tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post2279186769153858235..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Catch of the DayJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-18147883132547439002012-02-17T08:55:30.335-06:002012-02-17T08:55:30.335-06:00Dr. Bernstein, I am not convinced. Most center-lef...Dr. Bernstein, I am not convinced. Most center-left politicians engage in a bit of class warfare rhetoric from time to time, to rouse their less affluent supporters at election time. My contention is that in the last year Obama has engaged in hostile speeches toward prosperous Americans unmatched in overall volume by the three previous Democratic Presidents: LBJ, Carter, & Clinton. I never contended that these three Presidents engaged in no class warfare rhetoric at all. Quoting Clinton's acceptance speech at the 1992 Democratic convention does not refute the claim that in his Presidency, Clinton bashed the wealthy significantly less than Obama does. If you look at Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, he engaged in little bashing of the wealthy, and much crowing about how well the economy had done on his watch. That is obviously a less divisive path than Obama is taking in 2012, and in fact Clinton made major gains in affluent suburbs in 1996 compared to his 1992 performance.<br />I do not really understand why folks on the left deny that Obama is a divisive President. I admired and supported President Reagan greatly, but I do not have any difficulty admitting that he was a more divisive President than Ford or Eisenhower. Obama is clearly running a class-based campaign, and against Romney expects by such a campaign to do better with less affluent white voters and worse with prosperous white voters than he did in 2008. He will very likely succeed in this, but such a strategy is clearly divisive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-73843413488860469712012-02-16T15:41:48.867-06:002012-02-16T15:41:48.867-06:00By Rubio standards, the vast majority of Americans...By Rubio standards, the vast majority of Americans are liberal since the Constitution was a liberal document when drawn up--espcially when you compared it to the British parliamentary system, French ancien regime, and all the hereditary monarchies popular in Europe at the time. In fact, Americans would count as very liberal given their weird tendency to conceptualize all these rights. In fact, since the federalist conception of the Constitution with Bill of Rights won out (and since very few people profess fealty to the Confederacy), you can also say that the vast majority of Americans are big government liberals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-81013932712687058142012-02-16T14:15:50.529-06:002012-02-16T14:15:50.529-06:00I've now written a blog post describing my tho...I've now written a blog post describing my thoughts on Rubio's statement and the general question of whether the public is more liberal or more conservative:<br /><br />http://kylopod.blogspot.com/2012/02/americas-liberalism-and-gop-propaganda.htmlKylopodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06932528611103718373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-59984086437404546642012-02-16T12:02:55.361-06:002012-02-16T12:02:55.361-06:00A good point today from Kevin Drum: Gallup found ...<a href="http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/maybe-majority-americans-really-are-conservative" rel="nofollow">A good point today from Kevin Drum</a>: Gallup found only 40% identifying as conservative, but Rubio never specifically mentioned Gallup. Meanwhile, there exists at least one poll showing a majority (that is, >50%) identifying as either "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative".<br /><br />That doesn't make up for Rubio's other lies, but it does give him some basis for making the challenged statement.<br /><br />(Doesn't change the fact that Politifact is a bunch of incompetent clowns.)Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15913245096162048743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-88903849889374908062012-02-16T11:17:10.356-06:002012-02-16T11:17:10.356-06:00CSH: An interesting thought, and it's where I ...CSH: An interesting thought, and it's where I thought you might have been going at first, but the professor in me was forced to come out, make some citations, and play Socrates. It's a pathology.<br /><br />The Downs cite is An Economic Theory of Democracy, btw.<br /><br />Anyway, I like the idea. I think it's really interesting.....I'm going to chew on this one for a while.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-21511434440288141362012-02-16T10:04:53.201-06:002012-02-16T10:04:53.201-06:00That line about "pitting Americans against ea...That line about "pitting Americans against each other" is pretty rich (no pun intended) coming from a Republican like Rubio. <br /><br />Recall, this is the same Republican party that wants to amend the Constitution to invalidate certain people's marriages, and that regularly uses the words "Massachusetts" and "San Francisco" as slurs.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15913245096162048743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-39466693189143378372012-02-15T21:57:38.211-06:002012-02-15T21:57:38.211-06:00.....our income tax system (which is already more ...<i>.....our income tax system (which is already more progressive than that of the average OECD country).....</i><br /><br />This is a current right-wing talking point that happens not to be true. It's based on the simple fallacy of taking the gross amount of tax revenue coming in from top earners as the measure of progressivity, when actually it's a measure of inequality (top earners in the U.S. pay more in taxes compared to their counterparts abroad because their incomes are so much higher -- a result of system that distributes wealth upward -- not because they're taxed at higher rates).<br /><br />And as to rhetoric aimed at dividing people, I'll start worrying about Obama doing this as soon as Republicans agree to shut their yaps about how some people count as "real Americans" and others don't.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-69432683275339629262012-02-15T21:43:52.803-06:002012-02-15T21:43:52.803-06:00.....there's probably not a conservative in Am...<i>.....there's probably not a conservative in America who prefers returning to mass elderly starvation as an alternative to SS.</i><br /><br />Undoubtedly true, BUT there seems to be a good number of conservatives who have convinced themselves that mass elderly starvation is not what would ensue -- that somehow, bafflingly, federal entitlements just materialized, in response to no known problem. That's how Ron Paul talks about Medicare, for instance (thus refuting the point I made above about youth, age and nostalgia, but then, that's the kind of wacky-fun guy that Ron Paul is).Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-1533285657360198672012-02-15T21:30:41.813-06:002012-02-15T21:30:41.813-06:00Agreed, except I don't think it's mainly o...Agreed, except I don't think it's mainly older people who dream of a better, earlier time. If anything, that sort of thinking may come easier to the young, who can idealize an era they didn't actually experience with all its problems.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-79853584877564581022012-02-15T21:25:32.616-06:002012-02-15T21:25:32.616-06:00Yes, the thing about Robert's point is that &q...Yes, the thing about Robert's point is that "conservative" <i>used</i> to sound to people like the thing you naturally <i>didn't</i> want to be. "Liberal" used to poll much better, IIRC, because people saw it as the default position -- back when it was widely taken to mean "open-minded" and "forward-looking" and such. "Conservative" in those days (and I mean, until sometime in the '70s, probably) didn't mean careful and safe, like putting money in a bank, but backward-looking, closed-minded, stick-in-the-mud-like. That all this was turned upside down was one of the great triumphs of the modern conservative movement, but also kind of a hollow victory inasmuch as more and more of those people who tell pollsters they're "conservative" are also discovering that they're OK with women's rights and gay marriage and racial equality and legalized marijuana and just about everything else that conservatism historically meant being against.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-78563407404906353902012-02-15T20:13:15.382-06:002012-02-15T20:13:15.382-06:00Anon 5:02,
It takes very little history to see th...Anon 5:02,<br /><br />It takes very little history to see that you are wrong. Take Bill Clinton's convention speech, in which he talked about "the hardworking Americans who make up our forgotten middle class" compared to "the forces of greed" and that the government had been "hijacked by privileged private interests" so that "those who play by the rules and keep the faith have gotten the shaft, and those who cut corners and cut deals have been rewarded." He said that George H.W. Bush had "raised taxes on the people driving pickup trucks and lowered taxes on the people riding in limousines." And so he wanted "An America in which middle-class incomes, not middle-class taxes, are going up. An America, yes, in which the wealthiest few, those making over $200,000 a year, are asked to pay their fair share. An America in which the rich are not soaked, but the middle class is not drowned, either."<br /><br />Convinced?Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-26369863039102228022012-02-15T19:56:20.963-06:002012-02-15T19:56:20.963-06:00Matt, thanks for the comment, er - actually not fa...Matt, thanks for the comment, er - actually not familiar! Will have to check those out. As is often the case, I was just throwing stuff out there, hoping for an intelligent reply, and this time it worked.<br /><br />Disclaimers aside, it seems to me one could argue that in political ideology (unlike the hot dog cart example), consumers tend to gravitate wherever the tent/hot dog cart is placed; thus they do indeed move toward the ambiguous middle. Two examples come to mind.<br /><br />AFAICT, the conventional left is pretty satisfied with WJC's Presidency; if they could re-channel him the left gladly would. But that's NAFTA WJC, "assail-the-teacher's-union-in-Arkansas-to-appeal-to-moderates-and-conservatives" WJC. Etcetera.<br /><br />Therefore, to the extent that the left embraces Clinton, they implicitly have moved some ways on the beach from their historic spot in the big organized labor/socialism lite area of the beach.<br /><br />Similarly, there's probably not a conservative in America who prefers returning to mass elderly starvation as an alternative to SS. Polling routinely shows this, which suggests that conservatives too have moved from their historic location.<br /><br />So if we all tend to gather where our parties pitch their tent, does it not follow that we would all tend to become somewhat ambiguously moderate over time, along with our parties?CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-32885777401318955452012-02-15T19:38:16.190-06:002012-02-15T19:38:16.190-06:00In my opinion it would be much more accurate to sa...In my opinion it would be much more accurate to say that the financial crisis, as well as the extended recession whose commencement actually preceded the crisis, have brought class and other societal conflicts more to the surface, or, in your words, "pitted classes against each other." Actually, they are in many ways objectively already pitted against each other, but when things seem to be going well enough, the conflicts are much more easily suppressed. <br /><br />Compared to what Obama could have done, and what a very large segment of the population, potentially the majority, might have accepted - during the 2008-2009 time frame especially - representatives of the financial industry have gotten off incredibly lightly. <br /><br />(Rubio's own claim is, incidentally, of of potentially very numerous examples of the conduct he presumes to indict, since he explicitly pits his own supposedly non-class-warring Americans against the supposedly class-warring kind.)CK MacLeodhttp://ckmacleod.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-8340469063774273722012-02-15T19:21:40.830-06:002012-02-15T19:21:40.830-06:00First of all, in Johnson's, Carter's, and ...First of all, in Johnson's, Carter's, and Clinton's times, hedge fund managers hadn't recently destroyed the world economy for their own personal benefit. Secondly, in their times, the previous administrations hadn't cut taxes to the point of bankrupting the government. Third, what's punitive about taxing the people who've made the money? Finally, why don't you folks show a little appreciation for the fact that you're not in jail?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-76723206058004285182012-02-15T19:02:16.124-06:002012-02-15T19:02:16.124-06:00I do not see how you can reasonably say that Rubio...I do not see how you can reasonably say that Rubio's statement that Obama pits some Americans against others is "of course...a mischaracterization of Obama's position." I am a 60 year old research director at a hedge fund, and I have been following politics closely since I was a teenager during LBJ's Presidency, and clearly Obama engages rhetorically in a level of class warfare that did not characterize other recent Democratic Presidents; LBJ, Carter, and Clinton did not bash "millionaires and billionaires" on a regular basis, nor constantly harp on the need for a more redistributive tax system. Nor did they bash the financial services industry on a regular basis, nor seek punitive taxes directed specifically at that industry. From reading you regularly, I am sure that you agree with Obama that our income tax system (which is already more progressive than that of the average OECD country) should be more redistributive, but even those who agree with this cannot reasonable deny that his harping on this divisive issue is pitting less affluent Americans against those who have succeeded in the private enterprise system. There is no question that Obama is less popular among financial professionals for his verbal bashing of our industry, and if Romney is the nominee I expect to see substantial Republican gains over 2008 in affluent suburbs, however the general election turns out. Much of the left of course cheers bashing finance and the wealthy, but it is hard to deny the fact that Obama is pitting classes against each other to a degree that has not really been done in US politics since at least Harry Truman's time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-63412675491523374692012-02-15T18:17:47.273-06:002012-02-15T18:17:47.273-06:00My point is this isn't about politicians. Basi...My point is this isn't about politicians. Basically the media blundered into lending credibility to an outlet that never really deeply proved that it deserved it, and now instead of learning to ignore the website, many media outlets continue to engage it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-17146990154056109282012-02-15T18:14:17.701-06:002012-02-15T18:14:17.701-06:00Yes, I take your point, Scott. But I remain confus...Yes, I take your point, Scott. But I remain confused about why so many media outlets and journalists are threatened by such an odd outlet. Because it seems to me that they *let* themselves be threatened by it. All they had to do was not engage with it and no one would have ever cared about it! It's an idiosyncratic little operation started by the Tampa Bay Times! Why lend it credibility?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-2983866480044599152012-02-15T16:50:11.983-06:002012-02-15T16:50:11.983-06:00CSH: Given the setup, I'm guessing that you...CSH: Given the setup, I'm guessing that you're also familiar with the extensions of that logic (Hotelling) to party competition by others (most notably Black and Downs). If not, can't recommend them highly enough.<br /><br />Anyhoo, the key to remember is that the hot dog carts move to the center....not the consumers! The consumers remain camped wherever they are, and take the shortest walk to get to the hot dog. So, I don't think the Hotelling model applies to your argument.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-60390566976017689132012-02-15T16:23:29.269-06:002012-02-15T16:23:29.269-06:00Rubio goes on to say that Obama is the first presi...<i>Rubio goes on to say that Obama is the first president to pit some Americans against others, but of course that's both a mischaracterization of Obama's position and, on the face of it, absolutely false as well (plenty of presidents have pitted some Americans against others; I'd think all of them probably have).</i><br /><br />I'll go out on a limb here and suggest Abraham Lincoln.JSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-11164590182968574932012-02-15T15:55:53.754-06:002012-02-15T15:55:53.754-06:00A lot of people may be "conservative" in...A lot of people may be "conservative" in the sense that they don't want to see things change. Losing their Social Security and Medicare would be an undesirable change. The programs have been internalized into the status quo. I suspect a lot of older people also dream about returning to "the ways things always used to be," when in fact there is no way that things always used to be. They (we?) tend to view some snippet of time from our past and romanticize it as some timeless idyll. But I guess that's a different topic.Scott Monjenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-30598905665697925832012-02-15T15:51:19.503-06:002012-02-15T15:51:19.503-06:00The bottom line is that determining the amount of ...The bottom line is that determining the amount of liberals and conservatives in the US is beyond the purview of fact-checking, because it's a matter of opinion, not fact. The amount who identify as liberal or conservative--that can be objectively determined. But that's not what Rubio was suggesting.Kylopodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06932528611103718373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-20924344318220943502012-02-15T15:45:42.773-06:002012-02-15T15:45:42.773-06:00There is an old sense to the word "conservati...There is an old sense to the word "conservative" that has connotations of a joyless square. That's the meaning Rush Limbaugh had in mind when he complained about a reporter who described his ties as conservative. In addition to making liberal into a dirty word, conservatives have done a good job in the last generation of making conservative into a positive word, and removing its connotations of being old-fashioned and dull.Kylopodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06932528611103718373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-61519135244263086302012-02-15T14:35:02.874-06:002012-02-15T14:35:02.874-06:00To go a little more into the liberal-as-a-dirty-wo...To go a little more into the liberal-as-a-dirty-word thing, it seems to me it's just as important that conservative SOUNDS like a good thing to be. <br /><br />Most Americans who don't think of themselves as political, whether the beliefs they do have fall to the right or the left of the spectrum, seem to basically prefer that the whole thing go away. They want things to stay the way they are, or if they do want changes, they see these as common sense changes, not radical ones.<br /><br />In that sense, "Oh, I'm conservative" falls in the same category of "Sure, I try to eat healthy" or "No, I don't watch that much TV." It's a safe thing to say, it doesn't have a specific meaning, and it doesn't make them sound too out-there.<br /><br />They like the idea of conservatism in the same sense that they'd rather put their money in the bank than invest it in a working anti-gravity device. They don't like risk. If the specific people who happen to run the specific conservative movement in America happen to do things that may seem risky or outright crazy at times... well, I don't believe this is a point they dwell on to any great extent.Robert John Burkehttp://www.burkestories.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-23763050106311411052012-02-15T14:25:23.383-06:002012-02-15T14:25:23.383-06:00I'm not an economist, but I have in mind there...I'm not an economist, but I have in mind there's an axiom in economics: if two hot dog carts set up shop on a one-mile stretch of beach, over time they will continually migrate until each reaches its pareto optimal spot, which is right next to each other, smack dab in the middle of the one-mile stretch.<br /><br />I think political parties/ideologies are somewhat similar to the hot dog carts in the example. 100 years ago, some of us were communists and others were hardcore screw-the-little-guy capitalists. A few of each remain, but for the most part we are all more or less doubting capitalists, we're all aligned to a safety net preventing starvation and the like, and we're all hesitant globalists and secret nationalists. We don't all admit to all of that, but regardless we're all pretty much camped out right next to each other in the middle of the ideological beach.<br /><br />That said, it seems to me that there are still important ideological differences within the ambiguity, or at least there should be. For example, (FWIW and YMMV) it strikes me that a key enduring difference between a liberal and a conservative is belief in internal controls: the liberal trusts systems to deliver our commonly-desired outcomes, while the conservative is a skeptic.<br /><br />I'm sure everyone got to the punch line already: the GOP is the party of internal controls? I thought they were the party of jingoistic excess? Yeah, does kind of suck these days, but part of the problem is that no one talks about these things, instead we self-identify as conservatives because we're not effete liberals, or something, which causes us to totally lose focus on - and the party to stop delivering on - remaining distinctions in an era when we're all pretty similar.CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-87469932088805992332012-02-15T14:11:28.746-06:002012-02-15T14:11:28.746-06:00There is a simple way to look at this that is real...There is a simple way to look at this that is really illuminating. Just throw a "NOT" into Rubio's statement:<br /><br />The majority of Americans are NOT conservative.<br /><br />That statement is demonstrably true, no matter how you measure it or interpret that statement. It is impossible for Rubio's statement to be "mostly true", if its reverse is definitely true.William Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13795149116565627671noreply@blogger.com