Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

There is this trivial thing that recurs.

 

Today NPR was quoting some R, I think from Arizona, as saying "I don't think that Trump can get elected unless he changes what he says. I don't think Trump should get elected unless he changes what he says."

 

There have been many minor variants on this message. Do these guys listen to themselves at all? Rephrased: "Mr. Trump's comments show him to hold repulsive beliefs. I cannot support him if he continues to say such things. If he learns to lie about what he believes, then I will support him".

 

 

I realize that in politics and elsewhere what people say and what they believe do not always match. But it is unusual to find so many people making it unequivocally clear that they have no trouble at all with the candidate's character or beliefs, as long as the candidate lies about these beliefs. It hurts my ears to hear such things.

 

I know this is just one more item in a long list, but it does seem to be a clearly stated position of many Rs. It is hard to believe that someone wishes his name to be attached to such a position.

[hrothgar]

IMO, and from what I have gathered from Mike777 posts over the years, Mike is liberal only in the sense that neoliberal has the word "liberal" embedded.

 

FWIW, the expression neo-Liberal has shifted remarkably over the years.

 

30 years ago, I categorized myself as a neo-Liberal, however, this was in the tradition of Rustow and not the "Chicago boys"

[Zelandakh]

FWIW, the expression neo-Liberal has shifted remarkably over the years.

The wiki page is reasonable starting point for anyone interested in this. In the UK the expression is less common and the policies of Friedman followed by Margaret Thatcher tend to be labelled monetarism or, more specifically, simply Thatcherism.

[helene_t]

Today NPR was quoting some R, I think from Arizona, as saying "I don't think that Trump can get elected unless he changes what he says. I don't think Trump should get elected unless he changes what he says."

I can imagine some people would say that Boris Johnson could have been a decent politician if he had just been a bit more diplomatic.

 

And maybe some will say the same about Trump.

 

Not saying that it is a reasonable position. Trump's business records and his cluelessness about politics should be enough to disqualify him regardless of what one thinks about his debating tactics and regardless of what one assumes his political views to be.

[helene_t]

The wiki page is reasonable starting point for anyone interested in this. In the UK the expression is less common and the policies of Friedman followed by Margaret Thatcher tend to be labelled monetarism or, more specifically, simply Thatcherism.

Why do they list fiscal austerity as a component of liberalism? Spending cuts ok, but austerity also means tax increases.

 

Interesting, by the way, that the modern usage of the term originated in Spanish and was borrowed by English later.

[Zelandakh]

Why do they list fiscal austerity as a component of liberalism? Spending cuts ok, but austerity also means tax increases.

That is a good question and I would tend to agree with you. Classical liberals generally wanted a small, merchant-friendly government and austerity for them would definitely have meant less government involvement rather than tax increases wherever possible. I wonder if that was slipped into the wiki article by someone trying to increase the link between classical liberalism and modern neo-liberalism.

 

Interesting, by the way, that the modern usage of the term originated in Spanish and was borrowed by English later.

If you read the Origins section in detail, the suggestion is that the 1970s meaning originated in the USA before getting picked up in Chile and spreading through the Spanish-speaking world. So I am not sure one can say that the term originated in Spanish but rather that is was popularised in that form. Not that I can verify the accuracy of this part of the article - I was a little young for politics at the time! :P

[billw55]

There is this trivial thing that recurs.

 

Today NPR was quoting some R, I think from Arizona, as saying "I don't think that Trump can get elected unless he changes what he says. I don't think Trump should get elected unless he changes what he says."

 

There have been many minor variants on this message. Do these guys listen to themselves at all? Rephrased: "Mr. Trump's comments show him to hold repulsive beliefs. I cannot support him if he continues to say such things. If he learns to lie about what he believes, then I will support him".

 

 

I realize that in politics and elsewhere what people say and what they believe do not always match. But it is unusual to find so many people making it unequivocally clear that they have no trouble at all with the candidate's character or beliefs, as long as the candidate lies about these beliefs. It hurts my ears to hear such things.

 

I know this is just one more item in a long list, but it does seem to be a clearly stated position of many Rs. It is hard to believe that someone wishes his name to be attached to such a position.

A simple case of playing both sides. If Trump wins, they will say "oh yes he should be more careful how he presents, but his beliefs are best and the voters proved that." But if Trump loses they will say "see how we opposed this all along, we want to save the R party from such as him."

 

Pathetic, but no special surprise.

 

 

[PassedOut]

It looks to me that Trump's statements are getting more and more ominous: Trump labels Clinton 'the devil' and suggests election will be rigged

 

“I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest,” he told the crowd.

 

He did not elaborate but later repeated the charge on Monday night with Sean Hannity on Fox News, saying: “November 8th, we’d better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged. And I hope the Republicans are watching closely or it’s going to be taken away from us.”

 

Roger Stone, a long time confidante of Trump, amplified these concerns in an interview with a far right wing radio show.

 

Stone said: “I think we have widespread voter fraud, but the first thing that Trump needs to do is begin talking about it constantly.”

 

Laying out a strategy for Trump to adopt, Stone added: “He needs to say for example, today would be a perfect example: ‘I am leading in Florida. The polls all show it. If I lose Florida, we will know that there’s voter fraud. If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government.’”

 

He also promised a “bloodbath” if the Democrats attempted to “steal” the election.

I think Trump is suggesting that his loss of the election would mean that the election was rigged and that his supporters should go on a rampage. It would not surprise me if some of his looniest supporters took Trump's suggestion to heart. And on this date, Trump is not leading in Florida.

[billw55]

Use of the word "leading" annoys me. Elections happen on one day in November. Nobody can be "leading" three months before election day.

 

In NFL week 9, the Jacksonville Jaguars visit the Kansas City Chiefs. I think that most people will expect KC to win that game. But nobody would say that KC is "leading". That would be silly.

 

 

 

[kenberg]

My error here, I read to quickly and did not realize that the worst of it was said by Stone, not Trump.

Thanks to olegru for helping me out here.

This does not really change my view that it is time for leading Republicans to deal with this.

 

It looks to me that Trump's statements are getting more and more ominous: Trump labels Clinton 'the devil' and suggests election will be rigged

 

 

I think Trump is suggesting that his loss of the election would mean that the election was rigged and that his supporters should go on a rampage. It would not surprise me if some of his looniest supporters took Trump's suggestion to heart. And on this date, Trump is not leading in Florida.

 

It is time for serious Republicans to deal with this. It is impossible not to see this as a threat.Losing is equated to being rigged, and then " this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government."

 

If he really said this, or anything remotely like this, it no longer suffices for Republican leaders to maintain a discreet silence. I long ago said that if Donald Trump were somehow to agree with every political position I hold, I would still find him unacceptable. How much more is needed for those in leadership positions, and the everyday citizen not in a leadership position for that matter, to come to the same conclusion?

 

A lawyer could argue that he did not say losing proves rigged, he only discussed the possibility. Bull. I understand what is being said, and so does everyone else.

[barmar]

I realize that in politics and elsewhere what people say and what they believe do not always match. But it is unusual to find so many people making it unequivocally clear that they have no trouble at all with the candidate's character or beliefs, as long as the candidate lies about these beliefs. It hurts my ears to hear such things.

But it can also go the other way.

 

Last night's "Full Frontal" had their coverage of the DNC, and they had a segment where correspondents talked to Bernie supporters who hadn't been swayed over to Hillary's camp. They pointed out to one of them that Hillary had adopted a number of Bernie's policies in her platform. He said that just because she was saying and doing the right things, it doesn't make her the right candidate. Basically, he was seeing through the fact that politicians will say whatever they think the voters want to hear. But if you don't trust the candidate to begin with, why would you believe these statements?

[Winstonm]

It is time for serious Republicans to deal with this. It is impossible not to see this as a threat.Losing is equated to being rigged, and then " this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government."

 

If he really said this, or anything remotely like this, it no longer suffices for Republican leaders to maintain a discreet silence. I long ago said that if Donald Trump were somehow to agree with every political position I hold, I would still find him unacceptable. How much more is needed for those in leadership positions, and the everyday citizen not in a leadership position for that matter, to come to the same conclusion?

 

A lawyer could argue that he did not say losing proves rigged, he only discussed the possibility. Bull. I understand what is being said, and so does everyone else.

 

This the trouble with ideology over critical thinking. That applies to both sides, too. I've never grasped the argument from either side for a large government or a small government - when you starting point is ideologically driven, it is automatically invalid as a beginning in critical thinking.

 

Why can't we all simply agree that government should be the size it needs to be to accomplish those things we need and want accomplished? That is at least a reasonable beginning.

[barmar]

Why can't we all simply agree that government should be the size it needs to be to accomplish those things we need and want accomplished? That is at least a reasonable beginning.

The actual argument is over what we need and want accomplished by government versus other organizations. When someone says we need a smaller government, what they actually mean is that government shouldn't be responsible for many of the things it does.

[Trinidad]

It looks to me that Trump's statements are getting more and more ominous: Trump labels Clinton 'the devil' and suggests election will be rigged

 

“I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest,” he told the crowd.

At least he is honest about his plan to have the election rigged to prevent 'the devil' from winning...

 

;)

 

Rik

[kenberg]

But it can also go the other way.

 

Last night's "Full Frontal" had their coverage of the DNC, and they had a segment where correspondents talked to Bernie supporters who hadn't been swayed over to Hillary's camp. They pointed out to one of them that Hillary had adopted a number of Bernie's policies in her platform. He said that just because she was saying and doing the right things, it doesn't make her the right candidate. Basically, he was seeing through the fact that politicians will say whatever they think the voters want to hear. But if you don't trust the candidate to begin with, why would you believe these statements?

 

I think what Trump is saying is more, a lot more, than what the Sanders folks are saying. And further, they are the worker bees, not the queen.

 

If Sanders supporters want to criticize the DNC for fake neutrality, I can understand that. They can be suspicious of, say, Clinton's movement toward free tuition (for some). They can announce they will not vote for her. All of that is very different from the candidate essentially calling for widespread trouble in the streets if he doesn't win. To say Trump's words are irresponsible seems to me to understate the matter by quite a bit. As unbelievable as it seems, I think the Republican National Committee needs to put out an unambiguous statement making not clear that they do not support widespread civil disobedience if their candidate fails to win the election.

 

 

And then they need to think through whether he really is their candidate. They probably have some legal obligation to put his name on the ballot with an R beside it. Maybe a few other things. But I can't believe they are comfortable with what's happening. Not Priebus, not anyone.

 

If they really can't see that something needs to be done, their members need to explain it to them.

[olegru]

It is time for serious Republicans to deal with this. It is impossible not to see this as a threat.Losing is equated to being rigged, and then " this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government."

If he really said this, or anything remotely like this ...

 

Well, according Guardian it was not Trump, but somebody named Roger Stone who said it. According Wikipedia he left the Trump campaign on August 8, 2015, so you cannot blame Trump for saying that.

[kenberg]

Well, according Guardian it was not Trump, but somebody named Roger Stone who said it. According Wikipedia he left the Trump campaign on August 8, 2015, so you cannot blame Trump for saying that.

 

That would be good (by comparison) . Trump says outrageous things but this is really beyond the pale.I see. Trump only said it might be rigged, the fantasy about street violence belongs to Stone. What a group.

 

This whole thing must be disowned.

It's hard to be saying that it's good that Trump only suggested that he is worried about it all being rigged, while the suggestion for violence is due to to Stone instead, but it is "better" in the sense of l"less awful".

 

Actually it is only a little less awful.

 

This has to be dealt with by leading Republicans. I see I was not quite right about who said what, but still it is time to address it. Some things just can't be left to slide.

 

Thanks for the correction.

[Winstonm]

The actual argument is over what we need and want accomplished by government versus other organizations. When someone says we need a smaller government, what they actually mean is that government shouldn't be responsible for many of the things it does.

 

At the heart, this is true, but it is not the creedo of the right. The right begins the conversation with an idea that the government is the problem and it should be smaller.

 

It is a point of no start. Starting point has to be: what do we want our government to do? After that decision is reached, the size of the government has been determined, has it not?

[barmar]

At the heart, this is true, but it is not the creedo of the right. The right begins the conversation with an idea that the government is the problem and it should be smaller.

 

It is a point of no start. Starting point has to be: what do we want our government to do? After that decision is reached, the size of the government has been determined, has it not?

I think it really is the same thing. Republicans don't think we should have programs like welfare, national parks, NEA, etc., so all the government departments that manage them are what make it "too big".

 

They believe that the free market is generally better than government (mis)management, so anything that could reasonably be privatized should be, e.g. NASA and schools.

[Winstonm]

I think it really is the same thing. Republicans don't think we should have programs like welfare, national parks, NEA, etc., so all the government departments that manage them are what make it "too big".

 

They believe that the free market is generally better than government (mis)management, so anything that could reasonably be privatized should be, e.g. NASA and schools.

 

I think you are confusing a faction of the right wing - Reagan acolytes - as representing all of conservatism. I do not believe this to be accurate about all conservatives but I reserve judgement as I may be wrong.

[kenberg]

I see that Trump has decided not to endorse Ryan or McCain in their own election campaigns. Honestly this has some sort of noir humor in it. They both endorsed him, so they said, in the name of party unity. So much for that plan!

 

I would like to say that Trump's non-endorsement will help them but, after they embarrassed themselves by endorsing Trump, I think this will simply make them look like easy marks. I can't even say appearances are deceiving. You buy into con man's pitch, you get scammed.

 

It just keeps getting worse.

[billw55]

Honestly it sounds more and more like he is trying to lose.

[PassedOut]

Use of the word "leading" annoys me. Elections happen on one day in November. Nobody can be "leading" three months before election day.

 

In NFL week 9, the Jacksonville Jaguars visit the Kansas City Chiefs. I think that most people will expect KC to win that game. But nobody would say that KC is "leading". That would be silly.

Would it annoy you if an announcer says that KC is leading 7-3 after the first quarter?

[cherdano]

Honestly it sounds more and more like he is trying to lose.

Ok some level, I think he doesn't want to be president. But more importantly, he doesn't want to lose. Sad!

Solution: complain that the election was rigged.

[kenberg]

Honestly it sounds more and more like he is trying to lose.

 

This seems possible. Myself, any possibility of me becoming president would scare the living crap out of me. The responsibility is beyond my imagination and I think no one is really prepared for it. But Trump and I have nothing in common, we seem to be of a different species. So understanding what he is doing or why he is doing it is beyond my imagination. Still, self-sabotage, either intentional or through some deep quirk in the mind, seems possible.

 

While figuring out Trump is beyond my powers, I can sort of get it as to why Ryan has acted as he has. Republican voters have somehow chosen to nominate Trump, and I can see how a House Speaker, partly through self-interest, partly through party loyalty, might come to act as he has. It seemed mis-guided, and now I think it has come back to bite him deeply, but I at least can make sense of it. It's less clear to me why McCain would go along with it, I imagine he is wondering about this himself.

 

We have never had this in my lifetime, maybe we have never had it ever. Parties have factions. Eisenhower Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans, Goldwater Republicans and so on. On the Democratic side there is a lot of space between Sanders and, say, the late Henry Jackson. But nothing like this. The Republicans have nominated someone who is barely a Republican, is at war with leading Republicans, and whose main, maybe only, skill is total belligerence toward anyone who crosses paths with him.

 

It is bizarre.

 

The"just barely a Republican" is not the big issue. Sanders is just barely a Democrat, and Eisenhower, if I recall it correctly, was courted by both parties in 1952. But there is a difference here.