Specifically on the archaic Comstock Act. Later today when I’ll post the latest Redwood Wonk video here. In it I predict that the 5th Circuit ruling will be overturned by SCOTUS 7-2 because 4 of the conservative Justices don’t want the Democrats to keep hitting Democrats over the head with the abortion issue. It is very possible that the thrashing the Republicans took in Tuesday’s Alabama special election was fueled by the SCOTUS hearing.
But the far right exists in a social and political bubble. Thomas and Scalia homed in on the Comstock Act of the 19th century which prohibits, among other things, sending abortion products through the mail. It’s been dormant for over a hundred years. The two are expected to write a dissent which has raised concerns that a future MAGA President may feel empowered to revive the Comstock Act for other purposes.
If Senate Democrats were taking advice from me, they would introduce a bill to repeal the Comstock Act close to the election and fundraise off the inevitable Republican filibuster.
Addendum:
Sohum Parlance II 
73 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 29, 2024 at 11:23 pm
Anonymous
Menendez isn’t going run. He’s going to be found guilty.
March 30, 2024 at 5:16 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
#Neoliberalism
Biden looking to court Haley voters in purple states. Haley voters! What exactly do Republicans & Democrats have in common except, well you know.
https://x.com/axios/status/1773787507894731177
Anti authoritarianism or anti Trumpism is kinda brilliant right? If you are hyper-focused on a perceived hyper-threat you can distract from all the things we can and should be doing and just keep voting the same crew to Congress and the White House. Clinton, Bush, Biden, Haley, Romney, Schiff, it doesn’t matter as long as it’s not Lee or Sanders or Trump.
March 30, 2024 at 5:21 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
And Marshall Steinbaum may be the sole remaining leftist economist I trust and respect to explain economic issues from a leftist perspective. I’m sad to hear he is done with Democrats, but I can’t say I blame him. If your party sells you out for Republicans, at some point you have to ask why you continue to vote against your own values & principles.
I’m not there and I never will be so please spare me the lectures, what I said is I don’t blame him.
https://x.com/econ_marshall/status/1773831366528090176
March 30, 2024 at 5:27 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
https://x.com/donngash/status/1773928989133787144
Centrist: Politics is all about compromise
Me: So compromise with the left
Centrist: Oh god no, I meant compromise with racists
March 30, 2024 at 7:30 am
Anonymous
…it doesn’t matter as long as it’s not . . .
MAGA. There is a distinct and qualitative difference between those 147 lunatics in the House, and the 7 in the Senate, who objected to the vote count – not to mention everyone who voted for the orange man – and the “classic” version of the Republican Party. It’s simple: MAGA has become the new RINO.
False equivalence, both sides-ism, vacuous talking heads everwhere, have pushed the body politic to a false sense of balance that does not exist outside of the well-coifed and seriously overpaid commentariat. Criticism abounds in all the wrong directions, scattershooting for effect, dividing until there are no more “centrists” left.
I have no idea who you believe should represent us, but I’m going straight down “left” side of the ballot with my “X’s”. MAGARINOS be damned.
March 30, 2024 at 7:47 am
Eric Kirk
What they have in common is opposition to authoritarianism.
March 31, 2024 at 4:41 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
I’m so sad to lose Perstein to hyperbole & fear, but just as gratified that at least someone on the left with the intellectual heft I don’t have, is out there to push back and explain what is to the partisans some of who don’t understand how they are hurting leftism’s cause.
from embedded tweets:
Corey Robin:
People forget that Trump was in power for 4 years, w/the GOP in total control of the elected branches for 2. Why compare them to the Nazis in 1923 rather than the Nazis in 1933? If it’s a fascist party, you’d think it would do what a fascist party does when it controls the state.
Rando:
I’ve read Stanley, Paxton, Shirer, El Hai, etc.
Nazism is fluid, not static, and it develops over time, in stages. It’s not the final stage that is fascism, but rather fascism is fascism in all of its stages.
Most pp/ tend to focus on the final stage rather than the build.
Corey:
Twitter: “I’ve read Paxton.”
Paxton: “Fascism is therefore inconceivable in the absence of a mature and expanding socialist Left. Indeed fascists can find their space ONLY after socialism has become powerful enough to have had some share in governing.”
Rick Perstein: (tragically imo)
Be sure to remind them of that when they line you against the wall with the rest of us.
Corey:
This is the same kind of melodramatic nonsense you hear in every American Zionist defender of Israel. If Rick actually believed this, he’d be organizing, or at least advocating, an underground army ready to do violent battle against Trump on day 1. Of course he won’t.
I mean, seriously: Rick has a public platform. No Republican or conservative will ever listen to him; progressives and Dems do. Why doesn’t he use his platform to convince them they need to organize a militia. Say what you will about Antifa, they actually believe what they say.
https://x.com/coreyrobin/status/1774144482859991044
March 31, 2024 at 4:50 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Rando, but one I know and like:
The central task now is to unite left and center to defeat MAGA authoritarianism. That is what Rick is trying to do. Not downplaying the threat.
Robin:
It’s the height of emotional manipulation to talk about his or my being lined up against a wall after inauguration day. It’s completely beneath contempt.
People seem to forget how many times Trump threatened, in fact promised, to lock up Hillary Clinton. Even when he was president, he said he’d do it. Yet there she is, free as a bird.
In general, I’d say campaign rhetoric matters. I’d also say that there has probably never been a candidate whose words are a less reliable guide to his actions than Trump. I mean, for God sake, think about what you’re saying: Trump is a man of his word? Are you really serious?
Also Robin & pinned to his Twitter feed for this exact debate…
I’m going to pin this to my profile to save time in the fascism debate. If your real question is: Should we be concerned/alarmed by Trump’s return to power, my answer is yes. Be concerned, be alarmed, do everything you can to oppose it. It would very bad for him to be elected.
March 31, 2024 at 5:14 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
in short then when Eric says…
What they have in common is opposition to authoritarianism.
I say look around, look around at who you are fighting with and what fighting authoritarianism really means given who ot is you are fighting with.
*If* you have any socialist left in you Eric, you should know and understand the game that is being played on that inner democratic socialist, the one who just 3cyears ago thought Biden could be the FDR. Perhaps we have different ideas on what it means to be FDR, for myself it means passing federal legislation that expands the public sector doing that which the private sector can’t to lift up both the poor and the lower working class.
”but authorit…”. Let me stop you there and perhaps let’s take another look at what is really the issue from someone who understands the right so thoroughly, he rights books on them.
Robin:
People always think if you say it’s not fascism, you’re saying it’s not dangerous or a problem. Not so. I just have a different analysis of the danger. If you’re interested, here are some examples of that analysis.
https://x.com/coreyrobin/status/1774279858048086371
April 1, 2024 at 7:40 am
bolithio
Is really any surprise that when the USA supports, materially, politically, and with special/shadow operations authoritarian regimes all over the globe that ultimately this long standing foreign policy will land right here at home? Every single president in the past 50 years claims we support democracy and human rights while simultaneously supporting anti-democratic governments and groups, meddling in elections, overthrowing governments, and funding if not outright planning the very worst of the worst human rights catastrophes in modern history.
If Biden wins this year, do you really honestly think this trend wont continue? Biden has said many times in speeches how we must resist ‘authoritarian regimes’ and support a ‘international rules based order’ and ‘promote human rights’. This must be why he has sold more weapons to these governments than Trump. 2023 was an all time high in US weapons sales mostly going to the friendly, very democratic nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel.
April 1, 2024 at 2:32 pm
Eric Kirk
Jon – I’m looking around. I know what authoritarianism is and isn’t. KMUD and Pacifica Radio can air right now because we aren’t under authoritarian rule. It may not be happening in five years. If New York Times v. Sullivan is overturned by the SCOTUS majority. If the military is used to shut down protest in the cities. If tens of thousands of career government workers are fired and replaced by people out of the back woods. If state legislatures are allowed to overrule their voters. If birth right citizenship is overturned by an executive order, and citizenship of people is revoked. If Miranda rights are overturned. If the Exclusionary Rule is abolished for 4th and 5th Amendment violations. If these things happen, you will learn what authoritarianism is.
April 1, 2024 at 9:07 pm
bolithio
Right, like we will see more actions like this from our government.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/01/al-jazeera-faces-security-threat-ban-after-israel-passes-new-law-benjamin-netanyahu
I mean, its kinda already like this, that is, the vast majority of progressive/left content is demonetized and demoted online, the police is militarized in most major cities and use violence to shut down protest. I dont know about “people from the backwoods” – but there is 100% a system of connection, affluence, and revolving door in government. The courts are already stacked against the people. The web of laws over the past 40 years protect all at the top and prevent change. The incremental promise of reform has been steadily ratcheting up in the other direction.
And we are told to believe that Biden, or democrats, are a bulwark against the end of democracy. Never mind their support of authoritarian nations, or their contribution to all the creep of authoritarian policy here. We now risk authoritarianism so much that voters have no say in who will lead that cuase. You get one “choice” – the one forced on you. Democracy as we know it is at stake, and as such the best possible candidate has been chosen for you to vote for. Its a real shame (sham?) if you ask me.
April 2, 2024 at 5:27 am
Anonymous
Bolithio deploys a bunch of weak sweeping generalizations in his attempt to obfuscate the stark choice voters face between Trump, who has literally called for the Constitution to be suspended, vowed to be a “dictator on day one,” tried to overturn the last election, continues to incite political violence, promises a second term based on revenge and continues his Goebbelesque Big Lie propaganda campaign on a daily basis, and Biden, who has done none of that, delivered important wins for progressives despite constant GOP obstructionism, and most importantly, upholds the Constitution and rule of law.
Bolithio may not “support” Trump, but his propagandandistic spin is *exactly* what the Trumpists would desire from a good (useful idiot) leftist. Like if they could build and program a perfect Trump-benefitting, authoritarianism enabling AI robot, it would sound exactly like Bolithio. Lucky for them, they don’t have to, as their useful idiots are self-programming.
April 2, 2024 at 5:51 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
yesterday: graphic photos of clearly not-Muslim victims of murder by Israel. (W/ passports)
Today:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/02/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news
this mass slaughter of innocents (even if you only want to count those killed collaterally like this “oops” moment, would not be happening if the victims were white or not Muslims.
April 2, 2024 at 6:59 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
So Eric,
I agree with bolithio and I appreciate his voice here because I think it represents a great deal of the left, especially the left younger than myself and that portion of the left that is either sceptical of the Democratic part or hostile to it. Bolithio and I are not of the same mind on the Dems and I find myself commenting, often with more compassion/understanding than I do with those resistance Democrats online.
So, some more questions and comments:
a) What can *I* do that will put me on the right side of history? I vote Democratic whenever I can, Mitch has said he’d like me to be more friendly to the use of “fascism” or “authoritarian” PA says he like me to be more active in the Democratic party and campaigns. What is it YOU are asking of the great unwashed of potential Democratic voters so that they better prioritize authoritarianism that seems to be at a much higher priority, compared to other issues, than it is on my list of priorities for Democrats and the federal goverment.
b) What is a more urgent threat to Pacifica and KMUD, Donald Trump or Republicans and capitalism? Or perhaps what is really under threat for both isn’t capitalism per se given what I presume is their business model, but of liberal or leftists with sufficient discretionary income (or volunteer time) to support their non-profit.
c) Was the Fairness Doctrine authoritarianism? It prevented Rush Limbaugh from being aired without the broadcaster giving equal time to a Thom Hartmann.
d) Were mask mandates or vacinne mandates authoritarianism? Seems to me if we are going down the route of painting authoritarianism with a broad brush, the right has a much better claim to it agains both liberals and leftists alike than we have against them.
e) Regarding anything SCOTUS passes, is that indicative of Trumpism & authoritarianism or Republicanism that the overwhelming majority of Haley supporters would support too? That’s not Trump’s list, that’s those nominees are coming off of the Federalist List and Haley, Trump and McConnell would all play the same hard ball they’ve demonstrated over the past 3 administrations.
f) The military. Honestly, please think about this. Before liberals start worrying about the military please join yourself or have your children join. Can you? Would you? Like any other institution it is a sum of it’s parts and if you are worried of a right wing coup of the military, one that would start taking unlawful orders from it’s Commander in Chief, maybe start thinking about what you and yours can do to change that institution rather than enabling, as a purported socialist, a liberal or neoliberal Democratic party as some sort of imagined bulwark against a military that would stifle violence-free protests.
g) And as a government worker, there is a great deal of institutional inertia captured within bureaucracies themselve. That is what the right and liberals hate about them when there are private and non-profits they feel could do a better job and be more nimble.
h) Birthright citizenship revoked by the President? I think if that were to happen, and SCOTUS didn’t overturn that, you’d have Dobbs part two, again, free and fair elections trumping Trump or any tin-pot dictator.
But these are the fever dreams that occupy the great majority of Democrats today. I’m really, REALLY disappointed in how alone Corey Robin is on this exact take I’ve been making for years. How did panic work out for us with any other of our agenda items climate change top among them. Instead of using panic or dreaming of what could be, lets do as Robin suggests but lets not paint everything with the “A” or “F” words or else what you’ll find is we’ll have to work with Haley and her supporters for more reasons than just opposition to Trump, as we have been as Democrats for decades.
April 2, 2024 at 7:01 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Bolithio, thank you for pointing out the autoritarian/fascist Israeli elephant in the room that doesn’t seem to get any, or very little, push-back from the good people at this small bastion of neoliberalism in this small corner of the inter-tubes.
April 2, 2024 at 7:05 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
For those like me who were curious, here is another authoritarian threat that Trump would usher in, presumably in mass numbers, not where arguably necessary for individuals from a right wind Republican’s point of view.
https://www.findlaw.com/immigration/citizenship/can-your-u-s-citizenship-be-revoked-.html
April 2, 2024 at 7:06 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Also, because I just noticed I can do this on my desktop Mac…
April 2, 2024 at 7:27 am
Anonymous
Jon, who apparently still doesn’t know what authoritarianism as a form of government means, despite being informed numerous times, demands to be informed again…so that he can just ignore them again?
Well, hope springs eternal. So here we go again:
“Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of democracy and political plurality. It involves the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
Now that we can dispense with the idiotic “but wasn’t the Fairness Doctrine an example of authoritarianism?” type questions, let’s ask a far more salient question:
Which political leader and movement in our current political landscape most closely resembles the description above?
The answer is self-evident. It’s not even close.
Trump is a right wing authoritarian leader and Trumpism is a right wing authoritarian movement.
Jon, like Bolithio, is a chronic obfuscationist.
April 2, 2024 at 7:48 am
Anonymous
And of course Jon continues to misuse the term “neoliberalism” to mean whatever he doesn’t like, while ignoring its fundamental meaning:
noun: neoliberalism; noun: neo-liberalism
Needless to say (or it should be needless, if not for Jon’s constant obfuscation) neither Joe Biden, nor the Democratic Party as whole, stand for “free-market” (unregulated) capitalism, widespread deregulation, or reduction in government spending.
The example of Democrats pushing “neoliberalist” policy most commonly given by those of Jon’s confusionist persuasion is Obamacare. Which involves using the power of government to regulate and shape the market (the opposite of a”free market”) and of course involved a large increase, not a decrease in government spending.
The same can be said for Biden and the Democrats’ major recent legislative accomplishments, including the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the Infrastructure bill, the CHIPS Act, the major climate and health care initiatives contained in the IRA, etc. All involve large increases in government spending, and government shaping and regulating the market rather than taking a laissez-faire “free market” approach.
This is why Bolithio must resort to weak sweeping generalizations and Jon to endless obfuscation — because when actual facts are presented, their narrative of a “neoliberal” Democratic party simply collapses.
None of this, of course, will stop Jon from chanting “neoliberal bastion!!!” anytime some policy or rhetoric doesn’t meet his standards for perfect left-wing-enough-ism. It’s an intellectually bankrupt approach…but it’s all he’s got, so no doubt it will continue.
April 2, 2024 at 11:00 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
So, PA, this line of questions/comments began with me pointing out the danger or wisdom of trying to pick up Haley voters. Woukd you not agree they would meet your definition of neoliberal?
April 2, 2024 at 11:01 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
(click on the text bubble to get to my comment)
April 2, 2024 at 11:04 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
and I think the right has a strong anti make, both theoretically & empirically, that the Fairness Doctrine was authoritarian, again based on your definition.
April 2, 2024 at 12:07 pm
bolithio
This is why Bolithio must resort to weak sweeping generalizations and Jon to endless obfuscation — because when actual facts are presented, their narrative of a “neoliberal” Democratic party simply collapses.
Huh. OK.
Some of the examples of democrat neoliberal policy range from Carters deregulation of transportation. Clintons deregulation of wall street, NAFTA etc… Obamas bank bailouts, expansion of the surveillance state,
“After his re-election, Obama spoke to some of his donors at an event called The Wall Street Journal CEO Council. “When you go to other countries, the political divisions are so much more stark and wider. Here in America, the difference between Democrats and Republicans—we’re fighting inside the 40-yard lines. … People call me a socialist sometimes. But no, you’ve got to meet real socialists. (Laughter.) I’m talking about lowering the corporate tax rate. My health care reform is based on the private marketplace.”
Biden follows in these principles. From continuing Trumps boarder policies, to selling off wilderness lands on and off shore to fossil fuels, etc. My broad brush is based on the overall story arch of the past 40 years which have resulted in a steady ratchet to the right in the democratic party.
April 2, 2024 at 2:40 pm
Just Watchin
So…..PAC Regurgitates the out of context quote that Trump “vowed to be a “dictator on day one”. To quote Dan Akroyd…..”Jane….you ignorant slut”…..
April 2, 2024 at 2:55 pm
Anonymous
And now Bolithio has switched to a different fallacy — cherrypicking a few exceptions and pretending they prove a broader rule.
Has government spending shrunk under Biden, or grown?
It’s grown. The exact opposite of neoliberal policy.
Did Biden’s major policies — the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the Infrastructure bill, the IRA, the CHIPS Act — increase government spending and regulation, or did they reduce government spending and regulation?
They increased government spending and regulation. The exact opposite of neoliberal policy.
As to the claim of a “steady ratcheting to the right” in the Democratic party over the past 40 years? Total nonsense.
The Democratic party of 2024 is far more progressive than that of 1984, 1994, 2004, or 2014. Bolithio may not be old enough to remember, but I am.
As far as the Obama quote, the notion that anything that’s not full-blown socialism somehow counts as “neoliberalism” is simply a lazy, vacuous take.
Yes, part of Obamacare is “based on the private marketplace” — though a huge part of it, the expansion of Medicaid, is not. But even the part that is, is quite the opposite of the kind of laissez-faire “free market” capitalism that defines neoliberalism. It’s a law that involved huge new government spending and created large amounts of regulation, incentivization and disincentivization with the aim of forcing “the market” to serve a public goal: increasing access to health insurance and reducing the number of uninsured Americans. Which, for all it’s flaws and imperfections, is exactly what it has done — to the benefit of tens of millions of Americans.
As Obama noted, it’s a not a “socialist” policy (except for a large part, the Medicaid expansion, that pretty much is), but it’s also not at all a “neoliberal” policy. It’s a pragmatic program that is far from perfect, but which has done a great deal of good for a great many people.
April 2, 2024 at 5:29 pm
bolithio
Neoliberalism in the context of political theory and policy in practice is much more complex and nuanced than the first entry in a google search. There is a massive amount of writing on this subject.
https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2019/6/11/18660240/democrats-neoliberalism
https://neolib.uga.edu/neoliberalism-introduction.php
April 2, 2024 at 5:35 pm
bolithio
lol. Providing examples is cherry picking now.
April 2, 2024 at 6:05 pm
Anonymous
When the examples are the exceptions but you pretend they’re the norm, yes, that’s called cherrypicking.
April 2, 2024 at 8:38 pm
bolithio
Not exceptions anon, contradictions.
April 2, 2024 at 11:10 pm
Anonymous
“Contradicting” by citing the exceptional while ignoring the far more prevalent is exactly what cherrypicking means.
April 3, 2024 at 4:31 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
PA, do test, do we sell ourselves as the party of less freedom (ie higher regulation) or bigger government? If not yet we do both under Biden then what gives? How can a party that lies about itself beat anyone, even a fascist?
Pelosi, Biden et. al. do sell themselves as capitalists and eschew socialism so that neoliberal box is checked.
But I tried to answer your question. Has government spending increased and have regulations increased under Biden. It appears government spending as a percentage of GDP has increased and I don’t know how one goes about measuring whether regulations have increased.
Here’s the thing tho, and if you’ve been reading a parallel thread you might have picked this up, so much government spending today is simply contracting out private sector companies which really should be counted as a portion of the private spending, not public. I don’t know how you get those types of numbers but I think we’d need them to deny that Biden & Democrats have been supporting an ongoing Reagan era of prioritizing capital (ie money & the lobbiest who sell the capitalist agenda over the public interest). So yes I believe we can even use your definition of neoliberalism and when we do we are going to look at both what we are counting as government spending (for example, are we including a CA contract with AWS as government spending?) and the regulations as they relate to greater free markets, the type Haley voters might vote for vs those that people might chafe at but might be needed in the long run.
Primarily, especially when talking about neoliberalism and free markets, we should be looking at trade policies and what we are doing to favor protecting the national economy and,by doing so, the global environment and global work standards presuming we hold ourselves to the highest standards.
When the loud and proud Democratic voters who call themselves neoliberals talk Democratic politics you will often find that they are somehow associated with international free trade.
one example from my feed is @A_M_Dolan who I’ve interacted with, especially during the height of the Sanders/Clinton animosity post 2016. Also the Twitter handle formerly known as @ne0liberal which is @CNLiberalism for Center for New Liberalism.
It’s internationalism, it’s free trade with low or no tariffs (ie regulation) it’s explicitly and by their not-vested interests anti-leftist and anti-populist. They are Democratic, if their social interests happen to align with us, and they are in power and beloved by all but a handful of Democrats.
So go back to my original question. If we are the party of larger an increasing government and more regulation and the fake-populist fascist we are all so afraid of is selling himself as a trade protectionist while we are pretty quiet on protectionism, and with good reason given the interests of many Democrats and their donors, how do you think the the American people will view that choice?
Big & bigger government & less freedom vs trade protectionism, all things being equal, which they are not.
I think there is a good argument to make that if it wasn’t Trump running, Haley would beat Biden if we truly were selling ourselves as the big government party while delivering so very little as far as dividends from that big & growing government.
The bottom line is we don’t sell ourselves as big or bigger government because we aren’t that, and that is by design and not just to win elections against a neoliberal or libertarian Republican mainstream voter like Haley, Trumpists aside).
April 3, 2024 at 5:56 am
Just Watchin
Nailed it…..”When someone bloviates, he/she is speaking in an empty, pretentious, full-of-himself manner. This word is often associated with politicians, who probably invented bloviating. When someone is talking a lot and saying a little, they’re bloviating”
April 3, 2024 at 6:12 am
Mitch
Jon’s 431 makes one thing clear.
In his mind government spending does not mean that the people’s supposed representatives have decided what issues need to be addressed and allocated resources to address them. It means more government employees and a larger bureaucracy.
There it is, clearly. Finding ways to efficiently use the people’s money is not the goal. Success must not offer guidance. Instead, the goal is to have more government employees. Profit must not be allowed as a motivator, and repeated failure must be addressed by giving those responsible even more money to burn. Rinse and repeat until everyone is a government employee. Then Jon will be happy.
Yeah, we don’t have the same end goals after all.
April 3, 2024 at 6:20 am
Mitch
in Jon’s way of thinking, every one of the infrastructure improvements the Biden administration is making is not government spending. Despite those signs at the side of the road saying “your highway taxes at work” none of the asphalt was made or poured by a government worker; instead a dreaded private company was used, where a dreaded capitalist lackey would fire an employee who came to work to read the paper and nap every day.
Success doesn’t enter the picture, just control.
April 3, 2024 at 6:21 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
I was going to add for the for the people who would not take my point fairly that clearly I don’t favor bigger government for bigger government’s sake. That is not the point, the point is that bigger government itself should not be anathema. Sometimes we need it urgently (Covid) sometimes we need it where it doesn’t exist to offer choice, (public banking, public option) but always and forever it, like the private sector has its place in a balanced economy. Private sector does some things, inherently better and the public sector does something’s inherently better the discussion should be the grey areas and we should be seeing an expansion of the public sector, clearly, where and when the private sector is failing us or isn’t efficient or efficacious for all.
But Mitch, this has always been true since day one a decade ago. Yeah, we don’t have the same end goals after all.
April 3, 2024 at 6:24 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Sometimes a bigger government is called for. PA is making the argument it’s happening under Biden and that he Eric and yourself Mitch believe that it’s a good thing. I’d question if an expansion of the public sector is happening and then if it is, why don’t we make hay over it to win elections?
April 3, 2024 at 6:37 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
April 3, 2024 at 6:38 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
from bolithio’s balanced & fair Vox link…
Although questionable if it fully “reinvented government,” the Democratic version of neoliberalism forged in the 1970s that came to fruition in the Clinton era has had an enduring influence. It lasted well beyond when Bill Clinton left office and the DLC officially closed up shop in 2011. The mainstream Democratic Party – as demonstrated by the Obama administration and its allies — remained committed to growth and investment over redistribution and celebrated market-orientated solutions, public-private partnership, especially with the tech industry, and nonprofits and foundations as the main mechanism for addressing problems of inequality. In promoting the market and private sector as a means to “do good” and solve problems of poverty, the Democrats helped make market ever more embedded in government policy and American life.
My point would be it’s more than just to address inequality, it’s a belief that market oriented solutions are the default best solution and should be tried first and or protected where they exist. (Pelosi: “We are capitalists”) There is an abundance of money coming into Democratic campaigns & PACs to keep this this way.
April 3, 2024 at 7:33 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
But you need that “gotcha” Mitch, that “see it IS about control” gotcha because that PROVES the lust, desire or simply ideology of control that links the knowing or useful idiots to those that really want, simply, to be the new boss; the bossy or authoritarian boss much like the one on the right, but one who speaks the suspect language of intersectionalism.
April 3, 2024 at 8:38 am
Mitch
Here are my end goals:
Maximum freedom consistent with the above.
To my way of thinking, once conditions were in place for a democratic government, regulation would be properly implemented and we would be able to build a civil service like France’s. Until such conditions were in place, any enlargement of government is just a gift to the wealthiest 0.01%, which knows how to play government like a fiddle.
And, yes, I think your end goals are very different, and dangerous.
April 3, 2024 at 8:44 am
Mitch
And that is why I’m enthusiastic about UBI programs sufficient to eliminate poverty in the United States and funded by very steep taxes on the wealthiest, in addition to increased taxes on those now in the top third, or top ten percent.
And once government was in service to the needs and desires of democratic majorities, and not a means for the wealthy to further enrich themselves, we might agree about the job of government.
April 3, 2024 at 8:54 am
Mitch
“it’s a belief that market oriented solutions are the default best solution and should be tried first and or protected where they exist“
That is exactly my belief. It does not mean that I believe the current market is honest or fair. But given an honest and fair market regulated by a government capable of honestly and fairly charging for what are now externalities, I believe the market is a much better way to allocate resources than government dictate.
We cannot have that government while our legislative bodies, courts, and agency leaders can be purchased by those with vast wealth. The left is engaged in a pointless effort to close the barn doors while refusing to recognize that all the animals have escaped, and the wall of the barn is gone anyway.
April 3, 2024 at 1:20 pm
Jon Yalcinkaya
could you please how the populist agenda could be seen as dangerous? Is it the free healthcare? Green new deal? Policing alternatives? Social justice? I don’t see it.
April 3, 2024 at 3:54 pm
Just Watchin
LOL…..just read that it was a california businessman that put up Trump’s 175 million dollar bond. That’s gotta hurt ladies….
April 3, 2024 at 3:58 pm
Just Watchin
and this is the “re-energized” magoo. He’s really looking feeble….
April 3, 2024 at 4:13 pm
Mitch
Jon, I don’t know what a populist agenda is. I don’t know what populism is, and I certainly don’t know what your kind of populism is.
But anytime the goal is a particular way of accomplishing something as opposed to a something to be accomplished, I see danger.
The good thing about capitalism (not our kind, I’m afraid) is that bad ideas die eventually by running out of money.
The bad thing about government agencies is that failure is often rewarded with greater funding and head counts (because the job is obviously so hard, and it’s other people’s money).
I prefer the former, when it’s not via a system that not only can be gamed, but has obviously been gamed.
I believe in rewards as motivators, whether money, praise, or whatever. I base that on observing my own behavior. I believe it is demotivating for dedicated and hard-working people to be paid identically to people who want to do the bare minimum. I believe it is deadly for people who want to improve things to be suppressed in favor of doing it this way because that’s how we do it.
When something doesn’t work, try something else. Repeat until you find something that works. It’s arrogant techie style.
April 3, 2024 at 4:24 pm
Mitch
Put another way, you’re almost certainly a wonderful person, and you think people do things because they need to be done.
I’m not a wonderful person. I do things for money and/or recognition, and I think that’s the way other people work as well, once they’ve been out of school for a few years, and once they are no longer beneficiaries of the socialist world of mommy and daddy paying for all your needs.
So, yes, government is very important for creating the proverbial level-playing field in which a market can function, something it will never do once it is controlled by those with vast wealth.
And government is very important for ensuring a minimum material quality of life for all takes precedence over the desires of the extremely wealthy. Also something ours has already failed at.
I’m not opposed to government saying “we need solar power.” I’d be very opposed to a fleet of government workers doing the installations.
April 4, 2024 at 5:03 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
But anytime the goal is a particular way of accomplishing something as opposed to a something to be accomplished, I see danger.
F*ck the means, it’s the ends that matter.
I see danger in that. And please quit with your “I’m bad, you’re probably good bs.
I believe it is deadly for people who want to improve things to be suppressed in favor of doing it this way because that’s how we do it.
When something doesn’t work, try something else. Repeat until you find something that works. It’s arrogant techie style.
I’m sorry Mitch, but this is not exclusive to the public sector, you have created an imaginary monster in your mind, one that you may or may not notice the right and libertarians support. You may think on THIS subject they are being genuine, and like any other thing criticism is needed, but like any other thing government too changes if its goals are not being met.
April 4, 2024 at 5:21 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
I’m not a wonderful person. I do things for money and/or recognition, and I think that’s the way other people work as well, once they’ve been out of school for a few years, and once they are no longer beneficiaries of the socialist world of mommy and daddy paying for all your needs.
Doing things for the profit motive IS wonderful. You provide goods or services expeditiously, sometimes stuff which hadn’t even been conceived of before. You enrich yourself and your family, you pay into the broader community a portion of your income so the “wonderful” people can do their job.
The problem is we are out of balance b/c you & Reagan believe “I’m with the government and I’m here to help” are the 9 most dangerous words in the English language. Both of you wish to destroy the system as it exists to usher in a new system even if you both might disagree with the goals.
We are out of balance in the public/private functionality in our country and it’s getting worse. You don’t mind this continuing on this path, because it seems you believe the private sector is better able to accomplish goals and the government sector is, for now, hopelessly corrupted by oligarchs and must be all but destroyed. or brought to its knees, so we can instead distribute cash freely enabling an even greater private sector and with people freely & universally to make their own decisions on how to spend their money and IF they even want to choose to work to live beyond a basic subsistence lifestyle.
I’m written enough on your UBI schemes and will ban myself from the Sisyphusean task of explaining its faults and its hopeless political future, with one exception: if it’s in the news or a reaction to the news. I wish you luck in your quest to change the status quo, I simply find it a non-starter and what this unattainable goal you believe in really means is you have no plan to change what is, the dreaded “status quo”.
And honestly is that bad from your perspective? It ensures the broken #neoliberal system continues until maybe the less intelligent and less thoughtful dummies see things your beneficent way.
April 4, 2024 at 5:49 am
Mitch
True, the ends can’t be used to justify the means. But I’d still like to choose means that work, as opposed to means that don’t.
And apologies for the compliment, which you take to be insincere. It was my uncomfortable experience, decades ago, that the finest people I knew had the least realistic view of human nature. I’ve seen little reason to believe otherwise.
Government is just one example of large bureaucracy. In my opinion, the larger the bureaucracy, the more likely it is to lose sight of its external purpose and to focus, instead, on benefitting those at its top and their friends.
i have had no intention to change anything for at least twenty years.
April 4, 2024 at 7:12 am
Anonymous
I’m sure no one else cares but, correcting myself, I basically gave up on being able to change anything at all in 2015. It seems like longer.
But it was hard for me to realize I didn’t have a clue, and it’s obviously been even harder for me to realize that means I shouldn’t bother to have or express opinions. I experienced a mini-version of this in the mid 80’s but, in retrospect, that was nothing but a taste.
April 4, 2024 at 7:19 am
Mitch
To correct myself, though I understand this is no one’s concern but mine, it wasn’t more than 20 years ago, it was 2015, which seems like a century ago. It was then that I realized I had no clue, that the cavalry was just out to rape and pillage. And it was October 7th of last year that I realized what I thought of as the bottom was nothing but another trap door. It’s obviously been harder to accept that I shouldn’t bother having opinions or expressing them.
I experienced a mini-version of this in the 80s; in retrospect, that was just the tiniest taste of something I probably don’t comprehend anyway.
April 4, 2024 at 8:40 am
Just Watchin
Dr. Jilly says magoo is leading in swing state polls. She’s even dumber than her husband, and that’s a HIGH bar……
April 5, 2024 at 2:38 pm
Just Watchin
More blood on magoo’s hands….
https://www.aol.com/news/illegal-migrant-deported-8-times-115219249.html
April 5, 2024 at 5:22 pm
Eric Kirk
On the polling.
April 6, 2024 at 3:56 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
It was then that I realized I had no clue, that the cavalry was just out to rape and pillage. And it was October 7th of last year that I realized what I thought of as the bottom was nothing but another trap door. It’s obviously been harder to accept that I shouldn’t bother having opinions or expressing them.
You are the ultimate individual and victim it sounds like to me Mitch. Danger on all sides and to those innocents your big and generous heart bleeds for. How will you survive or express yourself you poor soul?
I’m sorry Mitch, I don’t like or wish to be unkind, but you can’t seem to see what the cavalry is doing in your name exactly so you have the freedom, as a free gay Jewish American male of means to express himself and to have his wealth and health protected. At the cost of those you don’t feel to be as innocent. Presumably those who fought and fight against your right to marry for their own reasons, some justifiable, some not; those that hate you for your religion/ethnicity or religious ethnicity; and those that hate what the nation for Jews does whether they are Jewish
My argument with you isn’t that you shouldn’t express yourself but to understand that those with your beliefs, the ones that prevent the system as it is from changing in any meaningful way but though the non-governmental sectors, both private & non profit, are in charge and will continue to be in charge and that represents the true danger to Americans and those who would live with us. That danger would sometimes express itself in a fake-populist leader you’d call fascist but it mostly includes normies, including many or most Democrats who have been taught, in innumerable ways, exactly what you & Reagan are selling or have sold.
In reality, it’s not Jesus that will save us, it’s only us and the most effective way of doing that that will capture that which the profit motive cannot is not small organizations whether they consist of a religious community, or a labor union, or an organized movement, or a non-profit organization but through the result of all those free and fair elections we all care so much about.
April 6, 2024 at 4:44 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
I’m not opposed to government saying “we need solar power.” I’d be very opposed to a fleet of government workers doing the installations.
Generally I’d be too, but what if we were in a recession (or depression) and we had people who needed jobs and this was a mega project that we as a people elected representatives who determined this was a goal? As far as I understand it that’s Keynesianism and it’s what helped us to get out of the Depression, along with WW II after it.
The public sector and the private sector have their strengths and weaknesses, the oligarchs and the top 10 to 30 % have effectively taught us to hate government so much that about half the time we elect a party that wants to do everything it can to obstruct government or government expansion, even if it’s been proven the profit motive is failing miserably for all but those with money &/or stability & foresight.
That’s to their benefit, but not to the benefit of the poor or working class and that’s because we’ve taken off the table one of the two most important means of organizing labor, through government even when government would be the better alternative for a myriad of reasons but the most important one is it has the ability to look beyond the profit motive and address what the profit motive misses, the tragedy of the commons.
So whether it’s a guaranteed mass-retraining of, say Joe Manchin’s coal-miners to work on solar roofs in West Virginia or if it’s an option of free health insurance and perhaps one day free healthcare with altruistic (ie “wonderful”) MDs & nurses who would like a decent salary but perhaps not one as high as in the private sector or any other number of fields where the private sector is failing us, why not provide a public option?
You know why right Mitch? It would be free and much more popular and would ultimately take market share away from those free-market alternatives which really can’t achieve the goal you are talking about (if we consider the big picture, not just profits).
Ultimately, and this is something I didn’t learn until 2015/2016 myself, it’s not the owners of these businesses who prevent this change (read Republicans), but their consumers (read Democrats too) who don’t want to go the free services route but more importantly also don’t want to lose the larger consumer base which allows businesses to keep prices lower with the larger market.
Think the “you are going to lose your doctor” panic under Obama, but more surprisingly, and more dangerously, the “you are going to lose your union Cadillac health insurance” when all Democrats were running against Sanders in 2020 and finally settled on Biden as the only non-Sanders alternative.
Here is an example from a CNN interview with Harris as a candidate with Tapper challenging Harris about M4A meaning a loss of private insurers. Couldn’t find the original interview any longer so here is a TYT clip which includes it. (I’m not a fan of TYT note do I necessarily agree with what they are saying, I didn’t bother to listen to them). Key portion at 3 min 33 sec.
April 6, 2024 at 7:14 am
Anonymous
“Sometimes a bigger government is called for. PA is making the argument it’s happening under Biden and that he Eric and yourself Mitch believe that it’s a good thing. I’d question if an expansion of the public sector is happening and then if it is, why don’t we make hay over it to win elections?”
An “expansion of the public sector” does not always have to involve a “bigger government.”
For me, and I think for most Democrats, the key metric for evaluating a government policy is whether it enables our government and society to accomplish more of the useful things that people need and want it to do — not whether, as a result of the policy, the size of the federal workforce increases.
The Biden and Obama administrations have in fact won very substantial “expansions of the public sector” including huge public investments in Health Care (Obama) and infrastructure (Biden). Neither of these required huge increases in the number of federal employees, what they did involve was a substantial outlays of public funds.
This fits under the heading “distributive and redistributive functions of government,” in other words gathering resources from the public and applying those resources to meet pressing public needs that the private sector was not meeting and/or could not meet absent that government involvement.
So when Biden is out there touting the positive economic effects of ARPA, or the important projects moving forward thanks to his infrastructure bill (the largest, by far, in a generation) or the sustainable energy provisions contained in the Inflation Reduction Act (the largest such investments in our nation’s history, by far), or the high-tech manufacturing stimulated by the CHIPS Act, he’s “making hay” of his “expansions of the public sector” by stressing the concrete benefits that these pieces of legislation are designed to achieve.
[Of course you have spent the past few years minimizing and dismissing these accomplishments, rather than “making hay over them to win elections” as you (wrongly) complain that Democrats aren’t trying to do.]
So why are Democrats, including Biden, stressing the actual benefits to the public that result from the substantially increased public sector spending, rather than making “our goal is higher taxes and bigger government” the campaign slogan and party brand?
Because they aren’t stupid. Democrats have and will support higher taxes (especially on the wealthy, and rightly so) and have and will support increases in the “size” of government, when necessary. But only as the means to a worthwhile end — and not, as you so often portray them, the ends themselves.
April 6, 2024 at 7:14 am
Mitch
Jon> How will you survive or express yourself you poor soul?
I’ll manage. Thanks for your concern.
I’m saddened but not surprised to discover that my beliefs, not to mention my wealth and power, are holding the world back from any meaningful change. Meet bolithio.
April 6, 2024 at 7:16 am
Mitch
Oh, right. I’m 100% in favor of a public option in health care. I do not believe there is any justification for private health insurers. There is no need for them.
April 6, 2024 at 7:23 am
Mitch
And, one last point for the morning and, hope springing eternal, for the long term.
Health insurance companies are the ultimate example of how bureaucracy, whether public sector, non-profit, or profit-based private sector, ends up not serving its mission, but the needs of those at the top of the bureaucracy. And there can’t even be elections to change them. The Red Cross is another sad example of this.
My suggestion to the two or three readers here who are not Jon or bolithio is to read EF Schumacher or other anarchist literature, like Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God is Within You.” Politics must navigate between the authoritarians of the left and those of the right, and it is so very easy to fall prey to the assumption that, because one group is wrong, its opposition must be correct.
Off to my victimhood, tra la.
April 6, 2024 at 8:13 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Politics must navigate between the authoritarians of the left and those of the right
The fourteen most dangerous words in the English language. #BastionOfNeoliberalism
Our country is extraordinarily right-wing for a rich Western country, perhaps only Israel is further right wing but only in it’s militarism, not its domestic policies which are in line with the remainder of the rich countries of the world. Yet centrists and those that align with them like you Mitch and the right wing authoritarians are worried about mysterious left wing authoritarians.
PA’s recommended book at the beginning of Trumpism was Bob Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians which warns of the same thing you do Mitch, authoritarians from both sides although if I recall correctly his main concern at the moment (circa Bush’s days) were the Republicans.
abut the way the mostly psychological theory is presented, it’s a danger of authoritarian followers from both sides.
Whatever, cool theory, but the reality is, all the scary words aside, we are a neoliberal country and it’s killing us, especially the poor, the marginalized and the lower working class without the discretionary money or time to navigate society so that they too can enjoy some of the fruits of both, their labor and, simply, their existence.
April 6, 2024 at 8:18 am
Just Watchin
…….”My suggestion to the two or three readers here who are not Jon or bolithio”…..
Hey vang…..sounds like mitchie just dissed your little chatroom…..
April 6, 2024 at 8:30 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Me: I’m sorry Mitch, I don’t like or wish to be unkind, but you can’t seem to see what the cavalry is doing in your name exactly so you have the freedom, as a free gay Jewish American male of means to express himself and to have his wealth and health protected.
Mitch: I’m saddened but not surprised to discover that my beliefs, not to mention my wealth and power, are holding the world back from any meaningful change. Meet bolithio.
I’m curious what this means to you Mitch. Am I antisemitic, not thoughtful or intelligent enough to be of interest, or am I simply not on the same political team as you? Or something else?
Also note that I didn’t say it was you or your beliefs that are holding (our nation) back from meaningful change. In truth, I don’t think you or they play any meaningful role in governing (I know you agree) other than they, by default, generally support the mainstream Democratic alternative to what you call fascism and what I call Republicans. Half the time, following elections, that group, the cavalry you spoke of, is us, or at the very least we become the leaders of what you see as the rapers and pillagers.
April 6, 2024 at 11:16 am
Mitch
I have absolutely no reason to think you antisemitic, unintelligent, or uninteresting, Jon. Your “poor Mitch” comment is an unfortunate place to leave things, but I’m just done commenting for a while, hopefully a long while.
April 6, 2024 at 1:53 pm
Just Watchin
we should start a pool on when mitchie reappears, although he’ll probably adopt a new moniker to keep an eye on things jon…..
April 6, 2024 at 2:26 pm
Anonymous
“PA’s recommended book at the beginning of Trumpism was Bob Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians which warns of the same thing you do Mitch, authoritarians from both sides although if I recall correctly his main concern at the moment (circa Bush’s days) were the Republicans.”
Wrong. Altemeyer’s books (including The Authoritarians), and his lifetime of academic work, were specifically focused on Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). He’s very explicit about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
It’s important to note that Authoritarian Followers, as defined by Altemeyer and identified using the RWA scale he developed, are not simply people who are inclined to respect authority figures, established institutions, and government. Quite to the contrary, they often aggressively reject and are more than happy to viciously attack any authority figures other than certain chosen leaders who they perceive as the only “legitimate” authorities, and are perfectly willing to oppose — and even violently attack — institutions that they see as opposing their “legitimate” leader.
[This is why objections like “Hard core Trump followers can’t really be authoritarians because they attacked the Capitol” or “if they were really authoritarians they would have to respect Joe Biden because he’s the President” are so silly. These objections show a total misunderstanding of what it means to be an Authoritarian Follower.]
But when it comes to their chosen leader, submission of Authoritarian Followes tends to be absolute. It would be pretty hard to argue that this isn’t an accurate description of hard core Trumpers:
“RWAs are extremely submissive even to authority figures who are dishonest, corrupt, and inept. They will insist that their leaders are honest, caring, and competent, dismissing any evidence to the contrary as either false or inconsequential.”
April 6, 2024 at 3:18 pm
Jon Yalcinkaya
Shall I find the quote PA? He says it quite explicitly and as I said, the focus was RWA, but he does not excuse the left from being subject to the same danger. How else would he get an acolyte such as John Dean to write a forward for his book?
And I agree that the danger comes from primarily from the right AND that the left is not immune, but to be an authoritarian, one needs first to have power and the left is no where near power and Mitch, and so many Democrats who share his views sees danger from authoritarianism from both the left & right.
April 6, 2024 at 3:59 pm
Jon Yalcinkaya
And prior to 2015 I would have put a great deal more stock in Altemeyer’s work, but I’d wager if he (or John Dean) were to revisit it today, he might warn that, yes we all see the authoritarian followers on the right, but he wouldn’t dismiss the tendency for authoritarian followers on the left too and he’d point directly at the Bernie Bros as so many Democrats did to get Clinton the Biden nominated despite Sanders’ appeal.
Perhaps Democrats (or those that vote for them like Mitch) might misuse authoritarianism as defined by Altemeyer but the center fears it as Mitch does, or at the very least they fake the fear to help themselves win elections. It’s a longstanding fear, one I only became aware of in 2015 but it goes back decades, I’d argue back to Richard Hofstadter and his take on populism and the nascent Democratic schism beginning in the 60’s.
“The People’s Party may have been its most prominent example, but “Populist thinking,” the historian (Hofsteader) continued, “has survived in our own time, partly as an undercurrent of provincial resentments, popular and ‘democratic’ rebelliousness and suspiciousness, and nativism.”
…
“ANTI-POPULISM BEGAN TO change sides as well. Now it was prominent academic liberals who regarded mass movements as dangerous dens of demagoguery, and who began to use “populism” as a generic term for an ugly, down-market political sensibility. Using the tools Hofstadter provided them, American intellectuals quickly built anti-populism into a towering structure of liberal social theory.”
Excerpt from..
The People, No
Thomas Frank
I realize authoritarianism and populism are different words and it might upset PA that I’m conflating them, but imo, they both stem from the same fear of both right wingers and of liberals or centrists, the fear of the unwashed mob (aka the working class, or farmers, or rurals or deplorables) and the fear of what authoritarian beeswax those types might get up to if they were ever to be allowed power.
April 7, 2024 at 4:17 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Mitch, it’s no fun being unkind, and it was unkind to say poor Mitch, but I do believe it has a point that needed to be said. Despite how marginalized you feel, you, and those who share your identity are in charge in the Democratic Party and we will fight for gay rights without question in Democratic primaries, and both Israel and capitalism with question but with your side winning overwhelmingly. Meanwhile a) Israel has slaughtered 30,000 plus Muslims and the U.S. doesn’t seemed pleased but seems helpless or pathetic in its attempts at humanitarian aid that might cross Israel and b) we continue to cut tens of thousands from the Medicaid rolls as we phase out the protections we added to the program to maintain aid during the pandemic. One of a thousand deep cuts a Democratic mission of good government or big government (where called for), to set a marked contrast to Reaganism would help to alleviate.
Having said that (again I’m sure) I really wanted to add one thing, I’m sure you’ll find that time away from SoHum can only be a positive influence in your life and I wish you well.
April 7, 2024 at 4:56 am
Anonymous
“And prior to 2015 I would have put a great deal more stock in Altemeyer’s work, but I’d wager if he (or John Dean) were to revisit it today, he might warn that, yes we all see the authoritarian followers on the right, but he wouldn’t dismiss the tendency for authoritarian followers on the left too and he’d point directly at the Bernie Bros as so many Democrats did to get Clinton the Biden nominated despite Sanders’ appeal.”
There’s no need to speculate on what Altemeyer and Dean would have had to say about Athoritarianism in the Trump Era, since they helpfully wrote a whole book, called Authoritarian Nightmare (2020), about Trump and his authoritarian followers. And no, they didn’t “bothsides” it with specious false equivacencies to Bernie supporters.
I’d recommend that you read it…but it would probably do you little good, as you claim to have read The Authoritarians, but if you did, you somehow managed to come away with less than no understanding of its actual content.
April 7, 2024 at 5:20 am
Just Watchin
LOL…..jonboy trollin mitchie, trying to drawn him back in. Too funny…..