USA Politics

[greg]

I hate to complicate the issue, but many academics and analysts observe that one's ideology determines her policy preference, rather than her policy preference determining ideology. Very many scholars and analysts observe (based on statistical/regression analyses of survey opinion polls, not a yelling competition) that the people's ideology/partisanship is largely, or even mostly,  influenced/determined by one's fear of losing White America and fear of cultural diversity. Opinion on tax cut, pro-life, gun rights etc., are just pretexts.

And one's ideology is believed to be largely shaped by their personality profile (there were some studies on this).

I think it was something like this:
High openness + low conscientiousness = left liberal

High conscientiousness + low openness = right authoritarian


(I might be slightly wrong about the details there, but the general idea is that there is some correlation)


Anyways, the point is that the spectrum of political beliefs is highly shaped by individual personalities- but of course teams can be changed if the group one finds oneself in starts looking like trash.

Has been tried multiple times. Did not work.

But Hollywood tells me the good guys ALWAYS win!
So if I murder my political opponents, then I MUST have the superior ideology, right? 

[Florestan]

Since when?

Since always.

[Florestan]

Hollywood tells me the good guys ALWAYS win!

They lie.

[Todd]

Since always.

I do not believe you.

But Hollywood tells me the good guys ALWAYS win!

Hollywood is correct.  Everyone knows that.

So if I murder my political opponents, then I MUST have the superior ideology, right?

Yes.  Victors write history.  The best part is that even when victors pretend to have some type of conscience, they don't have to act on it!  Take paleface Americans.  They genocided Native Americans out of everything and forced them into poverty on shit land.  McGirt won't materially change their fate; Native Americans will remain the most socioeconomically disadvantaged group in the country.  I see precious little material chatter about massive transfer payments to Native Americans to address (not alleviate) inequality.  The lesson is that it is good to win.

[Florestan]

I do not believe you.

You shouldn't believe me. You should do your own research.

Victors write history.

Two minor corrections:

1) victors write textbook history.

2) they also write laws preventing textbook history from being corrected.

[Todd]

You shouldn't believe me. You should do your own research.

I did.  The USA is the center of the universe.  Also, the world is flat.

Two minor corrections:

1) victors write textbook history.

And screenplay history.  And teleplay history. 

[Florestan]

I did.  The USA is the center of the universe.  Also, the world is flat.

It's on GMG, so it must be true.

And screenplay history.  And teleplay history.

Unqualifiedly true, this.

[Todd]

It's on GMG, so it must be true.

Yes!!!

[SimonNZ]

Brilliant. Such sagacity, such insight, such elegance. You surpass yourself, really. Wow! Exceptional!

Uh-huh. You could have addressed how my previous posts contradicted your manifestly false notion that almost nobody knows who Kierkegaard is. That condescending notion put me in a surprisingly foul mood yesterday. I think it touched on a lot of experience I had with managers in the indie bookstores I used to be stock buyer for: being constantly told that people were too thick for the books I was ordering in, no matter how often I'd show them selling and selling well.

My point is this: just because Biden likes to quote Kierkegaard one should not automatically assume he has a profound knowledge of his works, because --- as in the case of any other famous philosopher --- this is something which can be acquired only after years of dilligent study. Even if Biden really had a deep interest in so doing, I doubt that the hustle and bustle of the American politics left him much time for that.

To this I would ask if you'd say the same thing if Biden was quoting the Bible? If that very same quote was said to come from the Bible? Would you be saying he shouldn't talk about such complex theological issues without years of study. Would you be saying that by quoting the Bible he was just preening his intellectualism?

[Florestan]

Uh-huh. You could have addressed how my previous posts contradicted your manifestly false notion that almost nobody knows who Kierkegaard is.

I claimed no such thing. Putting words in my mouth, or twisting my own words, seems to be one of your favorite pastimes. The only extravagant notion that has really been claimed (not by me, though) is that, on the contrary, almost everybody knows who Kierkegaard is.

To this I would ask if you'd say the same thing if Biden was quoting the Bible? If that very same quote was said to come from the Bible? Would you be saying he shouldn't talk about such complex theological issues without years of study. Would you be saying that by quoting the Bible he was just preening his intellectualism?

Whataboutery.

By all means, though, feel free to believe that Kierkegaard is a familiar name in most American households, that Biden has extensively read him and that any of this has any relevance for the elections or the post-electoral period.

[SimonNZ]

It's not "whataboutery" at all.

What sort of quotes do you find acceptable and which not? And why? I'm looking for a consistent policy here,.

[Florestan]

It's not "whataboutery" at all.

What sort of quotes do you find acceptable and which not? And why? I'm looking for a consistent policy here,.

It's not a matter of acceptable or not acceptable quotes: everybody may quote whomever and whatever s/he likes. It's about what a certain quote signifies. By quoting Kierkegaard (and Seamus Heaney) Biden signalled he is a sophisticated intellectual, unlike Trump. Quoting the Bible would not have had the same effect because pretty much everyone quotes the Bible, including Trump and his voters. It's all electoral tactics, which is fine, but I'm surprised some people take it for something else.

[milk]

Tax cuts are always good.  Most other domestic issues are either unimportant or entirely unimportant.


Since when?

Are there some good economic studies focused on countries with low tax vs. high tax? I'm curious which countries are examples of success in either category. I guess it's obvious that Nordic countries are successful high-tax countries. I don't know which are considered successful for its low taxes. Maybe Singapore?
I wonder if anyone is arguing that the increasing concentration of wealth in fewer hands is a good thing?
There are a lot of libertarians out there who seem so adamant. I wonder if there is an example of a country that's adopted libertarian policies.

[71 dB]

Status quo managers Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in action:

Ending Fossil Fuel Subsidies Quietly Removed From Dem Platform

[71 dB]

Frankly every American should watch this video by Kyle Kulinski about how to listen to politicians:

Joe Kennedy III, Platitude Machine

https://www.youtube.com/v/z2BOJqZIhIY

[71 dB]

Tax cuts are always good. 

Cutting whose taxes? The Dems tend to favor tax plans that lower taxes for those earning $100,000 or less a year and increase for those earning more (more progressive taxation) while the Republicans favor tax plans that lower taxes for the rich and increase the tax burden for the poor and the middle class (flatter taxation). So, tax cuts for 95 % or 5 % of the earners?

[JBS]

Frankly every American should watch this video by Kyle Kulinski about how to listen to politicians:

Joe Kennedy III, Platitude Machine

https://www.youtube.com/v/z2BOJqZIhIY

Now apply that to Kulinski and AOC.

Do you know why they're talking about Kennedy's family? Because Kennedy is for all purposes as progressive  as Markey. So they can't attack him on policy positions.

[drogulus]

     The original thesis about Biden and Kierkegaard was that his speechwriter must have come up with the quote to make Biden seem intellectual or profound. That thesis has gone bye bye. The ground has been shifted to:

My point is this: just because Biden likes to quote Kierkegaard one should not automatically assume he has a profound knowledge of his works, because --- as in the case of any other famous philosopher --- this is something which can be acquired only after years of dilligent study. Even if Biden really had a deep interest in so doing, I doubt that the hustle and bustle of the American politics left him much time for that.

     This "point" only surfaced after the question of Biden's familiarity with Kierkegaard was settled for all eternity. No one automatically assumed anything of the sort about profound philosophical knowledge.

[Todd]

Present at the Disruption

How Trump Unmade U.S. Foreign Policy

...American allies, for their part, have come to view the United States differently. Alliances are predicated on reliability and predictability, and no ally is likely to view the United States as it did before. Seeds of doubt have been sown: if it could happen once, it could happen again. It is difficult to reclaim a throne after abdicating it...

...But there is no going back to the way things were. Four years may not be a long time in the sweep of history, but it is plenty long enough for things to change irreversibly. China is wealthier and stronger, North Korea has more nuclear weapons and better missiles, climate change is more advanced, the U.S. embassy has been relocated to Jerusalem, and Nicolás Maduro is more entrenched in Venezuela, as is Bashar al-Assad in Syria. This is the new reality...

...And if Trump is reelected? Buoyed by an electoral victory that he would interpret as a mandate, he would likely double down on the central elements of the foreign policy that has defined his first term. At some point, disruption becomes so far-reaching that there is no turning back. Present at the Disruption could become Present at the Destruction.

Countless norms, alliances, treaties, and institutions would weaken or wither. The world would become more Hobbesian, a struggle of all against all. (This was actually previewed in May 2017 in a Wall Street Journal op-ed written by two senior Trump administration officials: "The world is not a 'global community' but an arena where nations, nongovernmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage.")  Conflict would become more common, and democracy less so. Proliferation would accelerate as alliances lost their ability to reassure friends and deter foes. Spheres of influence could arise. Trade would become more managed, at best growing more slowly, but possibly even shrinking. The U.S. dollar would begin to lose its unique place in the global economy, with alternatives such as the euro, and possibly the renminbi and various cryptocurrencies, growing in importance. U.S. indebtedness could become a major liability. The global order that existed for 75 years would surely end; the only question is what, if anything, would take its place...

A lengthy set of quotes, I know, and likely unnecessary since no doubt GMG intellectuals make it a point to regularly read Mr Haass.  Aside from continuing to rely a bit too much on tired mischaracterizations of the past (though this is partially a book ad), he presents a pretty standard institutionalist style case for maintaining the existing international system.  Trump's administration has done real damage to the world order, and if reelected he will not be able to kill it, but the permanent dissolution will almost certainly accelerate.  Which is why he should win, though he will not.  How one perceives the last selected paragraph - good, bad, or the inevitable state of affairs that must be dealt with - of course is influenced by many factors, including ideology.  Well, not for GMG intellectuals.  They are above ideology. 

[drogulus]

Cutting whose taxes? The Dems tend to favor tax plans that lower taxes for those earning $100,000 or less a year and increase for those earning more (more progressive taxation) while the Republicans favor tax plans that lower taxes for the rich and increase the tax burden for the poor and the middle class (flatter taxation). So, tax cuts for 95 % or 5 % of the earners?

     That's generally true, but I often take a personal view of fiscal policy. How would an optimal spend and tax policy affect me?

     I want my after tax income to go up, and that will include taxed income going up, too. That's how it usually goes, with or without rate changes.

     Looking at changes in rates that only affect you directly is not very informative.