Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[barmar]

Is this election the most "least of evils" in recent history? When Obama ran, I was eager to vote for him. This year, it's a reluctant "I've got to vote for someone."

[kenberg]

Is this election the most "least of evils" in recent history? When Obama ran, I was eager to vote for him. This year, it's a reluctant "I've got to vote for someone."

 

For me, ad I think for many, the most stunning thing is the total disaster of the Republican process. And not only the selection of their candidate. I can well imagine people supporting Romney or McCain but Trump? Are they nuts? And this total lack of cooperation on the Supreme Court. They really cannot see that a highly qualified candidate with no great ideological baggage would be very good for the country? I guess they must be able to see it, but like Rhett Butler they don't give a damn. It's beyond words.

 

Hillary strikes me as a walking position paper that has been written by someone else. And we have big problems in need of deep thought. I hope that she is up for it. She is experienced, and she is, or I hope she is, intelligent. Maybe I am crazy, but I really don't see Bernie as a president. Which is a very lukewarm way of supporting Hillary.

 

Yes, this is not a great election year.

[billw55]

I can well imagine people supporting Romney or McCain but Trump? Are they nuts?

No, just racist, and willing to flush everything else for the sake of it.

 

And this total lack of cooperation on the Supreme Court. They really cannot see that a highly qualified candidate with no great ideological baggage would be very good for the country?

They don't want or care about what is good for the country. It's a pure power struggle for them. Their power is waning and the resulting fear drives them to desperation. Why refuse hearings when they have a majority in the full senate? Because they know a vote will confirm, exposing their lost hold over their own party, and increasing their weakness.

 

Hillary strikes me as a walking position paper that has been written by someone else. And we have big problems in need of deep thought. I hope that she is up for it. She is experienced, and she is, or I hope she is, intelligent. Maybe I am crazy, but I really don't see Bernie as a president. Which is a very lukewarm way of supporting Hillary.

 

Yes, this is not a great election year.

Eh, Clinton is crooked as a 9-iron. I could vote for Sanders but I doubt I will have the chance.

 

No, not a good year at all.

[barmar]

No, not a good year at all.

And the worst thing about this is that it's happening when the country is really in need of good leadership. While the economy isn't in as bad shape as when Obama took over, many other problems have gotten worse. Wealth inequality has increased, and so has terrorist activity. Climate change is following its course.

 

No matter who wins, I'm not optimistic about the next 4 years.

[gwnn]

(bold face added by me)

Wealth inequality: It does not come naturally to me to resent the rich. It just doesn't. To Bernie, I think it does. This is important. I do think that the concentration of wealth is a significant problem. Problems must be addressed. But if we can address the problem in a way that makes the poor and others better off while leaving the rich just as rich as they are now, I am fine with that. I am not so sure Bernie is. His approach seems to start with resentment of the rich. Mine doesn't.

Is it a better approach to start with accepting tens of millions of dollars from the rich, talking to them in secret?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-static-noise-speech_us_570930dae4b0836057a16748

[PassedOut]

George Monbiot has a piece in The Guardian today about the evolving ideology that has brought us here: Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems

 

Financial meltdown, environmental disaster and even the rise of Donald Trump – neoliberalism has played its part in them all. Why has the left failed to come up with an alternative?

...

 

The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the gradual development of Britain’s welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.

 

In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control. Like Mises’s book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organization that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.

 

With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters of the Universe as “a kind of neoliberal international”: a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement’s rich backers funded a series of think tanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and Virginia.

 

As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek’s view that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way – among American apostles such as Milton Friedman – to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.

 

Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name. In 1951, Friedman was happy to describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that, the term began to disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.

 

At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at the margins.

But not any more. It might be the ideology that dare not speak its name, but its adherents have been gaining power for decades. And here we are...

[Winstonm]

George Monbiot has a piece in The Guardian today about the evolving ideology that has brought us here: Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems

 

 

But not any more. It might be the ideology that dare not speak its name, but its adherents have been gaining power for decades. And here we are...

 

It lost its tag because calling bulls$%^ by another name does not mask its smell.

[Al_U_Card]

Or perhaps only the names were different but the end result is pretty much always the same. When the dice are loaded it matters little which game you play.

[kenberg]

I have previously mentioned that there is a heated contest here in Maryland's 8th Congressional Distric.t I said there were seven candidates but in fact there are nine. This is just for the Dem primary. I just got a recorded phone call from Michael Douglis praising the virtues of one of them, Joel Rubin. Another, David Trone, has (he says and I believe him) spent five million dollars of his own money on this race. This is not a projection of future spending, this is money already spent. Kathleen Matthews, a former newscaster and former Marriott big wig, is running and we receive calls on her behalf every other day or so. Speaking with one of the callers I said I would ask a question that would ordinarily be rude, but since she was seeking my vote it came to mind: Just why did Ms. Matthews quit her job with Marriott? The caller did not know the answer offhand but apparently they have support staff so I received the following answer, such as it is: She quit to run for Congress. With 8 other candidates in the race this seems like quite a leap of faith, but I let it be. I found the answer a bit glib.

 

I have never seen anything like this for a Congressional race. I get far fewer phone calls and mailings for Senate and Governor races. In fact no one has called me about Sanders/Clinton. But Congress? Almost daily.

 

I am still working on who I will vote for. No doubt the calls will keep coming.

Note to Michael Douglis: You candidate is getting serious consideration.

Note to Kathleen Matthews. I voted many time for Barbara Mikulski for Senator. Not once did she ask me to so so because she is a woman.

[y66]

George Monbiot did not answer his own question: Why has the left failed to come up with an alternative?

 

This is not surprising since even water cooler posters have struggled to answer simple variations of this question such as: Why has the left repeatedly failed to even try to win the support of white blue collar voters?

 

Instead, Monbiot devoted his entire article to yet another rant against neoliberalism which, no doubt, he does at even greater length in his new book "How Did We Get into This Mess?" Perhaps his book discusses this assertion by Milton Friedman in "Capitalism and Freedom" and the incredible, Alan Greenspan-esque naiveté that underpins it:

 

The doctrine of "social responsibility", that corporations should care about the community and not just profit, is highly subversive to the capitalist system and can only lead towards totalitarianism.

Friedman wrote that in a era when it was perhaps unthinkable, to him, that a majority of Congress and the Supreme Court would take a similar view of social responsibility. I feel sure he would agree that the left *and* the right need to come up with an alternative to what we have now.

[kenberg]

Well, I recorded the latest Hillary/Bernie debate. Summary: For me, Bernie out. Absolutely out. He cannot answer the simplest questions. He shouts and wave his hands. He wiggles around when anyone other than him is speaking. And then he does it some more shouting and waving. I can do some waving. So long Bernie.

 

I have not yet decided about who to vote for for Congress, but I do not need to think further about the presidential primary.

[Al_U_Card]

Capitalism is all about the "use" of capital to generate added value to products (transformation) and processes (intellectual property). Profit is the means whereby this method is bonified and supported for its continued existence. No profit, no improvement due to effort expended .

When you put the scorekeepers in charge, there is no guarantee of continued success. We have "corporatized" ourselves into a creative corner. Only time will tell how this particular game will play out...

[kenberg]

I found this piece in the WaPo amusing. It is also at least a little instructive in just how candidates get votes. The discussion centers on the Cruz comment about NY Values. Here is an exceerpt.

"Hey Steve," one friend called to another. "What's a New York value?"

 

"Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness — and Ted Cruz is a complete a--hole," said Steve Giannantonio, who works in finance. "That's a New York value."

 

 

or

 

 

"We're neighbors here," she began calmly. "We enjoy the theater. We enjoy the arts. We enjoy Central Park, we enjoy the city — that's New York. We've got all kinds of people, and we've all got to get along. Be kind, be patient, be gentle. Cruz is a moron. Marcia, what do you think of that jerk?"

 

 

 

I am sure we should all be able to evaluate various proposals for economic growth, but elections often are decided on different grounds.

[y66]

Very happy to see a conservative voice of reason weighing in today on Obama's use of executive privilege on immigration.

[Zelandakh]

Does Richard Lugar really qualify as a conservative voice at the present time? Although he took office as a Republican, his policies seem to be generally closer to those of the Democrats in 2016.

[kenberg]

I have a couple of questions (honest questions I really do not know the answer to).

 

Lugar says:

 

The administration's initiatives allow Homeland Security officials to forgo deportation, on a case-by-case basis, of undocumented residents who came here as children before June 15, 2007, and of certain undocumented parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents. Both are in keeping with similar programs put in place by both Republican and Democratic presidents dating from the Eisenhower administration.

 

I don't follow this closely but I thought that the executive order applied in a blanket way to people in certain situations. That is, individuals covered by this order could perhaps still be deported after a review on a case by case basis, but the default would be that they would not be deported.

 

Forgoing deportation on a case by case basis, but with deportation as the default, is quite different from a default that forbids deportation for designated groups but is subject to case by case exceptions. I thought the policy was the latter. Am I wrong about this?

 

Also, I am unsure of just how similar this is to the actions of Eisenhower. I have read a bit about this in the past, but I don't much remember the details.

 

For me, the Lugar piece reads more like a political piece than a piece that is intended to be informative. He says "The immense moral and legal consequences of a deportation campaign targeting up to 11 million undocumented immigrants are obvious." Sure, fair enough. If he wants to argue against Donald Trump, on this or other issues, I expect I agree with him. But the issues involving the Obama executive order are, I believe, more subtle. His piece does not help me much in thinking these issues through.

 

Immigration is not something that keeps me awake at night thinking about it. But I want to be an informed citizen.

[Winstonm]

No shock here but I am glad to see I am not alone in my revulsion with what is termed "news" these days.

 

Only 6 percent of people say they have a great deal of confidence in the press, about the same level of trust Americans have in Congress, according to a new survey released on Sunday.

 

The study mirrors past reports that found the public’s trust in mass media has reached historic lows, according to data gathered by the Media Insight Project, a partnership between The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute. The report found faith in the press was just slightly higher than the 4 percent of people who said they trusted Congress.

 

Alongside the dire findings, the report found respondents valued accuracy above all else, with 85 percent of people saying it was extremely important to avoid errors in coverage. Timeliness and clarity followed closely, with 76 percent and 72 percent respectively saying those attributes were imperative among media sources.

 

When there is no accountability for what is said all you have is an attempt to entertain rather than enlighten.

[billw55]

When there is no accountability for what is said all you have is an attempt to entertain rather than enlighten.

Sums up the state of media quite well.

[helene_t]

Over the years I have known a number of people who describe themselves as Socialists. Often I find that they see things differently than I do.

Same here, but I would not necesarily reject a politician who labels himself as socialist. The label means different things in different parts of the World, and possibly it could also be a generational thing, as class war and USSR connections become increasingly irelevant.

 

In Northern Europe, we have social democrats (which have been the major force in building the wellfare state which Bernie is so fond of), and then we have socialists which are somewhat further to the left and have some ideas which are somewhat detached from reality.

 

In Southern Europe, the political parties aligned with northern European Social Democrats tend to call themselves socialist parties, so presumably a Spanish or French "socialist" may be appr. what I would call a social democrat.

 

I don't know if "democratic socialist" is one or the other, but probably it is a bit unclear as USA doesn't have much tradition in that area. Anyway, Bernie's ideas don't sound that socialist to me. “Medicare/aid for everyone” is not quite like the British/Scandinavian model (which would be more like “VA for all”), let alone socialist.

[kenberg]

Same here, but I would not necesarily reject a politician who labels himself as socialist. The label means different things in different parts of the World, and possibly it could also be a generational thing, as class war and USSR connections become increasingly irrelevant.

 

In Northern Europe, we have social democrats (which have been the major force in building the wellfare state which Bernie is so fond of), and then we have socialists which are somewhat further to the left and have some ideas which are somewhat detached from reality.

 

In Southern Europe, the political parties aligned with northern European Social Democrats tend to call themselves socialist parties, so presumably a Spanish or French "socialist" may be appr. what I would call a social democrat.

 

I don't know if "democratic socialist" is one or the other, but probably it is a bit unclear as USA doesn't have much tradition in that area. Anyway, Bernie's ideas don't sound that socialist to me. "Medicare/aid for everyone" is not quite like the British/Scandinavian model (which would be more like "VA for all"), let alone socialist.

 

Yes, or at least a qualified yes. What's in a name and all that. If, after some thought, I came to think of him as a good choice I would not let a label stop me.

 

My favorite story about labels. Back in the 1970s after the Shah of Iran fell and Americans were taken hostage in the Embassy, all of the Iranian graduate students suddenly became Persian. I considered telling them that I did not hold them responsible for the hostage taking but that I was insulted that they thought I wouldn't see through this ploy. In truth I thought it inventive and amusing.

 

Back to Bernie. We will know more in a few hours, but I think it's over. I've made up my mind at any rate, but really I think that race is over. There are, of course, other races.

 

Chris Van Hollen is currently my Representative to Congress and he gets good reviews from just about everyone. Barbara Mikulski is a Maryland Senator, a good one, but she is retiring. Van Hollen is running to replace her. It seemed clear cut, and for me it is, but he has to contend with a strong, if somewhat incomprehensible, challenge. Of course we then have to find a replacement for Van Hollen in the House. I still have a week to decide, I'm working on it.

 

Maryland is a Democratic state so probably the primary winner becomes the overall winner but this is not written in stone. We have a Republican governor, the third since I came here in 1967.He is at some sort of reord high in approval ratings.

[mike777]

Same here, but I would not necesarily reject a politician who labels himself as socialist. The label means different things in different parts of the World, and possibly it could also be a generational thing, as class war and USSR connections become increasingly irelevant.

 

In Northern Europe, we have social democrats (which have been the major force in building the wellfare state which Bernie is so fond of), and then we have socialists which are somewhat further to the left and have some ideas which are somewhat detached from reality.

 

In Southern Europe, the political parties aligned with northern European Social Democrats tend to call themselves socialist parties, so presumably a Spanish or French "socialist" may be appr. what I would call a social democrat.

 

I don't know if "democratic socialist" is one or the other, but probably it is a bit unclear as USA doesn't have much tradition in that area. Anyway, Bernie's ideas don't sound that socialist to me. “Medicare/aid for everyone” is not quite like the British/Scandinavian model (which would be more like “VA for all”), let alone socialist.

 

In practice you are correct. Most here if you ask people on the street do not know the definition of socialist, so they make one up.

 

In economic theory there is a standard definition of socialism.

 

As for "democratic socialism" I would say here in the USA we think of Sweden or Denmark. In other words countries the vast majority here in the USA have little, very little knowledge of how the country really works but they sound cool and have hot girls.

[Zelandakh]

Bernie's ideas don't sound that socialist to me.

American politics is sometimes described as a choice between the right and then even more right. Socialist and Liberal are often used as insults without any regard to the fact that these terms actually mean something real in the rest of the world. As I wrote before, it would be great if there was a sensible debate over there about some serious issues but, quite frankly, expectation is pretty low.

[mike777]

American politics is sometimes described as a choice between the right and then even more right. Socialist and Liberal are often used as insults without any regard to the fact that these terms actually mean something real in the rest of the world. As I wrote before, it would be great if there was a sensible debate over there about some serious issues but, quite frankly, expectation is pretty low.

 

You would be shocked how little Americans know of their own history. I am talking about basic stuff, very basic stuff. One example is ask who fought in the Civil War or even roughly when was it. A tricky question might be, who won the civil war.

[y66]

Not a Trump fan but still very happy to see him trounce his rivals Kasich and Cruz, especially Cruz, in New York.

[kenberg]

American politics is sometimes described as a choice between the right and then even more right. Socialist and Liberal are often used as insults without any regard to the fact that these terms actually mean something real in the rest of the world. As I wrote before, it would be great if there was a sensible debate over there about some serious issues but, quite frankly, expectation is pretty low.

 

Serious issues are difficult. Which means, to a large extent, we have to decide whom we trust. Or sort of trust.

 

The global economy, how to cope: I'm not smart enough. So I look for what I would like to see happen. I look at my personal history. A father who came to this country when he was ten, finished elementary school at 13, his mother had been dead since about his birth, his father died when he was twelve. My father had a pretty decent life. Not a spectacular life, not the immigrant that gets his name in history books, a decent life. I would like this country to continue to provide such opportunity. I don't know how to bring to about, there appear to be some problems. I understate. Economic forces overwhelm us. This does not make me right wing, it does not make me left wing. It leaves me uncertain. As so much does. I think that I favor the TransPacificPact. I am not smart enough to defend that position.

 

Security: I was two when Pearl Harbor was bombed, six when we nuked Hiroshima. It makes an impression. Massive realignments have taken place over my lifetime. Military force has played a significant role, often a determining role, as the world has shifted. Economic forces are hugely important in this. What do I make of it all? The world is a tough place, that's clear. The rest is nebulous. What are we to do about ISIS? I doubt that we should just ignore it. Iran? North Korea? I don't know. I am very suspicious of anyone who thinks that the answer is clear. Cybersecurity seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

 

Social issues: I have no interest in telling others how to live their lives, none at all. But I am not interested in providing unlimited financial support so that others can live a life they cannot afford on their own. I very much support schooling, training, any sort of support that helps people so that, after a period of time, they will not need further support beyond the social structures that are there for all of us. Part of a successful life comes from understanding what you can afford and what you cannot.

 

The above is off the top of my head. No doubt I could expand on this. The most striking thing, for me, is how difficult it all is.

 

I'm pretty much a Democrat, but it is not signed in blood. I don't much care for Sanders, I would find it very difficult to have to listen to him for four years. I don't think Obama has been all that great a president. I think the Republicans set out to make Obama's term as unsuccessful as possible, and I don't think that the country should forgive them for this. There are limits to what is acceptable, even in politics.

The tv has just informed me that Hillary has won in NY, it appears to be by a substantial margin but this will take a while yet. A Clinton presidency may not be the best thing I can imagine, I think it is the best thing that is available and could, possibly, work out very well.

 

I haven't noticed that Americans are all that much dumber than the world as a whole, I just think the problems are tough.

 

Does this make be right wing? The even more right wing? Left wing? Wingless? I like penguins, so wingless is fine.