Trump Won-Time for an Alt Left?

[Johnny_Ace]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

What is this in response to? I certainly don’t support mass deportations or closing the borders-indeed I support a path to citizenship for most current illegal immigrants. That said, immigration has both pros and cons and the left should be realistic in discussing the effects of immigration on wages, social cohesion, and the like.

This:

It was this pain which Trump (not entirely implausibly) blamed mass immigration and free trade for that produced Trump’s victory.

It was and is pretty implausible, but it plays with the America Firsters. The reality as far as immigration is concerned is that immigrants in general take jobs that Americans don’t want to do in the first place, and would require a significant rise in wages to entice them. This has numerous indirect effects, not least of which would be inflation in several areas and the near-destruction of several industries. Nevermind the ideological violence that’s being done to the ‘American Way.’ (But then, we’ve bounced back from that before.)

The actual problem is that jobs are being lost, but the culprit isn’t immigrants, it’s globalization. However, pissing off business being anathema to the right-wing agenda, they have to come up with a whipping boy, and immigration fits the bill to a T.

You get similar gripes from the usual suspects already. But the thing is, straightforward programs where most people can expect benefits from such as Social Security and Medicare are much more popular then programs which benefit only the most needy such as food stamps or AFDC especially once they are established. Indeed polling suggests such programs such as single-payer healthcare (which I don’t actually support ftr since I prefer the German model of universal healthcare) or paid leave for mothers are quite popular since again they are easy to understand unlike limited programs which have extensive prerequisites for eligibility.

It’s a big step from SSI/Medicare to universal income. And you’ll hear the same thing from the right that you already do with AFDC: it promotes laziness and system-gaming. As for universal health care, the issue there is really controlling spiraling costs, and there’s a massive stumbling block that will be next to impossible to overcome, that being Big Pharma.

Again conservatives and libertarians already complain about that. But appeals to patriotism provides a stronger defence against such attacks.

I’m talking about liberals complaining about it. The only liberties that I can see the right complaining about the left affecting are allowing business to work unfettered regardless of cost to the environment or the little guy, gun rights (which is really common sense and isn’t the horror of taking away MAH GUNS as they always portray) and the straw man that offending one’s religious sensibilities is good enough reason to legislate others’ behavior. Meanwhile, from the right (and/or Trump) we have abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, marijuana, voter ID, profiling due to draconian immigration reform, freedom of the press, and basically a return to the good old boy system wherever possible.

Some of these aren’t immediate goals obviously, but I think we definitely need to put the question of reforming the Electoral College in the national conversation especially since it was originally made to give an advantage to the slave states in Presidential elections. And the Electoral College doesn’t really give smaller states an advantage if they are solidly partisan one way or the other-they only give an advantage to a handful of swing states who actually determine the outcome. Given that, I think if a strong-enough campaign was mounted we can get a concerted push to reform or even abolish the Electoral College.

93 years and counting for the ERA. I wouldn’t hold my breath.

You seem to think what is a feature in the system is a bug. The Founding Fathers (with some exceptions such as Thomas Paine) indeed opposed democracy because most of them were part of the commercial and planter elite of the 13 colonies who feared that the triumph of the common man would bring about expropriation of their property and the like. Indeed they may well have approved of Donald Trump’s electoral college victory over Hillary Clinton despite her losing the popular vote since it allowed property owners to select the President over the heads of the landless urban masses.

I find it difficult to believe that many of the FF’s would have approved of Trump if they had seen his campaign (and had enough of a POV of modern life to be able to judge the bullshit that he slung). As a matter of fact, the unreasoning decision-making of a large mass of those landowners would probably have scared hell out of them.

Now, I do recognize that the Founding Fathers were quite historically progressive for their time and that they indeed left a respectable legacy of continuous constitutional government with a fairly robust set of individual rights but ultimately they envisioned an America that would be an aristocratic republic in form and an Anglo-Saxon Protestant agrarian commonwealth in character. I don’t see why modern Americans who live in an utterly different nation should be at all beholden to their intentions and wishes.

Two words: ‘unalienable rights.’ (Adams was right, it should be ‘inalienable.’)

[Trinopus]

@Velocity

I don’t think so. When MLK Jr. said, “I want my children to be judged on their character, not on the color of their skin,” that was fighting racism by *opposing *identity politics.

Today it’s the political left that keeps pitting black vs. white, women vs. men, etc. and dividing people on that basis. Whereas MLK’s idea was that people would look *past *such things as race, etc. but the political left wants to make race even *more *of a thing.

I’m forced to disagree. You don’t combat racism by saying, “There is no such thing as race.” You combat racism by saying, “Stop excluding blacks from equal opportunity.”

There are evil people out there, seeking to deny civil rights (voting rights, for example) to blacks. The Republicans are, by and large, doing that, deliberately, because they know that blacks, statistically, vote for Democrats. And that’s because Democrats have been the ones supporting civil rights.

It seems absurd to tell us to stop defending blacks against disenfranchisement, because this will somehow magically make us start to win more elections.

(Even if it were true, it would be wrong!)

[cuauhtemoc]

When you talk about the problems in America, all you have to do is mention racism, and millions of Republicans say “You’re calling me a racist! You’re personally insulting me! How dare you?!?”

Just mentioning it. These are people who will not be happy until race is either a)never spoken of again, or b)only invoked in order to blame colored people for something.

What are you supposed to do if you actually believe racism is a problem in this country? Pretend not to believe that, I guess?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Johnny_Ace

This:

It was and is pretty implausible, but it plays with the America Firsters. The reality as far as immigration is concerned is that immigrants in general take jobs that Americans don’t want to do in the first place, and would require a significant rise in wages to entice them. This has numerous indirect effects, not least of which would be inflation in several areas and the near-destruction of several industries. Nevermind the ideological violence that’s being done to the ‘American Way.’ (But then, we’ve bounced back from that before.)

The actual problem is that jobs are being lost, but the culprit isn’t immigrants, it’s globalization. However, pissing off business being anathema to the right-wing agenda, they have to come up with a whipping boy, and immigration fits the bill to a T.

I agree that immigration isn’t the primary culprit of falling wages and disappearing jobs, nor should any of this justify xenophobia but there is at least certain evidence indicating mass unskilled immigration does drive down wages for the poorest native-born citizens. Of course this effect has to be weighed with other factors such as humanitarian concerns for refugees but it isn’t a nonissue.

It’s a big step from SSI/Medicare to universal income. And you’ll hear the same thing from the right that you already do with AFDC: it promotes laziness and system-gaming. As for universal health care, the issue there is really controlling spiraling costs, and there’s a massive stumbling block that will be next to impossible to overcome, that being Big Pharma.

That’s why I proposed a broad range of programs including things such as paid leave for expectant mothers which are incredibly popular. I agree that universal health care must control costs which is why we must wage the battle against Big Pharma.

I’m talking about liberals complaining about it. The only liberties that I can see the right complaining about the left affecting are allowing business to work unfettered regardless of cost to the environment or the little guy, gun rights (which is really common sense and isn’t the horror of taking away MAH GUNS as they always portray) and the straw man that offending one’s religious sensibilities is good enough reason to legislate others’ behavior. Meanwhile, from the right (and/or Trump) we have abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, marijuana, voter ID, profiling due to draconian immigration reform, freedom of the press, and basically a return to the good old boy system wherever possible.

Ok, but I said liberals should advocate for social patriotism so why would they advocate for things like taking away gay marriage or legal pot? I’m genuinely confused by the direction of your thoughts here.

93 years and counting for the ERA. I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Well the ERA did almost get passed in the early 1970s but stopped by a desperate mobilization of right-wing forces courtesy of Phyllis Schlafly and co. But I don’t see why the difficult of certain political gains should make us settle for table scraps. Only a politics that provides a compelling vision will grow and attract voters.

I find it difficult to believe that many of the FF’s would have approved of Trump if they had seen his campaign (and had enough of a POV of modern life to be able to judge the bullshit that he slung). As a matter of fact, the unreasoning decision-making of a large mass of those landowners would probably have scared hell out of them.

Not really. Trump’s economic policy is quite similar to Hamiltonian mercantilism and it was the generation of the Founding Fathers who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts…

Two words: ‘unalienable rights.’ (Adams was right, it should be ‘inalienable.’)

Which is why I said:

left a respectable legacy of continuous constitutional government with a fairly robust set of individual rights

But it’s not as if the Founding Fathers all consistently respected un/inalienable rights either…

[octopus]

More socialism and more democracy are not the answer. A bit more socialism and a bit less democracy would be better. And I don’t mean people not being allowed to vote. I mean less direct democracy. The average IQ is 100. I don’t need each person voting directly on each issue.

[Johnny_Ace]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

I agree that immigration isn’t the primary culprit of falling wages and disappearing jobs, nor should any of this justify xenophobia but there is at least certain evidence indicating mass unskilled immigration does drive down wages for the poorest native-born citizens. Of course this effect has to be weighed with other factors such as humanitarian concerns for refugees but it isn’t a nonissue.

I just finished reading that article, and about the only things I can say with any certainty is that the author is a Borjas supporter, and that in no way does it prove that thesis.

That’s why I proposed a broad range of programs including things such as paid leave for expectant mothers which are incredibly popular. I agree that universal health care must control costs which is why we must wage the battle against Big Pharma.

You can propose as much as you want, the income thing won’t go unnoticed in the slightest.

Ok, but I said liberals should advocate for social patriotism so why would they advocate for things like taking away gay marriage or legal pot? I’m genuinely confused by the direction of your thoughts here.

Those are things liberals should complain about, not advocate, as removing personal liberty. And in contrast, conservatives’ complaints (the first list, the so-called ‘liberal sins’) are generally full of shit.

Well the ERA did almost get passed in the early 1970s but stopped by a desperate mobilization of right-wing forces courtesy of Phyllis Schlafly and co. But I don’t see why the difficult of certain political gains should make us settle for table scraps. Only a politics that provides a compelling vision will grow and attract voters.

Try all you want, but the odds of success are vanishingly small, at least at this point.

Not really. Trump’s economic policy is quite similar to Hamiltonian mercantilism and it was the generation of the Founding Fathers who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts…

Trump wouldn’t know Hamiltonian from Hamilton, and I can pretty much guarantee he has absolutely no understanding of its downsides. The Alien and Sedition Acts lost Adams the Presidency and were (mostly) allowed to expire when Jefferson took over. They were by no means uncontroversial at the time (and, surprise, championed by the right wing).

But that wasn’t my main thrust. Do you think that any of the FF’s would have approved of his complete lack of salient truth on the campaign trail or in office, or for that matter his uninformed and generally untrue attacks on the press? His constant need to self-aggrandize? His inability to deal with criticism of the slightest degree? His shocking ignorance of the simplest concepts of governing?

Which is why I said:

But it’s not as if the Founding Fathers all consistently respected un/inalienable rights either…

One shouldn’t look to human history for perfection. But what rights does Trump respect, other than his own? He can’t even seem to get his mind around the fact that there can be principled (and correct) opposition to anything he says.