Political sectarianism in America

[sukumvit boy]

In my humble opinion this is such a critical issue and the extraordinarily good paper from the 30 October 2020 issue of the journal "Science" did such a great job of defining the causes and solutions that I decided it deserved a seperate thread.
Why is the traditional Party system of American politics ,that has served so well for so long ,now seem to be 'broken'?
What happened to the system of compromise for the benefit of all ,that the founders intended ?
What do we need to do to get it working again?

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6516/533

[Stavros]

Your opinion need not be 'humble' when the focus is on so critical an issue.

To summarize the article, the team of researchers explain their concept of Political Sectarianism by referring to three formative processes: 'Othering', 'Aversion'. and 'Moralization'. Thus,

1) Americans may identify with one party rather than another, but regard the 'others' not as equally valid in their affiliation, but people who have abandoned 'the tribe' and appear to be not just 'others' but 'the enemy' with partisan identity being shaped by Religion, Race, Education and Geography.

2) Thus 'Aversion' is a trend made possible by the end of the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting and the media, so that the hostiiity shown to 'the others' is underlined and promoted by a one-sided media that not only reports in favour of one side and against another, but in doing so reinforces whatever prejudices have created the separation of people into 'tribes'.

3) Lastly, 'Moralization' gives you the language which demonizes the other -there is no hope of one party praising another for a real achievement; loyalty to the 'one true party' requires that the 'enemy' be permanently disabled, insulted, abused, ridiculed, and thus make any reconciliation or compromise seem not just absurd, but a betrayal.

Superficially or not, this explains the otherwise daft claim that during this Pandemic, to wear a mask is to identify as a Democrat; not to wear one, a Republican. More worryingly, Republicans believe in armed militias and the Bible more than they seem to believe in Democracy and the Constitution; Democrats appear to be 'More American than You' by seeking to reduce gun ownership and relying constantly on the Constitution to justify its policies.

The article is written in the context of 'Science' which for these authors means the political science of number crunching, and techniques derived from Psychology. While it makes some pertinent arguments, it fails to explain sectarian politics in the context of American and Global history, and fails to do so by contextuazing what has happened in politics over time to produce so lamentable an outcome.

The authors are in my opinion wrong to claim that the sectarian divide is worse in the US than in European or other counties at a similar stage of development as the US. They fail by using their model instead of another, for what has happened in Europe in the last ten years is the fact that parties that in some cases had existed for the best part of 100 years -the Socialist and Social Democratic parties of France, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Greece, are either in disarray, or in the case of the German SPD, appear now to be a Regional rather than a National party, not least because Angela Merkel has adopted or co-opted so many SPD policies as her own.

Moreover, if one looks at the Centre and Right, one finds instability -the French centre centre/right has failed since the end of the Third Republic to create one enduring party -numerous versions came and went from 1918 to 1958, and once de Gaulle parted from the scene his Rassemblement du Peuple Français morphed into variations desiged to be closer or further away from 'the last Great Frenchman'. Italy has moved to the right, but has a coalition of two rather than one party, both of which hate each other. The centre/right Chrisian Democrats who dominated Italy from its origns under de Gasperi in the 1940s to the corrupion scandals of the 1990s, has collapsed and disappeared, and with it a 'rational' Conservative party. The attempt by Silvio Berlusconi to create a solid centre ground party has similarly flopped, with his decade or more in power seen as a giant flop that was more about him than Italy, an early example of a Personality Cult replacing rational politics. Merkel's domination of German politics has raised the most obvious question- who or what can follow her, how, if it does, will Germany change, or remain the same?

Ok, so sectarian politics of the venal loathing we see and hear in the US is not replicated in Europe, not even in the UK (Farage is busted flush) where Brexit has broken the country into pieces but where I suspect there is a desperate hope, undermined by the architect of Brexit, Boris Johnson, that 'it will be alright when it happens' -watch that space. But, and I think this is critical, party politics in Europe has been convulsed in the last 10 years and does not resemble what it was for the previous 90.

This is where history and politics enters the frame, because what the Science authors fail to do, other than identify Newton Gingrich as a pivotal figure in the (de-)Moralization of American party politics, is explain when this trend began and why. Nor does it suggest that there is an even simpler reason for sectarian divides: failure. In this context, it is the profound changes that have taken place to Capitalism that have changed the way we work, where we work, and the rewards we get from work. It is as if the Science team first read their Marx, then decided that it was culture rather than economics that was driving political change -it is clearly both.

Thus, the history, and this is my take on it, shows that the US has never fully healed from the Schism that was created by the Confederate terrorists who attacked the US at Fort Sumter in 1861 and provoked so devastating a war, though one must also put that into the broader context of what Langston Hughes called 'the American heartbreak' -Race-. In the aftermath of that war, the South may have lost its slaves, but it gained the very kind of segregation -physical, ideological, social- that is embedded in the sectarian divide described by the Science team.

Moreover, the 1960s was the Pivotal decade, because not only did Segregation become illegal, as one of its architects LBJ noted ruefully, it meant the Democrats losing the South. Partisan politics did not die immediately, think of Kamala Harris criticising Joe Biden over his warm relations with Southern Bigots, but what happened was a slow 'mission creep' iwith the enduring resentment by the South that 'the North' -ie Democrats- were still trying to dictate to the South how they should live, and above all treat Black Americans as Equals.

From this vantage point, and throw in all 'the others- Feminists, Gays, Transgendered, Environmental Activists- and 'Liberal' no longer describes the American of 1776, but its enemy. It is a country that has surrendered, or capitulated to a mosaic of foreigners and weirdoes who do not stand on the pillars of 'their America' = God, Family, Country.

The climax of this assault on America/Defence of America, was the election of Barack Obama, a point of No Return when a Black Man walked into the White House as President.

From these roots, I see the changes noted by the Science team; my own historical perspective is biased, but at least it is there as a framing device whereas the Science article does not engage in the reality. Crucially, what lies in the space between this sectarian divide is that none of the major parties in America or Europe, with the possble exception of the Germans -and because of their traumatic sectarian and global warfare- has managed the successful transition from a predominatly Industrial to a Service economy since the 1980s. What we have seen are phases of growth and then recession, of mass unemployment and reductions in it, of the phenomemal growth of the global economy, but a division of spoils that rewards '1%' with billions of dollars, while '99%' slump into a stagant pond ever burdened by debt.

Add to this a sorry coda creating its own mendacity: BLAME -what went wrong in the UK? Blame the EU, then leave it. What went wrong in America? Globalization, attack China.

Political parties are at a critical juncture in history, do we even need them? Are we about to see Trump maintain his relentless attack on the US by forming a social movement, an alternative to BLM? But can either of them achieve their aims outside Congress? Maybe this is just a phase the US is going through, and four years from now, Trump will have been exposed as a tax cheat, a fraud whose property empire was built using tax-payer loans, whose value is inflated, its tenants powerless and afraid. And people, even his current supporters tired of his permanent references to himself as a Great Man, with no viable policies on which to build an alternatiive America.

Or maybe he just wants to go down in flames, like Atlanta, defeated, exhausted, and irrelevant.

[Stavros]

I shoud add with regard to the comparison between US and European parties, that the disarray in Europe has not happened in the US where there has been a stable, some would argue, stagnant two party system for most of the last 100 years. Morevoer, not only has this duopoly not been successfully challenged, the phenonemon of Trump has shown that the only way for a Maverick outsider to succeed has been through the existing system -the Republican Party may not be the the Party of Lincoln, or Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon or either GHW or GW Bush, but the US still has a two party system. As for the radical changes that were promised in 2016, the incoming President merely smothered Washington DC in a swamp of corruption and lies to take advantage of the financial opportunities for himself and his familly, so one wonders why anyone can be fooled into thinking he changed anything for the better.

I think it means that, for example, the Black Panther Party in is original and its contempory forms, could, and can never be more than a fringe party with minimal impact on the party system. It remains to be seen if Third Party candidates and parties, from Ralph Nader and the Greens in elections of the past, or the Liberarian Party in the 2020 election, were effective alternatives, but in closely fought elections with two parties competing for the most votes, alternatives merely make the victory of the Democrats or Republicans more or less likely, they do not change the balance of power, which remains in a Congress where only two parties rule -and is it surprising that when there is an Independent candidate winning an election, as with Bernie Sanders, he does not seek the Presidency as an Independent, but as a Democrat?

It poses the question: why do Americans have only two dominant political parties? Is it the simplicity of choosing either/or? Where are the regional parties, for example, in Alaska or Hawaii, or even Califoriina? For example, the UK has the Scottish National Party, and neither the Conservatives nor the Labour Party seek election in Northern Ireland, so while Labour and the Conservtives dominate, certanly in Governmet, the UK has greater diversity of political representation.

With the final question -can the US change its party politics? What would change look like?

[filghy2]

It poses the question: why do Americans have only two dominant political parties? Is it the simplicity of choosing either/or? Where are the regional parties, for example, in Alaska or Hawaii, or even Califoriina? For example, the UK has the Scottish National Party, and neither the Conservatives nor the Labour Party seek election in Northern Ireland, so while Labour and the Conservtives dominate, certanly in Governmet, the UK has greater diversity of political representation.

I think the electoral system has a lot to do with it. A 'winner take all' system will naturally tend towards duopoly because minor parties find it almost impossible the get into a position where they have any influence, which means a vote for them is essentially wasted. The only exception is where their support base is sufficiently concentrated, as with the SNP.

In Australia the two major parties only receive about 75% of the vote nowadays, and much of that seems attributable to the electoral system:
- the upper house is based on proportional representation, so minor parties often hold the balance of power
- the lower house is based on preferential voting, which means that a vote for minor parties is not wasted and they can have influence through their recommendations on preferences

If you look at the US electoral map, there are in a sense two regional parties called the Republican and Democratic parties. Republicans are the party of middle America and the South, and Democrats are the party of the East and West coasts and the Great Lakes. In Australia support for the two major parties is fairly evenly spread, so that every state changes hands periodically. There are large parts of the USA where that never happens.

[sukumvit boy]

Thanks,Stavros, for that excellent summary of the "Science" magazine article and your erudite critique . And flighty2 for your Australian perspective on the issue. I understand that voting in Federal elections in Australia is compulsory! Your Australian and UK proportional representational systems are certainly better ,in my view , than our "stagnant"2 party system.

[sukumvit boy]

I only hope that, as the authors of the article stated, our poisonous sectarianism "is neither inevitable nor irreversible" . I hope election finance reform,reform of social media algorithms, and a spirit of respect for opposing points of view can and will follow.
Reminds me of the Dali Lama injunction,"Be kind whenever possible,it is always possible."

[Stavros]

Your Australian and UK proportional representational systems are certainly better ,in my view , than our "stagnant"2 party system.

It is a mixed bag in the UK -Parliamentary Elections are Single Member Simple Plurality -ie, first past the post, winner takes all. There are various PR systems in regional elections, particularly in Scotland and Norther Ireland -this article addressed those systems.
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/where-is-proportional-representation-used-in-the-uk/

PR has been rejected as the method for electing the UK Goverrnment in Parliament, most recently in the 2011 Referendum. I oppose PR because it is an entry into politics of small parties, and usually not effective ones -we had a Coalition in 2010 because Cameron failed to convince enough people to vote Conservative, but sharing power with the Liberal-Democrats, allegedly to the left of the Conservatves did not prevent the economic austerity measures that Government embarked upon which have caused so much damage to the NHS and our public services.

The real concern is that PR would give an entry into politics of New Wave Fascists like Nigel Farage, which is something to be avoided- he has never been able to get elected to Parliament after 7 attempts, and his party rarely wins a substantial vote. If you want a comparison, look at the extremist parties in Israel who become part of the Government even when they get barely 5% of the vote -indeed, though Netanyahu didn't need such extremists to expand illegal settlement activity in the Occupied Territories, most of the fringe parties support it anyway. The UK has been broken by Brexit, to introduce PR for Parliamentary elections would, in my view, aggravate the misery of Brexit by creating one unstable Government after another, no one party capable of forming it -and we may be headed for political instabity anyway, so why make it worse?

What is more pertinent is what has been said before -is Trump going to create a new movement or party, or insist on leading the Republican Party -and will they get rid of him between now and the mid-terms in 2022, or after that if he fails to take the House and Senate?

[filghy2]

And flighty2 for your Australian perspective on the issue. I understand that voting in Federal elections in Australia is compulsory! Your Australian and UK proportional representational systems are certainly better ,in my view , than our "stagnant"2 party system.

Australia was only created as a federation in 1901, so we had the advantage of being able to learn from other countries' experiences. Our 'founding fathers' studied other systems (especially the US, UK and Canada) and tried to combine what they saw as the best features. I think they were very wise to reject a presidential system because too much power in the hands of one person seems to be one of your big problems.

Proportional representation is used only in the Senate, so it doesn't determine who forms the government. The House of Reps where the government if formed is based on preferential voting in single-member electorates. How this works is explained in the link, but the general principle is to ensure that the winning candidate is acceptable to more than 50% of voters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia

Politics in Australia is much less polarised and dysfunctional than in the US, and I think much of that has to do with the electoral system, as well as the fact that extreme views (eg anti-government or religious fundamentalism) have never got much support here. The features of the system (compulsory voting, preferential voting, an independent electoral commission) mean that the major parties must try to appeal to the middle ground rather than focussing on their own enthusiasts. They certainly cannot hope to form government if more than half of the country dislikes them. In our system, Donald Trump would never have succeeded and the Republican Party would be in deep trouble.

[broncofan]

Are you guys willing to tackle a niche issue like New York v. Chicago pizza? I think Mr. Fanti was right in that you need some experience on the ground to offer an opinion on this one.

In my view Chicago pizza lovers are becoming like a third party. In popularity it's New York pizza, then two week old leftover lasagna, then Chicago deep dish.

In all seriousness, I'm enjoying reading this discussion, please continue!

[sukumvit boy]

WHAT ? Oh,LOL.
At first I thought you were talking about the 'pizzagate' conspiracy ...

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

[broncofan]

No no. I was talking about one of the most divisive cultural issues of our time:).

Filghy, to what extent do you think antigovernment views are less a function of our system of voting and instead an unfortunate reading of real provisions of our Constitution? Although we have a unitary executive, the bill of rights is intended to be a bulwark against government encroachment on personal liberties. While there is a difference between putting speech beyond the power of legislation to encumber and believing all regulations infringe on unspecified but preserved liberties, the distinctions aren't always clear except where specific rights are enumerated. We have a history in this country of being suspicious of government, including government's beneficence in ameliorating social problems, and the electoral system makes it difficult to overcome that large faction of extremists who consider kindness to be tyranny and actual tyranny to be strength.

[filghy2]

Filghy, to what extent do you think antigovernment views are less a function of our system of voting and instead an unfortunate reading of real provisions of our Constitution?

I think your historical origins and the mythologies than have grown from this have a lot to do with it. The USA was created as a reaction against perceived tyranny of the British government. Australia was created as a project of the same government (indeed, as a direct result of US independence) and continued to be dependent on it for a long time. We never developed a mythology that our way of life depended on freedom from government.

[broncofan]

I think your historical origins and the mythologies than have grown from this have a lot to do with it. The USA was created as a reaction against perceived tyranny of the British government.
I've mentioned this on here before but in the early 1900s there were Supreme Court cases that were successfully brought invalidating various economic regulations because they were believed to violate the "liberty to contract". This was known as the Lochner era, because the plaintiff in the first case was named Lochner and the subsequent cases adopted the same shoddy reasoning as the Lochner case. Anyhow, I'm sure there are more interesting reads on the subject than the wikipedia article I'm going to post but it was a 40 year period of time where child labor laws and all sorts of very useful and humane laws were actually held to be unconstitutional. So even if it's not what our founders had in mind it's a viewpoint that was endorsed by our high court for 40 years and resulted in 159 statutes being overturned because they interfered with the marketplace.

Of course I could talk all day about how Republicans have contradicted themselves about the freedom of the marketplace because while they object to laws requiring businesses to serve lgbt customers they don't seem to think storeowners retain the prerogative to require patrons to wear masks in a pandemic! Go figure.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era#:~:text=The%20Lochner%20era%20is%20a,t he%20State%20to%20implement%20its

[Stavros]

Politics in Australia is much less polarised and dysfunctional than in the US, and I think much of that has to do with the electoral system, as well as the fact that extreme views (eg anti-government or religious fundamentalism) have never got much support here. The features of the system (compulsory voting, preferential voting, an independent electoral commission) mean that the major parties must try to appeal to the middle ground rather than focussing on their own enthusiasts. They certainly cannot hope to form government if more than half of the country dislikes them. In our system, Donald Trump would never have succeeded and the Republican Party would be in deep trouble.

I don't know much about Australian politics, but is it not the case that while your party system appears to be stable, the incumbents are not -in the past Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard straddles the years 1975-2007 and lasted more than one term in office, whereas since 2000 including the end of the Howard era, there have been seven Prime Ministers, at least one or two removals from the 'stab in the back' rather than elections, and was not Julia Gillard the most publicly abused Prime Minister since Gough Whitlam- maybe even more so?

[Stavros]

I can understand why individual liberty is embedded in the US Constitution, and that the Pilgrim Fathers enjoyed the kind of freedom they lacked in England, the Netherlands and the German speaking lands from which they came. And yet, the personal lliberty of the Pilgrims was in fact ring-fenced by the religion they freely practiced which imposed rules upon their communities.

In the case of the Revolution and its Constitution, fundamental to the operation of a Liberal Democracy is the fact that individuals agree to surrender a degree of indiividual liberty to the State in order to receive the protection of the State from external and internal harm. Thus, the rule of law is created that both permits and limits what citizens can do, so there has never been much substance to the argument that some Libertarians claim- Government is the problem, not the solution. There may be too much, or not enough Government, and is reasonable, but I feel Libertarians cherry pick their issues for ideological, not practical reasons.

For all their belief that markets work better than Governments, the argument that an armed militia is superior to an armed law enforcement service is weak, if it even exists. For all their braggadocio, I don't see the Boogaloo Bois, the Proud Boys, the Oathkeepers, or the 3 Percenters arguing they should police America, the sad fact being that many LE officers across the USA wear 3 Percenter badges so there is no need to 'defund' the police on Libertarian grounds, as they have all but merged with the armed militia.

There is also the argument that Republicans want to maximise market choices and individual liberty, but how would the market, rather than Government deal with the Covid-19 Pandemic, not just with regard to the funding of the medical campaign, but with regard to the furlough schemes for businesses that cannot operate due to the public health crisis? Surely if the market is always right, then if a business collapses owing to Covid-19 that's just tough. When the pandemic is over, they can start again, right? And why should taxpayers pay others not to work?

Moreover, if Government has an obligation to protect citizens, which in the case of a pandemic/epidemic is surely right, then how can the politicians opposed to barrier methods -masks, hand sanitation in public areas, lockdowns and restrictions on movement to short-circuit the spread of the virus -refuse to implement them on the grounds it violates individual liberty, or should be a matter of 'personal choice'?

To vilify social responsibility as some sort of an attack on liberty is weak, yet it comes from a party and other like-minded individuals or groups who are just as keen to tell Americans what they should, or should not be doing in their bedrooms, and who proclaim they are, in relation to Abortion, 'Pro-Life' while at the same time saying nothing about the pregnant women who have equal rights as citizens. Can the rights and liberties of a foetus really be more important indeed, replace the rights of a tax-paying citizen?

Sometimes partisan politics looks like a dead end, ad one is surprised there are not more dead citizens as a result, or maybe this is the true cost of sectarian politics -but will Americans learn from this?

[filghy2]

I don't know much about Australian politics, but is it not the case that while your party system appears to be stable, the incumbents are not -in the past Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard straddles the years 1975-2007 and lasted more than one term in office, whereas since 2000 including the end of the Howard era, there have been seven Prime Ministers, at least one or two removals from the 'stab in the back' rather than elections, and was not Julia Gillard the most publicly abused Prime Minister since Gough Whitlam- maybe even more so?

There was a period of constant leadership turnover, but it seems to have receded as the parties realised it was counter-productive and rules were changed were made to make it harder to trigger a leadership challenge.

Our system is far from perfect. There is a lot of short-termism that makes it hard to deal with longer-term challenges; climate change, in particular, has become a political football. However, the response to COVID-19 shows that the system still retains a capacity to deal competently in a bipartisan way with crises. Compared to the two countries we have looked to as exemplars in the past, we are in a much better place.

[filghy2]

To return to the original issue about polarisation, it's often argued that tribalism and fear/hostility toward 'the other' have evolutionary roots in the strategies that helped primitive man to survive. The same can be said of the attraction toward autocratic 'strongman' leaders.

Human progress over recent centuries has arguably been based on overcoming the limitations of these primal instincts, in particular through evidence-based knowledge and development of political and legal institutions that allowed conflict and disagreement to be managed in more civilised ways.

The big problem we now face is the concerted efforts, mostly by right-wing populists, to undermine the legitimacy of both knowledge and institutions. The very notion that these have an existence or role independent of partisan interest is under severe challenge. If this is not addressed we face the risk of going backwards.

What can be done about this is less clear. The key thing that has enabled this trend seems to be the fragmentation and siloisation of information media, which will be difficult to reverse. I have put a lot of hope in the prospect that the incompetence of populists in office would discredit them, but the US election suggestions that this works in only a muted way.

[blackchubby38]

I'm going to post this article here. Its long, it not explains why the last 4 years happened, but may give some insight as to how the United States can move forward:

www.yahoo.com/news/trump-showed-us-america-005554050.html

[Stavros]

I'm going to post this article here. Its long, it not explains why the last 4 years happened, but may give some insight as to how the United States can move forward:
www.yahoo.com/news/trump-showed-us-america-005554050.html (http://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-showed-us-america-005554050.html)


I'm going to post this article here. Its long, it not explains why the last 4 years happened, but may give some insight as to how the United States can move forward:
www.yahoo.com/news/trump-showed-us-america-005554050.html (http://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-showed-us-america-005554050.html)

Thank you for this link, which contains some genuinely thoughtful contributions, but many of which, to me are based on a denial of what others say, for what I think is most obvious about them is the extent to which Americans are divided by their own perceptions of who they are and what their country is.

There is not a lot that is original about this, Charles Beard famously upset a lot of people when he argued that the Constitution was a document written by wealthy men for the benefit of other wealthy men. It is ironic is it not, that the people who now seem to endorse this view as the one they prefer are not on the left as Beard was, but the 'Orginalists' in the judiciary who see 'their Constitution' as the means to prevent the USA from being ruled as a Rainbow Nation, by Rainbow People who to them see politics as the journey to the end of the Rainbow. Race, as ever, is fundamental to the divisions of America, but so too is Capitalism, the rock the contributors cannot identify properly even as it sticks in their throat.

So,
a) on Race we have the argument that BLM is the expression of Black alienation, and not just with Law Enforcement, juxtaposed with the alienation of White America that feels it is losing its control of the country they created, shut out of its benefits. In theory, a Marxist would identify false consciousness uniting these two groups which, exposed and fought against, can end their collective misery. Yet we are told that Marxists have shaped the BLM which appears to me neither willing nor able to make common cause with White America, and howcan they when the Law Enforcement Officers 'at war' with Black America wear III Percent logos on their uniform?
On this, the ultimate fact is that Marx was wrong, and that the US proves that class solidarity cannot co-exist with racial fragmentation -it begs the question, can the USA ever reconcile the divisions shaped by 'Race'?

b) the conribution by Bauerlein is one of the best, yet he describes something he does not explain, thus-
"It wasn’t Trump’s politics that disgusted the college presidents, celebrity actors, Google VPs, D.C. operatives and the rest. It was because he pinpointed them as the problem—the reason factories and small stores had closed, unemployment was bad, and PC culture had cast them as human debris. And millions cheered. This was unforgivable to the elites. They sputtered in reply, which only confirmed that our betters aren’t so smart or skilled or savvy, and not so virtuous either, though very good at self-help. The outburst was a long time coming. Trump gave it an outlet, and the scorn for men and women at the top of our country is now widespread and frank. It’s not going to pass any time soon."

-Bauerlein identifies what for me is the fundamental problem- factories and small stores had closed, unemployment was bad, and PC culture had cast them as human debris- but fails to point out that the USA has adopted Capitalism as its national economic ideology, but has become a victim of it too. The word 'Globalization' is commonly used, but why not Capitalism?

And, why is this malaise in the US blamed on 'elites' with a college education when it is pretty much all of the US that has collaborated with the Capitalist Pact? If you look at it from the perspective of Capitalism, the US is divided between those who prefer markets over the state, and those who use the state to manage markets.

This is where the true fault-line exists that accounts for the decline of heavy industry, the stagnation of wages, the anxiety that the future is going to be worse than the past.

But who is responsible for this? The same class of Corporate capitalists that produced Trump, the Koch brothers, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Elon Musk benefited from 'globalization' but cannot reproduce its benefits in the US because the cost of American labour is too high.
And the reality is that American had its heavy industry for just under a century before global developments undercut domestic industry -so the logic of Capitalism kicked in: when there was over-capacity in the Steel industry, the mills had to close. When oil and gas became cheaper and more efficient than coal, the Mines had to close. When factories producing a commodity at a dollar an hour could not compete with the Asian factory producing at one cent an hour, the factory had to close.

It has been the height of hypocrisy for the marshals of American capitalism to blame globalization for their own preferences. It is even more hypocritical for Libertarians to argue there is too much intervention by the State in the economy when so much of the US economy is now dependent on Federal and local state contracts the the US economy would collapse if it were dependent solely on market forces. If you want to know why wages have stagnated in the last 30 years, look at successive Democrat and Republican Governments that have rewarded the big businesses they give contracts to, to secure the 'social peace' that would break down if markets alone were the source of jobs and income, but how they conceded to Capitalism through 'regulation lite' the opportunity to constrain excesses in banking, and how they simply did not care when 1% awarded itself interstellar salaries while the shop floor got peanuts, if they were lucky.

To me so many people are in denial about the fundamentals of American capitalism. On the political front, it is clear to me that the fringes of American politics in the past remained on the fringe because in the absence of a universal internet, most Americans had never heard of them -even today, who remembers Lyndon Larouche? But here we are, and in the case of the GOP, the lunatics have taken over the asylum. People who would never have got near the party in the past have become its Congressional Representatives, its Senators, and now its President.

Sour grapes from elitists with degrees from celebated universities should not obscure something few of the contributors refer to. How the GOP, by becoming a Sectarian party to distinguish itself from the Democrats in terms of us-vs-them, either/or, has simultaneously marginalized itself from mainstream America while attracting the margins into its ranks
-compare the Conservative Governments of David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson, with its senior ministers who are Female, Jewish, Black, Asian and Gay, with successive Republican Administrations that have been for the most part White and Male only. When Lindsay Graham complained that postal ballots would result in a permanent Democrat government, he exposed the weakest element of his own own party: its inability to attract. For if the GOP wants to win Congress and the White House, it needs to appeal to more Americans, whether they vote in person or by mail.

By shutting itself off from so many Americans, the Republican Party seems doomed to be a minority party, more dependent on the margins than the centre. Just as the USA's embrace of capitalism has undermined its economy, so its politics appears to have failed by not addressing that most basic argument: that the people who make the wealth of America should have an equal share of it. This component of the discourse is absent, yet its absence points to the constant denial of reality as its cascades through health, education, housing, transport and the environment. The contributors often feel positive about the consequences of Trump, and how such negative copy can be transformed into something positive.

But it also needs to address the grievances, and do what Trump has so spectacuarly failed to do: produce practical solutions that the majority of Americans can see work for them. On the plus side, the US economy is large enough and diverse enough to survive, but on the minus side, I fear a generation of young Americans is facing a decade or more of unemployment in a slow-and-low growth economy, and the social consequences of that, with the race factor added, makes for a difficult, and painful journey into the future.

[Stavros]

The link below is to the latest issue of The Times Literary Supplement, and a review article that explains how the 'Christian' Fundamentaists have 'taken over' the Republican Party -another form of sectarian, and rather scary politics. Worth reading.

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/how-christian-fundamentalists-took-over-the-republican-party/

[broncofan]

The House voted to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee roles. The ideas she has promoted are about the most deranged and racist and dangerously delusional ideas a person can promote. I read today she reposted a video that was basically great replacement theory warning about "miscegenation".

I read the vote to remove her was a bipartisan vote. Is that what they say if there's one Republican in the House with an ounce of decency? 11 Republicans in total voted to remove her from her committee roles. I never thought I'd see so many politicians behave as if they have no moral core at all.

[broncofan]

https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1295792219094491136

It goes on and on. Violent racist thinks Muslims can't serve in the House of Representatives, but is supported by most Republican Congressmen.

[Stavros]

The House voted to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee roles. The ideas she has promoted are about the most deranged and racist and dangerously delusional ideas a person can promote. I read today she reposted a video that was basically great replacement theory warning about "miscegenation".

I read the vote to remove her was a bipartisan vote. Is that what they say if there's one Republican in the House with an ounce of decency? 11 Republicans in total voted to remove her from her committee roles. I never thought I'd see so many politicians behave as if they have no moral core at all.

According to press reports, she received a 'standing ovation' when she spoke, would be interesting to know what she said. As I have argued before, unless you create the kind of party system we have in Europe, with formal membership requirements, extremists like Taylor-Greene (and Trump too) would never be selected let alone elected to represent the party. The best people like her could hope for is to be a local politician somewhere if independents or minority parties ever get their people into office. She attracts too much attention because of her views, others, like Paul Gosar have been on the fringes for years, he even invited 'Tommy Robinson' to visit the US. In the end you have the system of political representation that you are reluctant to reform.

[sukumvit boy]

According to press reports, she received a 'standing ovation' when she spoke, would be interesting to know what she said. As I have argued before, unless you create the kind of party system we have in Europe, with formal membership requirements, extremists like Taylor-Greene (and Trump too) would never be selected let alone elected to represent the party. The best people like her could hope for is to be a local politician somewhere if independents or minority parties ever get their people into office. She attracts too much attention because of her views, others, like Paul Gosar have been on the fringes for years, he even invited 'Tommy Robinson' to visit the US. In the end you have the system of political representation that you are reluctant to reform.
Yes ,we are reluctant to change our system . Such as the Electoral College system,after the tragedy of Trump's 2016 win I studied the system and I came to the conclusion that we should keep it.

[Stavros]

Yes ,we are reluctant to change our system . Such as the Electoral College system,after the tragedy of Trump's 2016 win I studied the system and I came to the conclusion that we should keep it.

I can see the logic of the Electoral College, and the original intention of fairness, and I don't suppose the people who designed it ever expected that it would produce the opposite outcome it was intended to. That said, what, if anything, would you change?

[sukumvit boy]

I can see the logic of the Electoral College, and the original intention of fairness, and I don't suppose the people who designed it ever expected that it would produce the opposite outcome it was intended to. That said, what, if anything, would you change?
I don't think the 'zero sum game' nature of the two party system is serving us well . I think we need to provide a way for a more diverse mix of political philosophies to get in the act of daily government and legislation. For example I love many of Bernie Sander's 'Socialist' ideas such as healthcare for all and the need to vigorously address the kind of rampant 'one percenter' income inequality we are struggling with ,and was sad to see him have to drop out.

[filghy2]

Yes ,we are reluctant to change our system . Such as the Electoral College system,after the tragedy of Trump's 2016 win I studied the system and I came to the conclusion that we should keep it.


I don't think the 'zero sum game' nature of the two party system is serving us well . I think we need to provide a way for a more diverse mix of political philosophies to get in the act of daily government and legislation.

When you say you favour keeping the electoral college do you mean the method for determining how many votes states get, the 'winner take all' system that operates in virtually every state or the indirect method of election? The three elements are separable.

If you want to weaken the duopoly I think you should favour shifting away from the 'winner take all' system to one where every vote counts equally and no voters can be disregarded. That would force candidates to appeal to as wide a cross-section of voters as possible, rather than appealing primarily to their own partisans. There are a number of options that could acihieve this more effectively, including election of the president by popular vote, ranked preferential voting and/or proportional representation.

[Stavros]

I am not sure how the US can reform given the power that States have to design their electoral system, and resist any attempts by the Federal Govt to change that. On the one hand, one cannot see either main party giving up their hold on office, on the other hand, if the Republicans split, one or both factions might see some form of PR a means of remaining in office, if the split vote keeps them out of power. But the more urgent task is to tacke gerrymandering and voter suppression.

The problem with PR is that it may appear to be a fair reflection of the way people vote, and thus return a Parliament/Congress that more closely represents the people, but it doesn't mean it results in fair government. If no party wins enough to rule on its own, a Coalition is required, and more often than not, is the consequence of PR. This in turn tends to make either for inefficient government or through policy failures can ruin the fate of a party in the Coalition -the Liberal Democrats formed a Coalition with the Conservatives in 2010 but were punished in 2015 and relegated to being a party of minimal importance. Although the Democratic Unionist Party were not in Coalition with Theresa May's Government after the 2017 election, they held the balance of power in the Commons, but used it to ruin May's attempt to pass the EU Withdrawal Bill. Not only were they then punished in 2019 by becoming an irrelevance in a Conservative Majority Commons, their chershed links with the UK are now under threat to the extent that they face the prospect of losing a popular referendum in Northern Ireland on unity with the South, as the local economy is hammered by the Brexit reaities that Boris Johnson doesn't care a fig for Northern Ireland and may try to change or amend the Northern Ireland Protocol but cannot change the fact that the UK is not in the EU, but NI is half-in, half-out.

Again, if you look at Israel, or West Germany when the Free Democrats held the balance of power, PR offers parties with minimal public support key roles in Government and with policies that the majority may not want. Israel is a good example of how parties with barely 3 or 4% of the vote can determine the fate of the country -so that in these cases, PR as a voting mechanism may fairly represent the voters at large, but cannot guarantee that Government represents the country more fairly, or is even efficient. One can look at the endless negotiations that follow elections to form a government in Belgium and Italy to realise PR more often than not results in an incoherent mess.

[filghy2]

If PR was to be tried in the US system the logical place would be in the Senate, as is the case in Australia. I think the system generally works quite well in Australia. The governing party cannot just ram its legislation through the Senate, but has to negotiate with the minor parties, which results in improvements more often than not. You might call that inefficiency, but efficiency isn't everything - dictatorships are very efficient.

If the starting point is a system characterised by gridlock (because the same party rarely controls all three arms of govt) it's not a very convincing objection to say that PR would cause gridlock.

[sukumvit boy]

When you say you favour keeping the electoral college do you mean the method for determining how many votes states get, the 'winner take all' system that operates in virtually every state or the indirect method of election? The three elements are separable.

If you want to weaken the duopoly I think you should favour shifting away from the 'winner take all' system to one where every vote counts equally and no voters can be disregarded. That would force candidates to appeal to as wide a cross-section of voters as possible, rather than appealing primarily to their own partisans. There are a number of options that could acihieve this more effectively, including election of the president by popular vote, ranked preferential voting and/or proportional representation.
Yes, but without the Electoral Collage the combined vote of the east and west coasts alone would win. Good video on Amazon Prime and I'm sure many other sources...

[filghy2]

Yes, but without the Electoral Collage the combined vote of the east and west coasts alone would win. Good video on Amazon Prime and I'm sure many other sources...

That can't be correct. The combined population of East and West coasts comes to about half the total US population, and obviously they don't all vote for one party. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population#:~:text=List%20o f%20U.S.%20states%20by%20population%20%20,%20%2019 ,378,102%20%208%20more%20rows

In any case isn't government by majority rule the essence of democracy, subject to everyone having basic legal rights protected? The interests of smaller states can still be protected by the Senate.

[sukumvit boy]

Yes, I stand corrected regarding my hasty statement .However even at "about half of the total US population" that leaves the "flyover states" rural ,agrarian,and conservative at a severe disadvantage in choosing their next president .That's the problem the Electoral Collage was designed to address.
When I set out to satisfy my curiosity and learn more about the EC system I went into it of the opinion that this is a terrible system . However I came away with a better appreciation of the problems the system was designed to prevent. Can it be improved? Yes, no doubt . But discarded altogether ?,I think not.

[Stavros]

I wonder how Americans view the Founding Fathers with regard to the Electoral College. I can see the argumnt in favour of it based on the equitable distribution of votes that would otherwise mean large and populous states always dominating the outcome, but in a sense that happens if a State becomes so large its College Votes increase, and also if that State awards all of its College votes to the candidate in the election with the most votes.

Now consider that when the Constitution was signed in 1787 there were only 13 States, and neither women nor slaves had the right to vote. The language of the Constitution does not mention this, which has worked in the favour of 'the People', but conceptually, are we not dealing with -is it a paradox?- the fact that the 'Original' intention was that the Constitution would only apply to Men? It appears to some that the principles have held, that even with a significant expansion of both the number of States in the Union and the extension of the right to vote to, the system devised in the 18th century has survived. I don't think at the time, the men who wrote the Constitution envisaged that the College votes would either be close, or result in a popular vote in the General Election that was not ratified by the Electoral College -but I am not sure of this and maybe someone can clear that up.

[filghy2]

Yes, I stand corrected regarding my hasty statement .However even at "about half of the total US population" that leaves the "flyover states" rural ,agrarian,and conservative at a severe disadvantage in choosing their next president .That's the problem the Electoral Collage was designed to address.

That doesn't actually require the President to be chosen by an Electoral College though. That seems to be a constitutional crisis just waiting to happen. What if the Republican delegates in a few key states this year had been Trumpists who chose to ignore the vote count?

I'm also wondering how you expect to break down the two-party duopoly if you don't want to change the existing system.

[filghy2]

I can see the argumnt in favour of it based on the equitable distribution of votes that would otherwise mean large and populous states always dominating the outcome, but in a sense that happens if a State becomes so large its College Votes increase, and also if that State awards all of its College votes to the candidate in the election with the most votes.

That's a good point. If there was no 'winner take all' system the dominance of larger states would be lessened because their EC votes would be distributed more evenly. it would also eliminate much of the wrangling over margins of a few hundred or thousand votes.

[filghy2]

However even at "about half of the total US population" that leaves the "flyover states" rural ,agrarian,and conservative at a severe disadvantage in choosing their next president.

The more I think about this, the more I think that position is dubious. The problem is that it views people according to the single dimension of which state they live in, rather than as individuals with multiple dimensions; eg race/ethnicity, sex, age, socio-economic status, family situation, occupation, etc. Are these other dimensions less important than where they live?

Consider that according to the last Census 62% of the US population are non-hispanic whites. Couldn't it be equally said that this puts non-white people at a disadvantage in choosing the President? Couldn't the same be said for any group that is in a minority on some important dimension?

[sukumvit boy]

(off topic)
The Imperial Chinese 'Examination System' served them well for over 2000 years ,and it was very democratic and educational merit based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China#Imperial_China

[filghy2]

A recent poll by the American Enterprise Institute (conservative think-tank) provides a good insight into Republican voters' attitudes.
- 79% of them agreed that the political system is "stacked against conservatives and people with traditional values"
- 56% agreed that "The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it."
- 39% agreed that "if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions."

https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/after-the-ballots-are-counted-conspiracies-political-violence-and-american-exceptionalism/

In addition, 65% of Republicans agreed that last year's election was marred by widespread fraud, 50% thought that antifa was mostly responsible for the Capitol riots, and 29% agreed with the QAnon conspiracy (with another 43% undecided).

Perhaps not surprisingly, these views are correlated with religious and racial attitudes, with white evangelicals far more likely to agree with the statements.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/11/966498544/a-scary-survey-finding-4-in-10-republicans-say-political-violence-may-be-necessa
Three-quarters of Republicans also agreed that discrimination against Whites is now as great a problem in the US as discrimination against Blacks and other minorities, consistent with other evidence that racial resentment/anxiety is a strong indicator of support for Trump. This group was also more likely to agree that political violence may be necessary.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/14/politics/republican-extremism-trump-impeachment/index.html

In light of recent events, this raises the question of whether the Republican Party might turn into a de facto fascist party. Fascism is difficult to define, but three of the key elements seem to be a leadership cult, willingness to use violence for political purposes and some kind of ethno-nationalist agenda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

[filghy2]

As a companion piece, this is a good discussion of factors that promote mass radicalisation.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/11/mass-radicalization-trump-insurrection-468746

"First, you have to have a vulnerable audience receptive to the extremist narrative—individuals who are scared, angry, isolated and looking for answers that satisfy their own personal biases, looking to cast blame for their problems on someone else. They find narratives that tell them their problems are not their fault; it’s the product of a conspiracy trying to undermine your way of life and well-being.

The second thing you need is an influential voice pushing the extremist narrative. And over the past 4½ years, we have had a very influential political leader [President Donald Trump] pushing a narrative that is not only polarizing—not only highlighting that the right and left are far apart on policy issues and disagree on discretionary spending—it’s a narrative of “othering.” It’s a narrative that casts the other side as evil, as “enemies,” as individuals you have to fight at all costs in order to preserve your way of life.

The final thing you need is a mechanism to spread that narrative to the masses. Historically, mass radicalization took time. If an influential leader wanted to spread a message, they’d do it through newspapers or political speeches in towns and cities throughout their country, and it could take a while for that message to spread. But that’s not our reality anymore.

Our reality now is one in which a radicalizing message can be broadcast to hundreds of millions of people in a matter of seconds. And if it catches on, you’re virtually guaranteed that millions of people will [believe] that narrative. We’ve seen this in the more traditional forms of media, with outlets like Fox News pushing some of these conspiratorial views, but we’ve also seen it with social media companies not cracking down on this rhetoric early, and instead letting it fester."

[Stavros]

I would argue we are seeing a revival in the form of a 'New Wave Fascism' that attempts to rescue the original ideas of the Nation from the lamentable histories of Italy and the variants as experienced in Spain and, via Military Coups those 'Fascist' or 'Fascistic' versions in South Korea, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Greece and a host of African countries.

The key thinker to me is Roger Scruton, who in the years prior to his death moved away from his original work on Aesthetics to chamipion the view that European and American Capitalism and Democracy was rooted in, indeed, built upon Judeo-Chrstian Civilization. He used this in the Introduction to Bill O'Reilly's abysmal book The Closing of the Muslim Mind, because Scruton rejects any claim that Islam has had any influence on Europe -not in Maths, Geometry, Medicine, History, Geography and so on, indeed sees Islam as a theat to the integrity of the Nation, which is also how sees the concept of 'Ever Closer Union' that has driven the evolution of the European Union since the 1950s.

In some cases, the Christian legacy is vital for Scruton, in others, such as the second of the American appraisals linked below it is downplayed. Michael Gove was a supporter of Scruton, and I believe Steve Bannon too. In Bannon's case, the New Wave Fascism he extols believes there is nothing that the USA needs that cannot be made in the USA, hence 'America First' and a belief that all the production offshored to China and the rest of the world can, indeed should be repatriated to the USA. It is summed up in the core beliefs of Italian Fascism -'Everything Within the State. Nothing Outside the State. Nothing Against the State'

A key element of this New Wave Fascism is the concept of loyalty, which is, I think intended to replace any idea that Race is or should determine who the Citizen is to whom the State belongs. It means it is possible to be a Jew, maybe even Black and be a citizen, but the dilemma is how one defines this loyalty, particularly if for Scruton, a Religious element is desirable, even essential. His hostilty to Secularism and Islam is based on the tendency of advanced capitalist states to be either secular, in the case of the 'original' community, or religious in the case of immigrant communities, but an 'alien' religion that threatens the identity of 'Who We Are; threatening to relegate it to 'Who We Were'.

The dilemmas mount: New Wave Fascism is opposed to Globalization, but can any economy survive in isolation from the rest of the world?

What does one do with those citizens who fail the loyalty test?

Scruton's view here-
https://www.roger-scruton.com/articles/276-the-need-for-nations

An American view here-
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/08/burdens-belonging-roger-scrutons-nation-state/

Another US view here-
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/02/roger-scruton-nation-state-responsibility-intellectuals-tina-mccormick.html

[broncofan]

I often am reluctant to use the word fascist because people can be pedantic about what qualifies. One might expect authoritarianism to be necessary but often societies on the precipice of embracing fascism have maintained the appearance of ordinary process but are functionally authoritarian. The focus in some definitions on corporatism or bureaucracy seems to be concerned with how such societies tend to operate rather than the core of fascist ideology.

I like Umberto Eco's list in the link posted by Filghy quite a lot. Of note, fear of modernism, obsession with a plot, contempt for the weak, selective populism, and machismo. If you break down Eco's definition of selective populism it kind of tracks with a cult of personality but explains why supporters of the cult will not view themselves as engaging in hero worship. The will of the people is created and interpreted by the person at the head of the cult. Really the head of the cult confabulates a code and the followers are left to justify it.

While Eco doesn't focus on race or nationalism they are embedded in a lot of the categories. The category of selective populism focuses only on the will of certain people and that can track race, ethnicity, and religion. I've often heard echoes of that when Republicans discuss real Americans, a category that definitely seems to focus on white people, but is a subset of white that have maintained their authenticity somehow by rejecting many modern ideas.

[Stavros]

Part of the problem is that 'Fascist' was used as a term of abuse by the left, sometimes by others, and resonated with a generation old enough to have either fought it, or or who knew people who did. It summoned up images of Blackshirts imposing Fascist rule through violence and thuggery, a one-party state, the 'great Leader' or 'Duce' not much different from the Fuhrerprinzip that has been identified in National Socialism, and above all by war and destruction.

As the more contemporary theorists and Broncofan and filghy2 thoughts and links show, Fascism can be revived without being named as such. One key area is the Law, where the capture of legislative bodies, be it in Central/Federal or Local/State Government, can attack the 'problems' that are identified as weakening State and Society, and thus form a takeover of the political agenda not in a single 'Enabling Act' that Fascist governments have used in the past, but through numerous small amendments to the law that privilege the 'Fascist' programme, of which the multitude of laws being proposed by Republicans are a factor, and seek, primarily to take away the right to vote. This can be done by changing the rules on registration, the purging of rolls, limiting access to mail-in ballots and so on. The cumulative impact is to organize a preferential/partisan voting system in which the losers are the minority segments of society who are blamed for its decline.

The irony is not lost here -the very same procedure that the Republicans claim enabled the Democrats to 'steal the vote' is adopted by them to do the same, thus-

"According to the Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-february-2021), there are currently 165 separate pieces of legislation pending in 33 states to restrict access to the ballot with stricter identification rules, limit the use of postal ballots, shorten voter registration and early voting windows, and make it easier for election officials to purge voter rolls in between elections. The three states with the most proposals on the legislative docket — Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia — were carried by Biden in 2020, but have Republican-controlled legislatures."
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/republicans-working-rig-every-election-165007798.html

The law is also being used in states such as Hungary and Poland in an effort to re-define their countries histories, even to the point of making some claims about the past illegal, for what Fascism, or New Wave Fascism also demands is the right to own and control all the narratives of the State -nothing inside the state agains the state-. Gone is any commitment to an open democracy in which a 'market place of ideas' is an indelible part of civil society, indeed, civil society, precisely because it lies outside the control of the Governing party, is a threat to its hegemony. Thus, New Wave Fascism builds on partisan rage, resentment and grief to mount an aggressive assault on the alternatives to its agenda, branding them unpatriotic, hateful, probably 'woke', and uses the media and the law to change the narrative so that it says only one thing, where 'free speech' is only defined as speech that supports the Nationalist agenda.

The downside for them, is that they tend to be poor managers of the State -as we have seen with regard to Covid in the US- and also of the economy. For the concept of a 'Patriotic' economy sits ill at ease with reality -the US has to import a wide range of products in order for its economy to function, just as it needs access to global markets; while for all their Nationalist fervour, neither Hungary nor Poland look as if they are about to leave the EU.

There have always been Fascist or similar states around in my lifetime -when I was born, half of Europe was governed by one-party states or military governments, from Portugal in the West, to Poland in the East. That one now sees its creeping influence in the US in particular is strange in its own way, because its extremists were always relegated to the fringe of politics -and if they now occupy the centre ground, if McConnell, Cheney and other 'true Republicans' cannot see them off, it is they who will end up on the fringe.

But will the current resentment of Trump's supporters last until 2022 and be effective? Or is this a whole lot of noise that the people will eventually reject?

[filghy2]

But will the current resentment of Trump's supporters last until 2022 and be effective? Or is this a whole lot of noise that the people will eventually reject?

I doubt that the sense of grievance that Trump tapped into so effectively will go away. We know that Republican voters' support for Trump has been remarkably persistent since 2016. I don't think that is based on particular policy positions: it's more about his willingness to take the fight to those perceived as cultural enemies by any means necessary. Most Republicans seem to view themselves as unfairly disadvantaged and persecuted (notwithstanding that the reality is generally the opposite). A period of Democrat rule can only reinforce this perception.

Even if Trump fades from the scene for some reason, someone else will come along to tap into the same feelings.

[filghy2]

In some cases, the Christian legacy is vital for Scruton, in others, such as the second of the American appraisals linked below it is downplayed. Michael Gove was a supporter of Scruton, and I believe Steve Bannon too. In Bannon's case, the New Wave Fascism he extols believes there is nothing that the USA needs that cannot be made in the USA, hence 'America First' and a belief that all the production offshored to China and the rest of the world can, indeed should be repatriated to the USA. It is summed up in the core beliefs of Italian Fascism -'Everything Within the State. Nothing Outside the State. Nothing Against the State'

I haven't come across Scruton before. On a quick read, his main argument seems to be that globalisation, immigration and supra-national institutions have led to a breakdown of community identity and social trust. The point that seems to be missed is that the key thing breaking down social bonds has been the turbo-charging of capitalism since the Thatcher-Reagan reforms, in which all economic relationships are reduced to financial transactions in pursuit of profit maximisation (the ultimate manifestation being the gig economy). Economic nationalism will not change this fundamentally because it does not address the market power of corporations - all that would change is that the corporations doing the exploiting would be domestically-owned.

[Stavros]

Scruton became a well-known figure in the early 1980s when he pubished the Salisbury Review, and in particular an attack on mult-culturalism by a Bradford headmaster, Ray Honeyford. A few years later I chose to write my undegraduate thesis on liberal and conservative political theory, and think I had a good crack at it, but in the end I was felled by the contradictions in both and some personal issues I need not go into here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salisbury_Review

The point of interest is that Scruton came out of the Peterhouse set who sat in awe of Maurice Cowling to become Consevatives in the philosophical sense, and who- with some exceptions- thus opposed Margaret Thatcher's 'free market' liberalism precisely because they were not Liberals. To that end, Scruton appeared to have the rigour which, for example, Michael Portillo, also an acolyte of Cowling but an enthusiast for 'free markets', lacked, but then Portillo chose to go into politics as an MP, and the key point here is that what we have seen over many decades is one strain of thought stealing or borrowing from the other, so that the distinction between a Liberal and a Conservative is often blurred. It is particularly awkward in the US because these two terms have an American context, though even there I think the distinctions are also confused.

Scruton to my mind is an oddity, not because he is opposed to free markets, but because his answer to the question, 'What do you wish to conserve?' must result in the change that he argues is not part of Conservative political thought and practice. Moreover, the change he wants is one that tackles the cultural consequences of immigration, because immigrants who do not 'share' the culture of the English or the British, seem doomed to wreck it, through their corrosive influence as criminals, people who don't understand what it means to be English or British, lacking a deferential attitude to authority, believing in stange gods and relgious practices that belong in the East (see the comments by Scruton and Casey in the Edgar link below).

In this way, by identifying members of society who not only 'don't belong' but are a 'threat' to 'our way of life', Scruton thus joins with the Fascist narrative in which everything inside the State would be fine if it weren't for those who are destroying it -what to do? Get rid of them.

One area where I think I have erred, is in the original support that Fascism in Italy had from those who saw themselves creating a modern world -in terms of technology -motor cars-, in terms of culture- the enthusiasm for cinema that is associated with Fascism in Italy. I am not sure Scruton is in favour of modernization in the way the original Fascists were, though there is a precise context for this in the stale and moribund climate in Italy that led Puccini to welcome Mussolini as a 'breath of fresh air' who would be a more efficient ruler than the 19th century Liberals he felt had let Italy down.

It means New Wave Fascism is itself a hybrid, if I can make that excuse. Hostile to 'foreigners' and 'immigrants', hostile to free markets and globalization, but also hostile to modernization and multi-culturalism which original Fascism was not, though that may be the Italian aspect.

Anyway, Scruton became a champion of Conservatives who loathe multi-culturalism, Marxism, Gender Studies (see Scruton's views on homosexuaity in the David Edgar link below) and all they see as a threat to the British way of life. One wonders if the Brexit he supported also has in it a form of 'economic nationalism' that is prevening the govt of Boris Johnson from being more aggressive in its attempt to solve the crisis in the fishing industry and the imminent obliteration of the entertainment industry both in the UK and through the virtual end to touring in the EU by musicians and artists of every genre. From its exciting birth in 1909 Fascism, New Wave if this is what it is, threatens to impose an age of misery upon us all, with streaming our only salvation.

Futurism and Fascism in the early 20thc here-
https://www.wired.com/story/italy-futurist-movement-techno-utopians/

David Edgar on Scruton-
https://irr.org.uk/article/the-scruton-affair-picking-on-a-harmless-old-fogey/

[blackchubby38]

I like the fact that Democrats are saying even though they won in 2020, they're asking what can they do better going forward.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-beat-trump-2020-now-160302933.html

[Nick Danger]

I like the fact that Democrats are saying even though they won in 2020, they're asking what can they do better going forward.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-beat-trump-2020-now-160302933.html

Here's something the Democratic Party can do besides dropping its trousers to virtue-signal after 6 months of rioting and sedition: Learn how to economy.

The biggest problem with the modern Democratic Party is its non-stop pandering to the struggling masses. There's a reason those people are struggling, and it's either a failure of motivation or a failure of personal responsibility. You take any individual American citizen who is just barely scraping by, give anyone of reasonable intelligence a truthful overview of their life, and the problem will be readily apparent - the individual himself. You simply can't fix those problems by throwing money at them.

What the Democratic Party has forgotten but the Republicans never will is that most Americans are totally unqualified to vote. The average citizen's knowledge of the crucial issues is so non-existent that he actually doesn't even know what the crucial issues are. And I include most Republican voters in this group.

But the Republicans make it really simple for the slobbering proletariat - we're not going to give you shit! And we're not going to give anyone else shit either. We're going to concentrate our efforts on creating an economy in which everyone can prosper off his own efforts.

Americans are about to see for themselves the damage that a Democratic administration does to this country. The imminent expansion of Affirmative Action is going to put a lot of unqualified people into important positions in the economy as quotas are met while merit and qualifications are ignored. Unemployment and inflation are going through the roof. By 2024 we're going to be living in an economic wasteland - my prediction is 20% unemployment behind the impending $15 minimum wage. "Social Justice" is going to start looking like what it actually is - catering to the relatively worthless portion of the population that refuses to conform to reasonable standards of work/life balance.

Democrats got into power in 2020 by scaring the Christ out of America and simultaneously promising pie in the sky that they can never deliver. The nightmare is just beginning.

My suggestion to the current administration, if they don't want to ensure a single term president, is NOT to ignore the vast numbers of fiscally conservative Americans who wouldn't mind seeing a little bit of social justice, but also don't want to see American economic strength wither away. Go ahead and give away some candy, but is it really so much to ask that you don't give away the store while you're at it?

[filghy2]

Here's something the Democratic Party can do besides dropping its trousers to virtue-signal after 6 months of rioting and sedition: Learn how to economy.

The average citizen's knowledge of the crucial issues is so non-existent that he actually doesn't even know what the crucial issues are. And I include most Republican voters in this group.

Unemployment and inflation are going through the roof. By 2024 we're going to be living in an economic wasteland - my prediction is 20% unemployment behind the impending $15 minimum wage.

Learning to economy is good advice (even if economy is not a verb) so why don't you follow it. I love the way you say those things about your fellow citizens without a hint of irony.

Here's a little exercise for your first economics lesson. The minimum wage in Australia is equivalent to US$15.70. The current unemployment rate is 6.4 per cent, which is actually lower than the US unemployment rate. Explain to us how this is consistent with your prediction.

For your second lesson we might proceed to updating you on the past 90 years of economic thinking. Apparently you can fix a recession by throwing money at it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Don't tell me you are bored with your own thread already.

[Nick Danger]

Learning to economy is good advice (even if economy is not a verb) so why don't you follow it. I love the way you say those things about your fellow citizens without a hint of irony.

Here's a little exercise for your first economics lesson. The minimum wage in Australia is equivalent to US$15.70. The current unemployment rate is 6.4 per cent, which is actually lower than the US unemployment rate. Explain to us how this is consistent with your prediction.

For your second lesson we might proceed to updating you on the past 90 years of economic thinking. Apparently you can fix a recession by throwing money at it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Don't tell me you are bored with your own thread already.

Apples to oranges, Flighty. Or actually, considering there are 3 metropolitan areas in the USA with a higher population than the entire continent of Australia, I'd say more like watermelons to grapes.

Or we could just talk about eggs. I.E., the fact that a dozen of them will cost you around $5 USD in Australia. (I just bought a dozen 2 days ago for $1.18.) Australian inflation is legendary. Of course, when you have a state-owned central bank, you can keep inflation and wages aligned almost perfectly, even if your economy is constantly at the mercy of the larger economies on which it relies for imports.

So despite the lavish Australian prosperity of which you speak, the vast majority of Australians live below what we in the USA consider the poverty line.

I was never bored with my own thread, Flighty. Unfortunately no one wants to play with me anymore. Stavros has disowned me for failing to respect his towering intellect. Bronco is too smart to engage me in a real argument. And the last thing I got from you in that thread was a Dennis Leary video, which doesn't really require a response, neh?

If you want to see me bite, Flighty, you're going to have to yank my chain a little harder.

[broncofan]

Apples to oranges, Flighty. Or actually, considering there are 3 metropolitan areas in the USA with a higher population than the entire continent of Australia, I'd say more like watermelons to grapes.

I'm a bit rushed here but Australia has a population of 25 million people. So you'll say you're exaggerating or include a metro area that is really in three states, but you're wrong. Also, Sydney has a population of 5 million people. It's a fairly large city. I live in a mid-size city and trust me Sydney is like any big city...high rents, people living close together, public transport...it's cleaner than our big cities and is beautiful to the north with the Harbour and the opera house. I'm not here to defend the reputation of Australia but you don't really know what you're talking about.

The statement about the poverty line is obviously not true also.

[Nick Danger]

I'm a bit rushed here but Australia has a population of 25 million people. So you'll say you're exaggerating or include a metro area that is really in three states, but you're wrong. Also, Sydney has a population of 5 million people. It's a fairly large city. I live in a mid-size city and trust me Sydney is like any big city...high rents, people living close together, public transport...it's cleaner than our big cities and is beautiful to the north with the Harbour and the opera house. I'm not here to defend the reputation of Australia but you don't really know what you're talking about.

The statement about the poverty line is obviously not true also.

Don't confuse my argument by throwing a bunch of facts at me, Bronco. I'll be honest, I didn't know Australia had 25 million people, I thought it was 10-15 million for some reason, which would put NYC, LA, and the Chicago metropolitan areas above it. Still, I can say confidently, armed with all the facts, that New York City, in any case, has about the same population as all of Australia. So my watermelon-to-grape argument stands, just slighty deflated - we'll say canteloupe-to-grape.

Far as your unfortunate state of mass poverty, Bronco, I stand by my statement. The average monthly income in Australia is $3780, and in the USA it is $3258, which is a difference of 16%. But the cost-of-living in Australia is...well, let's take a look shall we - https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Cost-of-living - (BTW I make no statements about the reliability of this source but hey it's a source).

I suppose, depending on your lifestyle, you could live in Australia for a mere 50% more than it costs to live in the USA. On the other hand, if you're a smoking renter who eats eggs and cares about fashion, it would cost you at least twice as much to live in Australia.

Basically you can add $10,000 to the poverty level in the USA, since one of our government's favorite games is constantly lowering the poverty level to make it seem like we have fewer poor people. To give you some math on that, the poverty level from 40 years ago in the USA is only about $3000 lower than it is now, whereas the cost-of-living over those 40 years has more than doubled.

A realistic poverty level in the USA is around $30,000. If you're making $30k/yr, you can rent a small place, have a few things, feed yourself on low-quality food, drive a piece-of-shit car, and usually have money to put gas in it, but probably not always. That's what we call poverty.

My understanding of the average wage in Australia is that it is debatable. The news exaggerates it, the government exaggerates it, but according to a study by your own Grattan Institute, the median tax-filer income in Australia is just under $45,000.

If we say on average it costs a person 75% more to live in Australia than to live in the USA, that puts your comparative average income at around $33,000. I'll be the first to admit that doesn't constitute "the vast majority of Australians living in poverty." Though you are definitely poor. But as you already know about me, Bronco, I write for effect, and sometimes I exaggerate to make a point.

My point in this case is that Flighty's comparison of the USA to Australia - with the obvious undertone of "Look what Australia has accomplished economically and yet the USA still sucks balls!" - is a horseshit comparison that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[broncofan]

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/cost-of-living/united-states/australia

I also don't vouch for the accuracy of this site but the numbers make more sense to me. This shows a difference in cost of living of about 17.5% which is more consistent with my intuition and is not much different from the 16% difference in average income.

Also consider that in the breakdown of costs Australians pay about 10% less for housing. For people making below median income by far housing is the most important expense.

His point had less to do with overall prosperity and more to do with equity. Maybe things do cost a bit more when workers are paid more but worker satisfaction is greater.

In the two links below, the poverty rate in Australia is listed as 13.3% and in the U.S. is listed as 14.8%. I am also curious about definitions. For instance, what is the average out of pocket expense for healthcare in Australia v. the U.S.? To me a greater measure of poverty is not whether you can get the exact kind of food you want but whether you can afford housing, medical care, and enough food.

His point was about the feasibility of a living wage. He was merely pointing out that a higher minimum wage doesn't drive unemployment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Poverty_in_U.S._state s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Australia#:~:text=It%20revealed%20that% 20poverty%20is,of%2015%20are%20in%20poverty.

[Nick Danger]

His point was about the feasibility of a living wage. He was merely pointing out that a higher minimum wage doesn't drive unemployment.

Bronco, I'm fine with conceding everything about Australia to your intuition, because even though we don't agree politically I do perceive that you are not a dipshit. I would like to point out that the figures on the site I linked don't agree with your "10% less for housing" statement. The numbers here - https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Cost-of-living - say that real estate is 57% higher in Australia than the USA and renting is 65% more expensive. If you say that isn't true and in fact the opposite is true, then I'll just take your word for it, I'm merely a citizen of the internet and I've never actually been to Australia.

HOWEVER, what I'm not prepared to concede is that a minimum wage increase isn't going to result in a shit-ton of unemployment.

The first thing I'd say, which is actually a point against my argument but I'll go ahead and get it out of the way, is that very, very few people in the USA work for minimum wage, which is what, $7-something/hr? Even fast-food jobs I see advertised every day offer $10/hr. In cities with a particularly high cost-of-living, those same fast-food jobs are already paying $15/hr.

So a federal $15/hr minimum wage doesn't seem like a big deal taken in that context. But what we're talking about, Bronco, is a FEDERAL minimum wage. A McDonald's in Manhattan can undoubtedly afford to pay $15/hr or even more, but the exact same operation in Bodunk, Arkansas absolutely cannot. If they have to pay all their employees $15/hr, they will cease to make a profit and be forced to close. But not before firing half their employees and trying to convince the remainder to do twice the work.

The market has to determine the wage. A job is worth what it's worth. I employ two people, a mechanic and a bookkeeper/receptionist. I like them both and I want them to stay around forever so I pay them well - better than the market demands for their skillsets. It's worth it to me because I know them and trust them. But if I was mandated to pay them more - MUCH more - than I'm currently paying them, I'd have to let them go and find other solutions. I'm already paying them the most it makes financial sense to pay them. And good for them, I don't begrudge a penny of it, but that's my ceiling, we're already there.

Most of these liberal politicians are based in high-income, high cost-of-living areas. Nancy Pelosi's out of San Francisco. Kamala Harris had a privileged upbringing in the Bay Area as well. Joe Biden's been a D.C. insider for nearly 50 years, and Chuck Schumer is straight out of the 212. They are completely out of touch with Middle America and the paycheck-to-paycheck economy that most people live in. And it's painfully obvious that they are clueless about what is required to run a low-profit, high-volume business in Shitberg Ohio.

But we'll see, Bronco, we'll see. I think you can do things at the federal level in Australia that you simply can't do in the USA. Each state has a different economy, within those states are other tiers, and even within single cities there are multiple economic zones. I'm in Nashville right now visiting family. Gas up the street is at $2.23 but if I drive across town to my sister's house it's $2.68.

The $15/hr minimum wage is definitely going to happen. For all their talk of bi-partisanship, the Democrats are going to do what they always do whenever they get the opportunity - ram their agenda down Republican throats. The minimum wage increase is a big part of the agenda they promised to poor, stupid Americans in order to garner some of the Type 2 Republican vote.

We'll see, for sure. My prediction is 20% unemployment by 2024, and not strictly due to the minimum wage hike but in conjunction with other known Democratic business policies like increased regulation and licensing. I guess yours and Flighty's prediction is "No impact at all." So we'll see.

[broncofan]

I'd like to read more about this but I can think of a couple reasons why this wouldn't lead to the unemployment you envision. One reason is that the largest employers probably are national franchises and corporations that can afford to pay this much. The other reason is that businesses that fail or on the cusp of failing probably don't fail because of payroll costs. I will read about it but compared to the cost of insurance, rent, accounting, inventory, and any loans for equipment I imagine payroll is less of a stress point. Yes paying a worker 2400 a month is worse than paying 1200 a month but some of that is wiped away with expense deduction. I'll read and get back to you.

I agree the cost of living in Aus. v U.S. was not what we're talking about. We both found sources that said different things.

[filghy2]

I'd like to read more about this but I can think of a couple reasons why this wouldn't lead to the unemployment you envision.

This article provides a good discussion of the employment impacts, and probably reflects where the balance of economic opinion is at nowadays.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-21/don-t-fear-the-15-minimum-wage

To be clear, I'm not saying the effect will be zero, though it probably won't be significant enough to be noticeable amongst everything else. But the 20% unemployment rate claim is clearly ludicrous given that would be about twice as high as its ever been since the Great Depression.

I'm wondering what ND thinks caused the Great depression. Increased regulation perhaps? Too bad it started 3 years before FDR came into office. Or did one-quarter of the workforce suddenly get lazy and decide not to work any more?

[filghy2]

Apples to oranges, Flighty. Or actually, considering there are 3 metropolitan areas in the USA with a higher population than the entire continent of Australia, I'd say more like watermelons to grapes.

Or we could just talk about eggs. I.E., the fact that a dozen of them will cost you around $5 USD in Australia. (I just bought a dozen 2 days ago for $1.18.) Australian inflation is legendary. Of course, when you have a state-owned central bank, you can keep inflation and wages aligned almost perfectly, even if your economy is constantly at the mercy of the larger economies on which it relies for imports.

So despite the lavish Australian prosperity of which you speak, the vast majority of Australians live below what we in the USA consider the poverty line.


You seem to have a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock, cobber.

Just to save you and bronco the trouble of relying on random websites that may or may not be accurate, some bright sparks at the OECD have already calculated minimum wages adjusted for the cost of living. The Australian minimum hourly wage is equivalent to US$12.14, which is 67% higher than the current US federal minimum, with no apparent effect on unemployment. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/minimum-wage-by-country

It also looks like median income adjusted for the cost of living in Australia and the US is actually pretty similar, so if you were thinking of sending a food parcel you needn't bother.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

[broncofan]

You seem to have a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock, cobber.

I deserve the wooden spoon award for my efforts at economics. The only other phrases I've retained are "spit the dummy", "pull your head in mate", and people telling me "onya" which I assumed meant I was kicking some ass. The above is a good one in that you can figure its meaning without having heard it but I'm not sure about the use of cobber. Went out generations ago....Nick is gonna look like a real asshole when he calls an Australian "cobber" while telling them he's surprised no six year olds at Newtown were clinging to life after being shot with a Bushmaster xm-15.

Anyhow, at the risk of taking this thread in too many other directions, thanks for the links. That's very helpful.

[Nick Danger]

You seem to have a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock, cobber.

Just to save you and bronco the trouble of relying on random websites that may or may not be accurate, some bright sparks at the OECD have already calculated minimum wages adjusted for the cost of living. The Australian minimum hourly wage is equivalent to US$12.14, which is 67% higher than the current US federal minimum, with no apparent effect on unemployment. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/minimum-wage-by-country

It also looks like median income adjusted for the cost of living in Australia and the US is actually pretty similar, so if you were thinking of sending a food parcel you needn't bother.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

I knew there was a reason I fucked with you, Flighty. Every now and then you surprise me with that sparkly sense of humor you keep so well-hidden most of the time. I LOL'd at your post though I did have to google "cobber."

So, $12.14/hr. That's not very high. In fact, I'd say that's pretty close to what any unskilled worker in the USA who isn't a zit-faced zoomer would actually accept as a low-end wage. It's really not that close to $15/hr, a $2.86/hr difference is pretty large on that tier of the economy.

But Bronco and I have agreed, and hopefully you will too, that we will simply accept that Australila is indeed a first-world country in need of no care packages, with PERHAPS a slightly lower standard of living than the USA but it really doesn't matter.

Fact is, Flighty, that we can't take our economic cues from Australia. They have completely different needs and problems. They aren't a big manufacturing country, for example, so most of their machinery is imported, most of their vehicles are imported, most of their electronics are imported. They export a lot of beef whereas the USA eats most of what it kills. They've got their own stock market. They export most of their oil. They've got pretty much the same history of slavery as the USA (replace "Africans" with "Pacific Islanders") but they don't have to answer for it because, I suppose, they aren't the USA. They aren't nearly as diverse as the USA, and in fact until 1973, only white Europeans were allowed to immigrate. That's not racist, BTW, only the USA is racist.

I think the USA is a unique economy (just like most economies are but the USA is always MORESO), and we'll have to wait to be certain about the impact of the $15 minimum wage. We can predict and pontificate but we won't know until we walk a mile in those $15 shoes. I've made my prediction.

It's interesting to me that you want to talk about the Great Depression as if it can't happen again. It actually has happened again. We've hit 10% unemployment twice since the Great Depression, in 1982 and again in 2009. We're just better at bouncing back now than we were in 1929, and we've become MUCH better at hiding poverty from public view. There are bubbles in the market, Flighty. Big, ugly, unstable bubbles. Our fiat economy is like a balloon resting on a bed of nails. Put a little pressure on it and it will probably stay inflated. Put a lot of pressure on it and you'll be left with a small piece of wet rubber and a bleeding hand.

This Democratic administration intends to put a LOT of pressure on that balloon.

[broncofan]

So, $12.14/hr. That's not very high. In fact, I'd say that's pretty close to what any unskilled worker in the USA who isn't a zit-faced zoomer would actually accept as a low-end wage. It's really not that close to $15/hr, a $2.86/hr difference is pretty large on that tier of the economy.
What's the difference between 12.14 an hour and 7.25? Quick math! He did all that work for the both of us so please don't tell me you missed his point entirely. It's already been adjusted for cost of living. So if American minimum wage workers make 7.25 an hour and it purchases 7 dollars and 25 cents of stuff and Australians make a wage per hour that purchases the equivalent of $12.14 who would you rather be?

In conclusion, pull your fuckin' head in cobber. Filghy is a strong debater generally but economics is his wheelhouse. I'm gonna sit back, enjoy a budweiser and watch;

[Stavros]

I'm gonna sit back, enjoy a budweiser and watch


Budweiser, Broncofan? Seriously?

[Nick Danger]

What's the difference between 12.14 an hour and 7.25? Quick math! He did all that work for the both of us so please don't tell me you missed his point entirely. It's already been adjusted for cost of living. So if American minimum wage workers make 7.25 an hour and it purchases 7 dollars and 25 cents of stuff and Australians make a wage per hour that purchases the equivalent of $12.14 who would you rather be?

In conclusion, pull your fuckin' head in cobber. Filghy is a strong debater generally but economics is his wheelhouse. I'm gonna sit back, enjoy a budweiser and watch;

I think you missed something, Bronco - my math was subtracting 12.14 from 15.00, not 7.25 from 12.14. It would be very, very difficult to find anyone in the USA actually working for $7.25/hr. I don't know anyone personally who does, no surprise there, but I do know people with teenage offspring, and even those kids don't work for $7.25. In fact, the point I was trying to make is that most unskilled workers here already get paid the Australian minimum wage. I just passed an Arby's today offering $11.50 to start, slinging roast beef and potato cakes one would assume.

When I started working, the minimum wage was $3.15/hr. The next year it went up to $3.35. And that's what you made if you were a teenager. But it just ain't like that anymore.

I think there is this mass delusion that we have a class of people in the USA who are actually working for minimum wage. EVEN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WITH NO SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS MAKE MORE THAN THAT.

Also, if economics was in Flighty's wheelhouse he'd be a Republican.

Edit: And let me just add this - there's a reason the minimum wage has been stagnant for so long. Remember I said when I started working, it was $3.15, then $3.35. Not long after that it went up again, ever so slightly, and again, every couple years IIRC. It was an issue, a talking point, BECAUSE BACK THEN, PEOPLE ACTUALLY WORKED FOR MINIMUM WAGE.

If people were still working for minimum wage we'd have confronted the ridiculousness of it long ago - of course $7.25 is way too low. But it hasn't been problematic because it's no longer used as a frame of reference, EVERYBODY makes more than that now.

[filghy2]

Fact is, Flighty, that we can't take our economic cues from Australia. They have completely different needs and problems. They aren't a big manufacturing country, for example, so most of their machinery is imported, most of their vehicles are imported, most of their electronics are imported. They export a lot of beef whereas the USA eats most of what it kills. They've got their own stock market. They export most of their oil. They've got pretty much the same history of slavery as the USA (replace "Africans" with "Pacific Islanders") but they don't have to answer for it because, I suppose, they aren't the USA. They aren't nearly as diverse as the USA, and in fact until 1973, only white Europeans were allowed to immigrate. That's not racist, BTW, only the USA is racist.

I think the USA is a unique economy (just like most economies are but the USA is always MORESO), and we'll have to wait to be certain about the impact of the $15 minimum wage. We can predict and pontificate but we won't know until we walk a mile in those $15 shoes. I've made my prediction.

It seems you must have got most of your ideas about Australia from about 1973, including your earlier population figures. It's actually one of the world's most multicultural countries nowadays - 30% of the population are immigrants and another 20% are children of immigrants. That's a much higher share than in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Australia

What you appear to be arguing on the minimum wage is that even the most unskilled worker can currently earn around $12/hr but if it increases to $15/hr they are all going to lose their jobs.

[Stavros]

https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/

[Nick Danger]

It seems you must have got most of your ideas about Australia from about 1973, including your earlier population figures. It's actually one of the world's most multicultural countries nowadays - 30% of the population are immigrants and another 20% are children of immigrants. That's a much higher share than in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Australia

What you appear to be arguing on the minimum wage is that even the most unskilled worker can currently earn around $12/hr but if it increases to $15/hr they are all going to lose their jobs.

Garbage, Flighty. You can try spinning the numbers for other people but don't even try that shit on me. The fact that 30% of the population are immigrants does not indicate racial diversity. The vast majority of those immigrants are white Europeans (primarily British) - perfectly in line with the immigration policies of the not-so-distant past.

I'm looking at numbers here - https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/ethnic-background-of-australians.html - which say that 86.4% of the Australian population are white Europeans and 13.6% are a combination of Aboriginals, Chinese, Indian, and Other.

All these websites can't be full of shit, Flighty, but you most certainly can.

Regarding the minimum wage, my point is that the employers of the USA are already in a market in which they are paying wages higher than the minimum. Whether that figure is $12/hr or $9/hr or whatever - that part depends primarily on the real estate surrounding the business - it's higher than what they are REQUIRED to pay.

A lot of businesses are very low-margin businesses. Restaurants are notoriously so, but it might also surprise you to know that most brick-and-mortar retail stores are also low-margin businesses that rely on high volume to make a profit.

I've got a childhood friend who manages a small chain of restaurants. We've had conversations about that business, we're both businessmen, and he's always told me that there are two keys to producing a profit with a restaurant - tips and food cost. If the tips are good the employees will stay, if the food cost is kept to a minimum the restaurant will make a modest but consistent profit. He usually finishes that by referring back to a long-standing joke between the two of us that I'll let you ponder on your own - "Also, Nick, clean as you go." (hard stare followed by intentionally insincere smile)

My business is different. I'm a low-volume, high-profit business. My business relies much more on how many people I can get in the door than it does on how much I'm paying my people. But I've pretty much plateaued on that and am doing fine. A $15 minimum wage isn't going to affect me at all except to the extent it affects the entire economy.

But MANY businesses in the USA are of the former variety. Retail, printing, grocery, and clothing come to mind. So let's just say that most of the employees of those businesses are making $12/hr. Then suddenly you have to pay them all $15/hr. That's a sudden 25% increase in payroll ACROSS THE BOARD. For businesses that are already paying their employees more than they have to pay them while also barely pushing up enough profit to keep the investors happy.

I'll tell you right now, Flighty, I don't think most unskilled workers deserve $15/hr, even as little as that is. I think if you live in a capitalist economy, you get yourself some goddamn job skills or you pay the price for it. A responsible and productive life is not rocket science. If we could get half of these people off their asses and motivated to add some personal value to the economy, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

But they're going to get their $15/hr so fine. It's going to be at the expense of the investors and job creators who have made this nation the greatest and wealthiest empire in the history of the planet. And in conjunction with all the environmental clampdowns, over-regulation, hiring quotas, union promotion, benefit requirements, and every other meddlesome method the Democratic brain-trust can come up with to redistribute this country's wealth, it's going to crash the economy. We're ripe for it. That's my opinion. Time will tell. Four years of time.

[filghy2]

But they're going to get their $15/hr so fine. It's going to be at the expense of the investors and job creators who have made this nation the greatest and wealthiest empire in the history of the planet. And in conjunction with all the environmental clampdowns, over-regulation, hiring quotas, union promotion, benefit requirements, and every other meddlesome method the Democratic brain-trust can come up with to redistribute this country's wealth, it's going to crash the economy. We're ripe for it. That's my opinion. Time will tell. Four years of time.

I'm sure you said much the same at the start of every previous Democrat administration. The economy didn't crash under Clinton or Obama. There was not even a recession in these periods, let alone the second Great Depression you have predicted.

[Nick Danger]

I'm sure you said much the same at the start of every previous Democrat administration. The economy didn't crash under Clinton or Obama. There was not even a recession in these periods, let alone the second Great Depression you have predicted.

That's actually not true. I think I've told you before that I'm just fine with the back and forth between the two parties. We get Republican administrations to fix our economy, and Democratic administrations to change our diapers. In the end there's a balance that works.

But this time is different. The Democratic Party has never been this progressive before. They feel they have a public mandate because they managed to get nearly every drug addict, petty criminal, and all-knowing teenager in the country out in the streets threatening to burn the whole thing down if they don't get their way. They have co-opted the media to an extent never before seen. There was more media dissent against the NatSocs in pre-WWII Germany than there is against the new progressive agenda in the USA today.

"Progressive" is merely Orwellian doublespeak of course.

Then there's the pandemic. We're weak. My business is suffering. What about yours, Flighty? You thriving right now? If you are you must be selling masks, hand sanitizer, or guns.

Like I said, we're ripe for a killing blow. And the Democrats are holding an axe, in the form of the White House and control of Congress. God help us if the Supreme Court falls weak.

[broncofan]

I guess it's appropriate that this exchange is in the political sectarianism thread because my post you quoted when you first decided to venture to the politics forum was about whether Republicans can go back to being principled conservatives.

You say the Democratic Party is far left but I see Biden as mostly a moderate. I will agree that nobody should ever acquiesce to vandalism or violence in protests but I'm pretty sure you're exaggerating the degree of complicity for Democrats. The issue of police brutality is a real one and the need to protest unlawful force is important. The need for the protests to be non-violent is essential but I'm not really sure I want to get into a back and forth again about Republican v. Democratic complicity in this country's institutional breakdown.

During a pandemic there is no way for things to magically go back to status quo ante. You can minimize the medical and economic pain through diligence. Instead of asking how Filghy is doing personally, how about asking how Australia is doing? Have they benefitted from being vigilant about the spread of the virus? Have their public health measures cost them economically as much as our uncontrolled viral spread has cost us? They have suffered 35 deaths per million people. We've lost 1,561 people per million. Quick math that looks like they have 2% of the number of deaths per capita.

If you want there to be more media dissent, offer viewpoints in which reasonable people can disagree. If you have a President who tells people covid will magically disappear, that vaccines will take three months from March 2020 to be available, that doctors are fabricating death numbers then you will have a unanimous opposition in the media against this fictional worldview. If you have a President who says there was election fraud, who accuses every city with a large Black population of fraud, and makes outrageous and incendiary charges about shredded ballots and manipulated machinery, you will have a wall of opposition among educated people.

Biden is not far left. Merrick Garland is not far left. I have seen people on twitter with large followings who were literally involved in the alt-right say that Garland and Biden are extremists. This departure from reality will have consequences for all of us. We've already felt some of them. Come back to planet earth.

[Nick Danger]

I guess it's appropriate that this exchange is in the political sectarianism thread because my post you quoted when you first decided to venture to the politics forum was about whether Republicans can go back to being principled conservatives.

You say the Democratic Party is far left but I see Biden as mostly a moderate. I will agree that nobody should ever acquiesce to vandalism or violence in protests but I'm pretty sure you're exaggerating the degree of complicity for Democrats. The issue of police brutality is a real one and the need to protest unlawful force is important. The need for the protests to be non-violent is essential but I'm not really sure I want to get into a back and forth again about Republican v. Democratic complicity in this country's institutional breakdown.

During a pandemic there is no way for things to magically go back to status quo ante. You can minimize the medical and economic pain through diligence. Instead of asking how Filghy is doing personally, how about asking how Australia is doing? Have they benefitted from being vigilant about the spread of the virus? Have their public health measures cost them economically as much as our uncontrolled viral spread has cost us? They have suffered 35 deaths per million people. We've lost 1,561 people per million. Quick math that looks like they have 2% of the number of deaths per capita.

If you want there to be more media dissent, offer viewpoints in which reasonable people can disagree. If you have a President who tells people covid will magically disappear, that vaccines will take three months from March 2020 to be available, that doctors are fabricating death numbers then you will have a unanimous opposition in the media against this fictional worldview. If you have a President who says there was election fraud, who accuses every city with a large Black population of fraud, and makes outrageous and incendiary charges about shredded ballots and manipulated machinery, you will have a wall of opposition among educated people.

Biden is not far left. Merrick Garland is not far left. I have seen people on twitter with large followings who were literally involved in the alt-right say that Garland and Biden are extremists. This departure from reality will have consequences for all of us. We've already felt some of them. Come back to planet earth.

Biden is a rubber-stamp career politician, with a media-suppressed history of voting along white supremacist lines, who is currently barely aware of his surroundings. He's one year older than my father and I know for a fact that my father is losing it upstairs. Whether Biden is a true progressive or not isn't relevant, he's as much a figurehead at this point as the Queen of England. I think he has "handlers."

If he dies, and he very well might, we'll have Kamala Harris, a slightly-unhinged, hypocritical sociopath with a long (and again, media-suppressed) history of supporting aggressive and heavy-handed law enforcement against the working class while protecting elites from prosecution.

That's my opinion of the USA's current executive branch. So now that we've got that out of the way...

Let's take a hard look at the comparison you're making between Australia and the USA regarding their handling of the pandemic. I'll grant you the numbers without even looking them up, we'll go ahead and accept that Australia has suffered many fewer deaths per capita than the USA, I'm sure that's true.

So you can say, "See, this proves that they handled the pandemic much better from a policy perspective," or you COULD say, "Makes perfect sense considering Australia is a completely isolated country with one of the world's most restrictive entry policies."

And why does no one ever want to talk about the cost of the lockdown? Suicides are at an all-time high. Depression is at an all-time high. Crime statistics are through the roof. The economy is suffering badly. We're now raising an entire generation of children who have lost a full year of education and social development; who can even calculate what the final cost of that will be? All this to save the lives of a relative handful of old people and lungers. Trump is not a genius - well, maybe an accidental one sometimes - but he's no dipshit either. He knew immediately that the cure would be worse than the disease.

Loss of life is not a be-all end-all. We're all going to die. Quality of life matters at least as much. We, humans, still settle our petty political differences by sending our best and brightest to fight each other to the death by the millions, but we haven't outlawed war. Japan lost 20,000 people in the 2011 tsunami, and it's definitely going to happen again. So why aren't they vacating the country, moving inland? Because 20,000 people is a sacrifice they are (and should be) willing to make in order to maintain their society and culture. The USA loses 35,000 people a year to auto accidents, yet we have never even considered the idea of outlawing cars.

We're never going to agree about this, Bronco, and I'm fine with that. But your attempt to de-legitimize my view with a statement like "Come back to planet earth" is mere hyperbole. The pandemic lockdown question is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

[broncofan]

I'll respond to this later. I've read it and appreciate some of your points. Notably, yes quality of life is important and I'm not saying that only the policies that save every life imaginable at any cost are worth pursuing. I'm saying the costs in terms of isolation are real, but that there are ways to mitigate suicide and drug deaths without giving up completely on public health. Also, lockdowns are only ever a decent idea when things have gotten out of control by certain metrics. They should be used very sparingly and only when hospital capacity is low.

Australia is not the only country that has fewer deaths per capita. There are 183 out of 193. But you know what? Other economies have also taken less of a hit than ours. I want to emphasize that. Some economic harm is inevitable, and having uncontrolled viral spread is worse for the economy than moderate public health policies.

Here's another comparison: Canada has one third the number of deaths per capita as the U.S. They are in colder climate, they have tons of large cities with most of their country on our northern border. They have no intrinsic advantage.

If we were as successful as Canada, we would have 333,000 fewer deaths! Think about that. Are suicides up by 333,000 because of lockdowns? I'm not even sure Canada has had many more lockdowns. Maybe they promoted mask compliance. Maybe they didn't promote huge maskless rallies.

[Nick Danger]

I'll respond to this later. I've read it and appreciate some of your points. Notably, yes quality of life is important and I'm not saying that only the policies that save every life imaginable at any cost are worth pursuing. I'm saying the costs in terms of isolation are real, but that there are ways to mitigate suicide and drug deaths without giving up completely on public health. Also, lockdowns are only ever a decent idea when things have gotten out of control by certain metrics. They should be used very sparingly and only when hospital capacity is low.

Australia is not the only country that has fewer deaths per capita. There are 183 out of 193. But you know what? Other economies have also taken less of a hit than ours. I want to emphasize that. Some economic harm is inevitable, and having uncontrolled viral spread is worse for the economy than moderate public health policies.

Here's another comparison: Canada has one third the number of deaths per capita as the U.S. They are in colder climate, they have tons of large cities with most of their country on our northern border. They have no intrinsic advantage.

If we were as successful as Canada, we would have 333,000 fewer deaths! Think about that. Are suicides up by 333,000 because of lockdowns? I'm not even sure Canada has had many more lockdowns. Maybe they promoted mask compliance. Maybe they didn't promote huge maskless rallies.

I think I ranted about this once before and got a little carried away, to the point that I surprised even myself with my callous indifference about these people's lives. But I don't feel any differently now that I'm about to rant about it again.

Because who are we talking about here, Bronco? The elderly. The congenitally unhealthy. The weak. People who already had low quality of life and were going to die soon enough anyway. I knew Joe Diffie, the country singer, and I remember calling a mutual acquaintance when I heard he'd died of the covid. Turns out both of us had the exact same thought when we got the news - "Really, not the pills and booze?"

We're trading a lot for these people's lives, Bronco. And we could have just left it up to them. I think I ran down my Can't-Miss Covid-19 Prevention Technique For The Chronically Vulnerable before - isolate YOURSELF.

I've said pretty much all I have to say about the covid. I get your point of view, Bronco - all human life is precious. A lot of people feel that way. It's not. We throw it away all the time. Every time they build a skyscraper over 15 stories in New York City, there are going to be 5 deaths. But they build them anyway, because human life has a dollar value.

[filghy2]

And why does no one ever want to talk about the cost of the lockdown? Suicides are at an all-time high. Depression is at an all-time high. Crime statistics are through the roof.

I'm wondering how you know this given suicide data for 2020 don't appear to be available yet. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Do you have any source, or did you just make shit up again? There were about 47,500 suicides in 2018 so it's pretty unlikely additional suicides would be anywhere near the number of Covid deaths.

[Nick Danger]

I'm wondering how you know this given suicide data for 2020 don't appear to be available yet. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Do you have any source, or did you just make shit up again? There were about 47,500 suicides in 2018 so it's pretty unlikely additional suicides would be anywhere near the number of Covid deaths.

Is that the criteria we need to look at, Flighty, is that where humanity is at on this thing? Do we need the number of suicides to exceed the number of covid deaths before we can start going to the fucking movies again? Because that's pretty goddamn dystopian, Flighty, pretty goddamn callous.

On the other hand, I do know a couple of people who are very depressed right now. I could do my part to accelerate the end of this thing by gifting them a Dostoevsky book or something.

[broncofan]

If more people were committing suicide would we know whether they were committing suicide because of quarantine measures or because they lost a loved one to covid? It seems pretty plausible to me that someone could watch their spouse die after a thirty day fight on a ventilator and commit suicide. Some people might also be depressed if others choose to quarantine but they are allowed out. We can't force everyone to pretend there isn't a deadly virus out there. The response to mental health problems should be increased access to care.

The fact is, the world is different. Shouldn't we make sure people with mental health problems have health insurance and support services?

[broncofan]

Some people might also be depressed if others choose to quarantine but they are allowed out.

What I mean is that during a pandemic a lot of people are going to voluntarily modify their behavior. Even depressives might isolate themselves because they are afraid of getting a virus. It's not easy to know whether it's government measures that increases isolation or lots of people making choices. The world is not conducive to the kind of socialization we're used to. Some people are especially vulnerable because of that. Shouldn't we be concerned about providing support services? Health insurance plans that include behavioral health benefits?

Or is this posturing? Early in the pandemic a Republican told me they were concerned that our preoccupation with Covid meant there would be less vaccination for measles in Africa. I'm not joking, they sent me an article telling me they thought we shouldn't be concerned about covid because it would prevent people from paying attention to other infectious diseases. They didn't send me any articles when the U.S. pulled out of the WHO though.

[Nick Danger]

If more people were committing suicide would we know whether they were committing suicide because of quarantine measures or because they lost a loved one to covid?

I'm not the one to speculate on people's reasons for suicide. I've met some real low-life sacks of shit in this life with nothing whatsoever to live for who slogged through it all to a ripe old age, but I also had a close friend - good-looking guy, California surfer dude with an unusually sharp intellect, great sense of humor, the world was his oyster - hang himself with his own belt off the top of a fence in Santa Cruz back in the 90's. Guy was 31 years old.

But I'll link the article about what has me reflecting on the increased suicides at the moment, and I think it's safe to say that this one can be attributed directly to the quarantine itself - https://nypost.com/2021/02/23/pole-dancing-champion-hanged-herself-during-lockdown/

[Nick Danger]

Shouldn't we be concerned about providing support services? Health insurance plans that include behavioral health benefits?

If you're testing me to find out exactly how much of an asshole I am, I think you're about to find out, Bronco.

I have very, very little sympathy for people's mental health problems. What some people call "ADHD" I call "stupid." What some people call "clinical depression" I call "living wrong." When a court rules that a defendant isn't responsible for his actions because he's criminally insane, I mutter to myself, "Oh, well I guess nobody's responsible then." I believe that all a marriage counselor can accomplish is teach a couple how to lie to each other with more enthusiasm, and I don't believe there's any such thing as autism.

I'm remembering right now a Louis CK routine where he's going through a series of examples of something he calls "Of course...but maybe..." He's talking about kids with peanut allergies. "Of course, children with nut allergies need to be protected. Of course! We need to segregate their food from nuts, have their medication available at all times, and anyone who manufactures or serves food needs to be aware of deadly nut allergies. Of course! But maybe...maybe...if touching a nut kills you, you're supposed to die."

That's kinda how I feel about most people's "Woe is me" problems. Of course we should be concerned about providing mental health support services and health insurance that includes behavioral health benefits. Of course! But maybe...maybe...maybe if you're suicidal, you're better off dead. Maybe if you're depressed, you're the weak link. Maybe if you can't hack it, that's your fucking problem, we've all got our ration of shit to deal with out here, pal.

I don't want to be too over-the-top here, I'm exaggerating a LITTLE, I am peripherally aware that there do exist legitimate mental health problems. But I think most of those people are just whiners.

Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEb5a-I0kyg

[filghy2]

That's kinda how I feel about most people's "Woe is me" problems. Of course we should be concerned about providing mental health support services and health insurance that includes behavioral health benefits. Of course! But maybe...maybe...maybe if you're suicidal, you're better off dead. Maybe if you're depressed, you're the weak link. Maybe if you can't hack it, that's your fucking problem, we've all got our ration of shit to deal with out here, pal.

So after telling us that we should worry less about Covid and more about suicides and depression you now tell us that we shouldn't worry so much about these things either because it's probably their own fault?

I take it you have no source on your claim that suicides are at an all-time high.

[Nick Danger]

So after telling us that we should worry less about Covid and more about suicides and depression you now tell us that we shouldn't worry so much about these things either because it's probably their own fault?

I take it you have no source on your claim that suicides are at an all-time high.

I couldn't sleep because I realized I had forgotten to give you a source, Flighty.

Here's one - https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352 - stating that "widely reported studies modeling the effect of the covid-19 pandemic on suicide rates" indicate an increase of 1% to 145%. So it's an assumption. Based on studies. But it's a damn good assumption considering it makes perfect sense.

Also, I'm not telling you it's the victims' fault, I'm telling you it's your fault. For being foolish enough not to see the oh-so-simple solution to the whole problem, short-sighted enough not to realize that there are some people who are literally going to promote this lockdown (and therefore their own place in the international spotlight) FOREVER if we let them (Fauci's already setting us up into 2022), and for being panicky enough to accept any "solution" that's offered, no matter how fucked it leaves us in the end. Because you don't want to be sick. What a bunch of fucking cowards and babies.

[Stavros]

CPAC will be in the news over the next few days, and not because of the 'Graven Image' of Trump that has been set up to the greater glory of himself, but because if this is what the speakers are like, how does one define American Conservatism? Sounds to me like a conference of Neo-Nazis, Fascists and anti-American Insurgents...

"Arizona Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, both of whom helped organize the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally, are CPAC panelists this year.

Gosar has ties to the far-right militia Oath Keepers (https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-gosar-told-oath-keepers-militia-us-in-civil-war-2021-1), whose members were deeply involved (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/oath-keepers-trump-capitol-attack_n_60302260c5b6cc8bbf3b9304) in the storming of the Capitol. The leader of an Arizona chapter recently claimed (https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-gosar-told-oath-keepers-militia-us-in-civil-war-2021-1) Gosar once told Oath Keepers that America was already in a civil war. “We just haven’t started shooting yet,” Gosar allegedly said. (The congressman has yet to respond to this claim.)
Gosar’s extremist resume is long. He once traveled to London (https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/arizona-congressman-paul-gosar-rally-for-anti-muslim-activist-10624615) to speak at a rally in support of a jailed anti-Muslim activist; he went to Nevada to support far-right militiamen in an armed standoff (https://www.azcentral.com/get-access/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.azcentral.com%2Fstory%2F opinion%2Fop-ed%2F2014%2F04%2F24%2Fgosar-embrace-cliven-bundy%2F8104609%2F) with federal authorities; and he’s posed for a photo (https://www.howtofightantisemitism.com/timeline/rep-paul-gosar-r-az-spends-4th-of-july-posing-for-photos-with-hate-group-members) with a member of the neo-fascist Proud Boys, another group with a large presence at the insurrection. Gosar will be speaking on a CPAC panel Saturday called “Sell Outs: The Devaluing of American Citizenship.”

Biggs, the other Arizona congressman, has spoken at events hosted by multiple extremist groups (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2019/05/20/how-extremists-reasserting-themselves-into-mainstream-gop-politics-arizona-republican-party/3568202002/), including a 2015 gathering of the Oath Keepers where a member called (https://www.azcentral.com/get-access/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.azcentral.com%2Fstory%2F news%2Farizona%2Fpolitics%2F2015%2F05%2F12%2Fpro-constitution-group-founder-hang-mccain-dead%2F27207815%2F) for hanging the late Sen. John McCain. Biggs will speak on a panel Friday about the Second Amendment.
Joining him on that panel is Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), the pistol-carrying freshman lawmaker with a history (https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/boebert-colorado-congresswoman-militias/73-b52b98e0-303d-4921-8ba7-14469403fd1c) of associating with far-right militia groups, including the Three Percenters, another organization implicated in the insurrection. (“I am the militia,” Boebert tweeted last year.) Boebert also supports the QAnon conspiracy movement (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/congress-qanon-republican-conspiracy-problem_n_5eff9375c5b612083c5c437b), which believes there’s a globalist cabal of pedophiles, many of them Democrats, waging war against Trump. Many QAnon faithful participated in the insurrection on Jan. 6.

“Today is 1776,” Boebert tweeted that morning before the storming of the Capitol, a reference to the Revolutionary War. "
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/cpac-2021-extremists-white-nationalists-insurrectionists-104500816.html

[broncofan]

So after telling us that we should worry less about Covid and more about suicides and depression you now tell us that we shouldn't worry so much about these things either because it's probably their own fault?

I read his concern about mental health problems with the same skepticism as I do when a Republican expresses concern about infectious disease in developing countries. You know it's a form of whataboutism and not actually a way to address other humanitarian issues.

[Nick Danger]

I read his concern about mental health problems with the same skepticism as I do when a Republican expresses concern about infectious disease in developing countries. You know it's a form of whataboutism and not actually a way to address other humanitarian issues.

I'm not trying to represent myself as a humanitarian, Bronco. Am I? I listed suicide and depression as part of the COST of the lockdown, not something that's keeping me awake at night.

[filghy2]

I couldn't sleep because I realized I had forgotten to give you a source, Flighty.

Here's one - https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352 - stating that "widely reported studies modeling the effect of the covid-19 pandemic on suicide rates" indicate an increase of 1% to 145%. .

You should have read further beyond that sentence, or just stayed in bed. As it says in para 4:

Nevertheless, a reasonably consistent picture is beginning to emerge from high income countries. Reports suggest either no rise in suicide rates (Massachusetts, USA11; Victoria, Australia13; England14) or a fall (Japan,9 Norway15) in the early months of the pandemic.

[broncofan]

Good catch on the article. I hadn't even opened it but assumed maybe there was evidence because someone had posted some evidence about drug overdose on my twitter timeline.

We really are talking about a margin of more than 300,000 extra deaths because of our response to covid. Where I live the lockdowns have not been pervasive at all. Almost everything has been open except for short periods of time when there are spikes in cases. Lots of daily life is taking place virtually. I have meetings on zoom, I have doctors' appointments on zoom, and I call people instead of meet up with them. That is psychologically stressful and challenging.

We now have a vaccine and 2 million people a day are getting either their first or second shot. I can't believe we couldn't even get people on board with safety precautions with the end (possibly) in sight. That is the result of a fractured society. It also reflects the Republican mindset in which nothing matters except maximum self-interest. Wearing a mask is a little uncomfortable and if the cost of it is a painful and awful death for someone else so be it.

[filghy2]

Also, I'm not telling you it's the victims' fault, I'm telling you it's your fault. For being foolish enough not to see the oh-so-simple solution to the whole problem, short-sighted enough not to realize that there are some people who are literally going to promote this lockdown (and therefore their own place in the international spotlight) FOREVER if we let them (Fauci's already setting us up into 2022), and for being panicky enough to accept any "solution" that's offered, no matter how fucked it leaves us in the end. Because you don't want to be sick. What a bunch of fucking cowards and babies.

Are you going to refuse to be vaccinated then. It sounds like a nanny state solution, and real men should be able to deal with a tiny virus themselves.

Better still, why not avoid doctors entirely? After all, primitive man didn't have any nanny advice from doctors, and they managed to live to a ripe old age of about 35.

Do you ever read over your posts and ask yourself "Am I being a complete dickhead just for the sake of being against whatever the other side is for?"

[Nick Danger]

Are you going to refuse to be vaccinated then. It sounds like a nanny state solution, and real men should be able to deal with a tiny virus themselves.

Better still, why not avoid doctors entirely? After all, primitive man didn't have any nanny advice from doctors, and they managed to live to a ripe old age of about 35.

Do you ever read over your posts and ask yourself "Am I being a complete dickhead just for the sake of being against whatever the other side is for?"

I've already told you, Flighty, I'm immune to the virus. I'm immune to everything, I haven't been sick in decades. I attribute it to the fact that as a child I had ALL the stuff - chickenpox, measles, mumps, even mononucleosis. All before I was like 8. I've already been around 3 people I know had the virus and I walked away clean. I'm probably one of those "super-spreaders."

And I do avoid doctors. Haven't been to a doctor since my Air Force physical.

I try to remember that I'm among mere mortals but it's hard to soar with the eagles when you're surrounded by a bunch of turkeys.

And no, I'm not a contrarian, Flighty. I just disagree with you on practically every issue under the sun. :fu:

[broncofan]

I attribute it to the fact that as a child I had ALL the stuff - chickenpox, measles, mumps, even mononucleosis. All before I was like 8. I've already been around 3 people I know had the virus and I walked away clean. I'm probably one of those "super-spreaders."

And I do avoid doctors.

I try to remember that I'm among mere mortals but it's hard to soar with the eagles when you're surrounded by a bunch of turkeys.


You don't need a doctor until you do. Lots of great people would have died in their first decade of life without modern medicine. And many of their contributions to this world exceed yours (and mine etc).

You have no basis for knowing whether you have immunity to covid or even if your parents didn't get very sick because they were infected with a low viral dose as opposed to having a robust immune system. There are libraries filled with stuff you don't know and when you need a doctor you'll forget all your bragging and be thankful.

Besides, maybe you misheard your air force doc;

1303897

[filghy2]

I've already told you, Flighty, I'm immune to the virus. I'm immune to everything, I haven't been sick in decades.

And I do avoid doctors. Haven't been to a doctor since my Air Force physical.

I can just see the inscription on your gravestone: "Doctors? I don't need no doctors."

I take it you don't travel overseas because it's likely many countries will require proof of vaccination if you don't want to be quarantined.

[Nick Danger]

You don't need a doctor until you do. Lots of great people would have died in their first decade of life without modern medicine. And many of their contributions to this world exceed yours (and mine etc).

You have no basis for knowing whether you have immunity to covid or even if your parents didn't get very sick because they were infected with a low viral dose as opposed to having a robust immune system. There are libraries filled with stuff you don't know and when you need a doctor you'll forget all your bragging and be thankful.

Besides, maybe you misheard your air force doc;

Me: Exposed to covid multiple times, didn't get it, history of savage immune system
You: "You have no basis for knowing whether you have immunity to covid..."

Hell, Bronco, you should be happy for me!


I can just see the inscription on your gravestone: "Doctors? I don't need no doctors."

I take it you don't travel overseas because it's likely many countries will require proof of vaccination if you don't want to be quarantined.

If I want to go somewhere and I have to get the vaccine to go there, I'll get it. I'm not scared of it, I just don't need it.

[broncofan]

Hell, Bronco, you should be happy for me!

If I want to go somewhere and I have to get the vaccine to go there, I'll get it. I'm not scared of it, I just don't need it.
I'm happy for you that you didn't get covid. I'm happy your parents recovered well. I'd be careful though about concluding you're invulnerable to it.

I don't necessarily doubt everything you've said given the boy band revelations bc sometimes people pick and choose lies, but I'm gonna start digesting your anecdotes with more grains of salt...I just worry about my blood pressure. But yeah, I wish you well and don't want anyone to get sick.

[Stavros]

Another day, another Republican Govt at war with Voting. I find this quite amazing, from Iowa-

"The law shortens the early voting period to 20 days from the current 29, just three years after Republicans reduced the period from 40 days. It also requires most mail ballots to be received by Election Day, rather than counting votes postmarked by Election Day that arrive by noon on the Monday following the election.

Voting sites will close at 8 p.m. rather than 9 p.m., and county election officials are banned from sending out absentee ballot request forms unless requested. Satellite voting sites also can only be set up if enough voters petition for one, and voters will be removed from active voting lists if they miss a single general election and don’t report a change in address or register as a voter again."
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/iowa-dems-ponder-strategies-amid-164326604.html

Closing voting booths at 8pm? That alone seems extreme to me. Maybe they should abolish voting and just appoint themselves? But the more serious question is, why do these Republican Governments in the States assume that mail-in ballots, satellite voting stations, extending the time period in which to cast or send in a vote only benefits Democrats? Do no Republicans use mail-in ballots? And why assume that if someone did not vote in 2020 they are no longer in some way 'active' and be removed from the roll, when there might be non-political reasons why they did not vote in 2020 but still live at Chestnut Ave? Why not do what we do here, and send voters a form every year to confirm their ID and address? Is that so difficult?