As Democrats continue to sift through the debris of their electoral thrashing on November 5, the primacy of economic populism has risen to the top of various explanations of what went wrong with working-class voters and what should be done about it.
We believe there is an additional dynamic which is at play here. The type of Democrat described here by John is not a "progressive."
Progressives simply don't like working class voters. They don't hang out around them, don't go fishing with them, don't go to the same bars. We think that the most informative piece of information about progressives' attitudes toward blue collar folks and culture is reflected in comment sections in the NYT and WaPo.
They are simply ugly attitudes. And while one could argue that these commenters are not representative of progressives as a whole, that would be more convincing if other progressives slammed these ugly attitudes whenever they reared their ugly heads. But they don't.
And working class folks know it.
These attitudes are NOT what Democrats used to feel toward blue collar workers. They were our friends, they lived in our neighborhoods, we went to the same churches, etc.
Democrats simply must boot progressives from the party. We stand no chance to improve peoples' lives until that happens.
"If you’re not willing to welcome dissent and pluralism on cultural matters inside the Democratic Party, then find a line of work other than politics." -- John Halpin
Precisely. This may be the single best and most succinct diagnostic I have yet to read for where the modern Democratic Party has gone astray of its own vaunted ideals.
Rigid ideologues can have no place in a freedom loving society that demands openmess, Inquisitiveness, truthfulness, and the capacity to comprehend and change with changing realities and demands. Most of these long-held virtues are kryptonite to today's Democratic Party's tightly guarded goals.
To be fair, the GOP is pretty guilty of this too when it comes to Congress and the presidency. The parties are trending towards homogenization there--just look at the GOP platform. It consists of nothing but "what Trump says".
Both of them allow more variance at the local level, though.
The biggest problem is that social media is augmenting the most extreme voices in the parties, by dint of the way its algorithms are structured. "Inquisitiveness, truthfulness, and the capacity to comprehend and change with changing realities and demands" does not get you retweets, or get prioritized by the Facebook algorithm that determines your newsfeed. Loud, angry, paranoid and combative rhetoric does. So when "number of retweets" starts to correlate with "amount of political influence", as it has begun to, you've got a recipe for the mutual radicalization of the parties.
I think the author misses a few key dynamics here, perhaps because he's looking at the polling in too short and static of a timeframe, and is overlooking the fact that approval of economic policies in the abstract, and approval of economic policies as culturally coded in the concrete, are very different.
Look at the numbers (and election results) on a longer timeframe (say ~30-50 years) and I think you can pretty soundly conclude that economic policy A.) mostly only matters in elections insofar as it is culturally coded a certain way by a campaign/candidate/party, and B.) is *negatively* thermostatic in the abstract.
To take a recent example, (A) is exemplified in trends like the large crossover between voters who lean Trump and voters who approve of Bernie Sanders, despite them being on opposite ends of the policy spectrum. Bernie culturally signals as a standard working class male outside of the Washington elite, and frames his policies as such; Trump does too. (the irony is richer with the latter, of course) Voters care way more about that cultural framing than they do about any specific policies. (Which is why I'd say the only thing that keeps Bernie from being the Democrats' most competitive candidate against Trump is the negative cultural connotations of the 'socialist' label with older working class voters who grew up during the Cold War)
(B) means that voters' approval of certain economic policies in the abstract (rather than how they are concretely coded by a candidate, i.e. how they are viewed 'on paper') changes depending on what policy regime has most recently been perceived to *negatively* effect them. This is why the 'tax cuts and government austerity' policy regime became toxic in the immediate aftermath of the GFC, (and in the 1930s) and why 'government spending and strong capital controls to support full employment' became toxic during and after the stagflation of the 1970s. Today, owing to the painful side-effects of deindustrialization, it is why free trade has become toxic and Trump's protectionism is now in favor. The economic policy preferences of voters--and especially working class voters--do not revolve around what policies (again, in the abstract) are perceived to *benefit* them, but what policies are perceived to *hurt* them.
Setting that aside, Mr. Halpin's point on pluralism is 1000% correct; pluralism in both parties has been declining for awhile, and that is a weakness Democrats must capitalize on (and eliminate amongst themselves) if they ever want a governing majority.
A populist fusion movement would be ideal but has not been tried since William Jennings Bryan. Both Left populists and Right populists have been locked in their partisan ghettos even though policy convergence is pretty obvious. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are organized to do that. Too many Chamber of Commerce types among the former and too many moonbats among the latter, especially in the donor class.
I hate this John. As a Republican, I don't like that you're talking sense. Someone on the left may listen to you. What next, a discussion by BOTH sides on how to make revamped, improved unions and right to work laws coexist?
There is already a multiracial working class coalition. It's called MAGA. Democrats were too long in thrall to faculty lounge politics and the world moved on. While you want Democrats to change, there is little evidence they are going to. Your best shot is for Republicans to betray the base like the Tories did and you get a low turnout win like Labour. Once in power though Labour doubled down on the crazy. Using the police to investigate non-crime hate incidents is a clear violation of your prescription, not to mention basic civil liberties. Who knew that the name Leonard was homophobic..
You should be wary of falling into the "permanent Democratic majority" trap. (turned out not to be very permanent, eh?) Coalitions are not, and never will be, static--although it *is* arguably true that in the present era it may take larger shocks than in the past to change alignments, due to the trend towards partisan homogeneity at the national level. (which, fun though it may be to blame on progressives, is itself more the outgrowth of technological and economic developments than any autonomous 'cultural decisions' made by the coalition's member groups, progressives included)
Agreed. I have always said that the most important realignment accomplished by Trump was internal to the Republican party. He remade it as a populist vehicle and the people followed from the previous Democratic coalition. Who knows whether that is sustainable. The Bushies are still out there and just waiting for the Bad Orange Man to go away.
This is fair enough but begs the questions: WHY do Democrats offer little practicable economic populism? Why do Progressives default to cultural radicalism and shaming voters? Money is why, campaign cash, and the desperate hunger for it.
Politicians self-censor to avoid alienating potential donors. So the Party’s economic message is underwhelming and if you want to fight for social justice, virtue signaling about race and gender is all you’ve got.
I don’t question anyone’s motives. But until we fix campaign finance, all Americans - left right and center - are spinning their wheels in any effort to make a better life for our people. Please check out my website: www.savedemocracyinamerica.org. Thanks!
The problem is that the government is lying to everyone. After being an independent agency, the Bureau of Labor Statistics was brought under the control of the administration under Obama. The data reported is unreliable. They had a record 800,000 negative adjustment required in July... but of course the media had already reported the fantastic Biden economy. In addition, the use of the U-3 as the unemployment measure is wrong. It should be U-6. U-6 captures the total picture of people needing and wanting a full time job, but not finding one. The October U-3 is 4.1%, but U-6 is 7.7%. In addition there are over 300 counties in the US that are labor surplus areas. This equates to about 1200 communities. The U-6 unemployment rate in many of these is double-digits with some over 20%. And for some demographics like youth and black, the U-6 rate of unemployment in these places is near 50%.
Democrats are really idiots continuing to push the meme of good Biden economy when the voters walk outside and experience their own economic malaise and harm. And this is compounded by the good times displayed and repeated by the upper class liberal coastal and big city elite. "Hey... look at me... my Wall Street accounts and real estate values are fat and happy... the economy is doing great!"
No, the economy has not been great for the majority and that is why Democrats got crushed.
Bill Clinton was the expert at convincing voters "I feel your pain". Modern Democrats behave like gilded class snobs looking down their noses at everyone else below their top 20% income and wealth... and the people have had enough of that.
Where does the right to join a union fit in? In Virginia, Democrats are culturally liberal and want a $15 minimum wage, but they support the “right to work” law.
Virginia has been in economic and social decline since it started voting for Democrats. The difference between Virginia in 2007 and today is stark, and tragic. It is dead.
I continue to be amazed at the consistency with which writers associated with this newsletter consider climate change to be a niche “cultural” issue. Tell that to the significant number and kinds of species, e.g., polar bears, that are being, have been, or will be driven into extinction by climate change. And there’s the glib unthinking way in which impacts on future generations of the human species, perhaps most dramatically with the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers, are simply written off. The category of real issues is not defined by or limited to those in which opinion pollsters take an interest.
There does seem to be an assumption here that climate and other environmental issues are not very important without any discussion of what the importance are where Democrats could be more than an ineffectual echo of trumpism. Winning elections but losing much of currently habitable area on the planet, does not seem like a good trade.
Though I greatly appreciate the pragmatic approach of this article, to me, the bottom line is God-fearing folks contrasted with non-God-fearing folks. Is it more important to do 'serious remodeling', or 'update their own ideological framework' within the Democratic party, which to me sounds too much like just seeing which way the wind is blowing, or champion the pursuit of absolute Truth, always?
I am not saying the Republican party is the party of absolute Truth, or is full of or led mostly by true believers, certainly not (nor is the Democratic party devoid of believers, though a Christian is fooling themselves to think they can be pro-choice). I am simply saying that one side, IMO, clearly has a disdain for naked reality while the other has much more respect for it. Valuing race over character, valuing equal outcomes over meritocracy, and denying biological reality are just three examples where the truth that race says nothing about a person's character, that working hard to earn something is praiseworthy while getting something simply because you check a box is dishonest, and that there are only 2 sexes, that one cannot change is denied and mocked by current Democratic doctrine. The Truth on these issues is contained in the Bible.
So, my point isn't necessarily that the Democrats must get closer to Christianity (though I of course am partial to this), my point is, the Democratic party barely even acknowledges God anymore. And, to me, herein lies the problem. This makes it much more likely to accept relativism and the denial of absolute Truth. And people (whom God gave the innate ability to understand right vs wrong, but not the ability to conquer our carnal nature apart from having the Holy spirit) sense that this is wrong and are reinforced by the actions of the Democrats (border problem, what border problem? Laken Riley is just an isolated incident; I'm sorry, what words can I not use now?, the cost of your groceries really haven't gone up that much; why would anyone be held accountable for the Afghan withdrawal??)
Truth matters, people understand this, Democrats and Republicans (having a platform better on this issue), should forget which way the wind is blowing and concentrate on unchanging Truth.
But William, Trump lies constantly? Trump exaggerates often, but does not deny the Truths I've mentioned above as evidenced by his policy and platform. I will take a President, much puffed up by leaven, anytime, over a President who, just to point out his absolute dedication to deceit, kicked off his entire campaign in 2020 on a lie (very fine people).
Rejoice always, pray unceasingly and in everything give thanks, God bless!
I don't, but I also know I do not have a strong understanding of it either, I do know a little about Locke. I am a Christian, and I feel strongly that the further our country separates itself from God, the worse we will be. I'm also a sinner, who is slowly coming to understand, despite my carnal nature, that it is only with the guidance of the Holy Spirit that I can attain any real discernment, and even then, I am still susceptible to speaking from pride, and not from what I'm being taught, by the grace of God. Why do you ask?
Having a degree in economics, and a career doing nuts and bolts engineering rather than management, I’m sort of between the “elite” and “working people.” As such I regard “economic populism” as being based largely on the notion of playing politics to get something for nothing, or in the case of unions, something for more than the fair market price, at the expense of all consumers and of lower skilled people in particular.
I support progressive taxation as the fairest and most efficient means of reducing economic inequality, and think that the current level (at least at the federal level) is about right (albeit too complicated).
I cannot believe someone with a degree in economics would make these statements. “Fair market price” for labor is of course impacted to a dramatic degree by the supply of labor. And the core purpose of the policy agenda known as “globalization” is to access an endless supply of cheap labor.
You decry “getting something for nothing”, and then support direct taxation to redistribute wealth? Or is the purpose just to punish success and bloat the government?
The great economic policy disaster of the last 35 years is globalization, and until elites of both parties admit that, they and we will circle the drain. The economy as a whole is saddled with a massive trade deficit of almost $1T/y, has been limping at 2% growth since 2008, and in particular, the notion that the middle class would be happy with lower incomes in exchange for cheap consumer goods at Walmart has been proven to be as wrong and evil as it sounds.
But it seems you have been well trained in the schools that deny all of the above.
This is essentially the hackneyed pro union “logic” that regards “purchasing power” as being entirely dependent upon pay, while ignoring the importance of PRICES that will increase even faster than pay (especially over time) when “ populist economic policies” are enacted.
As to the “free trade” entailed in “globalization,” it has generally over time benefited all parties based on the principle of “comparative advantage.” An outstanding example is the U.S. Constitution, which mandates free trade among states.
I agree, however, that excessive dependence on trade with adversaries like China and even unreliable partners like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela is contrary to national economic and security interests. The solution to that is to use differential tariffs and other measures to shift foreign trade to friendly nations. A proposal to do this called the Trans Pacific Partnership was stupidly torpedoed by an unholy alliance left wing and right wing populists, including Trump.
Just to be clear - you have a degree in economics, and you think a trade deficit of $1T a year (3% of GDP) is fine. And has nothing to do with the fact that the US economy has barely exceeded 2% annual growth for the last 16 years. Ok.
This software is so screwed up that I can only reply that a trade deficit can be "good" or "bad" for various groups within the U.S. But a common interest is that the deficit be with a friendly country like Canada and not with an adversary like China -- because of our implied over-reliance on goods from an adversary.
I am hardly avoiding a subject in acknowledging its complexity.
A trade "surplus" with any country would necessarily involve Americans holding financial assets (particularly, government bonds) of that country that its government, corporations, and people paid to buy American goods and services. If you would like to own those foreign assets yourself, you can do so now in most cases.
But as a general federal policy, I can't think of many foreign assets that I would prefer to own versus U.S. assets.
And how would you implement your desire to have a trade surplus without enacting high tariffs across the board that would inevitably lead to higher tariffs and NTBs on American exports?
Far from avoiding this issue, I have advocated both (1) higher tariffs on imports from adversaries and (2) progressive taxation to compensate the inevitable "losers" of all government policies by progressive taxes on the "winners." That is pretty much mainstream thought among professional economists in Western countries. I would think that the followers of the Liberal Patriot would take it seriously.
Shoeonhead is you from a different demographic and non-Establishment perspective. A Bernie-sis. I am so old, I can remember what it was like to be anti-Establishment from the Left. I can also remember when the Left was anti-war.
She has lot more examples of clueless Democratic apparatchiks.
Well, okay but just how does adopting your program to regain the working class differ from just giving up and becoming Trump supporters? True, the "progressives" are wrong about gender and overwrought about race, but if hating on immigrants, ignoring climate change, supporting "drill baby drill" and downplaying poverty have to be part of a new Democratic agenda for the Democrats to succeed, could you tell us something that Democrats could achieve through adopting your agenda that could not be achieved by dropping out of politics? This is a real question, not a rhetorical one. I am a moderate Democrat but tell me why I should be involved in politics at all.
I have no idea as to the truth of the various allegations. I tend to believe her but question her judgement in hanging out with this guy for years. Perhaps the animosity toward men by leftist women stems from the kind of men they associate with.
Bingo.
We believe there is an additional dynamic which is at play here. The type of Democrat described here by John is not a "progressive."
Progressives simply don't like working class voters. They don't hang out around them, don't go fishing with them, don't go to the same bars. We think that the most informative piece of information about progressives' attitudes toward blue collar folks and culture is reflected in comment sections in the NYT and WaPo.
They are simply ugly attitudes. And while one could argue that these commenters are not representative of progressives as a whole, that would be more convincing if other progressives slammed these ugly attitudes whenever they reared their ugly heads. But they don't.
And working class folks know it.
These attitudes are NOT what Democrats used to feel toward blue collar workers. They were our friends, they lived in our neighborhoods, we went to the same churches, etc.
Democrats simply must boot progressives from the party. We stand no chance to improve peoples' lives until that happens.
p.s. John---have a nice Thanksgiving!
I very much agree with your post. I also think that the attitudes you described are very characteristic of "progressive" Democrats as a whole.
"If you’re not willing to welcome dissent and pluralism on cultural matters inside the Democratic Party, then find a line of work other than politics." -- John Halpin
Precisely. This may be the single best and most succinct diagnostic I have yet to read for where the modern Democratic Party has gone astray of its own vaunted ideals.
Rigid ideologues can have no place in a freedom loving society that demands openmess, Inquisitiveness, truthfulness, and the capacity to comprehend and change with changing realities and demands. Most of these long-held virtues are kryptonite to today's Democratic Party's tightly guarded goals.
To be fair, the GOP is pretty guilty of this too when it comes to Congress and the presidency. The parties are trending towards homogenization there--just look at the GOP platform. It consists of nothing but "what Trump says".
Both of them allow more variance at the local level, though.
The biggest problem is that social media is augmenting the most extreme voices in the parties, by dint of the way its algorithms are structured. "Inquisitiveness, truthfulness, and the capacity to comprehend and change with changing realities and demands" does not get you retweets, or get prioritized by the Facebook algorithm that determines your newsfeed. Loud, angry, paranoid and combative rhetoric does. So when "number of retweets" starts to correlate with "amount of political influence", as it has begun to, you've got a recipe for the mutual radicalization of the parties.
I think the author misses a few key dynamics here, perhaps because he's looking at the polling in too short and static of a timeframe, and is overlooking the fact that approval of economic policies in the abstract, and approval of economic policies as culturally coded in the concrete, are very different.
Look at the numbers (and election results) on a longer timeframe (say ~30-50 years) and I think you can pretty soundly conclude that economic policy A.) mostly only matters in elections insofar as it is culturally coded a certain way by a campaign/candidate/party, and B.) is *negatively* thermostatic in the abstract.
To take a recent example, (A) is exemplified in trends like the large crossover between voters who lean Trump and voters who approve of Bernie Sanders, despite them being on opposite ends of the policy spectrum. Bernie culturally signals as a standard working class male outside of the Washington elite, and frames his policies as such; Trump does too. (the irony is richer with the latter, of course) Voters care way more about that cultural framing than they do about any specific policies. (Which is why I'd say the only thing that keeps Bernie from being the Democrats' most competitive candidate against Trump is the negative cultural connotations of the 'socialist' label with older working class voters who grew up during the Cold War)
(B) means that voters' approval of certain economic policies in the abstract (rather than how they are concretely coded by a candidate, i.e. how they are viewed 'on paper') changes depending on what policy regime has most recently been perceived to *negatively* effect them. This is why the 'tax cuts and government austerity' policy regime became toxic in the immediate aftermath of the GFC, (and in the 1930s) and why 'government spending and strong capital controls to support full employment' became toxic during and after the stagflation of the 1970s. Today, owing to the painful side-effects of deindustrialization, it is why free trade has become toxic and Trump's protectionism is now in favor. The economic policy preferences of voters--and especially working class voters--do not revolve around what policies (again, in the abstract) are perceived to *benefit* them, but what policies are perceived to *hurt* them.
Setting that aside, Mr. Halpin's point on pluralism is 1000% correct; pluralism in both parties has been declining for awhile, and that is a weakness Democrats must capitalize on (and eliminate amongst themselves) if they ever want a governing majority.
Great insights, thanks.
A populist fusion movement would be ideal but has not been tried since William Jennings Bryan. Both Left populists and Right populists have been locked in their partisan ghettos even though policy convergence is pretty obvious. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are organized to do that. Too many Chamber of Commerce types among the former and too many moonbats among the latter, especially in the donor class.
I hate this John. As a Republican, I don't like that you're talking sense. Someone on the left may listen to you. What next, a discussion by BOTH sides on how to make revamped, improved unions and right to work laws coexist?
No worries. Ruy Texeira has been pointing this out for months now and the Dems totally ignored him.
There is already a multiracial working class coalition. It's called MAGA. Democrats were too long in thrall to faculty lounge politics and the world moved on. While you want Democrats to change, there is little evidence they are going to. Your best shot is for Republicans to betray the base like the Tories did and you get a low turnout win like Labour. Once in power though Labour doubled down on the crazy. Using the police to investigate non-crime hate incidents is a clear violation of your prescription, not to mention basic civil liberties. Who knew that the name Leonard was homophobic..
You should be wary of falling into the "permanent Democratic majority" trap. (turned out not to be very permanent, eh?) Coalitions are not, and never will be, static--although it *is* arguably true that in the present era it may take larger shocks than in the past to change alignments, due to the trend towards partisan homogeneity at the national level. (which, fun though it may be to blame on progressives, is itself more the outgrowth of technological and economic developments than any autonomous 'cultural decisions' made by the coalition's member groups, progressives included)
Agreed. I have always said that the most important realignment accomplished by Trump was internal to the Republican party. He remade it as a populist vehicle and the people followed from the previous Democratic coalition. Who knows whether that is sustainable. The Bushies are still out there and just waiting for the Bad Orange Man to go away.
This is fair enough but begs the questions: WHY do Democrats offer little practicable economic populism? Why do Progressives default to cultural radicalism and shaming voters? Money is why, campaign cash, and the desperate hunger for it.
Politicians self-censor to avoid alienating potential donors. So the Party’s economic message is underwhelming and if you want to fight for social justice, virtue signaling about race and gender is all you’ve got.
I don’t question anyone’s motives. But until we fix campaign finance, all Americans - left right and center - are spinning their wheels in any effort to make a better life for our people. Please check out my website: www.savedemocracyinamerica.org. Thanks!
I watched a CNBC news program last night "Why it's so Hard to be a Worker Right Now" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_HPF-bFiA8&t=278s
The problem is that the government is lying to everyone. After being an independent agency, the Bureau of Labor Statistics was brought under the control of the administration under Obama. The data reported is unreliable. They had a record 800,000 negative adjustment required in July... but of course the media had already reported the fantastic Biden economy. In addition, the use of the U-3 as the unemployment measure is wrong. It should be U-6. U-6 captures the total picture of people needing and wanting a full time job, but not finding one. The October U-3 is 4.1%, but U-6 is 7.7%. In addition there are over 300 counties in the US that are labor surplus areas. This equates to about 1200 communities. The U-6 unemployment rate in many of these is double-digits with some over 20%. And for some demographics like youth and black, the U-6 rate of unemployment in these places is near 50%.
Democrats are really idiots continuing to push the meme of good Biden economy when the voters walk outside and experience their own economic malaise and harm. And this is compounded by the good times displayed and repeated by the upper class liberal coastal and big city elite. "Hey... look at me... my Wall Street accounts and real estate values are fat and happy... the economy is doing great!"
No, the economy has not been great for the majority and that is why Democrats got crushed.
Bill Clinton was the expert at convincing voters "I feel your pain". Modern Democrats behave like gilded class snobs looking down their noses at everyone else below their top 20% income and wealth... and the people have had enough of that.
This is a problem that goes back to Bush the First. It has gotten worse over the years.
Where does the right to join a union fit in? In Virginia, Democrats are culturally liberal and want a $15 minimum wage, but they support the “right to work” law.
Virginia has been in economic and social decline since it started voting for Democrats. The difference between Virginia in 2007 and today is stark, and tragic. It is dead.
Social decline, sure but the economy is booming at least in the DC suburbs.
In the DC suburbs. In the state as a whole, it has fallen below the national average.
I continue to be amazed at the consistency with which writers associated with this newsletter consider climate change to be a niche “cultural” issue. Tell that to the significant number and kinds of species, e.g., polar bears, that are being, have been, or will be driven into extinction by climate change. And there’s the glib unthinking way in which impacts on future generations of the human species, perhaps most dramatically with the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers, are simply written off. The category of real issues is not defined by or limited to those in which opinion pollsters take an interest.
There does seem to be an assumption here that climate and other environmental issues are not very important without any discussion of what the importance are where Democrats could be more than an ineffectual echo of trumpism. Winning elections but losing much of currently habitable area on the planet, does not seem like a good trade.
Though I greatly appreciate the pragmatic approach of this article, to me, the bottom line is God-fearing folks contrasted with non-God-fearing folks. Is it more important to do 'serious remodeling', or 'update their own ideological framework' within the Democratic party, which to me sounds too much like just seeing which way the wind is blowing, or champion the pursuit of absolute Truth, always?
I am not saying the Republican party is the party of absolute Truth, or is full of or led mostly by true believers, certainly not (nor is the Democratic party devoid of believers, though a Christian is fooling themselves to think they can be pro-choice). I am simply saying that one side, IMO, clearly has a disdain for naked reality while the other has much more respect for it. Valuing race over character, valuing equal outcomes over meritocracy, and denying biological reality are just three examples where the truth that race says nothing about a person's character, that working hard to earn something is praiseworthy while getting something simply because you check a box is dishonest, and that there are only 2 sexes, that one cannot change is denied and mocked by current Democratic doctrine. The Truth on these issues is contained in the Bible.
So, my point isn't necessarily that the Democrats must get closer to Christianity (though I of course am partial to this), my point is, the Democratic party barely even acknowledges God anymore. And, to me, herein lies the problem. This makes it much more likely to accept relativism and the denial of absolute Truth. And people (whom God gave the innate ability to understand right vs wrong, but not the ability to conquer our carnal nature apart from having the Holy spirit) sense that this is wrong and are reinforced by the actions of the Democrats (border problem, what border problem? Laken Riley is just an isolated incident; I'm sorry, what words can I not use now?, the cost of your groceries really haven't gone up that much; why would anyone be held accountable for the Afghan withdrawal??)
Truth matters, people understand this, Democrats and Republicans (having a platform better on this issue), should forget which way the wind is blowing and concentrate on unchanging Truth.
But William, Trump lies constantly? Trump exaggerates often, but does not deny the Truths I've mentioned above as evidenced by his policy and platform. I will take a President, much puffed up by leaven, anytime, over a President who, just to point out his absolute dedication to deceit, kicked off his entire campaign in 2020 on a lie (very fine people).
Rejoice always, pray unceasingly and in everything give thanks, God bless!
Do you consider yourself a liberal?
I don't, but I also know I do not have a strong understanding of it either, I do know a little about Locke. I am a Christian, and I feel strongly that the further our country separates itself from God, the worse we will be. I'm also a sinner, who is slowly coming to understand, despite my carnal nature, that it is only with the guidance of the Holy Spirit that I can attain any real discernment, and even then, I am still susceptible to speaking from pride, and not from what I'm being taught, by the grace of God. Why do you ask?
thanks. I just wanted to know where you were coming from. I won't be taking your path.
No problem, I wish you would leave the door open, but thank you, none the less, for buttressing my faith; Matthew 7:13-14 NKJ.
Having a degree in economics, and a career doing nuts and bolts engineering rather than management, I’m sort of between the “elite” and “working people.” As such I regard “economic populism” as being based largely on the notion of playing politics to get something for nothing, or in the case of unions, something for more than the fair market price, at the expense of all consumers and of lower skilled people in particular.
I support progressive taxation as the fairest and most efficient means of reducing economic inequality, and think that the current level (at least at the federal level) is about right (albeit too complicated).
I cannot believe someone with a degree in economics would make these statements. “Fair market price” for labor is of course impacted to a dramatic degree by the supply of labor. And the core purpose of the policy agenda known as “globalization” is to access an endless supply of cheap labor.
You decry “getting something for nothing”, and then support direct taxation to redistribute wealth? Or is the purpose just to punish success and bloat the government?
The great economic policy disaster of the last 35 years is globalization, and until elites of both parties admit that, they and we will circle the drain. The economy as a whole is saddled with a massive trade deficit of almost $1T/y, has been limping at 2% growth since 2008, and in particular, the notion that the middle class would be happy with lower incomes in exchange for cheap consumer goods at Walmart has been proven to be as wrong and evil as it sounds.
But it seems you have been well trained in the schools that deny all of the above.
This is essentially the hackneyed pro union “logic” that regards “purchasing power” as being entirely dependent upon pay, while ignoring the importance of PRICES that will increase even faster than pay (especially over time) when “ populist economic policies” are enacted.
As to the “free trade” entailed in “globalization,” it has generally over time benefited all parties based on the principle of “comparative advantage.” An outstanding example is the U.S. Constitution, which mandates free trade among states.
I agree, however, that excessive dependence on trade with adversaries like China and even unreliable partners like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela is contrary to national economic and security interests. The solution to that is to use differential tariffs and other measures to shift foreign trade to friendly nations. A proposal to do this called the Trans Pacific Partnership was stupidly torpedoed by an unholy alliance left wing and right wing populists, including Trump.
Just to be clear - you have a degree in economics, and you think a trade deficit of $1T a year (3% of GDP) is fine. And has nothing to do with the fact that the US economy has barely exceeded 2% annual growth for the last 16 years. Ok.
This software is so screwed up that I can only reply that a trade deficit can be "good" or "bad" for various groups within the U.S. But a common interest is that the deficit be with a friendly country like Canada and not with an adversary like China -- because of our implied over-reliance on goods from an adversary.
The common interest is that there be no trade deficit, and if possible, that there be a surplus. You completely avoided the subject.
I am hardly avoiding a subject in acknowledging its complexity.
A trade "surplus" with any country would necessarily involve Americans holding financial assets (particularly, government bonds) of that country that its government, corporations, and people paid to buy American goods and services. If you would like to own those foreign assets yourself, you can do so now in most cases.
But as a general federal policy, I can't think of many foreign assets that I would prefer to own versus U.S. assets.
And how would you implement your desire to have a trade surplus without enacting high tariffs across the board that would inevitably lead to higher tariffs and NTBs on American exports?
Far from avoiding this issue, I have advocated both (1) higher tariffs on imports from adversaries and (2) progressive taxation to compensate the inevitable "losers" of all government policies by progressive taxes on the "winners." That is pretty much mainstream thought among professional economists in Western countries. I would think that the followers of the Liberal Patriot would take it seriously.
Private sector unionism is all but dead. The numbers and energy is in public sector unionism which an entirely different thing. Even FDR opposed this.
https://youtu.be/UkUkEvf7Ma4
Shoeonhead is you from a different demographic and non-Establishment perspective. A Bernie-sis. I am so old, I can remember what it was like to be anti-Establishment from the Left. I can also remember when the Left was anti-war.
She has lot more examples of clueless Democratic apparatchiks.
Well, okay but just how does adopting your program to regain the working class differ from just giving up and becoming Trump supporters? True, the "progressives" are wrong about gender and overwrought about race, but if hating on immigrants, ignoring climate change, supporting "drill baby drill" and downplaying poverty have to be part of a new Democratic agenda for the Democrats to succeed, could you tell us something that Democrats could achieve through adopting your agenda that could not be achieved by dropping out of politics? This is a real question, not a rhetorical one. I am a moderate Democrat but tell me why I should be involved in politics at all.
This is what you are up against in trying to remake the Democrats.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/11/26/thanksgiving-trump-voters-politics-election/76467602007/
🤦🏼♂️
And another one.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/26/katie-porter-ex-boyfriend-restraining-order-00191716
I have no idea as to the truth of the various allegations. I tend to believe her but question her judgement in hanging out with this guy for years. Perhaps the animosity toward men by leftist women stems from the kind of men they associate with.