It's funny, because with the Democrats it's the opposite effect - candidates for office act all reasonable and project good vibes, but if put in office they'll pick their judges and bureaucrats from the same hard-left pool that's been stifling the economy and giving us radical, unpopular policies on race and sex and crime for the last sixty-odd years. It's a theme I addressed in one of my own recent posts: "Why it Doesn't Matter if Tim Walz is a Moderate Democrat":
It is indeed ironic that the opposite thing happens on the Right - the candidate says all kinds of unhinged things, but then, if voted in, he has to fill all the really important offices with reasonable, pro-constitution, pro-market people, because that's what his faction has on offer.
One more reason that I'll voting for Trump again. (I would have been much happier voting for Rand Paul if the GOP had nominated him, but you know the saying: never let the perfect become the enemy of the good enough.)
I think this is just whatever you call that bias where you notice what your own side does more, combined with the media tendency to portray opponents as extreme. Whenever you read something by the left they complain about how Democrats never appoint anyone but milquetoast centrists who never do anything really radical.
Looking at specific Presidents, I guess you can kind of see a little of what you are describing with the Biden administration, whose staffers are often further to the left than the president. However, the Obama administration was pretty much the opposite of what you describe, he ran on a promise of radical Hope and Change and governed like a moderate centrist. Bill Clinton ran as a centrist and governed like one. I believe Carter did too. LBJ probably fits your description the best. but even he wasn't that extreme.
I'll admit you're probably right that I have some biases - everyone does - but pretty-much every Democratic president has appointed judges and regulators who have done hard-left things that almost nobody (president or congress) would run for office on. For instance, Obama's Title IX regulators created the elaborate parallel court system for punishing sexual assaults at colleges, Clinton and Obama appointed four of the five justices who did same-sex marriage (which both presidents were against when they ran for office) every Democratic administration is full of staffers who deliberately leave the border open, and Democrat-appointed judges are responsible for most of the environmental lawsuits that have crippled US infrastructure and left our country with a much worse transportation system than Europe or East Asia. And these issues are just a beginning.
It's true that people like Obama have gotten a lot of support from activists who think they're going to solve climate change, or withdraw support from Israel, or do some other dramatic thing, who then feel betrayed when they don't. But I think that's less a matter of the Deep State pulling them left than of most of the Democratic base not supporting the far-left causes to begin with. The vast majority of Democrats don't want to give up their own gas-fired cars, after all; they are content to virtue-signal by tossing out piecemeal restrictions on US oil production while imposing no limits at all on oil imports, and in stuff like that the Deep State is more than cooperative.
Yes, and if you look at the length of the environmental impact statements that people have to write to comply with it, and the length of time projects get tied up in lawsuits, they've increased dramatically between the 1970s and today.
Seriously, if you think that judges usually or always interpret controversially laws in accordance with original intent... what are you even doing on this blog?
Is your point not that both sides use messaging that they believe will advance their electoral prospects but actually enact policies that their base wants? I don’t see what is opposite except for the ideologies.
Democrats try to claim the center with moderate messaging, but the anti-trade, anti-immigrant, pro-entitlement program messaging from Trump is just his version of claiming the center. it worked once and is a strategy optimized for the electoral college.
My point is that the Republican intelligentsia is actually doing a good job of preventing the nuttier aspects of Trumpistry from being enacted, while the Democratic intelligentsia ensures that, even when elected Democrats have moderately pro-market or anti-crime or other reasonable ideas, the overall effect of their being in office is to advance hard-left policies that would never get through any elected legislature.
As usual Richard writes interesting stuff here with interesting theses, but continues his false mantra that “the right” in toto is only interested in populism and the superficial - even as he claims/acknowledges that it is largely the *same* coalition as the one that existed before Trump.
Unsurprisingly, he rarely, if ever, does the same indictment of the left. Despite correctly being against “woke”, Richard doesn’t tar all on the left with the brush of woke, but when it comes to the right, he finds it perfectly acceptable to tar all on the right with the brush of the populist MAGA crowd. [In fairness, he doesn’t do this all the time, merely a large majority, but when he does it he usually states it as authoritative and definite and true in the aggregate].
For example there is now no doubt whatsoever that open anti-semitism and active support of and sympathy for terrorists are a big part of the left coalition, yet he does not tar all on the left as anti-semites and terrorist sympathizers, he does not call the Democrats the party of anti-semitism and terrorist sympathizers. But he’s happy to repeatedly state that the right is now completely stupid populists. 🙄
I don’t claim to have read all of Richard’s pieces. If he has ever explained why he has the “broad brush” double-standard across his left vs right critiques, I’ve not seen it. If someone else has, could they please post the link in response?
It's because of the extent that the dumb things on the right are either echoed or downplayed by those at the top of the GOP. College campus antisemites and hamas lovers are very vocal yet make up a tiny portion of Dems, just look at how few uncommitted votes Biden got. Furthermore, you don't see Kamala or Walz making deranged statements about Jews. Contrast that with Trump and Vance on the Haitian migrants eating pets in Springfield and the threats & school closures that have followed. If Kamala were to come out tomorrow and say that the Jews on college campuses are drinking the blood of children based on some unconfirmed rumor and defended or downplayed palestinian activists who attacked Jewish students you would have a valid point, but this isn't happening.
In general, a good way to go about assessing whether our leaders are being productive is:
1) Don't knee jerkedly look for instances of democrats doing something comparable as a way to excuse or downplay it
2) Ask has this helped persuade anyone on the fence? Does it further a policy agenda or help define a desirable end goal? Does it generate a large amount of backlash that obfuscates any point trying to be made?
Check the Harvard-Harris poll numbers on 18-24 year olds who back Hamas. It’s about 50%, which means it’s gotta be north of 75% of that age bracket that votes Dem.
You are completely out of touch with reality to claim that this is just a tiny portion of the Dem coalition.
After scrolling through 52 pages of what you linked, I found that only 29% of the 18-24 age bracket want the US to stand with Hamas rather than Israel or neither. It's smaller for each other age group, even as low as 1% for 65+.
I said I was referring only to young leftists, and pointed you ONLY to the 18-24 age group.
In the October poll, slide 42, 48% of that group sides with HAMAS.
29% as you note say SIDE WITH HAMAS, when given 3 choices, not 2. Since this poll is of all people, not solely Dems, that means that something close to half of leftist 18-24 year olds chose to BACK HAMAS in the wake of the Oct 7th attacks even when given a 3rd choice of “stay out of it”.
Looking at the December poll, slide 46 shows that 60% of 18-24 year olds say that Hamas’ brutal murder/rape/kidnapping rampage was JUSTIFIED! This means more than 75% of leftist-voting 18-24 year olds feel that way, and quite possibly a lot higher than that.
On slide 47, fully 50% of that group sides with Hamas, this means more than 65% of that age group’s leftists do so, perhaps a LOT more.
These are NOT small numbers. And they have disproportionate impact on the left today.
Why else do you think Kamala refused to choose the popular governor of the single most important by far swing state in this election as her VP choice, but allowed the campaign branding him as “Genocide Josh” to be successful? Even the center-left, Dem-cheering Nate Silver agrees with me on this point.
I see the 48% now, though I like more options rather than a forced binary, and neither seems to be the most popular with only 29% of 18-24 y/os wanting us to stand with Hamas when push comes to shove. Regarding slide 46, I really don't care much for loaded questions in polling. First of all, there's the "can be justified" aspect of it rather than "do you consider it justified" and secondly people who have some level of sympathy for the palestinians may choose to say yes anyway making it lower. I find things like limited DNC protests and uncommitted votes more telling than what people tell pollsters.
A top Shapiro aid resigned for a sexual harassment scandal and he has a history of meddling in GOP primaries so he can run against the most extreme candidate while bemoaning threats to democracy.
Ok, so at least we agree that something close to half of young leftists (since the 29% is ALL 18-24 year olds, not only those in the Dem coalition) actively choose “Back Hamas” when given 3 choices.
NOT small numbers.
We clearly disagree on most of the rest (yeah, *of course* you’re correct with your explanation of why she didn’t choose Shapiro…). But you do you.
“ It's because of the extent that the dumb things on the right are either echoed or downplayed by those at the top of the GOP. ”
But of course, even if I accepted your claim above (and I do not accept it wholly, though obviously there is *some* truth to it), my point is that what you wrote is self-evident,y even MORE true re the top of the Dems on the subject of antisemitism and pro-terrorist sympathy!
Can you really deny the latter as you claim the former?!?
‘It's because of the extent that the dumb things on the right are either echoed or downplayed by those at the top of the GOP.’
You miss my point completely with this comment.
I’m *not *defending Trump or anyone in the GOP with the above, most certainly not re: the current brouhaha. I agree approximately 70%-90% with almost all of Richard’s critiques of the right, up to the point he paints the entire right with a broad brush.
I’m criticizing Richard for his double standard.
If Richard tarred all of Dems for their downplaying of antisemitism, for NOT criticizing their own anti-semitic, terror-sympathizing Squad members, then I wouldn’t criticize him at all for his broad brush takes on the right here.
But he does not. And his explanation/defense of this is mostly the tautology of “GOP is the party of low human capital” (again, I object less to this critique than to the double standard), and the even more indefensible, more ridiculous “The Media is Mostly Honest and Good”.
I would love it if he were to say they're a bunch of no good losers who have completely deranged reasons and wildly inconsistent standards for protesting Israel, though his denunciation is fine. It's not as emotionally satisfying to you or me, but he pretty clearly denounces the problem.
Ok, fine. But this is not a denunciation of anti-semitism. It is not a denunciation of backing the terrorist grouping Hamas. It is merely a denunciation of VIOLENCE by those for whom antisemitism and backing Hamas is their cause.
It is the barest minimum. It is what the university presidents should have done but mostly refused initially to do at all. But it is not the same thing as criticing the antisemitic chants and actions nor the monstrous support for a terrorist group.
And I note with no small interest you couldn’t find anything where border czar Kamala said even what Biden did.
We are, of course, getting far off the subject of Richard’s double standard - unless you can show me where Richard has criticized Kamala, Biden and the entire Democrat party for having terrorist sympathizers and OPEN antisemites as part of their coalition…
"I condemn any individuals associating with the brutal terrorist organization Hamas, which has vowed to annihilate the State of Israel and kill Jews. Pro-Hamas graffiti and rhetoric is abhorrent and we must not tolerate it in our nation.
I condemn the burning of the American flag. That flag is a symbol of our highest ideals as a nation and represents the promise of America. It should never be desecrated in that way.
I support the right to peacefully protest, but let’s be clear: Antisemitism, hate and violence of any kind have no place in our nation."
“On the left, there’s more of a convergence between discourse and reality. In my experience, very few prominent Harris supporters are unclear on questions like which side is more supportive of organized labor.”
I think the second sentence is true, but it’s a more mixed bag for the actual Left than it is for Kamala supporters. This Jacobin writer refers to “Trump’s Medicaid expansion” that he apparently genuinely believes Joe Biden reversed. https://x.com/bmarchetich/status/1833903149683294255?s=46 They do this shtick with basically all of the pandemic era welfare programs: Trump deserves credit for starting them, Biden deserves blame for ending them. Nevermind the details.
The Online Left has also dwelled on a bankruptcy bill from 20 years ago to pretend Biden would be less favorable to their position on student loans than Trump. (Just search the relevant keywords on twitter; there are countless examples).
Maybe some of this is trolling, or trying to “pressure” Democrats, or Russian bots, whatever, but clearly there is some genuine belief on the Left that the Democrats are equivalent to Republicans. There isn’t the same level of misperception on the far right. And what helps Republicans is that this Leftist messaging adds to the noise that leaves uneducated working class minorities (in particular) with no idea what the stakes of a given election are.
I sometimes wonder if there isn't something to the idea that the Republican Party is returning to its 19th century roots. It was built out of a coalition of three factions: anti-immigrants (the Know Nothings), religious reformers (the Abolitionists), pro-business-protectionists (the Whigs). We don't see it because the resurgence of anti-immigrant sentiment is recent, the religious reformers substituted embryos for slaves, and there was a stretch during which Republicans liked free trade. But now it's just like old times?
"What is indisputable is that if you are an economic populist, then you should clearly support Democrats, as they are the party that is in favor of more redistribution and giving organized labor what it wants."
This is very disputable. Government handouts and price floors on labor are pretty far from the type of "economic populism" that supports Trump. It's more the view that fewer regulatory and financial constraints on business owners along with fewer handouts to do nothing will benefit the people that actually work.
The divergence between discourse and reality also changes the incentives of campaigning. Why emphasize what you're actually going to do in office, when you can gain more friendly coverage and more rank-and-file followers by storyweaving about yourself? Supporters who care about policy aren't going to punish you if you still give them what they want, and those who don't aren't paying attention anyway - it's a win-win. When you view politics this way, the storylines of the past three election cycles and the state of US political discourse start to make sense. Canonizing Trump as a pacifistic champion of labor is just one example (well, two technically) of this opening that both parties have tried to seize on.
Obviously Trump did so more effectively, though I don't mean to imbue him with any strategic thinking ability. It's just easier to do with his particular base of support, since they're generally low-information, and he's the only candidate rejecting mainstream media and information quality control. Harris can't maintain shared delusions in the same way, because her voters populate the institutions responsible for debunking shared delusions.
Your post reminds me of an Alex Jones video I was exposed to in ~2008, where he was doing his usual bit of warning about a one-world government. I remember thinking (because I read) that his analysis totally ignored the role of the UNSC, the NPT, etc, which is a startling omission if you want to conspiracize about an organization that controls the world. So you end up with all of this engagement on something that's barely a step above X-Files fan fiction, because it's sexier and much simpler to understand than reality, even if the reality is very consequential and worth talking about on its own merits.
"the pro-market folks are still going to get what they want." I find this statement baffling. Yes, Trump pushed a bit for deregulation but how much did we get? A tiny bit compared to what remained. We are so vastly far from free markets that I do not understand how anyone can say pro-market folks get what they want. I'm pro-market so am I going to see the end of "public" universities, the privatization of social security, complete withdrawal of the state from healthcare, the end of all government-run schools, the end of subsidies for everything, and on and on.
Zelenskyy was a tv star before becoming a dictator, In Canada our dictator Trudeau was a drama teacher. They are all just actors and now they identify as global “celebrities “. They are all 💩
IMO you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good with your “Yes, Trump pushed a bit for deregulation but how much did we get? A tiny bit compared to what remained.”
The highly imperfect vessel that is Donald Trump did more for deregulation than anyone since Reagan, and arguably did as much or more deregulation than Reagan himself (Reagan, of course, deserves credit for at least changing the arc of and discourse about regulation…)
And surely you cannot possibly dispute that we will have less net new bad regulation under Trump than we will under border czar Kamala Harris - can you?
It is of course the exact opposite of classical liberalism / libertarianism in terms of government intervention, but it ain’t all that specific about which issues.
And that’s apart from the “Trump talks populist, but mostly doesn’t govern that way” [about which I agree with Richard 100%].
On most topics relating to large groups of people, my philosophy is usually “people are neither that dumb nor that smart”.
I think it applies here, and that Richard is mostly not correct in his claim that “if you’re an economic populist, you should vote for Democrats”. [Even though it surely *was* true 17+ years ago.]
The Democrat party and its coalition is no longer in favor of things that benefit the working lower and middle class, certainly not the white working class and the white middle class, with the exception of middle class government employees.
And the MAGA crowd understands this.
Trump’s political brilliance was that he saw this before other GOP pols and targeted that group.
The “targeting” GOP strategy (towards non-elites) before Trump was to go after “social conservatives”. But the group Trump found was bigger, especially when he drew more disaffected former Democrats into the GOP in much the way Reagan did.
Trump did the Bill Clinton “I feel your pain” thing for this group before anyone else, and more credibly than anyone else, so he’s benefited disproportionately. Richard focuses on the emotional connection Trump has with his base, and that surely exists.
But unlike how leftist commentators always try to claim, and Richard sorta does in this particular piece, MAGA “economic populists” are not being brought in to the GOP under false pretenses. The Dems with their economic policies and their social policies - and words - drove them away.
Trump was just smart enough to connect with them first - and best.
“On the left, there’s more of a convergence between discourse and reality.”
Another broad-brush Richard claim that doesn’t pass the smell test.
It is the left that hides their leftist economic policies like anti-fossil fuel and open borders in the months before elections, not the right.
I readily agree with the point that Trump himself talks populist and governs (other than on spending levels and entitlements) like a standard GOP pol.
But to claim there is more convergence between discourse and reality on the left is just absurd.
Let’s count the policy position flip-flops Kamala has made in the last 10 weeks. Decide for yourself which ones are legit, and which ones are divergence between discourse and reality:
- she’s supposedly pro-fracking
- she endorsed Trump’s “no tax on tips” idea (without mentioning it came from Trump!)
- she’s supposedly now for reducing the amount of illegal immigration and even supports building the wall
- she’s supposedly now a tough on crime prosecutor, even though she was on the frontlines of raising money to bail out the George Floyd summer 2020 looters and arsonists
- while she came out and said she is for price-gauging [sic], she’s actually supposedly not really for implementing price controls almost anywhere (and leftist expert commentators point out she’d never be able to actually pass this)
Yeah, sure, on the left, there’s more of a convergence between discourse and reality…
The argument you're arguing against at the beginning is a ploy. It's something people in elite circles but with divergent ideas use in order to seem like they're also representing the little guy and so to signal their own virtue, in a social class full of virtue signalling status games. At the same time, it does have truth to it because it's not really about economic populism but merely about liking and advocating for the liking of a certain kind of disadvantaged person.
The Cheneys think Trump will not be appointing any more Pompeos and Boltons. I'll trust them in this one instance since they know a lot more about what's going in The Blob, the Deep State or whatever than I do.
The NLRB has way too much power and should be paired back. Unions are being used by the Democratic Socialists of America to infiltrate small Mom and Pops businesses in order to destroy them. These small businesses, like local coffeehouses, are not sweat shops or large factories. The DSA is training young activists to “take down the man” who shleps espresso right beside them, because he is the “oppressor” and they are the “oppressed,” part-time Ivy League college student who deserves to take away the owner’s life’s work because they are entitled to what he has earned by his own labor and in spite of the fact that he has provided hundreds of jobs to the community his entire life. No, those who support Trump are not economically illiterate and if you think YOU are the unbiased one here, you are mistaken. Unions are BIG business and are in it for their own profit. They may be a necessary evil in some cases but their power to overwhelm the little guy just because they can is a corruption of that power. Baristas are not organically organizing. They are being used. When will someone finally expose the Democratic Socialist of America for the destruction they have been committing?
A big problem with the populist working class coalition is that it’s not what your average republican voter actually believes. On average, they are much more preoccupied with culture war issues and in economics they are still on the traditional right. Only the occasional populist issue like opposition to social security reform or tariffs have actual rank and file support.
A common thread throughout a lot of your analyses is that you assume a 2024 trump presidency will look a lot like his 2016 presidency
I am far far less convinced
Aside from the fact that his rhetoric has shifted even more towards populism, the pool of populists to hire from is far bigger than it used to be
In 2016 the available pool of candidates was mostly establishment Republicans, 8 years have since passed and a lot of the available candidates were made in the image of trump
For example, while in 2016 trump picked pence, a fairly typical establishment republican, as running mate, this time it's Vance, someone who is an explicit appeal to populism. Who's to say that rest of the cabinet won't be made up of RFKs Tulsi Gabbards and whatever version of himself Vivek decided will be popular today
In 2016 the establishment GOP still existed and trump had to contend with it, today the GOP is entirely the party of trump
Are you sure that you should be celebrating these developments, Richard? After all, if Republicans will destroy organized labor in the US, then couldn't a lot of blue-collar workers who vote for the GOP for cultural and/or personality reasons flock back to the Democrats in response to this, thus strengthening the Democrats at the expense of the GOP in future elections? I mean, that's already what repealing Roe v. Wade did. Are ordinary people going to see an immediate economic boom for themselves after organized labor in the US is destroyed? Or won't they, with them thus (rightly or wrongly) perceiving the destruction of organized labor in the US as a bad thing?
Not sure what that question has to do with the price of tea in China…
Populism is a “weird” thing. It is the exact opposite of classical liberalism / libertarianism in terms of government intervention, but it ain’t all that specific about which issues. And that’s apart from the “Trump talks populist, but mostly doesn’t govern that way” [about which I agree with Richard 100%].
On most topics relating to large groups of people, my philosophy is usually “people are neither that dumb nor that smart”.
I think it applies here, and that Richard is mostly not correct in his claim that “if you’re an economic populist, you should vote for Democrats”. Although it surely was true 17+ years ago.
But the Democrat coalition is no longer in favor of things that benefit the working lower and middle class, certainly not the white working class and the white middle class, with the exception of middle class government employees.
And the MAGA crowd understands this.
Trump’s political brilliance was that he saw this before other GOP pols and targeted that group.
The “targeting” GOP strategy to go after non-elites before Trump was to go after “social conservatives”. But the group Trump found was bigger, especially when he drew more disaffected former Democrats into the GOP in much the way Reagan did.
Trump did the Bill Clinton “I feel your pain” for this group before anyone else, and more credibly than anyone else, so he’s benefited disproportionately. Richard focuses on the emotional connection Trump has with his base, and that surely exists.
But unlike how leftist commentators always try to claim, and Richard sorta does in this particular piece, MAGA “economic populists” are not being brought in to the GOP under false pretenses. The Dems with their economic policies and their social policies - and words - drove them away.
Trump was just smart enough to connect with them first - and best.
It's funny, because with the Democrats it's the opposite effect - candidates for office act all reasonable and project good vibes, but if put in office they'll pick their judges and bureaucrats from the same hard-left pool that's been stifling the economy and giving us radical, unpopular policies on race and sex and crime for the last sixty-odd years. It's a theme I addressed in one of my own recent posts: "Why it Doesn't Matter if Tim Walz is a Moderate Democrat":
https://twilightpatriot.substack.com/p/why-it-doesnt-matter-if-tim-walz
It is indeed ironic that the opposite thing happens on the Right - the candidate says all kinds of unhinged things, but then, if voted in, he has to fill all the really important offices with reasonable, pro-constitution, pro-market people, because that's what his faction has on offer.
One more reason that I'll voting for Trump again. (I would have been much happier voting for Rand Paul if the GOP had nominated him, but you know the saying: never let the perfect become the enemy of the good enough.)
I think this is just whatever you call that bias where you notice what your own side does more, combined with the media tendency to portray opponents as extreme. Whenever you read something by the left they complain about how Democrats never appoint anyone but milquetoast centrists who never do anything really radical.
Looking at specific Presidents, I guess you can kind of see a little of what you are describing with the Biden administration, whose staffers are often further to the left than the president. However, the Obama administration was pretty much the opposite of what you describe, he ran on a promise of radical Hope and Change and governed like a moderate centrist. Bill Clinton ran as a centrist and governed like one. I believe Carter did too. LBJ probably fits your description the best. but even he wasn't that extreme.
Ghatanathoath,
I'll admit you're probably right that I have some biases - everyone does - but pretty-much every Democratic president has appointed judges and regulators who have done hard-left things that almost nobody (president or congress) would run for office on. For instance, Obama's Title IX regulators created the elaborate parallel court system for punishing sexual assaults at colleges, Clinton and Obama appointed four of the five justices who did same-sex marriage (which both presidents were against when they ran for office) every Democratic administration is full of staffers who deliberately leave the border open, and Democrat-appointed judges are responsible for most of the environmental lawsuits that have crippled US infrastructure and left our country with a much worse transportation system than Europe or East Asia. And these issues are just a beginning.
It's true that people like Obama have gotten a lot of support from activists who think they're going to solve climate change, or withdraw support from Israel, or do some other dramatic thing, who then feel betrayed when they don't. But I think that's less a matter of the Deep State pulling them left than of most of the Democratic base not supporting the far-left causes to begin with. The vast majority of Democrats don't want to give up their own gas-fired cars, after all; they are content to virtue-signal by tossing out piecemeal restrictions on US oil production while imposing no limits at all on oil imports, and in stuff like that the Deep State is more than cooperative.
The Title IX sexual assault regulations instituted by Obama were just stupid. I believe that FIRE has aggressively criticized them.
Congress passed the national environmental protection act, not judges.
Yes, and if you look at the length of the environmental impact statements that people have to write to comply with it, and the length of time projects get tied up in lawsuits, they've increased dramatically between the 1970s and today.
Seriously, if you think that judges usually or always interpret controversially laws in accordance with original intent... what are you even doing on this blog?
Is your point not that both sides use messaging that they believe will advance their electoral prospects but actually enact policies that their base wants? I don’t see what is opposite except for the ideologies.
Democrats try to claim the center with moderate messaging, but the anti-trade, anti-immigrant, pro-entitlement program messaging from Trump is just his version of claiming the center. it worked once and is a strategy optimized for the electoral college.
My point is that the Republican intelligentsia is actually doing a good job of preventing the nuttier aspects of Trumpistry from being enacted, while the Democratic intelligentsia ensures that, even when elected Democrats have moderately pro-market or anti-crime or other reasonable ideas, the overall effect of their being in office is to advance hard-left policies that would never get through any elected legislature.
As usual Richard writes interesting stuff here with interesting theses, but continues his false mantra that “the right” in toto is only interested in populism and the superficial - even as he claims/acknowledges that it is largely the *same* coalition as the one that existed before Trump.
Unsurprisingly, he rarely, if ever, does the same indictment of the left. Despite correctly being against “woke”, Richard doesn’t tar all on the left with the brush of woke, but when it comes to the right, he finds it perfectly acceptable to tar all on the right with the brush of the populist MAGA crowd. [In fairness, he doesn’t do this all the time, merely a large majority, but when he does it he usually states it as authoritative and definite and true in the aggregate].
For example there is now no doubt whatsoever that open anti-semitism and active support of and sympathy for terrorists are a big part of the left coalition, yet he does not tar all on the left as anti-semites and terrorist sympathizers, he does not call the Democrats the party of anti-semitism and terrorist sympathizers. But he’s happy to repeatedly state that the right is now completely stupid populists. 🙄
I don’t claim to have read all of Richard’s pieces. If he has ever explained why he has the “broad brush” double-standard across his left vs right critiques, I’ve not seen it. If someone else has, could they please post the link in response?
It's because of the extent that the dumb things on the right are either echoed or downplayed by those at the top of the GOP. College campus antisemites and hamas lovers are very vocal yet make up a tiny portion of Dems, just look at how few uncommitted votes Biden got. Furthermore, you don't see Kamala or Walz making deranged statements about Jews. Contrast that with Trump and Vance on the Haitian migrants eating pets in Springfield and the threats & school closures that have followed. If Kamala were to come out tomorrow and say that the Jews on college campuses are drinking the blood of children based on some unconfirmed rumor and defended or downplayed palestinian activists who attacked Jewish students you would have a valid point, but this isn't happening.
In general, a good way to go about assessing whether our leaders are being productive is:
1) Don't knee jerkedly look for instances of democrats doing something comparable as a way to excuse or downplay it
2) Ask has this helped persuade anyone on the fence? Does it further a policy agenda or help define a desirable end goal? Does it generate a large amount of backlash that obfuscates any point trying to be made?
“College campus antisemites and hamas lovers are very vocal yet make up a tiny portion of Dems,”
Sorry, you are dead wrong re: tiny portion.
https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/HHP_Oct23_KeyResults.pdf
https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/HHP_Dec23_KeyResults.pdf
Check the Harvard-Harris poll numbers on 18-24 year olds who back Hamas. It’s about 50%, which means it’s gotta be north of 75% of that age bracket that votes Dem.
You are completely out of touch with reality to claim that this is just a tiny portion of the Dem coalition.
After scrolling through 52 pages of what you linked, I found that only 29% of the 18-24 age bracket want the US to stand with Hamas rather than Israel or neither. It's smaller for each other age group, even as low as 1% for 65+.
I said I was referring only to young leftists, and pointed you ONLY to the 18-24 age group.
In the October poll, slide 42, 48% of that group sides with HAMAS.
29% as you note say SIDE WITH HAMAS, when given 3 choices, not 2. Since this poll is of all people, not solely Dems, that means that something close to half of leftist 18-24 year olds chose to BACK HAMAS in the wake of the Oct 7th attacks even when given a 3rd choice of “stay out of it”.
Looking at the December poll, slide 46 shows that 60% of 18-24 year olds say that Hamas’ brutal murder/rape/kidnapping rampage was JUSTIFIED! This means more than 75% of leftist-voting 18-24 year olds feel that way, and quite possibly a lot higher than that.
On slide 47, fully 50% of that group sides with Hamas, this means more than 65% of that age group’s leftists do so, perhaps a LOT more.
These are NOT small numbers. And they have disproportionate impact on the left today.
Why else do you think Kamala refused to choose the popular governor of the single most important by far swing state in this election as her VP choice, but allowed the campaign branding him as “Genocide Josh” to be successful? Even the center-left, Dem-cheering Nate Silver agrees with me on this point.
I see the 48% now, though I like more options rather than a forced binary, and neither seems to be the most popular with only 29% of 18-24 y/os wanting us to stand with Hamas when push comes to shove. Regarding slide 46, I really don't care much for loaded questions in polling. First of all, there's the "can be justified" aspect of it rather than "do you consider it justified" and secondly people who have some level of sympathy for the palestinians may choose to say yes anyway making it lower. I find things like limited DNC protests and uncommitted votes more telling than what people tell pollsters.
A top Shapiro aid resigned for a sexual harassment scandal and he has a history of meddling in GOP primaries so he can run against the most extreme candidate while bemoaning threats to democracy.
Ok, so at least we agree that something close to half of young leftists (since the 29% is ALL 18-24 year olds, not only those in the Dem coalition) actively choose “Back Hamas” when given 3 choices.
NOT small numbers.
We clearly disagree on most of the rest (yeah, *of course* you’re correct with your explanation of why she didn’t choose Shapiro…). But you do you.
“ It's because of the extent that the dumb things on the right are either echoed or downplayed by those at the top of the GOP. ”
But of course, even if I accepted your claim above (and I do not accept it wholly, though obviously there is *some* truth to it), my point is that what you wrote is self-evident,y even MORE true re the top of the Dems on the subject of antisemitism and pro-terrorist sympathy!
Can you really deny the latter as you claim the former?!?
‘It's because of the extent that the dumb things on the right are either echoed or downplayed by those at the top of the GOP.’
You miss my point completely with this comment.
I’m *not *defending Trump or anyone in the GOP with the above, most certainly not re: the current brouhaha. I agree approximately 70%-90% with almost all of Richard’s critiques of the right, up to the point he paints the entire right with a broad brush.
I’m criticizing Richard for his double standard.
If Richard tarred all of Dems for their downplaying of antisemitism, for NOT criticizing their own anti-semitic, terror-sympathizing Squad members, then I wouldn’t criticize him at all for his broad brush takes on the right here.
But he does not. And his explanation/defense of this is mostly the tautology of “GOP is the party of low human capital” (again, I object less to this critique than to the double standard), and the even more indefensible, more ridiculous “The Media is Mostly Honest and Good”.
Here is Biden condemning destructive acts caused by the pro hamas crowd: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/02/biden-condemns-campus-protest-culture-no-right-to-cause-chaos-00155710
I would love it if he were to say they're a bunch of no good losers who have completely deranged reasons and wildly inconsistent standards for protesting Israel, though his denunciation is fine. It's not as emotionally satisfying to you or me, but he pretty clearly denounces the problem.
Ok, fine. But this is not a denunciation of anti-semitism. It is not a denunciation of backing the terrorist grouping Hamas. It is merely a denunciation of VIOLENCE by those for whom antisemitism and backing Hamas is their cause.
It is the barest minimum. It is what the university presidents should have done but mostly refused initially to do at all. But it is not the same thing as criticing the antisemitic chants and actions nor the monstrous support for a terrorist group.
And I note with no small interest you couldn’t find anything where border czar Kamala said even what Biden did.
We are, of course, getting far off the subject of Richard’s double standard - unless you can show me where Richard has criticized Kamala, Biden and the entire Democrat party for having terrorist sympathizers and OPEN antisemites as part of their coalition…
I "couldn't find anything" because I didn't even bother googling it. Just typed in "kamala denounces antisemitism" and this came up: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/25/statement-by-vice-president-kamala-harris-3/
Is this good enough for you?
"I condemn any individuals associating with the brutal terrorist organization Hamas, which has vowed to annihilate the State of Israel and kill Jews. Pro-Hamas graffiti and rhetoric is abhorrent and we must not tolerate it in our nation.
I condemn the burning of the American flag. That flag is a symbol of our highest ideals as a nation and represents the promise of America. It should never be desecrated in that way.
I support the right to peacefully protest, but let’s be clear: Antisemitism, hate and violence of any kind have no place in our nation."
Sure. Despite the fact that it’s just a statement put out and she never said the words out loud publicly.
No doubt she wrote every word of the statement herself…
Haitian cat comments are clearly aimed at confused, low information voters. Perhaps it will help in the election
I really don't think that's where Trump needs to shore up his support haha.
“On the left, there’s more of a convergence between discourse and reality. In my experience, very few prominent Harris supporters are unclear on questions like which side is more supportive of organized labor.”
I think the second sentence is true, but it’s a more mixed bag for the actual Left than it is for Kamala supporters. This Jacobin writer refers to “Trump’s Medicaid expansion” that he apparently genuinely believes Joe Biden reversed. https://x.com/bmarchetich/status/1833903149683294255?s=46 They do this shtick with basically all of the pandemic era welfare programs: Trump deserves credit for starting them, Biden deserves blame for ending them. Nevermind the details.
The Online Left has also dwelled on a bankruptcy bill from 20 years ago to pretend Biden would be less favorable to their position on student loans than Trump. (Just search the relevant keywords on twitter; there are countless examples).
Maybe some of this is trolling, or trying to “pressure” Democrats, or Russian bots, whatever, but clearly there is some genuine belief on the Left that the Democrats are equivalent to Republicans. There isn’t the same level of misperception on the far right. And what helps Republicans is that this Leftist messaging adds to the noise that leaves uneducated working class minorities (in particular) with no idea what the stakes of a given election are.
I sometimes wonder if there isn't something to the idea that the Republican Party is returning to its 19th century roots. It was built out of a coalition of three factions: anti-immigrants (the Know Nothings), religious reformers (the Abolitionists), pro-business-protectionists (the Whigs). We don't see it because the resurgence of anti-immigrant sentiment is recent, the religious reformers substituted embryos for slaves, and there was a stretch during which Republicans liked free trade. But now it's just like old times?
"“how easy should it be for employers to sue unions for property damage caused by strikes?”
In other words, are the businesses who need government coercion against unions...
"What is indisputable is that if you are an economic populist, then you should clearly support Democrats, as they are the party that is in favor of more redistribution and giving organized labor what it wants."
This is very disputable. Government handouts and price floors on labor are pretty far from the type of "economic populism" that supports Trump. It's more the view that fewer regulatory and financial constraints on business owners along with fewer handouts to do nothing will benefit the people that actually work.
The divergence between discourse and reality also changes the incentives of campaigning. Why emphasize what you're actually going to do in office, when you can gain more friendly coverage and more rank-and-file followers by storyweaving about yourself? Supporters who care about policy aren't going to punish you if you still give them what they want, and those who don't aren't paying attention anyway - it's a win-win. When you view politics this way, the storylines of the past three election cycles and the state of US political discourse start to make sense. Canonizing Trump as a pacifistic champion of labor is just one example (well, two technically) of this opening that both parties have tried to seize on.
Obviously Trump did so more effectively, though I don't mean to imbue him with any strategic thinking ability. It's just easier to do with his particular base of support, since they're generally low-information, and he's the only candidate rejecting mainstream media and information quality control. Harris can't maintain shared delusions in the same way, because her voters populate the institutions responsible for debunking shared delusions.
Your post reminds me of an Alex Jones video I was exposed to in ~2008, where he was doing his usual bit of warning about a one-world government. I remember thinking (because I read) that his analysis totally ignored the role of the UNSC, the NPT, etc, which is a startling omission if you want to conspiracize about an organization that controls the world. So you end up with all of this engagement on something that's barely a step above X-Files fan fiction, because it's sexier and much simpler to understand than reality, even if the reality is very consequential and worth talking about on its own merits.
"the pro-market folks are still going to get what they want." I find this statement baffling. Yes, Trump pushed a bit for deregulation but how much did we get? A tiny bit compared to what remained. We are so vastly far from free markets that I do not understand how anyone can say pro-market folks get what they want. I'm pro-market so am I going to see the end of "public" universities, the privatization of social security, complete withdrawal of the state from healthcare, the end of all government-run schools, the end of subsidies for everything, and on and on.
Yes, quite shocking a reality TV star wasn’t able to accomplish all of that with 2 years of control of Congress.
Zelenskyy was a tv star before becoming a dictator, In Canada our dictator Trudeau was a drama teacher. They are all just actors and now they identify as global “celebrities “. They are all 💩
https://www.hoover.org/research/where-candidates-stand-regulation
https://www.hoover.org/research/trumps-deregulatory-successes
This from the VERY libertarian David Henderson.
IMO you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good with your “Yes, Trump pushed a bit for deregulation but how much did we get? A tiny bit compared to what remained.”
The highly imperfect vessel that is Donald Trump did more for deregulation than anyone since Reagan, and arguably did as much or more deregulation than Reagan himself (Reagan, of course, deserves credit for at least changing the arc of and discourse about regulation…)
And surely you cannot possibly dispute that we will have less net new bad regulation under Trump than we will under border czar Kamala Harris - can you?
Populism is a “weird” thing.
It is of course the exact opposite of classical liberalism / libertarianism in terms of government intervention, but it ain’t all that specific about which issues.
And that’s apart from the “Trump talks populist, but mostly doesn’t govern that way” [about which I agree with Richard 100%].
On most topics relating to large groups of people, my philosophy is usually “people are neither that dumb nor that smart”.
I think it applies here, and that Richard is mostly not correct in his claim that “if you’re an economic populist, you should vote for Democrats”. [Even though it surely *was* true 17+ years ago.]
The Democrat party and its coalition is no longer in favor of things that benefit the working lower and middle class, certainly not the white working class and the white middle class, with the exception of middle class government employees.
And the MAGA crowd understands this.
Trump’s political brilliance was that he saw this before other GOP pols and targeted that group.
The “targeting” GOP strategy (towards non-elites) before Trump was to go after “social conservatives”. But the group Trump found was bigger, especially when he drew more disaffected former Democrats into the GOP in much the way Reagan did.
Trump did the Bill Clinton “I feel your pain” thing for this group before anyone else, and more credibly than anyone else, so he’s benefited disproportionately. Richard focuses on the emotional connection Trump has with his base, and that surely exists.
But unlike how leftist commentators always try to claim, and Richard sorta does in this particular piece, MAGA “economic populists” are not being brought in to the GOP under false pretenses. The Dems with their economic policies and their social policies - and words - drove them away.
Trump was just smart enough to connect with them first - and best.
“On the left, there’s more of a convergence between discourse and reality.”
Another broad-brush Richard claim that doesn’t pass the smell test.
It is the left that hides their leftist economic policies like anti-fossil fuel and open borders in the months before elections, not the right.
I readily agree with the point that Trump himself talks populist and governs (other than on spending levels and entitlements) like a standard GOP pol.
But to claim there is more convergence between discourse and reality on the left is just absurd.
Let’s count the policy position flip-flops Kamala has made in the last 10 weeks. Decide for yourself which ones are legit, and which ones are divergence between discourse and reality:
- she’s supposedly pro-fracking
- she endorsed Trump’s “no tax on tips” idea (without mentioning it came from Trump!)
- she’s supposedly now for reducing the amount of illegal immigration and even supports building the wall
- she’s supposedly now a tough on crime prosecutor, even though she was on the frontlines of raising money to bail out the George Floyd summer 2020 looters and arsonists
- while she came out and said she is for price-gauging [sic], she’s actually supposedly not really for implementing price controls almost anywhere (and leftist expert commentators point out she’d never be able to actually pass this)
Yeah, sure, on the left, there’s more of a convergence between discourse and reality…
The argument you're arguing against at the beginning is a ploy. It's something people in elite circles but with divergent ideas use in order to seem like they're also representing the little guy and so to signal their own virtue, in a social class full of virtue signalling status games. At the same time, it does have truth to it because it's not really about economic populism but merely about liking and advocating for the liking of a certain kind of disadvantaged person.
The Cheneys think Trump will not be appointing any more Pompeos and Boltons. I'll trust them in this one instance since they know a lot more about what's going in The Blob, the Deep State or whatever than I do.
That you would trust Liz Cheney on *anything* these days, after she threw away per political career with her complete TDS, is pretty ridiculous.
The NLRB has way too much power and should be paired back. Unions are being used by the Democratic Socialists of America to infiltrate small Mom and Pops businesses in order to destroy them. These small businesses, like local coffeehouses, are not sweat shops or large factories. The DSA is training young activists to “take down the man” who shleps espresso right beside them, because he is the “oppressor” and they are the “oppressed,” part-time Ivy League college student who deserves to take away the owner’s life’s work because they are entitled to what he has earned by his own labor and in spite of the fact that he has provided hundreds of jobs to the community his entire life. No, those who support Trump are not economically illiterate and if you think YOU are the unbiased one here, you are mistaken. Unions are BIG business and are in it for their own profit. They may be a necessary evil in some cases but their power to overwhelm the little guy just because they can is a corruption of that power. Baristas are not organically organizing. They are being used. When will someone finally expose the Democratic Socialist of America for the destruction they have been committing?
A big problem with the populist working class coalition is that it’s not what your average republican voter actually believes. On average, they are much more preoccupied with culture war issues and in economics they are still on the traditional right. Only the occasional populist issue like opposition to social security reform or tariffs have actual rank and file support.
A common thread throughout a lot of your analyses is that you assume a 2024 trump presidency will look a lot like his 2016 presidency
I am far far less convinced
Aside from the fact that his rhetoric has shifted even more towards populism, the pool of populists to hire from is far bigger than it used to be
In 2016 the available pool of candidates was mostly establishment Republicans, 8 years have since passed and a lot of the available candidates were made in the image of trump
For example, while in 2016 trump picked pence, a fairly typical establishment republican, as running mate, this time it's Vance, someone who is an explicit appeal to populism. Who's to say that rest of the cabinet won't be made up of RFKs Tulsi Gabbards and whatever version of himself Vivek decided will be popular today
In 2016 the establishment GOP still existed and trump had to contend with it, today the GOP is entirely the party of trump
Are you sure that you should be celebrating these developments, Richard? After all, if Republicans will destroy organized labor in the US, then couldn't a lot of blue-collar workers who vote for the GOP for cultural and/or personality reasons flock back to the Democrats in response to this, thus strengthening the Democrats at the expense of the GOP in future elections? I mean, that's already what repealing Roe v. Wade did. Are ordinary people going to see an immediate economic boom for themselves after organized labor in the US is destroyed? Or won't they, with them thus (rightly or wrongly) perceiving the destruction of organized labor in the US as a bad thing?
“I mean, that's already what repealing Roe v. Wade did”
Repealing Roe v. Wade did not push the working class back to Democrats.
It *did* result in some moderate women, both married and unmarried, but mostly in aggregate more educated, to swing Democrat.
But that’s a very different thing.
But proles might care more about economics than about abortion rights?
Not sure what that question has to do with the price of tea in China…
Populism is a “weird” thing. It is the exact opposite of classical liberalism / libertarianism in terms of government intervention, but it ain’t all that specific about which issues. And that’s apart from the “Trump talks populist, but mostly doesn’t govern that way” [about which I agree with Richard 100%].
On most topics relating to large groups of people, my philosophy is usually “people are neither that dumb nor that smart”.
I think it applies here, and that Richard is mostly not correct in his claim that “if you’re an economic populist, you should vote for Democrats”. Although it surely was true 17+ years ago.
But the Democrat coalition is no longer in favor of things that benefit the working lower and middle class, certainly not the white working class and the white middle class, with the exception of middle class government employees.
And the MAGA crowd understands this.
Trump’s political brilliance was that he saw this before other GOP pols and targeted that group.
The “targeting” GOP strategy to go after non-elites before Trump was to go after “social conservatives”. But the group Trump found was bigger, especially when he drew more disaffected former Democrats into the GOP in much the way Reagan did.
Trump did the Bill Clinton “I feel your pain” for this group before anyone else, and more credibly than anyone else, so he’s benefited disproportionately. Richard focuses on the emotional connection Trump has with his base, and that surely exists.
But unlike how leftist commentators always try to claim, and Richard sorta does in this particular piece, MAGA “economic populists” are not being brought in to the GOP under false pretenses. The Dems with their economic policies and their social policies - and words - drove them away.
Trump was just smart enough to connect with them first - and best.