French economist Thomas Piketty is raising a ruckus

[Richard_Parker]

@adaher

Which today makes them right-wing. As proven by liberals’ view of the Constitution as guaranteeing rights that aren’t even written down there, and seeing the rights that are written down as being negotiable.

Here’s a simple test: There is a single organization that has fought more Supreme Court battles to defend the Bill of Rights than all the others combined. Indeed, this group has represented more Christians claiming religious freedom before the Supreme Court than all the others combined, and the same is true for many of the textual protections of the Bill of Rights that everyone claims to support, like the right not to have your home searched without a warrant.

This group I’m talking about, do you think they are seen by society at large as being generally liberal or conservative?

[BrainGlutton]

@Linden_Arden

That is quite laughable.

The most famous proponents of the American Revolution were inspired by the Father of Liberalism - John Locke. Jefferson and Madison wrote the key documents of revolution and considered themselves disciples of his. Thomas Paine’s famous writing was filled with liberal ideas. So is the Constitution with its Establishment Clause, rejection of monarchy, no debtors prison, no cruel and unusual punishment, and general consent of the governed among other anti-authoritarian ideas.

Perhaps you should start a GD thread on this topic - if you dare to.

@Sam_Stone

That was an excellent and concise description. Well said. That’s why they were ‘Classical Liberals’, and not conservatives.

@adaher

Which today makes them right-wing.

Well, no, not exactly. In a nutshell, there was a split at some point in the late 19th/early 20th between classical liberalism and left-liberalism or social liberalism. The former is ancestral to modern libertarianism (which both is and is not what Americans mean by “right-wing”), the latter became what we now call “liberalism” in the U.S. But conservatism is a completely different tradition with different roots, and so is fascism.

Here’s a good analysis (written mostly from a British POV but quite clearly aware of American political factions), and I strongly recommend that all Dopers at all interested in politics read it two or three times over (though you can probably safely skip most of the section on anarchism, which is quite astonishingly lengthy given the marginal relevance of the topic to any real-life politics).

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

Well, no, not exactly. In a nutshell, there was a split at some point in the late 19th/early 20th between classical liberalism and left-liberalism or social liberalism. The former is ancestral to modern libertarianism (which both is and is not what Americans mean by “right-wing”), the latter became what we now call “liberalism” in the U.S. But conservatism is a completely different tradition with different roots, and so is fascism.

Here’s a good analysis (written mostly from a British POV but quite clearly aware of American political factions), and I strongly recommend that all Dopers at all interested in politics read it two or three times over (though you can probably safely skip most of the section on anarchism, which is quite astonishingly lengthy given the marginal relevance of the topic to any real-life politics).

Contextualizing the above WRT our FFs, BTW: If they had had to choose, I think Jefferson would have been more of a left-liberal than a libertarian, based on this letter he wrote from France to James Madison in 1785:

The property of this country [France] is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

Madison, I think, would be more of a libertarian, and Paine (if he even counts as a FF) definitely left-liberal if not a proto-socialist. Hamilton would be no kind of liberal, but a conservative (repugnant as his industrial policy might be to modern American “conservatives”).

[adaher]

@Stringbean

That was an excellent piece by Reich. I gained a lot of respect for him quite frankly after reading it.

Reich’s always been a good explainer. I wish there were more like him.

[adaher]

@Richard_Parker

This group I’m talking about, do you think they are seen by society at large as being generally liberal or conservative?

I assume you are speaking of the ACLU, and while it’s true that conservatives have been less likely to appreciate them in the past than liberals, things are changing. The ACLU is taking gun rights cases now(ever since Heller established an individual right to gun possession), and has also fought campaign finance reform. While I haven’t seen conservatives embrace the ACLU yet, there has been a definite change. Now both sides seem to just grin and bear it when the ACLU challenges their favorite laws.

Here’s the brief the ACLU wrote on Citizens United. While the ACLU still brandishes their left-wing bona fides by supporting public financing ON TOP of a free market in independent spending, they defend the right of billionaires and corporations and unions to spend as much as they want. They conclude by vowing to oppose any constitutional amendment to reverse the decision:

The ACLU and Citizens United | American Civil Liberties Union

So yeah, I remember when the ACLU was the enemy of conservatives, but it’s just not so much the case anymore, especially as the right has become more libertarian and the left less libertarian.

I personally have always seen the ACLU as champions of civil liberties and I agree with them about 90% of the time. Can you say the same these days?

[Richard_Parker]

There’s a saying at the ACLU: If you agree with us half the time, you should be a member. If you agree with us 90% of the time, you should be a board member!

Your view that “both sides seem to just grin and bear it when the ACLU challenges their favorite laws” is not reality-based, unfortunately. At least not yet.

[Learjeff]

@BrainGlutton

You have thought experiments. Piketty has statistics.

You have a non-sequitur.

[Linden_Arden]

@adaher

I personally have always seen the ACLU as champions of civil liberties and I agree with them about 90% of the time. Can you say the same these days?

I can’t remember any case where I was at odds with the ACLU. I consider myself a classic liberal, by the way.

Certainly on Citizens United I do. Banning a campaign film is like banning a book. I don’t care who funds it (or wrote the book).

I voted for Obama by the way - and would again despite his pro-NSA ways. Congress pretty much made domestic spying legal with the PATRIOT Act, Protect America Act, and FISA law of 2008. I hate it but that is the way it is.

GOP and Dems just squabble over the top end tax rate a point or two. The GOP doesn’t care about deficits and Obama does - thus his tax hike to 39.6% last year. Wash there.

And Piketty’s wealth tax is insane. You can’t tax wealth without economic disruption unless it is the estate tax. Taxing a dead man is the most painless tax there is.

[BrainGlutton]

@Learjeff

You have a non-sequitur.

That word does not mean what you think it does.

[Evil_Captor]

@BrainGlutton

That word does not mean what you think it does.

I don’t follow …

[Evil_Captor]

@Linden_Arden

I can’t remember any case where I was at odds with the ACLU. I consider myself a classic liberal, by the way.

Certainly on Citizens United I do. Banning a campaign film is like banning a book. I don’t care who funds it (or wrote the book).

I voted for Obama by the way - and would again despite his pro-NSA ways. Congress pretty much made domestic spying legal with the PATRIOT Act, Protect America Act, and FISA law of 2008. I hate it but that is the way it is.

GOP and Dems just squabble over the top end tax rate a point or two. The GOP doesn’t care about deficits and Obama does - thus his tax hike to 39.6% last year. Wash there.

And Piketty’s wealth tax is insane. You can’t tax wealth without economic disruption unless it is the estate tax. Taxing a dead man is the most painless tax there is.

The REASON the GOP and Dems just squabble over minor differences in tax rates is that both parties are beholden to Wall Street for campaign donations … the oligarchy ALREADY owns them! Democracy has been PURCHASED, now we have oligarchy. The only question is, what are we going to do about it … and it would be foolish to expect any help from Obama.

[adaher]

You’ll never get really high taxes as long as rich people are the majority of elected officials. You can get high tax RATES, but they’ll always leave themselves and their friends loopholes to get out of it.

So unless someone has a plan to get more middle class and poor people elected to Congress and the Presidency, it is what it is.

[Batistuta]

@adaher

You’ll never get really high taxes as long as rich people are the majority of elected officials. You can get high tax RATES, but they’ll always leave themselves and their friends loopholes to get out of it.

So unless someone has a plan to get more middle class and poor people elected to Congress and the Presidency, it is what it is.

That’s an interesting point, I wonder if that’s one of the reasons why taxes are generally higher in Europe than in the USA. I don’t think we have as many millionaires-turned-politicians on this side of the Atlantic

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

You’ll never get really high taxes as long as rich people are the majority of elected officials. You can get high tax RATES, but they’ll always leave themselves and their friends loopholes to get out of it.

So unless someone has a plan to get more middle class and poor people elected to Congress and the Presidency, it is what it is.

The plan is campaign-finance reform. Running for public office should not cost any money beyond the filing fee.

[adaher]

@Batistuta

That’s an interesting point, I wonder if that’s one of the reasons why taxes are generally higher in Europe than in the USA. I don’t think we have as many millionaires-turned-politicians on this side of the Atlantic

I think the culture matters too, plus the system of government. From my understanding, most European countries have Parliaments that can pass laws that can’t be vetoed and party members can be bound to vote for the head of government’s programs. So instead of having to get 300 or more rich guys to agree to pay higher taxes, you just have to get a few guys in the cabinet to agree on it.

[adaher]

@BrainGlutton

The plan is campaign-finance reform. Running for public office should not cost any money beyond the filing fee.

You’d need to raise salaries too. Tom Coburn was getting grief for still practicing medicine while in Congress. Banning citizen legislators from continuing to work their jobs when Congress is not in session(which should be most of the time) isn’t sound ethics unless we assume that most Congressmen will be lawyers or big business types. But if they are mostly accountants, teachers, doctors, assembly line workers, etc., then going back to their jobs when Congress isn’t in session shouldn’t be a problem.

Plus I just don’t think campaign finance reform solves the problem of rich guys getting elected. Most Congressmen are rich, but not so rich that they can spend money on their campaigns. Only a few use their own money. All it takes is for most Congressmen to be in the $250,000-$1 million/yr range and resistance to higher taxes on the rich is built in.

[Sam_Stone]

@BrainGlutton

The plan is campaign-finance reform. Running for public office should not cost any money beyond the filing fee.

So if you’re not going to fund every clown who wants to run for office, doesn’t that entail the government decide who qualifies to run for office and who doesn’t? That strikes me as a huge conflict of interest and will result in even more of an incumbent advantage.

If you’re going to add a test for popularity or number of signatures required to get funding, how do you suppose those organization are supposed to fund those efforts? How do they become popular enough in the first place if they can’t self-fund?

Get back to me on how you feel about purely public financing when there’s a Republican administration and it decides that your favored party doesn’t qualify for funding and therefore has no political voice at all.

In any event, the major flaw in your premise is that you can do away with political influence by reforming the funding of campaigns. The problem is that corruption in politics has everything to do with the power vested in the government, and not with the mechanisms of funding. Wealthy special interests will always find a way to control the political process - there’s just too much at stake.

Look at the Obama administration - probably the closest you’ve ever seen to what your ideal government would look like, it is populated by left-wing academics who went to Washington to effect social change. Obama had all kinds of high ideals. And how long did it take them to become complete tools of Goldman Sachs, Citibank, GE, and other special interests?

Obama campaigned against lobbyists, but lobbying under his administration reached new heights. Perhaps you’d like to look at the current salaries and private job positions of the former staffers in the Obama White House as well. Are you also going to close the revolving door between Washington and the industries it regulates? If so, how are you going to find regulators with experience in those industries?

The other problem with influence in politics has to do with the ineffective nature of government. The more you ask it to do, the more it will have to lean on special interests to help draft legislation. It has to - there’s no way 535 people in congress can hope to understand all the industries they have their fingers in. So when you rewrite health care legislation or decide to heavily regulate the energy industry, who do you think is going to work out the details of those massive bills? Consumers? Nope. It will be people with experience in (and ties to) the industries you want to regulate. There’s no way to avoid that. And even if they try to be honest, their experience is going to bias them towards protecting those industries.

Go look at the most socialist state you can find, and see if it’s managed to run government without catering to powerful special interests. The Oligarchs in Russia came out of the old Soviet Union. How do you think they managed to rise to that level of power in a state that ostensibly had complete income equality?

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam_Stone

So if you’re not going to fund every clown who wants to run for office . . .

No public funding either. Do it the French way, give every candidate an equal allotment of free airtime (free as a broadcast-license condition), and forbid any campaign spending at all. Which means campaign consultants, etc., will no longer have anyone to hire them and their profession will die.

[Sam_Stone]

@davidm

Woosh…

I’m curious as to what the ‘woosh’ was. Were you trying to call me out for not reading the book? Was there some other point I’m missing? I thought whether or not I’d read the book would be obvious by my use of phrases such as, “It’s my understanding that Piketty says…”

[adaher]

@BrainGlutton

No public funding either. Do it the French way, give every candidate an equal allotment of free airtime (free as a broadcast-license condition), and forbid any campaign spending at all. Which means campaign consultants, etc., will no longer have anyone to hire them and their profession will die.

Control the media? Yeah, I liked your other idea better, and I didn’t like that one much.