The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
The Ghost of Ross Perot
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It’s yet to be seen whether Trump’s stamp on the Republican electorate will be indelible or wash away once he’s gone. Since becoming the de facto spiritual leader of the party in late 2015, though, immigration has jettisoned to the top of the issue importance list and free trade has come to be seen if not as the god that failed then at least as the god whose worshipers are experiencing a serious crisis of faith.

The following graph shows percentages, by selected demographic characteristics, who say it is more important “to keep industrial jobs in the U.S., even if prices in stores are higher” than it is “to keep prices low, even if some jobs are lost”. “Not sure” responses, constituting 24% of the total respondent pool, are excluded:

Libertarians wept.

The next graph shows pro-trade deal sentiment as measured by support for “the federal government negotiating more free trade agreements like NAFTA”. Sentiment is calculated as (2*%strongly support)+(%somewhat support)-(%somewhat oppose)-(2*%strongly oppose). “Not sure” responses are treated as falling between “somewhat support” and “somewhat oppose”:

Democrats are the real free trade extremists!

Cato and Koch are out. Who’s in to replace them remains an open question. There are rumors of a Peter Thiel damascene conversion. But why stop there? Mr. Michael “Borders, Language, Culture” Savage has a son worth twice what Thiel is. Let’s populist like a rockstar, already!

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Economics • Tags: Polling, Trade 
Hide 77 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Peter Thiel pretends to be a Libertarian, but he is a Fascist! Peter Thiel has supported prosecuting Assange and shutting Wikileaks down! So, not Republican, not Democrat, not Libertarian, just plain old Fascist! Fascist – yes, there is definitely something wrong with that!

    • Agree: Ash Williams
    • Replies: @El Dato
    It's called being "suitably libertarian".
    , @216
    Singapore is Fascism par excellence
    , @Rosie

    So, not Republican, not Democrat, not Libertarian, just plain old Fascist! Fascist – yes, there is definitely something wrong with that!
     
    Do tell.
  2. OT, since this topic is unlikely to have many on-topic comments, since it has none after half a day.

    __________________________________________________

    On another recent thread, we witnessed and epic and ferocious battle.

    The formidable trio of Ron Unz, Fred Reed, and Chanda Chisala faced a swarming horde of 100 WNs. Evenly matched, the battle was lengthy, epic, and multi-front, since it spilled into multiple threads. Chanda Chisala in particular wielded a veritable battle axe of rhetorical might.

    This battle was analogous to the ‘300’ Spartans who held the Persians at bay at Thermopylae. Except that instead of 300 there were just 3 over here. Ron Unz was a Leonidas of our times. Like Leonidas before him, Ron Unz built a wall of his enemies’ skulls.

    This battle was also analogous to a situation of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli taking on the Orcs of Mordor. And they did not have the Army of the Dead to help them either.

    Many great hymns shall emerge from this battle. It was a battle for the ages.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Since you put some time into it, the comment just got an edit. For the last time, no W-bombs just like there are no N-bombs. Use "WNs" or something instead.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Shoot, Thomm, they're just a bunch of guys spouting off on the internet, all 303 of them. Fred Reed is full of shit lots of the time, and even Mr. Unz has his moments.
    , @Svevlad
    Didn't notice that one. Link pls?
    , @anon
    The author's entire argument was entirely unpersuasive and based on an inappropriate apples to oranges comparison. I wasn't impressed. Delude yourself however you like, but nothing will disprove China's coming success, and the only explanation that will make sense there will be genetics.
  3. I was astonished to see the pro-trade-deal disparity between Dems and Republicans. I would have thought there is no issue that would produce a disparity of that magnitude. Perhaps it resulted from the manner in which it was calculated?

    • Replies: @anon

    I was astonished to see the pro-trade-deal disparity between Dems and Republicans.
     
    That's only because the media incessantly tell you the democrats are the party of the working-class when they aren't and haven't been since the 1980s. The free-trade professional class switched sides in the 1992 election. Republicans haven't had significant representation in the upper 10% income bracket since that time, even though the stereotype of the GOP being the party of the rich persisted for a few decades after. This is visible in the culture if you look closely enough. In the 1980s and early to mid-90s there were several white male Hollywood stars (and businessmen) who were openly republican. Now, those types either don't exist or they stay quiet so they won't get blacklisted. Only the old guard like Clint Eastwood remain public about it, although less so than in the past.

    The media perpetuated this myth mainly because it was convenient for the democrats to portray themselves in a sympathetic light. The working-class, pro-union stuff is mostly propaganda* at this point, even if the republican leadership is indeed made up of corrupt, free-trade supporting elements; the base of the party itself isn't so keen on the idea, and that has been obvious in the polls for decades. The democrats won all ten of the richest counties in the 2016 election. All the most well-known billionaires and Hollywood moguls are democrats; some are huge party donors. The democrats are the party of the rich, of the billionaires and the 10% professional class. If you ever thought otherwise, it was only because they control the media and told you to think that way.

    This result doesn't surprise me in the least. It was obvious to anyone who took a look at the rhetoric being posted on Reddit politics and the late night "comedy" programs since 2016 -- endless mocking of Trump for his trade tariffs along with attacking blue collar workers concerned about their "jerbs", as was often mockingly stated. Ever since, I've been a big fan of AI and automation. Take from them as they have taken from others and watch them squirm in the aftermath. Imagine a future when computers diagnose patients, replace actors in movies, replace most government workers, and debate court cases with attorney's there only as observers. It's a future that can't come soon enough.

    *Check out The Daily Beast's response to Tucker Carlson's criticism of vulture capitalist Paul Singer. They tried deflecting by digging up irrelevant nonsense about his paper seeking start-up funding from some guy associated with Singer many years before. The American Conservative has a good take on it. Tellingly, these types at the Daily Beast, supposedly liberal, attack rather than support the positions you'd think they would based on the stereotype of the democrats being the party of the working class. And they aren't alone. Notice how the left-wing media have incessantly attacked both Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders. Both candidates are progressives but yet they also draw the ire of the 10% wannabes and the billionaires who fund and run outfits like The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, the New Yorker, Salon, The Atlantic, etc. Why? Because the system (military industrial complex and market capitalism) and the democrats are now synonymous with each other.

    These Daily Beast types have vested interests in perpetuating that system which directly benefits their job security and their wider economic class. Many aspire to future government jobs with the democrats or billionaire-funded vanity projects, so it's not surprising they'd deflect from a possible source of future funding like Paul Singer. The Left was never economically progressive -- not since the 1980s -- even if they are willing to throw crumbs from the table from time to time in order to placate the plebs (notice how they also mysteriously oppose Andrew Yang's progressive UBI ... not so mysterious when you consider it might cause taxes on the rich to go up and politically empower the poor). It's just more obvious now that their feet have been put to the fire by Trump's actions, which the Left never really thought they'd be called out on before the 2016 election. They thought they could continue speaking out of both sides of their mouths forever, which is the real reason why they hate the guy. He exposed them, even if he's a sell-out himself.
  4. Globalism the god that failed. Of course the Neoliberal scum continue to hang on to the delusion. Having associated with Libertarianism for many years I can say without a doubt that their minds have been perverted by the Neocon Chicago School of Economic Terrorism.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets

    Globalism the god that failed. Of course the Neoliberal scum continue to hang on to the delusion. Having associated with Libertarianism for many years I can say without a doubt that their minds have been perverted by the Neocon Chicago School of Economic Terrorism.
     
    Globalism was just a rationalization for asset-stripping everyone who wasn't part of the 0.001%.

    Libertarians (I was once so deluded) think free trade creates peace. They're wrong, trust creates peace, and trust creates cross-border trade.

    And if "trust" becomes pathological, it creates open borders to invasion-level migration and economic destruction. First, the low-skilled migrants replace all the teenagers and low-skilled natives by under-bidding their pay (which the business owners largely pocket that arbitrage.) Next, the "high skills" migrants replace the native sons of the middle class, because getting a degree in Hyderabad is a HELL of a lot cheaper than getting one at Northwestern or even Ohio State.

    Americans aren't doctors any more, when Pradeep from Hyderabad can (and will) do the same job for half price (so the Medical Service Organization is too happy to sponsor their Pradeep's visa, and those for his wife, his kids, him mother, his father, his mother-in-law, his father-in-law, his wife's uncles, etc., ad nausam.) Ditto engineers, computer scientists, etc. Americans are getting sodomized in both directions, by $100-200K college degrees and imported competitors from every corner of Earth.

    It's beyond obvious to me that we've endured forty years of rationalization for ROBBING US of everything our parents and grandparents created.

    Open borders? Open Immigration? Inviting the World's Best and Brightest? Those who espouse this should be marched into the sea.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    Milton Friedman is another god that failed. Excellent comment, Gall.
  5. There was some cognitive dissonance on the Bernie Sanders subreddit. A post mentioned some things Bernie has consistently supported over the decades. One thing listed was his opposition to NAFTA. A few Sanders supporters were surprised to see that. “Wait a minute isn’t opposing NAFTA a right wing Republican thing”. My impression is a lot of Democrats don’t necessarily understand NAFTA but they by default support it because they think it’s Republican to oppose it.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Screwtape
    Jay, in my experience with Berniebro leftism is just that: not understanding what they opposed but instead opposing everything that can be tagged ‘republican’, ‘right wing’, ‘conservative’, or Trump endorsed.

    It makes sense given that their positions are firmly anchored in feelz and status among the hula hoop festival girls on molly.

    With NAFTA I also think the rhetoric is steered by the brown fetish that is intrinsic to the left.

    They may not know what NAFTA is, but they know it has to do with Real Americans, which is to say Mexicans, and something about ‘free trade’, which is close enough to ‘free stuff’ to be good.

    So anything in opposition to freedom for their brown brothers and sistas is bad. So yay NAFTA.

    Plus, avocado toast is already $12. We can’t risk upsetting the delicate balance of urban white rainbow rations.
  6. There’s a big difference between ticking a box on a survey, and enacting those sentiments in a retail environment.

    Here in Australia, plenty of people talk big when it comes to supporting local industry; but when it comes to the the crunch, they’ll take the cheap Chinese goodies every time.

    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    Hence protectionism, politics isn't about depending on people to "vote with their wallets" (which is a retarded lolberg meme when applied to things like foreign vs domestic goods), it's about using effective statecraft to provide good outcomes for nationals, which includes prohibiting seductive behaviours that damage society (like buying cheap foreign crap).

    If someone ran on blocking cheap garbage imports to boost the local job market, they don't have to appeal to the sensibilities of the retail market, they just have to follow through. If there's no comparatively cheap imported garbage, amazingly, people won't be buying it.

    What you're doing is like calling a junkie or porn addict a hypocrite for saying that drugs and pornography are bad, despite their continued use of them. Things like this are corrosive to human flourishing because they're:
    1) Plainly terrible for everyone in aggregate while being easily rationalized in each particular case
    2) Very hard to resist doing for many people without someone forcing them to stop.
    , @dfordoom

    There’s a big difference between ticking a box on a survey, and enacting those sentiments in a retail environment.

    Here in Australia, plenty of people talk big when it comes to supporting local industry; but when it comes to the the crunch, they’ll take the cheap Chinese goodies every time.
     
    Agreed. When people say they'd be happy to pay higher prices to protect local jobs what they actually mean is that they'd be happy if other people were forced to pay higher prices to protect local jobs. They don't mean that they themselves would do so.

    They want price increases on things that they themselves are not interested in buying, but they'd like lower prices for the stuff that they do buy.

    Just as most people would like other people to pay higher taxes but they think that they themselves should pay less tax.
  7. anon[919] • Disclaimer says:
    @Safenow
    I was astonished to see the pro-trade-deal disparity between Dems and Republicans. I would have thought there is no issue that would produce a disparity of that magnitude. Perhaps it resulted from the manner in which it was calculated?

    I was astonished to see the pro-trade-deal disparity between Dems and Republicans.

    That’s only because the media incessantly tell you the democrats are the party of the working-class when they aren’t and haven’t been since the 1980s. The free-trade professional class switched sides in the 1992 election. Republicans haven’t had significant representation in the upper 10% income bracket since that time, even though the stereotype of the GOP being the party of the rich persisted for a few decades after. This is visible in the culture if you look closely enough. In the 1980s and early to mid-90s there were several white male Hollywood stars (and businessmen) who were openly republican. Now, those types either don’t exist or they stay quiet so they won’t get blacklisted. Only the old guard like Clint Eastwood remain public about it, although less so than in the past.

    The media perpetuated this myth mainly because it was convenient for the democrats to portray themselves in a sympathetic light. The working-class, pro-union stuff is mostly propaganda* at this point, even if the republican leadership is indeed made up of corrupt, free-trade supporting elements; the base of the party itself isn’t so keen on the idea, and that has been obvious in the polls for decades. The democrats won all ten of the richest counties in the 2016 election. All the most well-known billionaires and Hollywood moguls are democrats; some are huge party donors. The democrats are the party of the rich, of the billionaires and the 10% professional class. If you ever thought otherwise, it was only because they control the media and told you to think that way.

    This result doesn’t surprise me in the least. It was obvious to anyone who took a look at the rhetoric being posted on Reddit politics and the late night “comedy” programs since 2016 — endless mocking of Trump for his trade tariffs along with attacking blue collar workers concerned about their “jerbs”, as was often mockingly stated. Ever since, I’ve been a big fan of AI and automation. Take from them as they have taken from others and watch them squirm in the aftermath. Imagine a future when computers diagnose patients, replace actors in movies, replace most government workers, and debate court cases with attorney’s there only as observers. It’s a future that can’t come soon enough.

    *Check out The Daily Beast’s response to Tucker Carlson’s criticism of vulture capitalist Paul Singer. They tried deflecting by digging up irrelevant nonsense about his paper seeking start-up funding from some guy associated with Singer many years before. The American Conservative has a good take on it. Tellingly, these types at the Daily Beast, supposedly liberal, attack rather than support the positions you’d think they would based on the stereotype of the democrats being the party of the working class. And they aren’t alone. Notice how the left-wing media have incessantly attacked both Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders. Both candidates are progressives but yet they also draw the ire of the 10% wannabes and the billionaires who fund and run outfits like The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, the New Yorker, Salon, The Atlantic, etc. Why? Because the system (military industrial complex and market capitalism) and the democrats are now synonymous with each other.

    These Daily Beast types have vested interests in perpetuating that system which directly benefits their job security and their wider economic class. Many aspire to future government jobs with the democrats or billionaire-funded vanity projects, so it’s not surprising they’d deflect from a possible source of future funding like Paul Singer. The Left was never economically progressive — not since the 1980s — even if they are willing to throw crumbs from the table from time to time in order to placate the plebs (notice how they also mysteriously oppose Andrew Yang’s progressive UBI … not so mysterious when you consider it might cause taxes on the rich to go up and politically empower the poor). It’s just more obvious now that their feet have been put to the fire by Trump’s actions, which the Left never really thought they’d be called out on before the 2016 election. They thought they could continue speaking out of both sides of their mouths forever, which is the real reason why they hate the guy. He exposed them, even if he’s a sell-out himself.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    The free-trade professional class switched sides in the 1992 election
     
    That can also be attributed to the religious right taking over the GOP in the early 1990's. Well educated people tend to be skeptical of religious fundamentalism, and the GOP (stupidly) chose to very publicly placate heartland evangelicals of middling IQ instead of doing, well, numerous things that would've been more useful and less embarrassing. The Religious Right effectively has accomplished nothing over the last 30 years, other than having conservative elected officials play their naive base like a fiddle over and over again. And the public energy devoted to pandering to paranoid low-info evangelical luddites diverted a lot of attention away from a lot of ya know, important issues (like immigration, monetary policy, America's imperial ambitions, and so forth). I suppose it's addictive for the GOP to continue to pander to the same Silents and Boomers who actually believe that the GOP is "fiscally responsible" (even though Reagan, GHW Bush, Bush the lesser, and Trump presided over an expensive growing imperial state that wields far greater power than it ever did under FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, or Carter). America has never ending wars, imprisons almost as many people as the Chinese "communists", has political, corporate, and legal approval to engage in mass spying, baseless arrests and detention, assassinations, and even torture (!). And the mid 1980's is when the (Reaganite) establishment began to actively attack the 1st amendment. Over the last 35 years the free speech rights of Americans have been under assault. But as usual, the "conservatives" would rather blame FDR (who essentially let urban and Southern whites live among their own kind to preserve the racial peace) than admit that their own side has been completely worthless at defending intellectual and cultural freedom for the last 35 years.

    The Reaganites also constantly blamed "the public sector" for letting everyone down, when in reality the government has almost completely vacated anti-trust enforcement for 30-40 years, while also cutting corporate taxes, the end result being that corporate conglomerates dominate our lives......And actively police the boundaries of "acceptable discourse". The NFL sponsors military jet fly-overs at NFL games. Mainstream/corporate media regularly forbids any "insensitive" commentary regarding various things, with racial content being especially regulated. Ya can't threaten the imperial ambitions of various neo-lib Western nations by acknowledging that perhaps, polyglot societies are destined to fail because different ethnic groups have different characteristics that are immutable. But this accepted conventional wisdom of millennia was discarded by the globalizers who said that the various achievements of Western man had to be shared with 3rd worlders. Look it up; America effectively dissolved it's borders in the 1980's (border crossings and immigrant worker visas surged, while few deportations were made and employers of illegal aliens were seldom punished) and countless "conservative" thinkers and leaders assured us that it was "selfish" and "unfair" to keep our nations to ourselves (what became a Rightwing tenet of the 1980's was that "communism" and "big government" ideology were the primary threat, not any particular ethnic group). I'm not kidding; most brain dead modern "Left-wing" rhetoric about immigration had already been coined by the neo-lib capitalists of the 1970's and 80's, who thought that closed borders were an impediment to "growth".
  8. @Thomm
    OT, since this topic is unlikely to have many on-topic comments, since it has none after half a day.

    __________________________________________________


    On another recent thread, we witnessed and epic and ferocious battle.

    The formidable trio of Ron Unz, Fred Reed, and Chanda Chisala faced a swarming horde of 100 WNs. Evenly matched, the battle was lengthy, epic, and multi-front, since it spilled into multiple threads. Chanda Chisala in particular wielded a veritable battle axe of rhetorical might.

    This battle was analogous to the '300' Spartans who held the Persians at bay at Thermopylae. Except that instead of 300 there were just 3 over here. Ron Unz was a Leonidas of our times. Like Leonidas before him, Ron Unz built a wall of his enemies' skulls.

    This battle was also analogous to a situation of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli taking on the Orcs of Mordor. And they did not have the Army of the Dead to help them either.

    Many great hymns shall emerge from this battle. It was a battle for the ages.

    Since you put some time into it, the comment just got an edit. For the last time, no W-bombs just like there are no N-bombs. Use “WNs” or something instead.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    AE,

    I never, ever use the N-word.

    The W-word, however, is essential. It was used in the TITLE of prior articles on this very site :

    https://www.unz.com/sbpdl/wigger-please-frivolous-lawsuits-in/

    That proves that it has been accepted into the lexicon of this site.

    Plus, it is essential to the lyrics of many songs and poems that have been written to date.

    The W-word has to be allowed.
  9. Libertarians wept.

    I haven’t used a single kleenex yet, here on this end. You’ve got a good point thought and great way to put it!

    Some Americans who still remember might also long for the day when consumer goods were not all Cheap China-made Crap. (That’d be represented by the light green bar, pretty closely*.)

    .

    * If you figure, 45 years old means 20 y/o in 1995, which is early enough to well remember when there were still lots of American-made goods at the stores. 10 years later – gone, gone, gone …

    • Replies: @Ash Williams

    I haven’t used a single kleenex yet, here on this end.
     
    Nor here.

    The Koch's and Cato have been "cafeteria libertarians" for as long as I can remember.

    Cafeteria libertarians: "Open borders! The state should not restrict the free movement of peoples!"

    Rational Libertarians: "Sure... But only after all property is privately owned and secured, and only after all public welfare is abolished."

    Cafeteria libertarians: "WHY ARE YOU AGGRESSING AGAINST PEACEFUL PEOPLE YOU NAZI"

    , @Screwtape
    I am of that demo.

    I also remember the people shopping in those stores back in ‘95.

    I was in my small hometown a few years back for a family visit. We ended up at a restaurant attached to the regional mall. Strolling through the mall was like strolling through a terminal at Dubai Int’l. My family was in the minority.

    So yeah. Plastic junk from China has replaced metal junk from the USA. But something else has changed.

    I don’t long for the day, so to say, as there is no going back. But I do daydream about a people waking up from their slumber and refusing to go into the dustbin of history along with their old metal toys.
  10. Something most Americans have no idea of is that the Federal Government ran on revenue that was for the most part collected from tariffs. That was STILL the case through a majority of this country’s history.

    I am a Libertarian myself, but, as I wrote, I’m not shedding tears onto your pretty graph, A.E., as I know a bad thing when I see it. You can be a Libertarian for the world or a Libertarian for America. The former doesen’t work anyway, as most peoples aren’t really up for it. Secondly, who am I to disagree with the Founding Fathers, the wisest group of men that ever got involved in that nasty thing called government.

    Also, your 2nd graph may also show that most Americans realize that these trade deals are no deals at all, but nothing but giveaways. Yeah, try exporting stuff to China if you are the small guy. You’d better have a phone number with all 8’s for luck!

    One more thing: I have a memory in my head, clear as day, of arguing (nicely) with my good friend in my living room about the manufacturing going to China. I am ashamed of my old self that I argued “hey, no problem wages will become equal, and that’s the way the market works”, as my friend was pretty worried about this. I was right, and he was right. This was right around 1997.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Mark G.
    Wages between the U.S. and China might have equalized if it had been left up to the free market. Federal reserve policies led to domestic wage inflation and that led to higher prices for domestic goods. Where consumers were able to substitute cheaper foreign goods for more expensive domestic goods they did so. Where they weren't able to do this, as in the case of non-transportable goods like medical care or higher education, they had to suffer the results of the Fed induced inflation by paying increasingly higher prices to purchase those goods. If the Fed had followed deflationary policies then domestic wages would have dropped and kept American workers competitive with foreign workers. The falling domestic wages wouldn't have caused lower living standards for American workers because, due to the deflation, domestic prices would have been falling in tandem with their wages.

    A deflationary policy wasn't followed because it would have required higher interest rates which would have increased government borrowing costs. The government had to borrow lots of money to maintain the welfare-warfare state. The inflationary policy had the bad side effect of boosting the prices of stocks, which primarily benefited the wealthy and further increased income inequality. So libertarians shouldn't be crying because their free trade ideology failed. They can cry, though, because what we have now has been mislabeled as free trade while the true culprit for American worker job losses, i.e. the government, has gotten off scot free.
  11. @Thomm
    OT, since this topic is unlikely to have many on-topic comments, since it has none after half a day.

    __________________________________________________


    On another recent thread, we witnessed and epic and ferocious battle.

    The formidable trio of Ron Unz, Fred Reed, and Chanda Chisala faced a swarming horde of 100 WNs. Evenly matched, the battle was lengthy, epic, and multi-front, since it spilled into multiple threads. Chanda Chisala in particular wielded a veritable battle axe of rhetorical might.

    This battle was analogous to the '300' Spartans who held the Persians at bay at Thermopylae. Except that instead of 300 there were just 3 over here. Ron Unz was a Leonidas of our times. Like Leonidas before him, Ron Unz built a wall of his enemies' skulls.

    This battle was also analogous to a situation of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli taking on the Orcs of Mordor. And they did not have the Army of the Dead to help them either.

    Many great hymns shall emerge from this battle. It was a battle for the ages.

    Shoot, Thomm, they’re just a bunch of guys spouting off on the internet, all 303 of them. Fred Reed is full of shit lots of the time, and even Mr. Unz has his moments.

  12. @Achmed E. Newman

    Libertarians wept.
     
    I haven't used a single kleenex yet, here on this end. You've got a good point thought and great way to put it!

    Some Americans who still remember might also long for the day when consumer goods were not all Cheap China-made Crap. (That'd be represented by the light green bar, pretty closely*.)

    .

    * If you figure, 45 years old means 20 y/o in 1995, which is early enough to well remember when there were still lots of American-made goods at the stores. 10 years later - gone, gone, gone ...

    I haven’t used a single kleenex yet, here on this end.

    Nor here.

    The Koch’s and Cato have been “cafeteria libertarians” for as long as I can remember.

    Cafeteria libertarians: “Open borders! The state should not restrict the free movement of peoples!”

    Rational Libertarians: “Sure… But only after all property is privately owned and secured, and only after all public welfare is abolished.”

    Cafeteria libertarians: “WHY ARE YOU AGGRESSING AGAINST PEACEFUL PEOPLE YOU NAZI”

    • LOL: El Dato
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    There's a huge difference between the Mises Institute and the Cato/Reason crowd. I have a lot of respect for the former.
  13. @Thomm
    OT, since this topic is unlikely to have many on-topic comments, since it has none after half a day.

    __________________________________________________


    On another recent thread, we witnessed and epic and ferocious battle.

    The formidable trio of Ron Unz, Fred Reed, and Chanda Chisala faced a swarming horde of 100 WNs. Evenly matched, the battle was lengthy, epic, and multi-front, since it spilled into multiple threads. Chanda Chisala in particular wielded a veritable battle axe of rhetorical might.

    This battle was analogous to the '300' Spartans who held the Persians at bay at Thermopylae. Except that instead of 300 there were just 3 over here. Ron Unz was a Leonidas of our times. Like Leonidas before him, Ron Unz built a wall of his enemies' skulls.

    This battle was also analogous to a situation of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli taking on the Orcs of Mordor. And they did not have the Army of the Dead to help them either.

    Many great hymns shall emerge from this battle. It was a battle for the ages.

    Didn’t notice that one. Link pls?

  14. I’d wondered whether “Michael Savage” was his real name or not. I guess “Weiner” isn’t a very good on-air name for a radio talk host.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  15. @Achmed E. Newman
    Something most Americans have no idea of is that the Federal Government ran on revenue that was for the most part collected from tariffs. That was STILL the case through a majority of this country's history.

    I am a Libertarian myself, but, as I wrote, I'm not shedding tears onto your pretty graph, A.E., as I know a bad thing when I see it. You can be a Libertarian for the world or a Libertarian for America. The former doesen't work anyway, as most peoples aren't really up for it. Secondly, who am I to disagree with the Founding Fathers, the wisest group of men that ever got involved in that nasty thing called government.

    Also, your 2nd graph may also show that most Americans realize that these trade deals are no deals at all, but nothing but giveaways. Yeah, try exporting stuff to China if you are the small guy. You'd better have a phone number with all 8's for luck!

    One more thing: I have a memory in my head, clear as day, of arguing (nicely) with my good friend in my living room about the manufacturing going to China. I am ashamed of my old self that I argued "hey, no problem wages will become equal, and that's the way the market works", as my friend was pretty worried about this. I was right, and he was right. This was right around 1997.

    Wages between the U.S. and China might have equalized if it had been left up to the free market. Federal reserve policies led to domestic wage inflation and that led to higher prices for domestic goods. Where consumers were able to substitute cheaper foreign goods for more expensive domestic goods they did so. Where they weren’t able to do this, as in the case of non-transportable goods like medical care or higher education, they had to suffer the results of the Fed induced inflation by paying increasingly higher prices to purchase those goods. If the Fed had followed deflationary policies then domestic wages would have dropped and kept American workers competitive with foreign workers. The falling domestic wages wouldn’t have caused lower living standards for American workers because, due to the deflation, domestic prices would have been falling in tandem with their wages.

    A deflationary policy wasn’t followed because it would have required higher interest rates which would have increased government borrowing costs. The government had to borrow lots of money to maintain the welfare-warfare state. The inflationary policy had the bad side effect of boosting the prices of stocks, which primarily benefited the wealthy and further increased income inequality. So libertarians shouldn’t be crying because their free trade ideology failed. They can cry, though, because what we have now has been mislabeled as free trade while the true culprit for American worker job losses, i.e. the government, has gotten off scot free.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Very good comment, Mark. Thanks.

    I would also like to add that the intense regulatory burden put on American business by the Feral Gov't and certain state governments has made it pay off even more for manufacturers to get out.

    This is why the software business is different. Once can get a new piece of software developed, written, and tested well before any government offices of any kind can mess with you. Then you can get the investor money to pay for all the bullshit once the "product" has already been proven. With real hardware, it can't work that way, and all the hassles have to be dealt with up front. Ask me about the C.A.R.B. sometime ... no, on 2nd thought, don't. I want to stay in a decent mood.
    , @Fidelios Automata
    Agreed. Also, the notion that US corporations can avoid taxes by keeping their money abroad while US individuals can't do the same is criminal. That's why the IRS loots the retirement accounts of Americans living in Canada while leaving criminal corporations like Apple alone.
  16. People here still have Ross Perot shirts and flags up.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Good for them! Where, roughly?
  17. @Thomm
    OT, since this topic is unlikely to have many on-topic comments, since it has none after half a day.

    __________________________________________________


    On another recent thread, we witnessed and epic and ferocious battle.

    The formidable trio of Ron Unz, Fred Reed, and Chanda Chisala faced a swarming horde of 100 WNs. Evenly matched, the battle was lengthy, epic, and multi-front, since it spilled into multiple threads. Chanda Chisala in particular wielded a veritable battle axe of rhetorical might.

    This battle was analogous to the '300' Spartans who held the Persians at bay at Thermopylae. Except that instead of 300 there were just 3 over here. Ron Unz was a Leonidas of our times. Like Leonidas before him, Ron Unz built a wall of his enemies' skulls.

    This battle was also analogous to a situation of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli taking on the Orcs of Mordor. And they did not have the Army of the Dead to help them either.

    Many great hymns shall emerge from this battle. It was a battle for the ages.

    The author’s entire argument was entirely unpersuasive and based on an inappropriate apples to oranges comparison. I wasn’t impressed. Delude yourself however you like, but nothing will disprove China’s coming success, and the only explanation that will make sense there will be genetics.

  18. @Jay Fink
    There was some cognitive dissonance on the Bernie Sanders subreddit. A post mentioned some things Bernie has consistently supported over the decades. One thing listed was his opposition to NAFTA. A few Sanders supporters were surprised to see that. "Wait a minute isn't opposing NAFTA a right wing Republican thing". My impression is a lot of Democrats don't necessarily understand NAFTA but they by default support it because they think it's Republican to oppose it.

    Jay, in my experience with Berniebro leftism is just that: not understanding what they opposed but instead opposing everything that can be tagged ‘republican’, ‘right wing’, ‘conservative’, or Trump endorsed.

    It makes sense given that their positions are firmly anchored in feelz and status among the hula hoop festival girls on molly.

    With NAFTA I also think the rhetoric is steered by the brown fetish that is intrinsic to the left.

    They may not know what NAFTA is, but they know it has to do with Real Americans, which is to say Mexicans, and something about ‘free trade’, which is close enough to ‘free stuff’ to be good.

    So anything in opposition to freedom for their brown brothers and sistas is bad. So yay NAFTA.

    Plus, avocado toast is already $12. We can’t risk upsetting the delicate balance of urban white rainbow rations.

  19. Tthe U.S. House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234–200. The agreement’s supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61–38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The past is a foreign country.
  20. @Achmed E. Newman

    Libertarians wept.
     
    I haven't used a single kleenex yet, here on this end. You've got a good point thought and great way to put it!

    Some Americans who still remember might also long for the day when consumer goods were not all Cheap China-made Crap. (That'd be represented by the light green bar, pretty closely*.)

    .

    * If you figure, 45 years old means 20 y/o in 1995, which is early enough to well remember when there were still lots of American-made goods at the stores. 10 years later - gone, gone, gone ...

    I am of that demo.

    I also remember the people shopping in those stores back in ‘95.

    I was in my small hometown a few years back for a family visit. We ended up at a restaurant attached to the regional mall. Strolling through the mall was like strolling through a terminal at Dubai Int’l. My family was in the minority.

    So yeah. Plastic junk from China has replaced metal junk from the USA. But something else has changed.

    I don’t long for the day, so to say, as there is no going back. But I do daydream about a people waking up from their slumber and refusing to go into the dustbin of history along with their old metal toys.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Plastic junk from China has replaced metal junk from the USA. But something else has changed.
     
    Nope, not quite, Screwtape. 1970s-80s automobiles partially aside, Americans made quality stuff. I have a water heater that is 32 years old. As my friend admonishes me to take care of it before "she blows", I remind him about his helping me replace a friends w/h up in the freakin' attic that had a hole in the side after 7 years! Do I want to take a chance with a 32 y/o one that may last to 50* or a new one that may get only to 7?

    Things were made to last and/or be repaired. I read your comment, but I think you my be younger than me, if you don't know this. BTW, I'm not blaming that all on the Chinese themselves, mind you either - see "Cheap China-Made Crap - who's responsible?". It's got a story about quality control of one certain toy - ZERO out of a sample of TWO.

    That part aside, I think you are right that there is no going back. This tower-of-Babel shit ain't working out though - what did the Bible say happened next. I'm gonna check that soon.



    .

    * I drained it out a few times and have replaced the anode rod also a couple of times.
  21. @Rebel0007
    Peter Thiel pretends to be a Libertarian, but he is a Fascist! Peter Thiel has supported prosecuting Assange and shutting Wikileaks down! So, not Republican, not Democrat, not Libertarian, just plain old Fascist! Fascist - yes, there is definitely something wrong with that!

    It’s called being “suitably libertarian”.

  22. Cato and Koch are out. Who’s in to replace them remains an open question. There are rumors of a Peter Thiel damascene conversion. But why stop there? Mr. Michael “Borders, Language, Culture” Savage has a son worth twice what Thiel is. Let’s populist like a rockstar, already!

    Michael Savage’s billionaire caffeine king kid Russ Weiner brings up why it is important that the new political party called WHITE CORE AMERICA acts more like the VIRGINIA COMPANY than a regular political party. The Virginia Company was about loot, property and profits and White Core America has to be seen to be operating on the behalf of all those who support and vote for it.

    The Russ Weiner billionaire of caffeine pop drinks brings up the importance of grabbing market share like a bastard on a national scale. The new political party White Core America must grab votes and dollars and it must barge into every kind of market imaginable from beer to bonds to shady financial instruments. White Core America must get into TV and radio and the internet and global banking and shipping and everything else. White Core America will act like a corporation just like the Virginia Company did and it must translate voter numbers into market share and it must be ruthless about doing so.

    White Core America must attack the Republican Party and Trump for failure to deliver on their business model. White Core America must also attack the Republican Party for failing to defend the historic American nation and for failing to advance the interests of the European Christian ancestral core of the USA.

    Trump and the Republican Party have crawled into bed with the internet corporations and the corporate media, and Trump and the Republican Party are more than happy to see patriotic Americans censored in the corporate media and the internet if it protects their market share of the electorate.

    Trump is now touting trade deal scams that are just as vile as any Reagan or Clinton or Bush ever pushed. Trump puts the interests of Israel over and above the interests of the USA.

    White Core America must pledge to begin financially liquidating billionaires and corporations and transnational banking consortiums that do not benefit the USA as a whole.

    White Core America Party:

    AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW!

    DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS NOW!

    TOTAL STUDENT LOAN DEBT REPUDIATION

    TEN GRAND A MONTH PEWITT CONJURED LOOT PORTION

    NATIONALIZE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK NOW!

    FIT AS A FIDDLE TARIFF ACT TO PAY FOR FREE AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICE

  23. The last graph is the critical one. 40+ years ago Republicans were the party of Wall Street and the Dems were the party of Main Street.

    Now that has flipped. Republicans are the Party of Main Street opposing NAFTA. While the Dems push multiculturalism and jobs outsourcing in their service to Wall Street.

    Why do you think the DNC Leadership is so terrified of Warren? A Democrat party that serves neither Main Street nor Wall Street is in huge difficulty.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    THE PARTY is the party of both Wall St. and Karl Marx Blvd, both the red squad and the blue squad, that is. The difference I see is that the helplessly-hopeful followers of the red-squad are supporters of Main St. The deluded followers of the blue-squad are supporters of the plaza at the intersection of Stupidity Blvd. and Psychosis Drive.
  24. @Screwtape
    I am of that demo.

    I also remember the people shopping in those stores back in ‘95.

    I was in my small hometown a few years back for a family visit. We ended up at a restaurant attached to the regional mall. Strolling through the mall was like strolling through a terminal at Dubai Int’l. My family was in the minority.

    So yeah. Plastic junk from China has replaced metal junk from the USA. But something else has changed.

    I don’t long for the day, so to say, as there is no going back. But I do daydream about a people waking up from their slumber and refusing to go into the dustbin of history along with their old metal toys.

    Plastic junk from China has replaced metal junk from the USA. But something else has changed.

    Nope, not quite, Screwtape. 1970s-80s automobiles partially aside, Americans made quality stuff. I have a water heater that is 32 years old. As my friend admonishes me to take care of it before “she blows”, I remind him about his helping me replace a friends w/h up in the freakin’ attic that had a hole in the side after 7 years! Do I want to take a chance with a 32 y/o one that may last to 50* or a new one that may get only to 7?

    Things were made to last and/or be repaired. I read your comment, but I think you my be younger than me, if you don’t know this. BTW, I’m not blaming that all on the Chinese themselves, mind you either – see “Cheap China-Made Crap – who’s responsible?”. It’s got a story about quality control of one certain toy – ZERO out of a sample of TWO.

    That part aside, I think you are right that there is no going back. This tower-of-Babel shit ain’t working out though – what did the Bible say happened next. I’m gonna check that soon.

    .

    * I drained it out a few times and have replaced the anode rod also a couple of times.

  25. @Gall
    Globalism the god that failed. Of course the Neoliberal scum continue to hang on to the delusion. Having associated with Libertarianism for many years I can say without a doubt that their minds have been perverted by the Neocon Chicago School of Economic Terrorism.

    Globalism the god that failed. Of course the Neoliberal scum continue to hang on to the delusion. Having associated with Libertarianism for many years I can say without a doubt that their minds have been perverted by the Neocon Chicago School of Economic Terrorism.

    Globalism was just a rationalization for asset-stripping everyone who wasn’t part of the 0.001%.

    Libertarians (I was once so deluded) think free trade creates peace. They’re wrong, trust creates peace, and trust creates cross-border trade.

    And if “trust” becomes pathological, it creates open borders to invasion-level migration and economic destruction. First, the low-skilled migrants replace all the teenagers and low-skilled natives by under-bidding their pay (which the business owners largely pocket that arbitrage.) Next, the “high skills” migrants replace the native sons of the middle class, because getting a degree in Hyderabad is a HELL of a lot cheaper than getting one at Northwestern or even Ohio State.

    Americans aren’t doctors any more, when Pradeep from Hyderabad can (and will) do the same job for half price (so the Medical Service Organization is too happy to sponsor their Pradeep’s visa, and those for his wife, his kids, him mother, his father, his mother-in-law, his father-in-law, his wife’s uncles, etc., ad nausam.) Ditto engineers, computer scientists, etc. Americans are getting sodomized in both directions, by $100-200K college degrees and imported competitors from every corner of Earth.

    It’s beyond obvious to me that we’ve endured forty years of rationalization for ROBBING US of everything our parents and grandparents created.

    Open borders? Open Immigration? Inviting the World’s Best and Brightest? Those who espouse this should be marched into the sea.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  26. @A123
    The last graph is the critical one. 40+ years ago Republicans were the party of Wall Street and the Dems were the party of Main Street.

    Now that has flipped. Republicans are the Party of Main Street opposing NAFTA. While the Dems push multiculturalism and jobs outsourcing in their service to Wall Street.

    Why do you think the DNC Leadership is so terrified of Warren? A Democrat party that serves neither Main Street nor Wall Street is in huge difficulty.

    PEACE 😇

    THE PARTY is the party of both Wall St. and Karl Marx Blvd, both the red squad and the blue squad, that is. The difference I see is that the helplessly-hopeful followers of the red-squad are supporters of Main St. The deluded followers of the blue-squad are supporters of the plaza at the intersection of Stupidity Blvd. and Psychosis Drive.

    • Replies: @A123

    THE PARTY is the party of both Wall St. and Karl Marx Blvd, both the red squad and the blue squad,
     
    If you said that 4 years ago, I probably would have agreed. The Romney, Hillary, McCain, Obama slurry all repackage the same Uni-party core beliefs.

    Trump is trying to break that trap and make the Republicans fundamentally different than they were. It is certainly a struggle draining the swamp with the deep state clogging up the pipes.

    There will not be a Constitutional Amendment permitting a 3rd term, so the true test will be the 2024 GOP nomination.

    PEACE 😇
  27. @Mark G.
    Wages between the U.S. and China might have equalized if it had been left up to the free market. Federal reserve policies led to domestic wage inflation and that led to higher prices for domestic goods. Where consumers were able to substitute cheaper foreign goods for more expensive domestic goods they did so. Where they weren't able to do this, as in the case of non-transportable goods like medical care or higher education, they had to suffer the results of the Fed induced inflation by paying increasingly higher prices to purchase those goods. If the Fed had followed deflationary policies then domestic wages would have dropped and kept American workers competitive with foreign workers. The falling domestic wages wouldn't have caused lower living standards for American workers because, due to the deflation, domestic prices would have been falling in tandem with their wages.

    A deflationary policy wasn't followed because it would have required higher interest rates which would have increased government borrowing costs. The government had to borrow lots of money to maintain the welfare-warfare state. The inflationary policy had the bad side effect of boosting the prices of stocks, which primarily benefited the wealthy and further increased income inequality. So libertarians shouldn't be crying because their free trade ideology failed. They can cry, though, because what we have now has been mislabeled as free trade while the true culprit for American worker job losses, i.e. the government, has gotten off scot free.

    Very good comment, Mark. Thanks.

    I would also like to add that the intense regulatory burden put on American business by the Feral Gov’t and certain state governments has made it pay off even more for manufacturers to get out.

    This is why the software business is different. Once can get a new piece of software developed, written, and tested well before any government offices of any kind can mess with you. Then you can get the investor money to pay for all the bullshit once the “product” has already been proven. With real hardware, it can’t work that way, and all the hassles have to be dealt with up front. Ask me about the C.A.R.B. sometime … no, on 2nd thought, don’t. I want to stay in a decent mood.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  28. @Achmed E. Newman
    THE PARTY is the party of both Wall St. and Karl Marx Blvd, both the red squad and the blue squad, that is. The difference I see is that the helplessly-hopeful followers of the red-squad are supporters of Main St. The deluded followers of the blue-squad are supporters of the plaza at the intersection of Stupidity Blvd. and Psychosis Drive.

    THE PARTY is the party of both Wall St. and Karl Marx Blvd, both the red squad and the blue squad,

    If you said that 4 years ago, I probably would have agreed. The Romney, Hillary, McCain, Obama slurry all repackage the same Uni-party core beliefs.

    Trump is trying to break that trap and make the Republicans fundamentally different than they were. It is certainly a struggle draining the swamp with the deep state clogging up the pipes.

    There will not be a Constitutional Amendment permitting a 3rd term, so the true test will be the 2024 GOP nomination.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    I realize 2024 is a long ways off but does the GOP even have any viable Trump Republicans? Someone who would run on the populist-nationalist themes of Trump's 2016 campaign and make a real effort to implement them? I can't think of any names offhand.
  29. @Gall
    Globalism the god that failed. Of course the Neoliberal scum continue to hang on to the delusion. Having associated with Libertarianism for many years I can say without a doubt that their minds have been perverted by the Neocon Chicago School of Economic Terrorism.

    Milton Friedman is another god that failed. Excellent comment, Gall.

  30. @Rebel0007
    Peter Thiel pretends to be a Libertarian, but he is a Fascist! Peter Thiel has supported prosecuting Assange and shutting Wikileaks down! So, not Republican, not Democrat, not Libertarian, just plain old Fascist! Fascist - yes, there is definitely something wrong with that!

    Singapore is Fascism par excellence

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Singapore may be fascist, but the question is, would you find it a nice place to live?

    Imagine a world where people chose from a Chinese Menu what rules would guide their and their neighbors' behavior. Each person would AGREE to abide by a fairly comprehensive set of rules, and those rules would be enforced by quite literal exile of those who agreed, but then behaved outside the boundaries.

    Lots of folks would call that an incredibly fascist place (given that "the rules" would also apply to ostensibly private businesses, which is the textbook definition of fascism.)

    Would you find a world of heterogeneous communities made up of people who volunteered to live under their strictures bad?

    I wouldn't.
  31. @A123

    THE PARTY is the party of both Wall St. and Karl Marx Blvd, both the red squad and the blue squad,
     
    If you said that 4 years ago, I probably would have agreed. The Romney, Hillary, McCain, Obama slurry all repackage the same Uni-party core beliefs.

    Trump is trying to break that trap and make the Republicans fundamentally different than they were. It is certainly a struggle draining the swamp with the deep state clogging up the pipes.

    There will not be a Constitutional Amendment permitting a 3rd term, so the true test will be the 2024 GOP nomination.

    PEACE 😇

    I realize 2024 is a long ways off but does the GOP even have any viable Trump Republicans? Someone who would run on the populist-nationalist themes of Trump’s 2016 campaign and make a real effort to implement them? I can’t think of any names offhand.

    • Replies: @A123
    You are correct, there is no obvious 2024 choice:

    -- Nikki Haley is the most common name under discussion.
    -- Tucker Carlson also comes up frequently, but I do not believe he wants to run.

    PEACE 😇
    , @216
    Ron DeSantis
    Matt Gaetz
    Marco Rubio?
    Chris Sununu?
    Josh Hawley
    Tom Cotton
    Andrew Yang??? (If he wants to run for NY Governor I could see him switching parties)

    Losing in 2024 for the Dems probably only happens if someone like AOC is nominated.

    It says a lot that I can't name a single female pol that identifies with the "Trump base". (Stefanik is a neocon, with zero populist leanings)

    This is going to be a problem, as the GOP and Con Inc are clueless about the "Cat lady phenomenon" that will play a major role in 2020s and 2030s politics. When lots of women hit 40 and aren't married with children, they will be angry; mostly at men but also at feminism.
  32. You say “suitably Libertarian?” I still say Fascist! Or rephrased Nothing but a pro gay rights Neocon!

  33. @Jay Fink
    I realize 2024 is a long ways off but does the GOP even have any viable Trump Republicans? Someone who would run on the populist-nationalist themes of Trump's 2016 campaign and make a real effort to implement them? I can't think of any names offhand.

    You are correct, there is no obvious 2024 choice:

    — Nikki Haley is the most common name under discussion.
    — Tucker Carlson also comes up frequently, but I do not believe he wants to run.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @216
    Haley has self-immolated by defending the Saltire, claiming that the Charleston shooter "appropriated" it from its previous meaning of "honoring the soldiers".

    Haley's appeal is being the "Woke Neocon", and being nominally Asian while for all intents and purposes White.

    Another South Carolinan has a better shot, Sen. Tim Scott. More likely as a Vice President.
  34. @Jay Fink
    I realize 2024 is a long ways off but does the GOP even have any viable Trump Republicans? Someone who would run on the populist-nationalist themes of Trump's 2016 campaign and make a real effort to implement them? I can't think of any names offhand.

    Ron DeSantis
    Matt Gaetz
    Marco Rubio?
    Chris Sununu?
    Josh Hawley
    Tom Cotton
    Andrew Yang??? (If he wants to run for NY Governor I could see him switching parties)

    Losing in 2024 for the Dems probably only happens if someone like AOC is nominated.

    It says a lot that I can’t name a single female pol that identifies with the “Trump base”. (Stefanik is a neocon, with zero populist leanings)

    This is going to be a problem, as the GOP and Con Inc are clueless about the “Cat lady phenomenon” that will play a major role in 2020s and 2030s politics. When lots of women hit 40 and aren’t married with children, they will be angry; mostly at men but also at feminism.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    This is going to be a problem, as the GOP and Con Inc are clueless about the “Cat lady phenomenon” that will play a major role in 2020s and 2030s politics. When lots of women hit 40 and aren’t married with children, they will be angry; mostly at men but also at feminism.
     
    The GOP has massive problems appealing to large swaths of people born after about 1972, and hell, they still haven't won over a decent number of early Boomers who blame Nixon and Reagan for killing "the sixties". Later X-ers and subsequent generations don't think that "unions are killing America", and they don't think that the "private sector" always knows best.

    The GOP's "sweet spot" is with people born from about 1955-1970. Problem is, that's the cohort that is the most poorly socialized (lots of drug addicts, drunks, prison cell occupants, homeless people, the sort of generation that often had 12 year old kids smoking packs of cigarettes and running away from home). Remember that the nadir of youth culture was about 1967-1982. So it's not surprising that the GOP's post-Reagan problem with uh, objective reality, is most appealing to the cohort most guilty of frying it's brain cells. I mean, how frickin' stupid do you have to be to think that the post-Reagan GOP believes in "small government"?
  35. @A123
    You are correct, there is no obvious 2024 choice:

    -- Nikki Haley is the most common name under discussion.
    -- Tucker Carlson also comes up frequently, but I do not believe he wants to run.

    PEACE 😇

    Haley has self-immolated by defending the Saltire, claiming that the Charleston shooter “appropriated” it from its previous meaning of “honoring the soldiers”.

    Haley’s appeal is being the “Woke Neocon”, and being nominally Asian while for all intents and purposes White.

    Another South Carolinan has a better shot, Sen. Tim Scott. More likely as a Vice President.

  36. Trump may not have succeeded in transforming the GOP into a workingman’s party, but he clearly hasn’t made zero progress towards that goal. I’m rarely surprised by anything in politics, but this chart (pleasantly) surprised the heck out of me!

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Though campaign Trump has been mostly housebroken, the voters who turned campaign Trump into president Trump still respond a lot more favorably to the campaign Trump platform than they do to the Conservative, Inc platform.
  37. Ruin one of our lands, then off to ruin another.

    Never the honest answer of building your homeland.

  38. OT

    God bless our UK cousins, apparently they are standing in the rain in order to try and save their country and themselves.

  39. To imagine that only a crushing defeat forces them to accept the idea that we are entitled to cultural representation.

    They can hand us back our culture. It is within their power. But they never do, because they hate us.

  40. We Deplorables are a large, identifiable and cohesive constituency. But we don’t have money and we don’t have leadership. The only one who wants us is Trump. And Trump is not a leader.

    Deplorables need to search their own ranks for leadership. We are very much on our own.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @A123

    We Deplorables are a large, identifiable and cohesive constituency. But we don’t have money and we don’t have leadership. The only one who wants us is Trump. And Trump is not a leader.

    Deplorables need to search their own ranks for leadership. We are very much on our own.
     
    Regretably, there are many complications. While trying to improve the system the leaders have to beat the system within the system:

    -- Trump can use tools like Twitter and "bad-cop, good-cop" to bludgeon the Fake Stream Media into providing at least marginal coverage.

    -- Trump has been able to make some tough choices on personnel where needed. Keeping the Senate on board to approve nominees has involved picking some people he really doesn't want to get those he really needs.

    -- Trump has prioritized the number of key items down to focus on a potentially winnable number of fronts. For example, I wish he would work more on H1B and OPT visas for white collar jobs. However, he cannot risk alienating India while battling China on trade and blue collar jobs.

    ____

    Ultimately, Trump is a leader even if he really is not a "Deplorable". Odds are to obtain the necessary skills the next leader of the "Deplorables" will not be one either.

    Simplifying the system and rebuilding belief in Constitutional values is the goal. We have to avoid letting the 'perfect' be the enemy of the 'good'. Take the wins and gains that are available. It is a long road to fix decades of damage.

    PEACE 😇
  41. The far-left will tell you Corbyn was taken down by “the press” and “the establishment”.

    You tell me after looking at this list, whom was the Culture Industry cracking its whip upon?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

  42. Ungrateful

  43. @anon

    I was astonished to see the pro-trade-deal disparity between Dems and Republicans.
     
    That's only because the media incessantly tell you the democrats are the party of the working-class when they aren't and haven't been since the 1980s. The free-trade professional class switched sides in the 1992 election. Republicans haven't had significant representation in the upper 10% income bracket since that time, even though the stereotype of the GOP being the party of the rich persisted for a few decades after. This is visible in the culture if you look closely enough. In the 1980s and early to mid-90s there were several white male Hollywood stars (and businessmen) who were openly republican. Now, those types either don't exist or they stay quiet so they won't get blacklisted. Only the old guard like Clint Eastwood remain public about it, although less so than in the past.

    The media perpetuated this myth mainly because it was convenient for the democrats to portray themselves in a sympathetic light. The working-class, pro-union stuff is mostly propaganda* at this point, even if the republican leadership is indeed made up of corrupt, free-trade supporting elements; the base of the party itself isn't so keen on the idea, and that has been obvious in the polls for decades. The democrats won all ten of the richest counties in the 2016 election. All the most well-known billionaires and Hollywood moguls are democrats; some are huge party donors. The democrats are the party of the rich, of the billionaires and the 10% professional class. If you ever thought otherwise, it was only because they control the media and told you to think that way.

    This result doesn't surprise me in the least. It was obvious to anyone who took a look at the rhetoric being posted on Reddit politics and the late night "comedy" programs since 2016 -- endless mocking of Trump for his trade tariffs along with attacking blue collar workers concerned about their "jerbs", as was often mockingly stated. Ever since, I've been a big fan of AI and automation. Take from them as they have taken from others and watch them squirm in the aftermath. Imagine a future when computers diagnose patients, replace actors in movies, replace most government workers, and debate court cases with attorney's there only as observers. It's a future that can't come soon enough.

    *Check out The Daily Beast's response to Tucker Carlson's criticism of vulture capitalist Paul Singer. They tried deflecting by digging up irrelevant nonsense about his paper seeking start-up funding from some guy associated with Singer many years before. The American Conservative has a good take on it. Tellingly, these types at the Daily Beast, supposedly liberal, attack rather than support the positions you'd think they would based on the stereotype of the democrats being the party of the working class. And they aren't alone. Notice how the left-wing media have incessantly attacked both Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders. Both candidates are progressives but yet they also draw the ire of the 10% wannabes and the billionaires who fund and run outfits like The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, the New Yorker, Salon, The Atlantic, etc. Why? Because the system (military industrial complex and market capitalism) and the democrats are now synonymous with each other.

    These Daily Beast types have vested interests in perpetuating that system which directly benefits their job security and their wider economic class. Many aspire to future government jobs with the democrats or billionaire-funded vanity projects, so it's not surprising they'd deflect from a possible source of future funding like Paul Singer. The Left was never economically progressive -- not since the 1980s -- even if they are willing to throw crumbs from the table from time to time in order to placate the plebs (notice how they also mysteriously oppose Andrew Yang's progressive UBI ... not so mysterious when you consider it might cause taxes on the rich to go up and politically empower the poor). It's just more obvious now that their feet have been put to the fire by Trump's actions, which the Left never really thought they'd be called out on before the 2016 election. They thought they could continue speaking out of both sides of their mouths forever, which is the real reason why they hate the guy. He exposed them, even if he's a sell-out himself.

    The free-trade professional class switched sides in the 1992 election

    That can also be attributed to the religious right taking over the GOP in the early 1990’s. Well educated people tend to be skeptical of religious fundamentalism, and the GOP (stupidly) chose to very publicly placate heartland evangelicals of middling IQ instead of doing, well, numerous things that would’ve been more useful and less embarrassing. The Religious Right effectively has accomplished nothing over the last 30 years, other than having conservative elected officials play their naive base like a fiddle over and over again. And the public energy devoted to pandering to paranoid low-info evangelical luddites diverted a lot of attention away from a lot of ya know, important issues (like immigration, monetary policy, America’s imperial ambitions, and so forth). I suppose it’s addictive for the GOP to continue to pander to the same Silents and Boomers who actually believe that the GOP is “fiscally responsible” (even though Reagan, GHW Bush, Bush the lesser, and Trump presided over an expensive growing imperial state that wields far greater power than it ever did under FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, or Carter). America has never ending wars, imprisons almost as many people as the Chinese “communists”, has political, corporate, and legal approval to engage in mass spying, baseless arrests and detention, assassinations, and even torture (!). And the mid 1980’s is when the (Reaganite) establishment began to actively attack the 1st amendment. Over the last 35 years the free speech rights of Americans have been under assault. But as usual, the “conservatives” would rather blame FDR (who essentially let urban and Southern whites live among their own kind to preserve the racial peace) than admit that their own side has been completely worthless at defending intellectual and cultural freedom for the last 35 years.

    The Reaganites also constantly blamed “the public sector” for letting everyone down, when in reality the government has almost completely vacated anti-trust enforcement for 30-40 years, while also cutting corporate taxes, the end result being that corporate conglomerates dominate our lives……And actively police the boundaries of “acceptable discourse”. The NFL sponsors military jet fly-overs at NFL games. Mainstream/corporate media regularly forbids any “insensitive” commentary regarding various things, with racial content being especially regulated. Ya can’t threaten the imperial ambitions of various neo-lib Western nations by acknowledging that perhaps, polyglot societies are destined to fail because different ethnic groups have different characteristics that are immutable. But this accepted conventional wisdom of millennia was discarded by the globalizers who said that the various achievements of Western man had to be shared with 3rd worlders. Look it up; America effectively dissolved it’s borders in the 1980’s (border crossings and immigrant worker visas surged, while few deportations were made and employers of illegal aliens were seldom punished) and countless “conservative” thinkers and leaders assured us that it was “selfish” and “unfair” to keep our nations to ourselves (what became a Rightwing tenet of the 1980’s was that “communism” and “big government” ideology were the primary threat, not any particular ethnic group). I’m not kidding; most brain dead modern “Left-wing” rhetoric about immigration had already been coined by the neo-lib capitalists of the 1970’s and 80’s, who thought that closed borders were an impediment to “growth”.

    • Replies: @anon

    That can also be attributed to the religious right taking over the GOP in the early 1990’s.
     
    I'm sure that had something to do with it, but it can't be the only reason or even the primary one. Religious Christians were an important, vocal constituency for Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and that same socioeconomic class had no problem voting for both him and his successor George HW Bush. The Christian Coalition was only formed in 1989 and HW Bush wasn't strongly associated with them. It could be argued that what you've observed here is partly an artifact of the professional class abandoning the GOP in the early 1990s, making the Christian element more prominent by default.

    and the GOP (stupidly) chose to very publicly placate heartland evangelicals of middling IQ instead of doing, well, numerous things that would’ve been more useful and less embarrassing.
     
    I would guess they did that for economic reasons: placate the plebs with social rhetoric rather than advocate working class issues that might undermine their donor's business interests. Lots of rural elements overlapping strongly Christian areas voted for the democratic candidate in 92 and 96. Some of that was in response to years of GOP over-focus on big business. Rather than appeal to those people, the republican leadership just abandoned them while turning up the red meat appeals to evangelicals. I believe Clinton carried both Arkansas and Tennessee as a result.

    The Reaganites also constantly blamed “the public sector” for letting everyone down, when in reality the government has almost completely vacated anti-trust enforcement for 30-40 years
     
    True. But it could be argued that many republican voters of the 1980s didn't fully accept that line of thinking even if they voted republican -- that republican victories in presidential races were a backlash to 1960s and 1970s era social policies associated with the democrats. Lots of polls showed republicans split or even against free trade, even in the 90s when the GOP controlled congress. This was obvious to me long before Trump's populist rhetoric stunned the party leadership. The same phenomenon is observed even today. Republican voters oppose free trade and would probably also oppose shutting down major departments like education or the postal service if it were left up to a vote, but they feel they have to vote republican anyway to oppose the other party whose rhetoric is really just code for hating their demographic along class, racial, and ethnic lines. I personally will never vote for a racist party that openly hates me even if I'm a borderline socialist myself. I have at least some integrity.

    The NFL sponsors military jet fly-overs at NFL games.
     
    It's funny how, despite all the gender equality rhetoric, they focus on recruiting from an obviously male demographic, disproportionately white and Hispanic compared with NBA viewership. I don't recall any military advertisements during the screening of Frozen 2. For most new recruits, though, it's just a steady paycheck. I'm sure the DOD doesn't want to admit this, so they associate their recruiting with supposedly patriotic male, but ideologically safe, things like multicultural football.
  44. @216
    Ron DeSantis
    Matt Gaetz
    Marco Rubio?
    Chris Sununu?
    Josh Hawley
    Tom Cotton
    Andrew Yang??? (If he wants to run for NY Governor I could see him switching parties)

    Losing in 2024 for the Dems probably only happens if someone like AOC is nominated.

    It says a lot that I can't name a single female pol that identifies with the "Trump base". (Stefanik is a neocon, with zero populist leanings)

    This is going to be a problem, as the GOP and Con Inc are clueless about the "Cat lady phenomenon" that will play a major role in 2020s and 2030s politics. When lots of women hit 40 and aren't married with children, they will be angry; mostly at men but also at feminism.

    This is going to be a problem, as the GOP and Con Inc are clueless about the “Cat lady phenomenon” that will play a major role in 2020s and 2030s politics. When lots of women hit 40 and aren’t married with children, they will be angry; mostly at men but also at feminism.

    The GOP has massive problems appealing to large swaths of people born after about 1972, and hell, they still haven’t won over a decent number of early Boomers who blame Nixon and Reagan for killing “the sixties”. Later X-ers and subsequent generations don’t think that “unions are killing America”, and they don’t think that the “private sector” always knows best.

    The GOP’s “sweet spot” is with people born from about 1955-1970. Problem is, that’s the cohort that is the most poorly socialized (lots of drug addicts, drunks, prison cell occupants, homeless people, the sort of generation that often had 12 year old kids smoking packs of cigarettes and running away from home). Remember that the nadir of youth culture was about 1967-1982. So it’s not surprising that the GOP’s post-Reagan problem with uh, objective reality, is most appealing to the cohort most guilty of frying it’s brain cells. I mean, how frickin’ stupid do you have to be to think that the post-Reagan GOP believes in “small government”?

  45. @WorkingClass
    We Deplorables are a large, identifiable and cohesive constituency. But we don't have money and we don't have leadership. The only one who wants us is Trump. And Trump is not a leader.

    Deplorables need to search their own ranks for leadership. We are very much on our own.

    We Deplorables are a large, identifiable and cohesive constituency. But we don’t have money and we don’t have leadership. The only one who wants us is Trump. And Trump is not a leader.

    Deplorables need to search their own ranks for leadership. We are very much on our own.

    Regretably, there are many complications. While trying to improve the system the leaders have to beat the system within the system:

    — Trump can use tools like Twitter and “bad-cop, good-cop” to bludgeon the Fake Stream Media into providing at least marginal coverage.

    — Trump has been able to make some tough choices on personnel where needed. Keeping the Senate on board to approve nominees has involved picking some people he really doesn’t want to get those he really needs.

    — Trump has prioritized the number of key items down to focus on a potentially winnable number of fronts. For example, I wish he would work more on H1B and OPT visas for white collar jobs. However, he cannot risk alienating India while battling China on trade and blue collar jobs.

    ____

    Ultimately, Trump is a leader even if he really is not a “Deplorable”. Odds are to obtain the necessary skills the next leader of the “Deplorables” will not be one either.

    Simplifying the system and rebuilding belief in Constitutional values is the goal. We have to avoid letting the ‘perfect’ be the enemy of the ‘good’. Take the wins and gains that are available. It is a long road to fix decades of damage.

    PEACE 😇

  46. Unfortunately, most of the world is fascist now. That does not mean that we should accept it though. That is why I had joked a few years ago that Hitler actually won World War 2. Germany may have lost, but Hitler’s and Mussolini’s ideology is thriving in both the East and the West. 

    China today is more like Mussolini than Mao. I am not pro Mao either! 

    Any time a leader actually has a populist plan, the West gangs up on them and attacks them in coups, wars, and color revolutions. That is an affront to the self-serving hedonistic gluttons. They don’t like people making them look bad!!

    • Replies: @anon
    Unfortunately, most of the world is fascist now.

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N9wyYYwIW7I/U6jdRYO6ynI/AAAAAAAAB7w/E8x0TSHhlG8/s1600/Brain+on+drugs.jpg
    , @dc.sunsets

    Unfortunately, most of the world is fascist now.
     
    Buy a dictionary. A better term is, corporatist. That's actually the term Mussolini used, and it's far more descriptive.

    The world is not National Socialist, either. Communism is International Socialism, Nazism is National Socialism. Notice the similarity? Hint: "socialism." Not even China is socialist any more. Socialism is characterized by public ownership of the means of production, which results in the absence of markets and market prices.

    Where on Earth does this exist? Nowhere.

    The world is corporatist, and I'd argue, a corporatist oligarchy. If you're going to throw stones (and I'll happily join you doing so), at least identify the right target.
  47. The ghost of Ross Perot (H.Ross Perot?) can still be plainly heard saying, “Y’all pass NAFTA, y’all gonna hear a giant suckin’ sound of jobs goin’ South”.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I really miss that guy. If I had bought a T-shirt, I'm sure I'd be still wearing it often today.

    Ross Perot was a proto-Trump, but smarter, better organized, and more lucid.

    As to what happened with the guy back in the summer of 1992, Peak Stupidity speculates in "The Deep State vs. Donald Trump - remember Candidate Ross Perot?".

  48. @NoseytheDuke
    The ghost of Ross Perot (H.Ross Perot?) can still be plainly heard saying, "Y'all pass NAFTA, y'all gonna hear a giant suckin' sound of jobs goin' South".

    I really miss that guy. If I had bought a T-shirt, I’m sure I’d be still wearing it often today.

    Ross Perot was a proto-Trump, but smarter, better organized, and more lucid.

    As to what happened with the guy back in the summer of 1992, Peak Stupidity speculates in “The Deep State vs. Donald Trump – remember Candidate Ross Perot?”.

  49. @Rebel0007
    @216

    Unfortunately, most of the world is fascist now. That does not mean that we should accept it though. That is why I had joked a few years ago that Hitler actually won World War 2. Germany may have lost, but Hitler's and Mussolini's ideology is thriving in both the East and the West. 

    China today is more like Mussolini than Mao. I am not pro Mao either! 

    Any time a leader actually has a populist plan, the West gangs up on them and attacks them in coups, wars, and color revolutions. That is an affront to the self-serving hedonistic gluttons. They don't like people making them look bad!!

    Unfortunately, most of the world is fascist now.

  50. anon[346] • Disclaimer says:
    @Feryl

    The free-trade professional class switched sides in the 1992 election
     
    That can also be attributed to the religious right taking over the GOP in the early 1990's. Well educated people tend to be skeptical of religious fundamentalism, and the GOP (stupidly) chose to very publicly placate heartland evangelicals of middling IQ instead of doing, well, numerous things that would've been more useful and less embarrassing. The Religious Right effectively has accomplished nothing over the last 30 years, other than having conservative elected officials play their naive base like a fiddle over and over again. And the public energy devoted to pandering to paranoid low-info evangelical luddites diverted a lot of attention away from a lot of ya know, important issues (like immigration, monetary policy, America's imperial ambitions, and so forth). I suppose it's addictive for the GOP to continue to pander to the same Silents and Boomers who actually believe that the GOP is "fiscally responsible" (even though Reagan, GHW Bush, Bush the lesser, and Trump presided over an expensive growing imperial state that wields far greater power than it ever did under FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, or Carter). America has never ending wars, imprisons almost as many people as the Chinese "communists", has political, corporate, and legal approval to engage in mass spying, baseless arrests and detention, assassinations, and even torture (!). And the mid 1980's is when the (Reaganite) establishment began to actively attack the 1st amendment. Over the last 35 years the free speech rights of Americans have been under assault. But as usual, the "conservatives" would rather blame FDR (who essentially let urban and Southern whites live among their own kind to preserve the racial peace) than admit that their own side has been completely worthless at defending intellectual and cultural freedom for the last 35 years.

    The Reaganites also constantly blamed "the public sector" for letting everyone down, when in reality the government has almost completely vacated anti-trust enforcement for 30-40 years, while also cutting corporate taxes, the end result being that corporate conglomerates dominate our lives......And actively police the boundaries of "acceptable discourse". The NFL sponsors military jet fly-overs at NFL games. Mainstream/corporate media regularly forbids any "insensitive" commentary regarding various things, with racial content being especially regulated. Ya can't threaten the imperial ambitions of various neo-lib Western nations by acknowledging that perhaps, polyglot societies are destined to fail because different ethnic groups have different characteristics that are immutable. But this accepted conventional wisdom of millennia was discarded by the globalizers who said that the various achievements of Western man had to be shared with 3rd worlders. Look it up; America effectively dissolved it's borders in the 1980's (border crossings and immigrant worker visas surged, while few deportations were made and employers of illegal aliens were seldom punished) and countless "conservative" thinkers and leaders assured us that it was "selfish" and "unfair" to keep our nations to ourselves (what became a Rightwing tenet of the 1980's was that "communism" and "big government" ideology were the primary threat, not any particular ethnic group). I'm not kidding; most brain dead modern "Left-wing" rhetoric about immigration had already been coined by the neo-lib capitalists of the 1970's and 80's, who thought that closed borders were an impediment to "growth".

    That can also be attributed to the religious right taking over the GOP in the early 1990’s.

    I’m sure that had something to do with it, but it can’t be the only reason or even the primary one. Religious Christians were an important, vocal constituency for Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and that same socioeconomic class had no problem voting for both him and his successor George HW Bush. The Christian Coalition was only formed in 1989 and HW Bush wasn’t strongly associated with them. It could be argued that what you’ve observed here is partly an artifact of the professional class abandoning the GOP in the early 1990s, making the Christian element more prominent by default.

    and the GOP (stupidly) chose to very publicly placate heartland evangelicals of middling IQ instead of doing, well, numerous things that would’ve been more useful and less embarrassing.

    I would guess they did that for economic reasons: placate the plebs with social rhetoric rather than advocate working class issues that might undermine their donor’s business interests. Lots of rural elements overlapping strongly Christian areas voted for the democratic candidate in 92 and 96. Some of that was in response to years of GOP over-focus on big business. Rather than appeal to those people, the republican leadership just abandoned them while turning up the red meat appeals to evangelicals. I believe Clinton carried both Arkansas and Tennessee as a result.

    The Reaganites also constantly blamed “the public sector” for letting everyone down, when in reality the government has almost completely vacated anti-trust enforcement for 30-40 years

    True. But it could be argued that many republican voters of the 1980s didn’t fully accept that line of thinking even if they voted republican — that republican victories in presidential races were a backlash to 1960s and 1970s era social policies associated with the democrats. Lots of polls showed republicans split or even against free trade, even in the 90s when the GOP controlled congress. This was obvious to me long before Trump’s populist rhetoric stunned the party leadership. The same phenomenon is observed even today. Republican voters oppose free trade and would probably also oppose shutting down major departments like education or the postal service if it were left up to a vote, but they feel they have to vote republican anyway to oppose the other party whose rhetoric is really just code for hating their demographic along class, racial, and ethnic lines. I personally will never vote for a racist party that openly hates me even if I’m a borderline socialist myself. I have at least some integrity.

    The NFL sponsors military jet fly-overs at NFL games.

    It’s funny how, despite all the gender equality rhetoric, they focus on recruiting from an obviously male demographic, disproportionately white and Hispanic compared with NBA viewership. I don’t recall any military advertisements during the screening of Frozen 2. For most new recruits, though, it’s just a steady paycheck. I’m sure the DOD doesn’t want to admit this, so they associate their recruiting with supposedly patriotic male, but ideologically safe, things like multicultural football.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    I would guess they did that for economic reasons: placate the plebs with social rhetoric rather than advocate working class issues that might undermine their donor’s business interests.
     
    The Upper Middle Class of the 1980's and early 1990's was all-in on the neo-lib/Reaganite effort to dismantle the New Deal. The UMC votes almost entirely based on economic issues, not cultural issues (The UMC does not live in in neighborhoods that are ever ravaged by drugs and crime). Carter, Reagan, post-Reagan George HW Bush, and Clinton were all globalizers/anti-New Dealers to varying extents. Lower Class "Reagan Democrats" voted for Carter-GHW Bush to correct the perceived cultural excesses of the late 60's and 70's. But pre-NAFTA, the working class was often clueless about the economic bloodbath (the "service economy") that they were voting for. Needless to say, the UMC got the New Deal dismantling they voted for, while the working class got superficial cultural stability but also got the very Neo-liberalism that destroyed many of their neighborhoods, factories, and unions. The end result is the Gilded Age 2.0, which began with the phasing in of NAFTA in the mid-1990's, though we were already well on our way after Reagan gutted taxes on the wealthy in the early 80's.

    Lots of polls showed republicans split or even against free trade, even in the 90s when the GOP controlled congress. This was obvious to me long before Trump’s populist rhetoric stunned the party leadership. The same phenomenon is observed even today. Republican voters oppose free trade and would probably also oppose shutting down major departments like education or the postal service if it were left up to a vote, but they feel they have to vote republican anyway to oppose the other party whose rhetoric is really just code for hating their demographic along class, racial, and ethnic lines. I personally will never vote for a racist party that openly hates me even if I’m a borderline socialist myself. I have at least some integrity.
     
    "Republican" voters, prior to George Bush's 2nd term, were often heavily drawn from the upper Middle Class. Democrat voters, in the 1960's-early 2000's, were often drawn from the high elite and the lower classes. In the heart of the New Deal era (the 1930's-1950's), the high elite agreed to act responsibly as part of a contract with the lower classes, a contract that would insure economic and cultural stability to mutally benefit everyone. This contract gradually faded away beginning in the 1960's. Part of the problem is that the UMC is increasingly desperate to join the high elite (see: growing number of law degree and MBA holders since the 70's). Some of the UMC voted Dem in the 1930's-50's (just like all normies did), but starting in the 1960's more and more of the UMC began voting Republican, and the GOP became increasingly hostile toward New Deal norms of stability. That's because striving UMC'ers don't mind throwing away societal stability in a desperate effort to strike it rich.

    Since GW Bush is a retard, and also due to the Dems completely abandoning their working class base (along with abandoning the remaining responsible elites), much of the UMC began to switch to the Dems in the late 2000's. We're now in a massive battle between striving elites, who detest the dark ages morality of some GOP voters but also have no desire to ever restore the economic stability (and manufacturing base) of the mid-20th century. To patch things up, the GOP needs to moderate their cultural views, and the UMC needs to stop being so greedy. Normie proles can start to comfortably vote Dem again, and high elites can resume their New Deal era role of responsible stewardship. And the smallish minority of striver wannabes will again be a frustrated clique within the GOP, just as they were in the 1930's-1960's (the lolbertarian types hated Eisenhower and Nixon back in the New Deal era, these were Republicans who used "big government" for ambitious infrastructure programs and efforts to protect workers and the environment).

    I work with a multiple car owning right-wing late Boomer* who still, to this day, thinks unions ruined everything. Are these people ever going to advance beyond 1980? Unions have been annihilated, and America hardly makes anything anymore. Not because American workers were "entitled and greedy", but because affluent business owners and share-holders are treasonous ass-holes who threw away economic and political sovereignty to make more money.

    *The baby boom peaked in 1957, but late 50's births have some of the most consistently noxious Reaganite views, since many of them first voted in the early 1980's...Needless to say, many voted Reagan and have never relented since. A big reason we have so many political problems is due to the airhead hard Right wing late Boomers and their never ending hatred of the New Deal, which they blame for many problems.

    Lots of rural elements overlapping strongly Christian areas voted for the democratic candidate in 92 and 96. Some of that was in response to years of GOP over-focus on big business. Rather than appeal to those people, the republican leadership just abandoned them while turning up the red meat appeals to evangelicals. I believe Clinton carried both Arkansas and Tennessee as a result.
     
    But the 1990's is when voters were no longer being given economically liberal candidates. The Dems deliberately ran conservative anti-New Deal Southern white male Democrats (in the early 90's Al Gore was one of the most conservative Democrats) in a cynical strategy to "prove" to increasingly reactionary and elitist voters that the Dem establishment had agreed to dismantle the New Deal. But it is true that Clinton was an ostensible "centrist" who did a better job of marketing neo-liberalism than the ham-fisted Republicans who nakedly promoted social Darwinism and appeals to dark-ages social conservatives (the kind of people who think that we still don't put enough people in jail, and think that there's an organized cabal of "Satanists" running the West).
  51. @216
    Singapore is Fascism par excellence

    Singapore may be fascist, but the question is, would you find it a nice place to live?

    Imagine a world where people chose from a Chinese Menu what rules would guide their and their neighbors’ behavior. Each person would AGREE to abide by a fairly comprehensive set of rules, and those rules would be enforced by quite literal exile of those who agreed, but then behaved outside the boundaries.

    Lots of folks would call that an incredibly fascist place (given that “the rules” would also apply to ostensibly private businesses, which is the textbook definition of fascism.)

    Would you find a world of heterogeneous communities made up of people who volunteered to live under their strictures bad?

    I wouldn’t.

  52. @Rebel0007
    @216

    Unfortunately, most of the world is fascist now. That does not mean that we should accept it though. That is why I had joked a few years ago that Hitler actually won World War 2. Germany may have lost, but Hitler's and Mussolini's ideology is thriving in both the East and the West. 

    China today is more like Mussolini than Mao. I am not pro Mao either! 

    Any time a leader actually has a populist plan, the West gangs up on them and attacks them in coups, wars, and color revolutions. That is an affront to the self-serving hedonistic gluttons. They don't like people making them look bad!!

    Unfortunately, most of the world is fascist now.

    Buy a dictionary. A better term is, corporatist. That’s actually the term Mussolini used, and it’s far more descriptive.

    The world is not National Socialist, either. Communism is International Socialism, Nazism is National Socialism. Notice the similarity? Hint: “socialism.” Not even China is socialist any more. Socialism is characterized by public ownership of the means of production, which results in the absence of markets and market prices.

    Where on Earth does this exist? Nowhere.

    The world is corporatist, and I’d argue, a corporatist oligarchy. If you’re going to throw stones (and I’ll happily join you doing so), at least identify the right target.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree with the Rebel. I'm just gonna paste this from the all-knowing (haha) wiki:

    Fascists opposed both international socialism and free market capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third position.[12][13] They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism.[14] They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and social hierarchy was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists),[15][16] while also arguing that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists).[17]

    An important aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigism,[18] meaning an economy where the government often subsidizes favorable companies and exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[19]

    Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.[20] Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social".[21] Stanley Payne argues that fascist movements defended the principle of private property because they held it to be "inherent to the freedom and spontaneity of the individual personality", but that they also aimed to eliminate the autonomy or in some cases the existence of large-scale capitalism.[22] Jurgen Kuczynski characterizes a fascist economy as a type of "monopoly capitalism", which preserves the "fundamental traits of capitalist production", such as the fact that production is carried out for the market by privately owned firms which employ workers for a certain wage.[23] He argues that fascism is "nothing but a particular form of government within capitalist society",[24] which instead does feature a major role for the state as was also the case in some early capitalist societies of previous centuries.[25]
     

    My bolding - sound familiar?

    The wiki description does use the term "corporatist" as a subset of fascism. I don't use the term too much (rather than "crony capitalism") because people just associate it specifically with Nazism, rather than an economic system tried in Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Spain in those same years.

    I would not, however, call all totalitarian governments fascist, as Mr. Rebel does in his subsequent posts. There are plenty of types of authoritarian systems to please everyone, though Communism has been top dog for, like, ever.

  53. The world is corporatist, and I’d argue, a corporatist oligarchy.

    Not in China it’s not. They’ve got it right: China Extends Social Credit Scoring To Corporations

    https://www.technocracy.news/china-extends-social-credit-scoring-to-corporations/

  54. @Audacious Epigone
    Since you put some time into it, the comment just got an edit. For the last time, no W-bombs just like there are no N-bombs. Use "WNs" or something instead.

    AE,

    I never, ever use the N-word.

    The W-word, however, is essential. It was used in the TITLE of prior articles on this very site :

    https://www.unz.com/sbpdl/wigger-please-frivolous-lawsuits-in/

    That proves that it has been accepted into the lexicon of this site.

    Plus, it is essential to the lyrics of many songs and poems that have been written to date.

    The W-word has to be allowed.

    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    I never, ever use the N-word.
     
    Cuck
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The schoolmarm's jurisdiction does not extend beyond this particular blog, so use as you please elsewhere on UR but not here.
  55. What is your motive for turning this into an issue of semmantics? Are you anti-corporate, anti-communist, anti-socialist, or anti-capitalist?

    Whatever the case may be, you appear to be pro authoritarian, which is included in tbe definition of fascism.

    I suggest that you take your own advice and either buy a dictionary, or start using the one that you have.

    If you would like to end all corporations, that would in not end the exploitative problems of the fascists.

    Pol Pot was anti-corporate as well, and also a barbaric fascist!

  56. Why have you resorted to a game of semantics? I suggest that it is you who should use a dictionary! Fascism with a capital F refers to Musolini who did use corporatism.

    fascism with a lower case f refers to an authoritarian, military, nationalist state in which the economy is controlled by the government.

    Pol Pot was a barbaric anti-corporate fascist.

    The government is supposed to provide a systems of checks and blances on the private sector which it has failed to do. That does not mean that all private sector activity is bad. Mao killed 35 million people in the Great Leap Forward, with an over supply of food controlled by the communist party that failed to distribute the food.

    It is the authoritarian control that prohibits personal freedom in both a fascist communist government and a fascist corporatist government that you refuse to acknowledge.

    These abuses have also occured in agrarian states as Pol Pot did.

    The predatory authoritarian behavior must stop whether it is coming from the private or public sector!

  57. @Nodwink
    There's a big difference between ticking a box on a survey, and enacting those sentiments in a retail environment.

    Here in Australia, plenty of people talk big when it comes to supporting local industry; but when it comes to the the crunch, they'll take the cheap Chinese goodies every time.

    Hence protectionism, politics isn’t about depending on people to “vote with their wallets” (which is a retarded lolberg meme when applied to things like foreign vs domestic goods), it’s about using effective statecraft to provide good outcomes for nationals, which includes prohibiting seductive behaviours that damage society (like buying cheap foreign crap).

    If someone ran on blocking cheap garbage imports to boost the local job market, they don’t have to appeal to the sensibilities of the retail market, they just have to follow through. If there’s no comparatively cheap imported garbage, amazingly, people won’t be buying it.

    What you’re doing is like calling a junkie or porn addict a hypocrite for saying that drugs and pornography are bad, despite their continued use of them. Things like this are corrosive to human flourishing because they’re:
    1) Plainly terrible for everyone in aggregate while being easily rationalized in each particular case
    2) Very hard to resist doing for many people without someone forcing them to stop.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    2) Very hard to resist doing for many people without someone forcing them to stop
     
    Globalist policies in general are like that. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma.

    If nobody cooperates with globalism, everyone wins.

    If everyone does, we all lose.

    If some do and others don't, those who resist are hit especially hard, paying higher prices with lower wages.

    It works the same way on the supply side. If every farm but yours is using illegal labor, you're prices aren't going to be competitive and you're going to go under. Government intervention is the only solution.

  58. @Thomm
    AE,

    I never, ever use the N-word.

    The W-word, however, is essential. It was used in the TITLE of prior articles on this very site :

    https://www.unz.com/sbpdl/wigger-please-frivolous-lawsuits-in/

    That proves that it has been accepted into the lexicon of this site.

    Plus, it is essential to the lyrics of many songs and poems that have been written to date.

    The W-word has to be allowed.

    I never, ever use the N-word.

    Cuck

    • Replies: @Thomm

    Cuck
     
    Oh, so you encourage the use of that here? Let's see you use that regularly here, and get past moderation. I doubt you will (since we all know you are a coward).

    Heh heh heh heh

  59. @Nodwink
    There's a big difference between ticking a box on a survey, and enacting those sentiments in a retail environment.

    Here in Australia, plenty of people talk big when it comes to supporting local industry; but when it comes to the the crunch, they'll take the cheap Chinese goodies every time.

    There’s a big difference between ticking a box on a survey, and enacting those sentiments in a retail environment.

    Here in Australia, plenty of people talk big when it comes to supporting local industry; but when it comes to the the crunch, they’ll take the cheap Chinese goodies every time.

    Agreed. When people say they’d be happy to pay higher prices to protect local jobs what they actually mean is that they’d be happy if other people were forced to pay higher prices to protect local jobs. They don’t mean that they themselves would do so.

    They want price increases on things that they themselves are not interested in buying, but they’d like lower prices for the stuff that they do buy.

    Just as most people would like other people to pay higher taxes but they think that they themselves should pay less tax.

  60. @Rebel0007
    Peter Thiel pretends to be a Libertarian, but he is a Fascist! Peter Thiel has supported prosecuting Assange and shutting Wikileaks down! So, not Republican, not Democrat, not Libertarian, just plain old Fascist! Fascist - yes, there is definitely something wrong with that!

    So, not Republican, not Democrat, not Libertarian, just plain old Fascist! Fascist – yes, there is definitely something wrong with that!

    Do tell.

  61. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    Hence protectionism, politics isn't about depending on people to "vote with their wallets" (which is a retarded lolberg meme when applied to things like foreign vs domestic goods), it's about using effective statecraft to provide good outcomes for nationals, which includes prohibiting seductive behaviours that damage society (like buying cheap foreign crap).

    If someone ran on blocking cheap garbage imports to boost the local job market, they don't have to appeal to the sensibilities of the retail market, they just have to follow through. If there's no comparatively cheap imported garbage, amazingly, people won't be buying it.

    What you're doing is like calling a junkie or porn addict a hypocrite for saying that drugs and pornography are bad, despite their continued use of them. Things like this are corrosive to human flourishing because they're:
    1) Plainly terrible for everyone in aggregate while being easily rationalized in each particular case
    2) Very hard to resist doing for many people without someone forcing them to stop.

    2) Very hard to resist doing for many people without someone forcing them to stop

    Globalist policies in general are like that. It’s a classic prisoner’s dilemma.

    If nobody cooperates with globalism, everyone wins.

    If everyone does, we all lose.

    If some do and others don’t, those who resist are hit especially hard, paying higher prices with lower wages.

    It works the same way on the supply side. If every farm but yours is using illegal labor, you’re prices aren’t going to be competitive and you’re going to go under. Government intervention is the only solution.

  62. @Anon[366]

    I do not use prescription or street drugs or alcohol. Most of the world is fascist. Deny it all that you want. It doesn’t change anything.

    • Replies: @anon
    Most of the world is fascist.

    What is your definition of "fascist"?
  63. @Oblivionrecurs
    People here still have Ross Perot shirts and flags up.

    Good for them! Where, roughly?

  64. @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    I never, ever use the N-word.
     
    Cuck

    Cuck

    Oh, so you encourage the use of that here? Let’s see you use that regularly here, and get past moderation. I doubt you will (since we all know you are a coward).

    Heh heh heh heh

  65. @Mark G.
    Wages between the U.S. and China might have equalized if it had been left up to the free market. Federal reserve policies led to domestic wage inflation and that led to higher prices for domestic goods. Where consumers were able to substitute cheaper foreign goods for more expensive domestic goods they did so. Where they weren't able to do this, as in the case of non-transportable goods like medical care or higher education, they had to suffer the results of the Fed induced inflation by paying increasingly higher prices to purchase those goods. If the Fed had followed deflationary policies then domestic wages would have dropped and kept American workers competitive with foreign workers. The falling domestic wages wouldn't have caused lower living standards for American workers because, due to the deflation, domestic prices would have been falling in tandem with their wages.

    A deflationary policy wasn't followed because it would have required higher interest rates which would have increased government borrowing costs. The government had to borrow lots of money to maintain the welfare-warfare state. The inflationary policy had the bad side effect of boosting the prices of stocks, which primarily benefited the wealthy and further increased income inequality. So libertarians shouldn't be crying because their free trade ideology failed. They can cry, though, because what we have now has been mislabeled as free trade while the true culprit for American worker job losses, i.e. the government, has gotten off scot free.

    Agreed. Also, the notion that US corporations can avoid taxes by keeping their money abroad while US individuals can’t do the same is criminal. That’s why the IRS loots the retirement accounts of Americans living in Canada while leaving criminal corporations like Apple alone.

  66. We should replace the income tax with a flat 20% tax on all imports.

  67. @Rebel0007
    @Anon[366]

    I do not use prescription or street drugs or alcohol. Most of the world is fascist. Deny it all that you want. It doesn't change anything.

    Most of the world is fascist.

    What is your definition of “fascist”?

  68. @Ash Williams

    I haven’t used a single kleenex yet, here on this end.
     
    Nor here.

    The Koch's and Cato have been "cafeteria libertarians" for as long as I can remember.

    Cafeteria libertarians: "Open borders! The state should not restrict the free movement of peoples!"

    Rational Libertarians: "Sure... But only after all property is privately owned and secured, and only after all public welfare is abolished."

    Cafeteria libertarians: "WHY ARE YOU AGGRESSING AGAINST PEACEFUL PEOPLE YOU NAZI"

    There’s a huge difference between the Mises Institute and the Cato/Reason crowd. I have a lot of respect for the former.

    • Agree: Ash Williams
  69. @Milo Minderbinder
    Tthe U.S. House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234–200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61–38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.

    The past is a foreign country.

  70. @Kevin O'Keeffe
    Trump may not have succeeded in transforming the GOP into a workingman's party, but he clearly hasn't made zero progress towards that goal. I'm rarely surprised by anything in politics, but this chart (pleasantly) surprised the heck out of me!

    Though campaign Trump has been mostly housebroken, the voters who turned campaign Trump into president Trump still respond a lot more favorably to the campaign Trump platform than they do to the Conservative, Inc platform.

  71. @Thomm
    AE,

    I never, ever use the N-word.

    The W-word, however, is essential. It was used in the TITLE of prior articles on this very site :

    https://www.unz.com/sbpdl/wigger-please-frivolous-lawsuits-in/

    That proves that it has been accepted into the lexicon of this site.

    Plus, it is essential to the lyrics of many songs and poems that have been written to date.

    The W-word has to be allowed.

    The schoolmarm’s jurisdiction does not extend beyond this particular blog, so use as you please elsewhere on UR but not here.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    Oh? Note comment #58, where another person encourages the use of the much-worse N-word, and seeks to shame those of us who don't.

    He is preparing to use it...... beware...
  72. @Audacious Epigone
    The schoolmarm's jurisdiction does not extend beyond this particular blog, so use as you please elsewhere on UR but not here.

    Oh? Note comment #58, where another person encourages the use of the much-worse N-word, and seeks to shame those of us who don’t.

    He is preparing to use it…… beware…

  73. @dc.sunsets

    Unfortunately, most of the world is fascist now.
     
    Buy a dictionary. A better term is, corporatist. That's actually the term Mussolini used, and it's far more descriptive.

    The world is not National Socialist, either. Communism is International Socialism, Nazism is National Socialism. Notice the similarity? Hint: "socialism." Not even China is socialist any more. Socialism is characterized by public ownership of the means of production, which results in the absence of markets and market prices.

    Where on Earth does this exist? Nowhere.

    The world is corporatist, and I'd argue, a corporatist oligarchy. If you're going to throw stones (and I'll happily join you doing so), at least identify the right target.

    I agree with the Rebel. I’m just gonna paste this from the all-knowing (haha) wiki:

    Fascists opposed both international socialism and free market capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third position.[12][13] They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism.[14] They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and social hierarchy was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists),[15][16] while also arguing that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists).[17]

    An important aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigism,[18] meaning an economy where the government often subsidizes favorable companies and exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[19]

    Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.[20] Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise because “the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise… Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social”.[21] Stanley Payne argues that fascist movements defended the principle of private property because they held it to be “inherent to the freedom and spontaneity of the individual personality”, but that they also aimed to eliminate the autonomy or in some cases the existence of large-scale capitalism.[22] Jurgen Kuczynski characterizes a fascist economy as a type of “monopoly capitalism”, which preserves the “fundamental traits of capitalist production”, such as the fact that production is carried out for the market by privately owned firms which employ workers for a certain wage.[23] He argues that fascism is “nothing but a particular form of government within capitalist society”,[24] which instead does feature a major role for the state as was also the case in some early capitalist societies of previous centuries.[25]

    My bolding – sound familiar?

    The wiki description does use the term “corporatist” as a subset of fascism. I don’t use the term too much (rather than “crony capitalism”) because people just associate it specifically with Nazism, rather than an economic system tried in Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Spain in those same years.

    I would not, however, call all totalitarian governments fascist, as Mr. Rebel does in his subsequent posts. There are plenty of types of authoritarian systems to please everyone, though Communism has been top dog for, like, ever.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    China is the closest manifestation of 'real' fascism in the world today.
  74. @anon

    That can also be attributed to the religious right taking over the GOP in the early 1990’s.
     
    I'm sure that had something to do with it, but it can't be the only reason or even the primary one. Religious Christians were an important, vocal constituency for Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and that same socioeconomic class had no problem voting for both him and his successor George HW Bush. The Christian Coalition was only formed in 1989 and HW Bush wasn't strongly associated with them. It could be argued that what you've observed here is partly an artifact of the professional class abandoning the GOP in the early 1990s, making the Christian element more prominent by default.

    and the GOP (stupidly) chose to very publicly placate heartland evangelicals of middling IQ instead of doing, well, numerous things that would’ve been more useful and less embarrassing.
     
    I would guess they did that for economic reasons: placate the plebs with social rhetoric rather than advocate working class issues that might undermine their donor's business interests. Lots of rural elements overlapping strongly Christian areas voted for the democratic candidate in 92 and 96. Some of that was in response to years of GOP over-focus on big business. Rather than appeal to those people, the republican leadership just abandoned them while turning up the red meat appeals to evangelicals. I believe Clinton carried both Arkansas and Tennessee as a result.

    The Reaganites also constantly blamed “the public sector” for letting everyone down, when in reality the government has almost completely vacated anti-trust enforcement for 30-40 years
     
    True. But it could be argued that many republican voters of the 1980s didn't fully accept that line of thinking even if they voted republican -- that republican victories in presidential races were a backlash to 1960s and 1970s era social policies associated with the democrats. Lots of polls showed republicans split or even against free trade, even in the 90s when the GOP controlled congress. This was obvious to me long before Trump's populist rhetoric stunned the party leadership. The same phenomenon is observed even today. Republican voters oppose free trade and would probably also oppose shutting down major departments like education or the postal service if it were left up to a vote, but they feel they have to vote republican anyway to oppose the other party whose rhetoric is really just code for hating their demographic along class, racial, and ethnic lines. I personally will never vote for a racist party that openly hates me even if I'm a borderline socialist myself. I have at least some integrity.

    The NFL sponsors military jet fly-overs at NFL games.
     
    It's funny how, despite all the gender equality rhetoric, they focus on recruiting from an obviously male demographic, disproportionately white and Hispanic compared with NBA viewership. I don't recall any military advertisements during the screening of Frozen 2. For most new recruits, though, it's just a steady paycheck. I'm sure the DOD doesn't want to admit this, so they associate their recruiting with supposedly patriotic male, but ideologically safe, things like multicultural football.

    I would guess they did that for economic reasons: placate the plebs with social rhetoric rather than advocate working class issues that might undermine their donor’s business interests.

    The Upper Middle Class of the 1980’s and early 1990’s was all-in on the neo-lib/Reaganite effort to dismantle the New Deal. The UMC votes almost entirely based on economic issues, not cultural issues (The UMC does not live in in neighborhoods that are ever ravaged by drugs and crime). Carter, Reagan, post-Reagan George HW Bush, and Clinton were all globalizers/anti-New Dealers to varying extents. Lower Class “Reagan Democrats” voted for Carter-GHW Bush to correct the perceived cultural excesses of the late 60’s and 70’s. But pre-NAFTA, the working class was often clueless about the economic bloodbath (the “service economy”) that they were voting for. Needless to say, the UMC got the New Deal dismantling they voted for, while the working class got superficial cultural stability but also got the very Neo-liberalism that destroyed many of their neighborhoods, factories, and unions. The end result is the Gilded Age 2.0, which began with the phasing in of NAFTA in the mid-1990’s, though we were already well on our way after Reagan gutted taxes on the wealthy in the early 80’s.

    Lots of polls showed republicans split or even against free trade, even in the 90s when the GOP controlled congress. This was obvious to me long before Trump’s populist rhetoric stunned the party leadership. The same phenomenon is observed even today. Republican voters oppose free trade and would probably also oppose shutting down major departments like education or the postal service if it were left up to a vote, but they feel they have to vote republican anyway to oppose the other party whose rhetoric is really just code for hating their demographic along class, racial, and ethnic lines. I personally will never vote for a racist party that openly hates me even if I’m a borderline socialist myself. I have at least some integrity.

    “Republican” voters, prior to George Bush’s 2nd term, were often heavily drawn from the upper Middle Class. Democrat voters, in the 1960’s-early 2000’s, were often drawn from the high elite and the lower classes. In the heart of the New Deal era (the 1930’s-1950’s), the high elite agreed to act responsibly as part of a contract with the lower classes, a contract that would insure economic and cultural stability to mutally benefit everyone. This contract gradually faded away beginning in the 1960’s. Part of the problem is that the UMC is increasingly desperate to join the high elite (see: growing number of law degree and MBA holders since the 70’s). Some of the UMC voted Dem in the 1930’s-50’s (just like all normies did), but starting in the 1960’s more and more of the UMC began voting Republican, and the GOP became increasingly hostile toward New Deal norms of stability. That’s because striving UMC’ers don’t mind throwing away societal stability in a desperate effort to strike it rich.

    Since GW Bush is a retard, and also due to the Dems completely abandoning their working class base (along with abandoning the remaining responsible elites), much of the UMC began to switch to the Dems in the late 2000’s. We’re now in a massive battle between striving elites, who detest the dark ages morality of some GOP voters but also have no desire to ever restore the economic stability (and manufacturing base) of the mid-20th century. To patch things up, the GOP needs to moderate their cultural views, and the UMC needs to stop being so greedy. Normie proles can start to comfortably vote Dem again, and high elites can resume their New Deal era role of responsible stewardship. And the smallish minority of striver wannabes will again be a frustrated clique within the GOP, just as they were in the 1930’s-1960’s (the lolbertarian types hated Eisenhower and Nixon back in the New Deal era, these were Republicans who used “big government” for ambitious infrastructure programs and efforts to protect workers and the environment).

    I work with a multiple car owning right-wing late Boomer* who still, to this day, thinks unions ruined everything. Are these people ever going to advance beyond 1980? Unions have been annihilated, and America hardly makes anything anymore. Not because American workers were “entitled and greedy”, but because affluent business owners and share-holders are treasonous ass-holes who threw away economic and political sovereignty to make more money.

    *The baby boom peaked in 1957, but late 50’s births have some of the most consistently noxious Reaganite views, since many of them first voted in the early 1980’s…Needless to say, many voted Reagan and have never relented since. A big reason we have so many political problems is due to the airhead hard Right wing late Boomers and their never ending hatred of the New Deal, which they blame for many problems.

    Lots of rural elements overlapping strongly Christian areas voted for the democratic candidate in 92 and 96. Some of that was in response to years of GOP over-focus on big business. Rather than appeal to those people, the republican leadership just abandoned them while turning up the red meat appeals to evangelicals. I believe Clinton carried both Arkansas and Tennessee as a result.

    But the 1990’s is when voters were no longer being given economically liberal candidates. The Dems deliberately ran conservative anti-New Deal Southern white male Democrats (in the early 90’s Al Gore was one of the most conservative Democrats) in a cynical strategy to “prove” to increasingly reactionary and elitist voters that the Dem establishment had agreed to dismantle the New Deal. But it is true that Clinton was an ostensible “centrist” who did a better job of marketing neo-liberalism than the ham-fisted Republicans who nakedly promoted social Darwinism and appeals to dark-ages social conservatives (the kind of people who think that we still don’t put enough people in jail, and think that there’s an organized cabal of “Satanists” running the West).

  75. @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree with the Rebel. I'm just gonna paste this from the all-knowing (haha) wiki:

    Fascists opposed both international socialism and free market capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third position.[12][13] They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism.[14] They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and social hierarchy was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists),[15][16] while also arguing that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists).[17]

    An important aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigism,[18] meaning an economy where the government often subsidizes favorable companies and exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[19]

    Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.[20] Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social".[21] Stanley Payne argues that fascist movements defended the principle of private property because they held it to be "inherent to the freedom and spontaneity of the individual personality", but that they also aimed to eliminate the autonomy or in some cases the existence of large-scale capitalism.[22] Jurgen Kuczynski characterizes a fascist economy as a type of "monopoly capitalism", which preserves the "fundamental traits of capitalist production", such as the fact that production is carried out for the market by privately owned firms which employ workers for a certain wage.[23] He argues that fascism is "nothing but a particular form of government within capitalist society",[24] which instead does feature a major role for the state as was also the case in some early capitalist societies of previous centuries.[25]
     

    My bolding - sound familiar?

    The wiki description does use the term "corporatist" as a subset of fascism. I don't use the term too much (rather than "crony capitalism") because people just associate it specifically with Nazism, rather than an economic system tried in Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Spain in those same years.

    I would not, however, call all totalitarian governments fascist, as Mr. Rebel does in his subsequent posts. There are plenty of types of authoritarian systems to please everyone, though Communism has been top dog for, like, ever.

    China is the closest manifestation of ‘real’ fascism in the world today.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Partly so, A.E., and partly not, IMO. There are lots of people in small business who are pretty much left alone, a whole lot more so than any (legal) small business would be in America.
  76. @Anon

    Webster’s definition of fascism:
    “Any authoritarian system of government charchterized by state economic control, militaristic nationalism, propaganda, and the crushing of opposition.”

    Fascism with a capital F denotes Musolini style corporate fascism.

    Fascism can and has occured in capitalist, socialist, communist, and agrarian economies.

  77. @Audacious Epigone
    China is the closest manifestation of 'real' fascism in the world today.

    Partly so, A.E., and partly not, IMO. There are lots of people in small business who are pretty much left alone, a whole lot more so than any (legal) small business would be in America.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS