It would appear that he did read Hegel, Comrade Anklebiter. ;)
I was thinking of putting something to that effect in my last post, but you beat me to it by 44 seconds.
Parenthetically, at a wedding a couple of years ago I was introduced to a very fetching young woman who was working on her dissertation.
It was on, that's right, Georg Freidreich Wilhelm.
Last I heard she moved to the woods outside of Philadelphia and was living in a trailer with her cats and shotguns.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I read Cevantes. Does that help?
|
I read Kant and Hegel in my Philosophy survey course as an undergrad, so it's not just doctoral students who are capable of reading him. You don't have to be a doctoral student to grasp the idea of "thesis-antithesis-synthesis." Hegel may be worth while, even if he isn't read generally for political economy.
I commend Mike Rowe for what he's written, even though I worry that what he advocates is predicated on an education attainment that we've placed such barriers to for so many (and is perhaps a bridge too far for some).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Written by a professor at the New School, I note.
For Citizen Seitz:
Well even the absurd has its place in the real world. If it didn't, I'd probably go to Mars.
I read Kant and Hegel in my Philosophy survey course as an undergrad, so it's not just doctoral students who are capable of reading him.
My bad.
Getting back to what the republicans could do: what if they had a libertarian next cycle, if they could dial back the crazy that seems to come with most libertarians, they could run to the left of Clinton on certain social issues and still have enough right wingbullshotpolicy to appeal to traditional republican voters.
They can't steer anyone like that through their own primary. They've spent 20 years laying down the tracks and there is no riding it except on the crazy train.
Two more from the Podesta leaks:
The Intercept:
Hillary Clinton Privately Pitched Corporations on “Really Low” Tax Rate for Money Stashed Abroad
I guess that's the ol' public position/private position at work.
"American multinational corporations are currently stashing a staggering $2.4 trillion in profits — about 14 percent of the size of the entire U.S. economy — overseas. Multinationals are required by U.S. law to pay the statutory 35 percent tax on profits they earn anywhere on earth, but the tax is not assessed until the profits are brought back to the U.S.
"This has allowed Corporate America to essentially hold U.S. tax revenue hostage, refusing to pay its taxes until Americans become so desperate that they will cut a deal giving multinationals a special new tax rate.
"This strategy has already paid off once, in 2004, when multinationals got Congress to let them bring back $312 billion in profits at a one-time rate of about 5 percent. The legislation required that the cash be used to hire Americans or conduct research and development. Corporations ignored these provisions and instead used the money to enrich their executives and stockholders, while cutting U.S. jobs.
"Both Hillary and Bill Clinton clearly envision cutting a similar deal during a Hillary Clinton presidency, although presumably they intend for the corporations to keep their part of the bargain this time."
Salon:
Leaked Hillary Clinton emails show U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar supported ISIS
Which I thought was already known, but I read,
"U.S. officials and many analysts and news reports have long denied that the Saudi and Qatari monarchies have supported ISIS, instead claiming the support was coming from rich donors in those countries. U.S. officials told CBS in September 2014 that wealthy 'angel investors' in Qatar and other Gulf states were sending money to ISIS.
"The leaked August 2014 email, however, shows that Western intelligence sources knew the regimes themselves were providing support to the Islamic State."
Actually, who, other than doctoral candidates, reads Hegel at all?
I read Hegel as an undergrad. And, I wrote a competitive about how his synthesis strategy is very similar to the path many early Chicano writers take to reconcile the ideas of multiple-selves. Rudolf Anaya is a great example of this.
Saudi Arabia continues the ages old tradition of paying bandits and terrorists off to "go bomb somewhere else"
How do you run to the left of Clinton on social issues, though? Her policy, and that of the general Democratic party these days, is "Leave the bathrooms alone, let them marry, and let them get abortions." In other words, the only way to get further left would be to actually do stuff—like the Equality Act. Like regulations. And libertarians hate that kind of thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a none American watching all this s@~! from the outside, it baffles me that out of 300 million people these are the two ass clowns that have been have chosen to potentially be the leaders of the country. Really! You guys couldn't find anyone better! WTF!
As non-American I don't think that Hilary Clinton is anywhere near as bad as Donald Trump and I'd probably have no problem to vote for her at all, though personally I rooted for Bernie Sanders. On the other hand, I find that also here in Europe (and more generally worldwide), ass clowns are suddenly elegible. (the AFD in Germany, le Front National in France, UKIP in Great Britain, Putin in Russia, just to name a few). So why would the U.S. be anyhow different? Seems to be a human trait to vote for idiots and/or criminals who would make your life much worse if they got elected.
My political knowledge isn't great so correct me if I am wrong, but don't the Democrats have superdelegates partly so that they can stop nonsense like this without killing off their chances of winning the election cycle?...
Second, the RNC needs to play an active role in candidate selection earlier on, and threaten (if necessary) not to support a Trump-like candidate at the national election EVEN IF HE WINS THE NOMINATION.
That's why, but that would also be insufficient, largely because of the timing.
Ross Douhat has a column in the New York Times about how the Republicans' fate was, basically, sealed by Super Tuesday. Trump had already built a convincing delegate lead that shaped the rest of the race; some of the candidates that might have done better in the general election were already dropping out, and superdelegates at the convention would not have managed to bring them back into the race. Add to that the fact that Trump had already raised the issue of the nomination being "stolen" from him by the "rigged" party rules, and it would have produced civil war over the next six months and a resounding electoral loss anyway.
To control Trump (and by extension, any Trump wannabees), they must be stopped at or before the starting gate, not when they're triumphantly marching into the convention at the head of their black shirt'ed brigade.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting back to what the republicans could do: what if they had a libertarian next cycle, if they could dial back the crazy that seems to come with most libertarians, they could run to the left of Clinton on certain social issues and still have enough right wingThey can't steer anyone like that through their own primary. They've spent 20 years laying down the tracks and there is no riding it except on the crazy train.bullshotpolicy to appeal to traditional republican voters.
Well, they can. They have total control of the party nomination rules; the RNC could convene tomorrow, declare Reince Priebus to be chairman-for-life and that all future candidates will be selected on a one-man, one-vote system, with Priebus being that one man, and therefore, getting that one vote.
The question is simply how many votes they will lose by doing this, vs. how many votes they will gain by cutting the crazies loose. One issue that has plagued both parties for a long time is that the party hardliners want someone unelectable precisely because they are hardcore political junkies with strongly held and generally extremist opinions. Someone who simply wants to preserve the status quo -- of which there are a lot, because the status quo is actually pretty good for most people living in the US -- is not going to strongly identify with anyone who wants to make major and unpredictable changes.
And, frankly, that's what conservatism is supposed to be -- the preservation of the status quo, not upending current social reality to return to some imaginary Golden Age when things were different (and better). [The second is called "reactionary," not "conservative."] A lot of the Republicans have forgotten that; Trump in particular, is explicitly running on reaction ("Make America Great Again" -- that's expressly a call for change), not conservation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hardliners may plague both parties, but it's only one they've taken over.
Well, to some extent, that's because the Democrats dealt with the problem earlier and more effectively. In the 1980s (and early 1990s), the Democrats were in tremendous disarray, for roughly the reason we've seen on this thread, only more so. The Democrats were defined by and dominated by a collection of special interests who, frankly, had no reason to work together other than a common dislike of Reagan. Mondale lost by historic margins in part because of a complete failure on his part to energize the Democratic base, and because "hey, at least he's not Reagan" didn't really work as a campaign issue.
Clinton had a lot going for him in 1992, starting with Bush's unpopularity and having Perot split the conservative vote, but he also benefited by being charismatic enough and centrist enough to find an issue (wealth inequality, "it's the economy, stupid!") that would tie most of the Democrats together.
Here's Wikipedia's take on it: "Clinton was able to unite his fractious and ideologically diverse party behind his candidacy, even when its different wings were in conflict. To garner the support of moderates and conservative Democrats, he attacked Sister Souljah, a little-known rap musician whose lyrics Clinton condemned. Furthermore, Clinton made clear his support of the death penalty and would later champion making school uniforms in public schools a requirement. Clinton could also point to his centrist record as Governor of Arkansas. More liberal Democrats were impressed by Clinton's record on abortion and affirmative action. His strong connections to African Americans also played a key role. In addition, he organized significant numbers of young voters and became a symbol of the rise of the Baby Boomer generation to political power."
The Republicans need someone who is able to "unite his fractious and ideologically diverse party behind his candidacy, even when its different wings [are] in conflict." That's obviously not Trump, but it might have been Rubio if the party had a tighter hold on the nutcases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Republicans are OLD. You can't just turn on a dime from 50 years of "drugs are bad because hippies use drugs and hippies are bad" to "Free pot for everyone!"
I tried reading Hegel once. It wasn't great but it beat out reading For Whom the Bell Tolls or A Farewell to Arms.
In today's news, some Republicans who left Trump over the video are returning. And, I suspect, losing what little was left of their legitimacy in the process. How do you say your own candidate's words are unacceptable, then say you're supporting him?
Oh Sutur burn me alive...
Not at you Guy, or anyone on this thread. Just the general sense that SOME HOW common sense would prevail since that's what they keep yelling about.
Also if you're a 'religious' person, I like to know how this differentiates you from those "Islamic Extremists" that you're so wanting to bomb the crap out of...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that many of them were very isolated and didn't realize the people that they represent. I'm sure most of the folks they deal with are donors, pack organizers, campaign bundlers, lobbyists, and thus they thought their base was something it's not. They've cultivated willfully ignorant, racist, xenophobic, paranoid, religious people who regularly vote against their own self interests and they think Trump will solve all their problems because he's not a politician. People like that aren't going to follow or care about your rational for distancing yourself from Trump. That's your party, your chance to take an idealistic stance has long sailed, and so now they're swimming back to the volcanic island that is Trump, well knowing that that volcano is going to blow and there's little to no chance of survival.In today's news, some Republicans who left Trump over the video are returning. And, I suspect, losing what little was left of their legitimacy in the process. How do you say your own candidate's words are unacceptable, then say you're supporting him?
I suspect a lot of them will trot out the lesser of two evils argument. Basicallly, "yes, Trump is a willfully ignorant, racist, xenophobic, paranoid, sexist, vulgar, fascist, wannabe dictator with no respect for humans, for the Constitution, or for rule of law. But at least he's not a whore queen from the lowest plane of Hell."
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also if you're a 'religious' person, I like to know how this differentiates you from those "Islamic Extremists" that you're so wanting to bomb the crap out of...
Oh, that's easy. The Christian religious people worship the God of Abraham, who is of course simply named (in English) "God." The Islamic extremists worship some nutjob intolerant god named Allah who at one point demanded that a father kill his own son as a bizarre form of human sacrifice.
Orfamay,
I've met the Whore Queens. They're not as bad as Trump. Mostly because Asmodeus never calls him back.
Also thanks for that. I'm all cleared up. (Not really but thanks)
Republicans are OLD. You can't just turn on a dime from 50 years of "drugs are bad because hippies use drugs and hippies are bad" to "Free pot for everyone!"
As Sherlock Holmes put it in the BBC TV adaptation, "one must not confuse the unlikely with the impossible." I wrote up thread that they could, and I stand by it. The question is simply one of political will, and of the calculations they make about expected gains and losses among the voters. If the party bosses so chose, they could nominate Cheech Marin for president in 2020 with Edward Snowden as his running mate; and they'd probably get people flocking in from the Libertarian party by the wagonload to vote for them. Whether that would make up for the exflow from the aging Cold Warriors and the people who want to deport Cheech for being Spanish-speaking (btw, he was born in LA, so he's eligible, unlike Tommy Chong, who was Canadian at birth) is an open question.
But if I were in charge of the Republican party, you can bet that I'd be investigating this question.
Interesting viewpoint.
Yes, and quite accurate for a good percentage. Where the author grew up is pretty similar to where I grew up (same state, different area), which makes it relatable.
It obviously doesn't address the portion who are the worst of the worst, but I agree with the author's supposition that the people discussed in the article is not all of, or even a majority of, them.
Hardliners may plague both parties, but it's only one they've taken over. Even Sanders isn't that extremist or unelectable and he's the closest to an extremist who's made a strong challenge in decades.
Even on the state level, extremists or losses due to extremism are rare on the Democratic side.
The Democrats did their own version of idealogy purification when they passed the Civil Rights Act. On one part, the Southern Democrats bolted the party, and joined the Republicans, on another, conservative voters voted out the swingy Democrats who endorsed or were seen as endorsing the act. The Party underwent a permanent shrinkage that took a major nosedive following the Nixon and Reagan victories.
Much of that, was due to the major internal meltdown in the 1968 primaries when the Southern caucous was told flatly that Hubert Humphrey was going to be given his last chance to run for the seat. They bolted the convention and nominated their own candidate, George Wallace. The split in the Democrat ranks propelled Nixon to his first landslide victory.
Point is... parties can survive neltdowns more nuclear than that what's going on with the Republicans now.
Point is... parties can survive neltdowns more nuclear than that what's going on with the Republicans now.
They can,.... but the demographics that were in favor of the Democrats in 1968 are/were against the Republicans today.
Basically, the world moves in a progressive direction, largely because anything that people want but don't have today (and didn't have in the past) is "progressive." Conservatives are basically fighting a losing battle. Furthermore, every "progressive" victory becomes the new normal within a few years; the controversies that absolutely enraged conservatives then are the new normal that conservatives will fight to protect now.
This basically means that if you wait long enough, the progressives will beat the conservatives one funeral at a time. This also makes it easier for the progressives to replenish their ranks after a meltdown than it is for the conservatives.
Matters are, of course, made doubly worse because the modern Republican party is not merely conservative, but actively reactionary; they're not trying merely to preserve the current situation, but actively to roll back things (in a misguided attempt to recreate something in that some cases never was, and in other cases, something that is no longer possible because the world has changed). They're going to have a very difficult time recruiting, for example, former steelworkers from Pittsburgh and Scranton because there aren't that many left --- most of the people now don't even remember when the mills were running, and so don't have the same nostalgia for them.
I feel like their 2013 Growth and Opportunity Project report at least attempted to address and solve some of these things... and this election cycle, they basically did the exact opposite of their own conclusions. Of particular note:
The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself. We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue.
Point is... parties can survive neltdowns more nuclear than that what's going on with the Republicans now.True, but the 60s realignment didn't involve the same kind of trap the GOP is dealing with.
I'm not sure about that. Or rather, yes, but for reasons other than the ones you cite.
An extreme component of the base didn't seize control of the nominating process, as we've seen with the Tea Party.
Er, what? You don't think the civil rights brigade constituted an extreme component of the base? The "solid South" had been a bastion of Democratic votes and Jim Crow for more than a hundred years, linked to Northern labor by the fact that neither group had enough money to vote Republican. (That was basically the coalition that FDR put together in the 1930s).
The Dixiecrats bolted in the mid 1960s, and the labor movement started to collapse in the 1970s, and then more or less crumpled completely under Reagan/Bush. The only group left standing was the civil rights brigade, which, as I pointed out, was unable to work together long enough order toppings for a pizza -- which is why the Democrats were unable to win the Presidency between 1968 and 1992, barring one of the most glaring screwups in US history (Watergate).
The Republican base is both shrinking and becoming more extreme.
Becoming more extreme isn't a problem (in the long term) if you expect public opinion to shift your way in the equally long term. Shrinking is only a problem because of the demographic shifts I mentioned. Basically, they're going to run out of angry white males soon. They need to find issues that will draw in angry white females, angry Asians of whatever gender, and small blue furry creatures from Alpha Centauri who aren't happy with Clinton's policies.
More important, they need to find happy white males who like the status quo and can be counted on to vote to preserve it, along with happy white females, happy Asians, and happy blue furry creatures from Alpha Centauri, because that's really the only way that a conservative party can prosper. (That's one reason the plutocrats have always voted conservatively. If you're a millionaire, life is pretty good for you right now, and you don't want to change that.)
I feel like their 2013 Growth and Opportunity Project report at least attempted to address and solve some of these things... and this election cycle, they basically did the exact opposite of their own conclusions. Of particular note:
The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself. We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue.
I dunno.... one of the things that brought Trump to the top, I think, is his ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, the genuinely reactionary crowd. Romney ran in 2012 on what was basically a conservative ticket. Trump won the nomination in part (IMHO) by taking conservatism past its natural limits to actual reaction.
The problem with this is that the reactionary crowd is self-limiting in so many ways, and it doesn't play well with in the general election. Which is to say, every experienced political operative knows that you need to be competitive in the primaries with the base, but you need to leave yourself room to pivot to the center for the general -- Trump either didn't know that, or simply didn't care. So he was able to stake out a position farther to the right than anyone else, and bring in lots of new (primary) voters on what amounts to an outright fascist ticket, but it's not clear that there are enough fascists to let Trump win the presidency. Or for the Republican party to make long term plans about offering Fascism as their main platform, esp. in a minority-majority country.
In other news, despite Trump's claims that his words about grabbing women were just talk, quite a few women are coming forward, claiming otherwise.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Trump says concussions are just "little dings on the head"
I have a metal bucket and Louisville Slugger, shall we see?
For Science!!!!