Plato’s weekend readings, episode 54, full Trump edition

readingsHere it is, our regular Friday diet of suggested readings for the weekend:

Two very important graphs embedded in this article on Brexit and Trumpism.


There is a line from Hayek through Thatcher and Reagan to Trump. And it’s time to change the narrative.

A semi-useful 12-step program to respond to the election of Trump.

Trump’s attacks on the media, they are only going to get worse.

No, Philosopher Richard Rorty did not prophesy the rise of Trump.

Education, not income, predicted who would vote for Trump vs Clinton.

Umberto Eco’s 14 signs of fascism.

Advertisements


Categories: Plato's Suggestions

279 replies

  1. On the nuclear weapons thing, I’m not sure how many times I have to point out that she and Trump had the exact same policy!

    I don’t think so. Trump said ‘if we have them, we have them why can’t we use them’. This shows a vast underappreciated for what a nuc does.

    HRC is likely not to forswear first use. Niether has Obama or anybody else. I think we should, but plotically it’s difficult for them to do so. None-the-less I think they understand what they are and how bad there use would be.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/nuclear-weapons-no-first-use-debate-214300

    Like

  2. No no that isn’t true at all. But see the next post where I address seth on the issue of “progressiveness

    I don’t agree. Progressive has just been adopted by liberals. There’s no functional difference.

    Back in the progressive era liberal meant something all together different.

    https://www.americanprogress.org/

    These guys are pretty much generic liberals.
    Board of Directors
    Sen. Tom Daschle, Chair <<—
    Neera Tanden, President
    Secretary Madeleine Albright
    Carol Browner
    Glenn Hutchins
    Jonathan Lavine
    John Podesta <—
    Susan Sandler
    Tom Steyer
    Donald Sussman
    Jose Villarreal

    Not exactly radicals or even Fighting Bob.

    Like

  3. One more thought on the big picture. Democracy, even when it looks stable on the surface, isn’t necessarily that way. Saw this one via John Horgan: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world/americas/western-liberal-democracy.html?_r=0

    Liked by 1 person

  4. No. Absolutely not. Progressivism as a subset of the left is an actual thing with an actual history which predates the “shaming” of liberal as a term. Not meaning to sound sharp but all one needs to do is google or wiki to find this out… [I don’t need to google it accept for to check some details).

    I never said it didn’t have a history. I’m well aware of it. I believe I mentioned Fight Bob La Follet (who did not support prohibition) several times.

    My wife’s grandfather belonged to the ‘non-partisan’ league (in North Dakota, — her father was forn in Fargo) (a rather radical group) who supported with ever candidate was most in thedays when there there were Progressives Dems and Repubs. Minnesota, Wisconsin and ND where hot beds of progressiveness. A vestige of this is left in the name Farmer-Workers Democratic Party.

    Liberal has a storied history too. Meanings shift and can be borrowed, evolve or co-opted. Mere liberals have adopted the term progressive. Those who use the term most (the ‘progressive caucus’) are may a smidgen more to the left.

    I’m perfectly content to call a progressive or a liberal or a democratic socialist (which by Bernie s definition barely qualifies as socialist).

    Like

  5. And Progressivism has not changed, outside of denying prior excesses/failures like Republicans deny Bush Jr today. Currently the idea still supports (though my guess is the tune will change) the costly war on drugs [untrue], as well as anti-sex [untrue, e.g. gay marriage and speech laws (using feminist or just plain prudish ideology [The anal-retentive are always with us, but mostly liberals/progressives are big on free speech). Given its acceptance of authoritarian mechanisms to enforce “improvement” [BULLSHIT] on society based on whatever whim is popular at the time
    [Healthcare was popular for years not just ‘at the time’. Dems have been trying to get it through for years and failing]
    [Polls generally show liberal ideas to be quite popular. Health Care was so popular that the Repubs had to come up with a plan RomnyCare and Obama borrowed it [a]], I expect more horror shows in the future.

    What the hell ‘authoritarian mechanism’ force people to adopt policies they want? Say winning an election? That makes no sense.

    The ‘authoritarian mechanisms’ at play are unlimited money and corporations be as ‘people’. Those were not progress/liberal ideas.

    Trump is the process of adopting policies he specifically said he wouldn’t. Obama attempted (with limited success) to enact ‘progressive’ policies he campaigned on and won on. He had to still get those past congress — no ;authoritarian mechanism; there!

    Fight Bob ran for office and mostly lost, so no authoritarian mechanism back then either. I don’t think ever attempted a coup either.

    You think we forced medicare on an unwilling populous? . You think racist southern states should be slowed to discriminate and deny the vote to blacks if most of the allowed voters wanted that?

    I note that democracy is not MOB rule and we have a constitution and amendments to prevent that.

    [a]http://www.cheatsheet.com/stocks/the-irony-of-obamacare-republicans-thought-of-it-first.html/?a=viewall

    “An irony of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is that one of its key provisions, the individual insurance mandate, has conservative origins. … According to Romney, ‘we got the idea of an individual mandate from [Newt Gingrich], and [Newt] got it from the Heritage Foundation.’”Oct 4, 2013

    The bloody Heritage Foundation invented the half baked thing. Obama swalled it whole. It’s better than nothing — a friend of ours got on it and it likely saved her life. She may now cancer and may have to have surgery quickly (rather than spend 6 mos. trying less radical alternatives) because Trump, Price and the repubs are going to take her insurance away in 6 mos.

    That tea party lady who said “Don’t let the Government take my Medicare away is about to get it taken away by the Government.’ Dare I call her an idiot?

    Calif should secede. We send our money to Mississippi and they don’t even like us. If we kept the money that flows to those low-tax ‘taker’ states we could afford to provide health care and by going to single payer it would be cheaper than Obamacare. <|;_)

    Like

  6. Hi Synred,

    “I don’t think so. Trump said ‘if we have them, we have them why can’t we use them’. This shows a vast underappreciated for what a nuc does.HRC is likely not to forswear first use. Niether has Obama or anybody else. I think we should, but plotically it’s difficult for them to do so. None-the-less I think they understand what they are and how bad there use would be.”

    If you do not see the self-serving, inconsistent nature of this argument, there’s not much else I can say. Other than, I guess, your hate for Trump seems to be clouding your reason. Even analysts that dislike Trump say their policy is the same. I’ll take that over mind-reading.

    “Progressive has just been adopted by liberals. There’s no functional difference. Back in the progressive era liberal meant something all together different.”

    What? If you mean that some liberals adopted the term “progressive” (little p) which is different than historical Progressive movement (big P), I might agree. If your argument is that there are a range of Progressives (some like Fighting Bob!) then of course I can also agree.

    But you seem to be whitewashing the history of the Progressive movement in a way you do not allow for conservatives (though you agree they can differ) and the religious.

    To say there were progressives that were against Prohibition cannot wipe away the fact that Prohibition (and yes anti-drug laws… love that “untrue” argument you made) was put in place as a result of the Progressive movement. Just as one can’t (and I never would) say well the US was not bad for the Native Americans because some people liked and helped them, when in fact the US practiced genocide against them.

    I think my and Dan’s position is why would/should liberals choose to use a term that is associated with such a mixed history when they don’t have to? It is a choice, and if you are not aware there are many conservatives currently using that choice against liberals.

    “The anal-retentive are always with us, but mostly liberals/progressives are big on free speech”

    That is an empirical question. I don’t know the stats. But I do know that anti-porn, anti-prostitution feminists are “progressives” and not “conservatives” or “classical liberals” and progressives do not simply get to jettison them (as if they do not exist) from their movement.

    What’s more the whole phenomena of trigger words and exclusion of speakers from campuses and making sure people’s Halloween costumes are PC is certainly anti-free speech and most certainly progressive. They will tell you that themselves as they tell you to shut up and not oppress them with words they don’t like. That’s progression!

    “What the hell ‘authoritarian mechanism’ force people to adopt policies they want? Say winning an election? That makes no sense.”

    Oh I see. Trump and the Republicans just won the election and so if/when they outlaw abortion you will of course agree that enforcement of their beliefs on women using the state is not an “authoritarian mechanism” and simply an adoption of the policy they want?

    There is a pretty clear line between policies that are “parental” or “authoritarian” and so restrict personal freedom, versus those that simply provide a service you can choose to use.

    As for the rest of your argument, you continue to confuse my position as requiring an all or nothing attitude toward policies that progressives (historical or modern) advance. While my political composition is a bit complex (hence an independent) I’d fall between libertarian and social democrat, with leanings toward the “social” end.

    Anyway, I think I am done with this subject as it has devolved into what seems to be an extended No True Scotsman fallacy.

    Like

  7. :Oh I see. Trump and the Republicans just won the election and so if/when they outlaw abortion you will of course agree that enforcement of their beliefs on women using the state is not an “authoritarian mechanism” and simply an adoption of the policy they want?

    Well, yes, it would not be an ‘authentication mechanism”. Democracy make mistakes. Like Trump.

    For the moment the supreme court will prevent the worst excesses Trump and the repubs might attempt and, of course, liberals will screat like hell and attempt to stop it in the Senate and perhaps even start to win Gerrymander’d (now that’s an ‘authoritarian machoism’) districts when they realize the government is going to take away their Medicare, etc. and cut Social Security.

    “Democracy is the worst form of Government invented, accept for all the others”

    At moments like this a despair for democracy and at the same time worry about it possible demise.

    What your solution that would not be authorial? Are you an anarchist (left or right)?

    Like

  8. * As for the rest of your argument, you continue to confuse my position

    I’m confused as to what your position is. Any government involves some authority.

    I find Emma Goldman appealing and then read Bakunin a realized anarchy was completely unworkable.

    Any way I think comments on this post have ended…so enough is enough.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: