing jobs away. The productive factory worker has become the marginally productive service worker.

What you are probably seeing in sum is the death, or dearth, or final throes of a certain type of liberalism evolved purely out of theory, and maintained mainly by nostalgia. For a small group of people, this is very hard to see. If you have been educated at a good school, came from a good family, and made solid life choices, life is probably getting better and better. Furthermore, you are isolating yourself in communities that are composed of other people pretty much like you. You are fairly conservative (personally), and you want more of the same. Hence, the Democratic Party becoming the party of the rich and sophisticated. Why wouldn't you want 4 more years of Obama, which is basically what Clinton has promised. Sure, Sanders makes some good points, and you are willing to make some accommodations, but not in the direction of major economic redistribution, so you make due with some identity politics, and some personal liberation theology.

Politics is giving you the change you want to see. Blacks, hispanics, LGBQT are natural allies. They have all long suffered from the politics of alienation, and this reinvigorated rhetoric of recognition is actually pretty important.

For a fairly large group of Americans, this is very apparent, and getting worse. If you come from a factory town, you have been told that the jobs would come back. But they haven't, and you work at a vape store, or you don't work at all, and stay at home playing video games. Or maybe you come from a moderately successful middle class background, you had a good life, and are approaching retirement, but you didn't have too many kids, and you only saved around $100,000 to your 401ks. Now there is talk of pension reform, decreasing yields, and your home value never really recovered from 2008. Both groups have always lived in ethnically homogeneous communities. The outside, the future is a giant grey existential threat. The bundle of wealth is getting smaller, and you are starting to think that maybe you are going to have to start fighting for it. Maybe a son fought, and died in Afghanistan or Iraq. You see that sacrifice squandered by increasingly wanton American intervention. You feel America has fought alone for a long time, and has nothing to show for it.

There's your racial tension. There's your nationalism. There's your Trump.

Canada is still on the outside of all this. Internationally, our stakes were never high. Nationally, our elites are broadly dispersed, we have a great deal of cultural unity (probably helped more than hurt by Quebec nationalism), and we have enjoyed the benefits of a strong extraction industry for quite some time. People have underestimated the role that Alberta has played in providing jobs, communities, and accommodation for an entire generation of low and middle skill Canadians. It is probably this, and a still strong culture of statesmanship, that has kept us out of the fray this long.

[Street Pharmacist]

Hillbilly Elegy gives a good inside view of the diminished lower class white angst, but it's so ethnocentric as to be almost irrelevant on the big picture. He paints rural whites from all areas with the same brush and becomes largely unbelievable

[Senator Clay Davis]

Out of touch, or just straight up moronic? You decide...

Donald Trump told an interviewer on Monday that if his daughter Ivanka Trump were sexually harassed at work, “I would like to think she would find another career or find another company if that was the case” – an answer that provoked anger from commentators who said that the onus of ending workplace harassment should not be on the victim.

This morning, Ivanka’s younger brother Eric doubled down on his father’s remarks, telling CNBC’s John Harwood that a “strong, powerful woman” like his sister wouldn’t allow such harassment to occur in the first place.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ual-harassment

[2Stonedbirds]

Guns and renewable energy.

A centrist candidate with experience that came out of the business sector could run away with this election.

Sad really.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Out of touch, or just straight up moronic? You decide...



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ual-harassment

What about when she's sexually harassed at work and the perpetrator is her father?

[GirlySports]

wow.. yeah, that's what a woman who is getting sexually harassed should do...just quit her job. Because its just that easy.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

wow.. yeah, that's what a woman who is getting sexually harassed should do...just quit her job. Because its just that easy.

Not just quit her job...but change her entire career!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But they favour marijuana legalization, gay marriage, abortion rights (notwithstanding their view that the government shouldn't pay for it), keeping religious values out of government, and any number of other things that are all incompatible with the fringe right.

Sure, but they also promote isolationism, unbridled free market policies including removal of all trade barriers, whole scale deregulation, are anti-Union, believe education and healthcare should be commoditized, are are pro-privatized social security. After the watching the repeated financial failings the United States experiences, how could anyone believe that turning over the well-being of the country's future to the market would be a good idea?

[calgarygeologist]

It seems like the GOP is really starting to fall apart at the seams with little to no support for Trump. It appears as though almost none of the party is interested in actively backing Trump's campaign.

Aside from Trump backing down voluntarily does the GOP have any options for replacing Trump? It is amazing how out of control this election has become.

I really believe that the GOP folks who haven't endorsed Trump or have said that they won't/can't endorse Trump should start backing Johnson.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Hillbilly Elegy gives a good inside view of the diminished lower class white angst, but it's so ethnocentric as to be almost irrelevant on the big picture. He paints rural whites from all areas with the same brush and becomes largely unbelievable

Ethnocentric? How so? It doesn't even try to draw analogies to urban blacks or SW Hispanics? It is a brilliant piece of amateur sociology.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by peter12

Ethnocentric? How so? It doesn't even try to draw analogies to urban blacks or SW Hispanics? It is a brilliant piece of amateur sociology.

He applies his experience of an Appalachian "WWC" kid/man to that of the South, Northwest, etc

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

Sure, but they also promote isolationism, unbridled free market policies including removal of all trade barriers, whole scale deregulation, are anti-Union, believe education and healthcare should be commoditized, are are pro-privatized social security. After the watching the repeated financial failings the United States experiences, how could anyone believe that turning over the well-being of the country's future to the market would be a good idea?

I'm not debating the merits of modern American Libertarianism. I'm saying that calling them fringe right wingers doesn't make any sense. They share some views with traditionally ultra-conservative people, sure, but also hold other views that would immediately anathematize anyone who wanted to claim to be part of the purist right wing. It would be like saying that a party that wanted socialized medicine, significant regulations on wall street, gun regulations and a clearly worded constitutional amendment to prevent black people from voting and ban gay marriage and abortion was "extreme left". The last part totally disqualifies it from being slotted in as leftist.