That is, left-wing parties cannot move to the vote-rich zone of most electorates where the median voter—typically somewhat conservative on culture and centre-left on economics—resides. Conservatives can do so more easily as they are less beholden to libertarian economic orthodoxy than left-wing parties are to progressive cultural values.
Kaufmann sees libertarianism and social justice religion as unpopular. Conservatives can throw libertarians under the bus, which I see happening. But the left cannot or will not throw the social justice activists under the bus.
It has been easier for Republicans to attract new voters, such as moderate Midwesterners, by modifying their traditional economic positions than for Democrats to tone down their social views. The left simply can’t compromise.
I am feeling nostalgic for the days when the libertarian conspiracy supposedly was all-powerful.
Sort of related, I will depart from my usual practice and offer a few remarks on a current event, the rise of Bernie Sanders.
–Chris Matthews’ infamous comparison with the fall of France in 1940 was actually spot on. When the German invasion began, everyone in the West expected fierce French resistance and a protracted struggle. Similarly, everyone expected the Democratic Presidential contest to take a long time to reach resolution. The surprise is that Sanders went so far above what we all thought was his ceiling of about 25 percent of primary voters. He seems to have pierced 35 percent, and if that holds he is unstoppable.
–It seems likely that the 2020 election will take Negative Partisanship to new heights. Some voters who do not like Mr. Trump will vote for him because of how much they oppose Sanders. And while some Democrats may think that Sanders is too radical, they are so heavily committed to the view that Trump is illegitimate that they will stick with Sanders no matter what.
–I have not seen a single Democratic pundit or politician express reservations about a Sanders Presidency. They worry that his candidacy is weak. They are not committed to oppose Sanders the way that #neverTrumpers were committed to opposing Donald Trump.
–If the election were held today, I would give Sanders more than a 50 percent chance of winning. Mr. Trump “drew to an inside straight” to take the states that he needed.
–But between now and November, I expect Sanders to slide. I don’t think he is as intelligent as Mr. Trump, and that is not because I think Mr. Trump sets a high bar. Sanders strikes me as having little or no intellectual flexibility. There is a good chance that he will make some excruciating mistakes. But there will be no repeat of Nixon-McGovern, because Negative Partisanship will put a high floor under Sanders. In my opinion, he is a heavy favorite to win the popular vote.
“If the shoe were on the other foot” is not a difficult approach to political argumentation for those on the right, but it is near impossible for a leftist, for whom there is no such thing as another foot.
Sanders’ popularity in current polls and Democratic primaries, which attract the most dedicated, i.e., most left-wing partisans, is probably his peak performance situation. One-on-one against an incumbent, more centrist opponent presiding over a robust economy, it is difficult seeing Sanders receiving more votes even given Trump’s personal animus.
I don’t think it is safe to make assumptions about the white working-class male vote. This group flipped from Democrat to Republic in large enough numbers to hand Trump his 2016 win. Joe Rogan supports Bernie. If his listeners flip back from Trump to Sanders then things look different. It might be more useful to look at the rise and fall in popularity of MMA/WWE fighters than to historical “robust economy” numbers.
When Charles Murray released “Coming Apart” he promoted an online survey that asked questions about shop floor work experience, NASCAR, Reality TV, and Branson as a vacation destination. I’m not sure polling captures these demographics well.
In every cry of every Man,
In every Infants cry of fear,
In every voice: in every ban,
The mind-forg’d manacles I hear
-Blake
Full article Democrats Want a Prophet, Not a President by Bobby Jindal.
Eric Kaufmann makes reference to what I will call the “Activist Eight”:
The “Activist Eight” is the 8% of Americans that are Progressive Activists. I’ve never seen a numerical size associated with this group before. It feels right which is disconcerting considering how much of our brain cycles, here and elsewhere, are focused on their illiberal tactics.
I think it is important to reframe the political problem in terms of Albert O. Hirschman’s “Voice and Exit”. The Activist Eight have no political Exit option. Their only lever is Voice and mostly via voter turnout; their Activist Voice channels have long been saturated.
Mr. Trump “drew to an inside straight” to take the states that he needed.
Did he? Or did he identify the glaring failures in Clinton’s strategy and take advantage of those opportunities. “Drawing to an inside straight” implies a combination of luck and a bad strategy. Planning for Clinton’s arrogance and capitalizing on it doesn’t seem to be either a matter of luck or bad strategy.
Mind you, I’m not saying that I think that’s definitely what happened. I’m saying that’s as reasonable an explanation as “He got lucky”.
In my opinion, he is a heavy favorite to win the popular vote.
Which would be more relevant if it wasn’t states who elected the president.
Is the sitting Republican Party Trump Administration supposed to be libertarian or conservative in Kling’s view? There has been bitter vicious hostility between the Trump Administration and various factions that self-label as conservatives and libertarians. And that hostility definitely hasn’t been one-sided. They are all in-fighting and throwing each other under the bus.
Art Laffer, Stephen Moore, Larry Kudlow, and Mick Mulvaney are very libertarian. They weren’t thrown under the bus, they were promoted to the very top leadership positions within the Trump Administration.
Kling labels Tyler Cowen as a libertarian, but Cowen is really a center left intellectual. Cowen does support markets and many libertarian ideas, but he also supports big “state capacity”, and is fanatical in his support for government-funded universities being a center piece of public and intellectual life and culture which is not a very libertarian ideology.
The rest of Kling’s op-ed is witty and perceptive, but I he seems to adopt a rather malleable and flexible definition of “libertarian” and “conservative” which is a weak point.
Niko, you are projecting your own preferences on others. Cowen supports “some state capacity” and the only BIGness I see is with his assessment of the likelihood of catastrophic climate change. Only anarcho capitalists have zero tolerance for public education. You go to war with the army you have. The education system is not optimal but its not broken either. Your nihilism towards the public education system is not compatible with meritocracy nor careful “change control”. The guillotine is not a symbol of liberalism.
In my post, I’m characterizing Cowen’s views, I guess that is projecting my view of his view onto him, but I’m not definitely not projecting the views I prefer onto him or onto others.
I don’t have zero tolerance for public education. I’m not nihilistic. I absolutely support meritocracy and fairness, with the caveat that obviously those are subjective, and people have wildly conflicting views on what is fair or merited.
Clearly, I have a negative reputation with you and probably others… I’d like to refine my views and my presentation and refine the good parts, eliminate bad parts, and this comment venue probably isn’t the best place for that.
Niko, your reputation is fine in my books. You occasionally make assumptions that I think are either misplaced or exaggerated and sometimes smell of a purity test. I wouldn’t bother replying unless I thought it was productive.
Cowen made a clear statement about supporting some level of State Capacity without making a case for it being big. I’ve also seen no sign that his support for government-funded universities is what can be called “fanatical”.
I criticize Cowen all the time. The two charges you level against him are uncharitable, as far as I can tell.
RAD, thank you so much. You’re right that my comments like “fanatical” were uncharitable and excessive. I’ll save my additional commentary on higher ed, and Cowen’s views on that for another thread…
One brief on thread comment: Trump’s staff is loaded with libertarian wonks and experts and initiatives. I don’t think he’s thrown libertarians under the bus at all. I’d stress that libertarians seem less willing to compromise on internal disputes to form political coalitions.
On the most big issues – free trade, fiscal responsibility, and entitlement reform – he has indeed thrown libertarians under the bus (not to mention immigration, but conservatives and libertarians have always had disagreements there). Sure, on economic regulation, his admin has been fairly libertarian, but otherwise? It’s true he hasn’t governed fully as an Oren Cass style populist, and the economic populism has largely been rhetorical thus far. One can argue he is a small step away from traditional economically libertarian conservatism rather than a big one, but I think it’s definitely a step away.
Libertarians favor open borders and no welfare — but Milton Friedman noted the US cannot continue existing with both. Libers have been terrible at reducing welfare, so it’s reasonable to accept a Wall until after welfare is reformed. (A big reason I support National Service and jobs for all…)
Unfortunately for Libertarians, entitlement reform & fiscal responsibility are consistent political losing positions.
I have now changed towards accepting that fiscal reform means losing US elections, and “proposing the right thing”, and losing, is worse than doing the not-quite-right thing, and winning.
Trump is not yet even trying to be fiscally responsible.
Big spending Dems have won the “fiscal spending war”, and Trump & winning Reps have surrendered. That’s not Trump’s fault – his philosophy is winning, not libertarian.
Free Trade is an area Cowen strongly disagrees with Trump’s trade policies / tactics.
Trump has said he favors free trade — but that China is NOT trading fairly and freely. Neither Arnold nor Tyler seem to explicitly accept the “libertarian”(?) assumption that China’s trading practices are “free trade”, but still oppose Trump’s attempts to enforce a smaller export deficit with China.
The results I see from Trump’s weaponized trade diplomacy is more balanced trade, and more total trade, which are both pretty good proxy measures for “free trade” in practice.
Tax cuts? anyone? HUGE libertarian issue, and Trump delivered.
Deregulation? Big libertarian issue, Trump delivers.
Free lifestyle? Always a liber issue, Trump, far more than most other conservatives, is fine on most gay & drug issues.
Abortion? Despite the Libertarian Party favoring legal abortion, the idea of a limit on freedom is when your actions hurt somebody else. Every human fetus has DNA different than their mother, making them a “somebody else” that is killed by an abortion. Doris Gordon founded Libertarians for Life, died in 2014.
Trump is arguably more libertarian, in practice and results, than any president since Reagan. Libertarians also like competition, and support winning. Trump likes to win. FAR more than most other conservatives.
I’ll agree that Trump hasn’t been uniformly terrible for libertarians (Neil Gorsuch may turn out to be the most libertarian leaning justice of my lifetime). But give up on the idea that Trump favors free trade. He simply doesn’t. He thinks countries ‘win’ trade wars when they can reduce restrictions on their exports and impose new restrictions on imports. Look at the USMCA where the Trump administration forced through an increase in the percentage of auto parts that must be made in North America and the percentage that must be made by workers earning at least $16/hr (meaning reducing the percentage of parts made by Mexican workers and reducing the amount imported from other countries). Other provisions opened the Canadian dairy market and extending U.S. intellectual property rights. This is pure mercantilism — forcing open the markets of other countries while imposing more restrictions on imports.
“Republicans throwing Libertarians under the bus”
Again the whine. Which is illegitimate.
When Gary Johnson washed out of the Republican primary, he ran as the Libertarian Party candidate. When Lincoln Chaffee was defeated as a Republican, he became a libertarian. George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Greg Mankiw have all renounced their affiliation with the Republican Party. In a two-party system that is an endorsement of Sanders. But the vanity of taking the irrelevant morally superior utopian position always wins out amongst a certain sort of snob.
Libertarians have only made common cause with establishment republicans when the establishment republicans embraced the “cheap labor uber alles” creed. Open borders and abject submission to General Secretary Xi being the orders of the day. With that commonality dispatched by Republican primary voters in 2015, libertarians have hastened to ally themselves with their natural authoritarian anti-democratic allies.
I’m currently reading the new Garret Jones and Oren Cass books in tandem and it seems they make good proxies for the grand libertarian-establishment republican – Democrat alliance on one hand and the new populist uprising on the other hand. Jones arguing for top-down hierarchical control and Cass making the case that people are more than grist for the GDP mill. Unfortunately the awful USA electoral system does not allow meaningful multi – party competition and the election results will favor the side that commits the most ballot counting fraud. Nevertheless a Sanders victory may have the unintended consequence of promoting democracy by enabling a billowing out of the upper hierarchy castes by eliminating hundreds of thousands of government jobs through unilateral disarmament and Medicare-for-All.
Edgar, you’re mostly right about the illegitimate whine against conservatives throwing libers under the bus. But not on the electoral system.
When in the US, I thought proportional elections were better. Now that I live in one (in Slovakia, elections Sat!), I think the de facto two-party US system, which DOES allow multiple parties legally, is better.
See the problems of Israel and Italy to see the problems of coalition creating parliaments with multiple parties. Germany and the UK are closer to two main parties, and more stable because of that.
“I have not seen a single Democratic pundit or politician express reservations about a Sanders Presidency. They worry that his candidacy is weak. They are not committed to oppose Sanders the way that #neverTrumpers were committed to opposing Donald Trump.”
This is perhaps the most frustrating part of the whole campaign. Whereas many of those on the right were fundamentally opposed to Trump and his statements and platform, the left is fundamentally OK with Bernie’s socialism. They merely worry that it makes him unelectable. Given a guarantee that he would be elected, the left is perfectly happy to support Sanders.
Where are those leftist pseudo-intellectuals who begged ‘principled’ conservatives to reject Trump? Why is there no #NeverBernie movement on the left?
I’m assuming #NeverTrump only started to pick up steam after it was clear that Trump was going to be the Republican candidate. Perhaps #NeverBernie is yet to come or perhaps irrelevant when the question amounts to the Lesser of Two Very Nasty Weevils: #NeverBernie vs #NeverTrump is a dilemma.
Tom DeMeo thinks polarization is the greatest threat and Trump is the king of polarization. DeMeo also has faith that the American system of Checks and Balances can keep Bernie contained. If those two assumptions hold true then he might be right.
I’m not so sure the American system could have contained Hugo Chavez. Chavez was much more Machiavellian than Bernie but Hugo Sanders adds Environmental Exploitation to his list of things he is indignant about and the illiberal Activist Eight percent have anointed him Dear Leader. #NeverHugo vs. #NeverBernie is tough call but #DonaldTheLameDuck is known Weevil with a four year shelf life IMHO.
I would add:
1. Bernie is in the lead and must be discussed, but this isn’t a done deal yet. I disagree with Kling. A lot of Democrats are scared of both a Bernie candidacy and a Bernie presidency. It’s probably best to consider this a week from now.
2. There is a bit of a false equivalency here. While Trump has some problematic views, if this were just a contest of political philosophy, there would be no contest.
I have faith that the American system of Checks and Balances can keep Bernie contained. I do not feel that way about Trump.
No one has ever openly gone to war against the checks and balances in our system like Trump has. We have learned that much of that system depends on two choke points: a leader in either house (preferably the Senate), and the Attorney General. If neither breaks ranks, the Executive is largely unconstrained.
It is an amazing political achievement that Trump has convinced a viable coalition that Progressivism is both so vile and so unconstrainable that his unconstrained behavior must be tolerated to stop it. Essentially, he is selling America on the notion that Progressives will behave like he does, but with a much more dangerous political agenda.
Of course it is possible that Sanders will follow Trump’s example and put that 3 legged stool back together if he won. I just don’t see a path to that, and there is nothing in his behavior to suggest that is his intent.
I think the greatest threat is the deterioration of the American system of checks and balances. That is the thing most worth fighting for.
If the next Democrat follows the Trump playbook on this, we are in huge trouble. If you are somehow firmly convinced that Sanders would take this route, it’s not a hard call. He would be even more dangerous than Trump. We would have a rejection of checks and balances on both sides and we would be doomed. But we know with certainty that this is the path Trump has chosen. I still hope and believe Democrats won’t follow him down the rabbit hole.
I really don’t know what you’re talking about here. Obama wasn’t keen on checks and balances, either. Remember all the executive orders he made with his “phone and pen”? Trump is just continuing his precedent. Harry Reid wasn’t too keen on checks and balances, either. He started dismantling the filibuster rules in the Senate that help to protect political minorities. Since then, the Republications further weakened the filibuster, and I’m sure it won’t be long before the last of it is gone. Furthermore, the federal bureaucracy, judiciary, and mass media are much greater impediments to Trump than they were to Obama, and than they would be to Sanders, I think.
“I really don’t know what you’re talking about here.”
“Furthermore, the federal bureaucracy, judiciary, and mass media are much greater impediments to Trump than they were to Obama…”
Those are not impediments. Once you come to grips with that, you will be able to understand what I’m talking about.
Trump isn’t the first President to overstep boundaries. He is the first to do it full time.
Tom DeMeo — You’re going to have to explain what you mean, because they sure seem like big impediments to me. Every time Trump tries to do something, some judge imposes a national injunction to stop it. That sort of thing rarely happens against Democrats.
Amen to that too, brother. Still, Tom, the lesser of two weevils.
Tom, WHAT policy or action has Trump done that you’re talking about?
The Wall?
Tax cuts?
Trade negotiations?
An illegal private email server? (no, wait…)
Setting up a famous name Bribery Foundation, or getting a son a cushy job with a corrupt foreign company? (no, wait…)
Illegally spying on political rivals (no, wait…)
You make strong claims against Trump with ABSOLUTELY no specific cases.
This is intellectual flabbiness to the point of … me not trusting you. I’m giving my examples above so that, maybe, you can trust me a bit more.
Tom G, do a Google search on “trump executive overreach”. See my reply to asdf for a particularly egregious example.
As I indicated above, this is not about political philosophy, and that mostly extends to policies as well.
It isn’t what he believes or mostly about what policies he pursues, but how he goes about it and how he approaches and works with the other players in the system and the media.
He constantly works to undermine the legitimacy of any of those other players whenever they hold a different view.
Just since Monday on twitter, he has:
1. Primarily focused on the corona virus as a political liability and repeatedly accused the Democrats and the media of creating hysteria to attack him.
2. Claimed the corona virus numbers were going down.
3. Claimed again “They spied on my campaign”
4. Claimed “Obama appointed Judge Jackson has gone rogue” and retweeted “Jackson is hyper-political and undermining judicial integrity”
5. Personally criticized specific jurors in the Roger Stone trial without any coherent reason.
6. Returned to the criticizing the Justice dept for covering up the Clinton email scandal. For the millionth time, he declared “An absolute disgrace”
7. Criticized intelligence officials for briefing Intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff because he is a leaker and corrupt.
8. Called for two Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from any Trump related matters
@Tom
It isn’t what he believes or mostly about what policies he pursues, but how he goes about it and how he approaches and works with the other players in the system and the media.
He constantly works to undermine the legitimacy of any of those other players whenever they hold a different view.
And they constantly work to undermine his legitimacy.
Your list isn’t convincing at all. Similar lists could be composed about the rest of these “players” and certainly the media.
The primary difference is that Trump is not one of them (meaning that, even worse than being a Republican, he’s not a career politician and doesn’t give a fig for the niceties of the games they play) and that he hits back.
I mean, the Democrats – specifically Pelosi in the case of the Coronavirus things – actually did rather lamely and transparently attack him.
It’s certainly true that this is typical behavior, but it’s typical because it’s such compulsive behavior to politicians. And more, because it’s effective. They volley these attacks as ground preparation because they don’t expect the guy giving the big speech will deign to respond. But Trump does, he calls them on their BS, and they hate him all the more for it and complain about how presidential he is for responding to their childish behavior.
It’s not enjoyable to listen to, but it seems mostly to be the entitled sounding complaints of an arrogant political elite who aren’t getting the deference they’re used to.
In a poll, a majority of New Hampshire Democrats would prefer a meteor wiping out mankind over a Trump reelection. That’s partly non-serious, but partly, Democrats really would vote for the meteor and accept death if they could defeat Trump. I can imagine Kling’s circle of so called libertarians like Megan McArdle and Tyler Cowen and Bryan Caplan developing a new meteor-friendly branch of libertarianism.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/482136-majority-of-new-hampshire-democrats-in-poll-prefer-an-extinction-causing
It’s thoroughly ridiculous to call Bryan Caplan a “so-called” libertarian. He may be the most libertarian man alive. We get it, you vehemently disagree with his opinion on immigration. What about that suggests he or Cowen or McArdle are the spiteful beings you think they are? Caplan himself has consistently argued against that kind of political millenarianisn. Cowen, though fairly moderate, has been if anything more critical of Sanders and Warren of late than Trump. Where exactly is this sentiment that libertarians are all getting behind Sanders coming from? Thin air it seems to me.
I never said any of the three were spiteful beings. And I don’t intend any personal attacks on anyone.
I half agree. In January 2020, Cowen wrote some vicious, scathing criticism of Warren’s policies, but concludes with:
Cowen writes this vicious criticism of Warren’s policies but still supports her for President. full article:
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/the-economic-policy-of-elizabeth-warren.html
I respect Kling (definitely not spiteful either), but he’s playing fast and loose with classifying pundits as “libertarian”.
When Caplan writes ideological arguments, yes I would absolutely consider him a libertarian. Caplan is also a political activist, and he writes political rhetoric. I feel like his political activist work is manipulative and propaganda-ish. That’s an uncharitable comment, but I feel it’s not unreasonable.
‘Why the left is losing’ — A bit early to declare victory. Western government bureaucracies are saturated with the social justice faithful. Even when so-called populists win in landslides they might find their agenda’s thwarted long enough for the demographic shifts to do their magic. Ironically elected officials purging political opponents from the bureaucracy and appointing like-minded loyalists is seen as anti-democratic.
At some point so-called left wing parties will handily win elections without needing a single native born voter.
As for libertarians, being a former libertarian myself and someone sympathetic to free-market Ideas, libertarians screwed themselves by allowing only the most plutocratic elements of libertarian orthodoxy to be adopted, namely the aggressive importation of foreign labor and the aggressive export of manufacturing.
They also *really* need to stop using “deregulation” “free market” when they talk about these things. People have become totally and understandably allergic to those words.
+1
1) You’re on the “right side of history” even when you lose.
2) You’ll eventually win by weight of numbers anyway.
3) If you lose in the meantime the bureaucracy, media, etc will make sure nothing important changes in the meantime.
Given these incentives, it’s obvious how people are going to act.
Only fear, credible long term fear that you will be thoroughly destroyed and never recover, is the only thing that can keep these people in line.
How is it that so many populists can argue both that 1) white native born Americans are the bulwark of free market ideas and libertarians should accept that they are only possible when subsumed under a nativist (/ethno-nationalist) umbrella; and 2) emphasize that working class white people are (and should be) revolting against free market ideas? It would seem if anything that the ostensible ‘working class white’ revolt against neoliberalism is trying to prove that this demographic group is as susceptible to failed third world populist ideology as others, thereby undermining the premise that it is the sole rock upon which we can build a liberal society.
What policies are native whites supporting that are anti-market? Has trump passed new taxes? New regulations?
He pledged not to cut peoples Medicare and Social Security…a widely unpopular idea with not change of happening that is even more unpopular amongst leftist and non-whites. You haven’t been able to cut these programs in decades…maybe it’s time to stop wasting political capital on this.
Sure he used the threat of tariffs to get China to sign a trade deal agreeing to buy more US goods and respect US intellectual property more. MY GOD! The sky is falling!
Are there any “free market ideas” worth criticizing?
I think something like Singapore would be best. It does well in business freedom index scores, but it’s very far from “free market”. It does a lot of social engineering and nudging, but not in the dumb anarcho-tyranny way leftists do.
Does that make me anti-market? More or less anti-market than South American peasants? Is Singapore anti-market?
Free markets for neoliberals always boil down to “invade the world, invite the world, in hoc to the world.” I think people can object to that without thinking we need to nationalize industry or implement the five year plan.
Trump’s Use of National Security to Impose Tariffs Faces Court Test
Europe and Canada are not security threats nor does your rationale behind the Chinese tariffs apply to Canada. This policy hurt Americans as Adam Smith predicted for mercantilism in general.
Yes belief in mercantilism makes you and Singapore and all protectionists anti-market.
Comparing Bernie Sanders to Nazi Germany by the MSM is not completely over-the-top? Bernie has always that lovable wacky socialist from Vermont not Nazi.
And that exaggerated talk won’t defeat Bernie here by conservatives.
Several Points:
1) It was a resounding victory and Nevada considering HRC won in 2016 and Biden led most polls in 2019. (Young His-Am were heavy Bernie so that might be a group of voters pollsters are missing.)
1a) Las Vegas is becoming the new Detroit except it is for the union urban service workers. (There union coverage in NV and MI are about the same right.)
1b) Nothing makes Democrats heart melt more than stories of casino workers voting for candidate during their lunch breaks.
2) The weird reality of the Sanders campaign is working class wages for the first time in decades have rising faster than middle or upper class wages. I wonder if this reality is making the labor movement more confident like the 1950s manufacturing unions. Check out the net job growth in 1950s which was below every other Post WW2 decades other 2000s.)
3) Long term, I almost wonder if the workers true Marxist Revolution won’t be electing Bernie or violent of the government, but simply young people not have large families. Right now immigration is sort of back-filling in the cheap labor but doesn’t last forever, as Mexico is no longer the main supply of cheap labor, and it is politically passable at this time. (Note in California we are seeing the Filipino immigrants coming here.)
4) It was an inside straight electoral map but it is still likely to hold in 2020 and Bernie is not the best candidate disrupt that map. He takes FL off the map and falls in AZ. Trump campaign had the right strategy in 2016 while HRC did miss how poorly HRC did in the Rust Belt in the Primary. (I never understood why HRC did not rely more on her husband.)
5) Populist conservatives do better in election than Populist liberals.
6) For free market capitalist economist, they really should think about why there was slow growth after Great Recession and why it took 9 years to trickle down to lower income families. The reality of the Great Depression was the nation did turn around under FDR and Keynesian economics (you debate FDR forever) but this reality created a strong House Democrat coalition for decades.
Latest poll:The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds Trump earning 50% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Sanders’ 43%. Seven percent (7%) are undecided.
As you said, “between now and November, I expect Sanders to slide.” Likely true.
The thing to notice is how the other Democratic candidates treat Sanders.
Look at those headlines, “Criticize Sanders”, “War of Words”, “Come Out Swinging”, “Faced a Barrage”, and so forth.
Ok, great, now we can get to the meat of some kind of disagreement about policy or principles and … oh. Actually, it looks like we can’t.
The “criticism” all seems to take one of the following forms:
1. He won’t beat Trump in the general election, and would drag down other Democrat candidates down-ballot,
2. He’s too uncompromising, too insistent on going all the way, too ‘divisive’
3. His numbers don’t add up
4. He shouldn’t suggest that certain parts of the press are out to get him
Um, isn’t that kind of fascinating?
This is a good example of why Sanders is not even close to “The left’s Trump”. Not only is he not really an “outsider” at all, as an experienced politician who has been winning elections for 40 years and sometimes described as the “leader of the progressive wing”, but also, unlike Trump, he apparently has no policies or positions with which any other Democrat is willing to express explicit disagreement.
Actually, notice they’ve only done so regarding two factors, which is to claim that he isn’t left (i.e. woke) enough on the subjects of immigration or the latest orthodoxy on sexuality.
Otherwise, they are only able to criticize in that postmodern way of complaining about potentially bad marketing of what are, by implication, otherwise perfectly valid ideas.
No one says, “Unlike Senator Sanders, I think we shouldn’t just forgive all student loans, because that’s a terrible idea, there’s political moral hazard about future amnesties, debts should be paid as a matter of principle, and if elected President, I would be against any effort to do so.”
No one says, “Unlike Senator Sanders, a US-NHS is a bad idea, because it would be too expensive and the economic and political incentives would make cost containment impossible …”
Which means that the criticisms they actually launch amount to “praising by faint damning” and translate into “Senator Sanders is so dedicated to taxing the excessively rich and giving you all the government goodies you really want, as a matter of principle that is so strong and so reliable with him that, unlike me, he can’t even shut his mouth about it when he needs to in order to sucker the other half of the electorate, who we all hate right down to the pit of our souls.”
With enemies like that, who needs friends?
Bloomberg is attacking Bernie — for his earlier opposition to gun confiscation, and the fact that the NRA liked Bernie for his 2A support.
No talk about Venezuela.
I’m calling it.
With Sanders as the nominee (if that happens), 47 states to Trump, and Bernie wins California, New York and Hawaii.
Unless Sanders adopts my proposed slogan:
“Don’t worry, if I win they won’t actually let me do any of this stuff”.
In that case, it might be a close call.
Medicare for all is Sanders’ wall. Trump said build the wall a thousand times and yet nothing got done. Same thing for most of what sanders wants. He’ll probably get an obamacare-sized thing done, which is big and may be net harmful, but I’d put the probability of him getting everything he wants on any issue very low, under 10% for sure, likely under 5%.
Social media, and performance activism, won’t allow Dem leaders to backtrack or tone down their radical proposals.
Kaufmann sees libertarianism and social justice religion as unpopular
He’s right about libers, Freedom WITH Responsibility is unpopular.
He’s wrong tho because social justice religion is VERY popular. Especially on colleges and most media / celebrities.
Which is why Sanders might win. And because it’s a set of religious beliefs, rational arguments will fail to change minds about it.
But I see Trump winning over any Dem. 80% is my probability estimate now. A big recession can still cause him to lose.
Actually looking at the whole Democratic Primary, one reality is increasing looking true:
The Bloomberg announcement to run for President fragmented the moderate Democratic vote right when Sanders was consolidating the Far Left vote. So if Bloomberg feared a Democratic Far Left candidate like Sanders his announcement vastly increased Sanders chances! (Admittingly Biden ran a terrible campaign.)
If Bloomberg simply dumped $100M into a Biden SuperPac and ran similar ads on Biden working well with Obama, Biden would be in better shape.
But Bloomberg is sure that Biden the “moderate” will lose. I’m pretty sure of that, too. Bloomberg doesn’t want the Dems to lose (I don’t think).
Only Sanders has enthusiastic Dem supporters.
To the extent that libertarians supported or in some cases that I know actively cheered on many of the craziest social justice cultural changes (open borders anyone?) they deserve to lose influence. The economy matters a lot, but not as much as core notions of family, identity, nationality, culture, and values. Libertarians think one set of values should be the same as another in the eyes of the law. Liberals believe in tolerance when they are out of fashion and intolerance and regulation when they are in control. Libertarians have no way to deal in a sustainable basis with these Left authoritarians. If higher tariffs are the price to pay for stopping the SJWs then the choice is clear.
If facial tattoos are the price to pay for stopping economic illiteracy then the choice is clear. Of course, they may just reinforce the concepts of independent variables and irreversible choices.