| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the rest, if you're going to insist that neoliberalism is just doctrinaire regurgitation of Hayek, Von Mises and Friedman and ignore, for example, Peters' "A Neo-Liberal's Manifesto" and that circle of Democrat leaders, then I can understand your confusion.
The article you linked earlier as being what you considered a good definition of "neoliberalism" talked about Hayek and Von Mises, so I took it that you wanted to proceed forward with that definition of "neoliberalism". I was going off of what you linked... cause I think the term is silly and should be discarded (or replaced with a better defined term). Is there a different one you'd like to use? Also, if people continue using it poorly defined, can I still be annoyed at them and not you?
Because Hayek and Peters do not agree on multiple things. I can definitely see the influence Hayek has had on Peter's "Manifesto", but Peter's essay is not a shining example of what Hayek was talking about.
edit: to clarify, most of my problem with how people use the term "neoliberal" has nothing to do with ideology, it's purely an annoyance at unclear communication. I'd be just as annoyed if people replaced random words in their posts with the word "turtle" and made it super hard to understand what their complaint is. I'm annoyed at the buzzwordification of the term and people assuming if they include it in a paragraph that it proves their point.
Let me interrupt the conversation about various Austrian-school personalities (whaaa?) to b%@#~ about how I fell off the stairs and royally f*!#ed up my toe the day before I'm going to DC to march around again and convey my cordial disapproval of the President again.
I believe that it is not broken, but the fall was more than 24 hrs ago and it still hurts like hell and is still oozing blood where the toenail got driven back into the toe.
I'm going to be hobbling around DC like an old man...
Might want to have a podiatrist look at your fubar toe, Coriat.
Might want to have a podiatrist look at your fubar toe, Coriat.Meh. I saw a doctor about a broken toe (admittedly a general practitioner, not a podiatrist) and was told that there was really nothing to do about it. His suggestion was to just tape it to another toe.
The 24 years and still squirting blood part methinks warrants a visit to a podiatrist...
What if the future of the Democratic Party is Mark Zuckerberg?
He'll be 35 in May, 2019. He's already started campaigning. Is he going to form a new party? Will he primary Trump? Or will he try to take over the Democratic apparatus?
Zuckerberg could easily finance his entire campaign. Question is whom among the legislature can he get along with ...
Legislature?
Legislature?
The Congresscritters and Senators.
Ah. "Legislature" usually refers to representative assemblies at the state level. The federal House and Senate are usually collectively referred to as "Congress".
But why would that make a difference to his candidacy? Trump is a historic turning point because he was perceived as being free from outside money influence because of his own wealth. And his lack of connections to "the swamp" was also seen as a positive. *
*I'm talking about voter perceptions here, not fact-based conclusions.
A billionaire who never had to work a hard day in his life... He's perfect Democratic Party American Politics material! A super wealthy schmuck from Westchester County* - just what the average guy worrying about his losing his crappy job can relate to.
All jokes aside, at least he is clearly super intelligent, and has some philanthropic leanings. I just can't picture him relating to the poor and middle class in any way. I also can't picture him understanding the issues of the poor and middle class.
*Ha! He grew up about 20 minutes from where I live. And like Hillary, myself, and just about everyone around here, we're all schmucks!
EDIT: Any idea what his politics are? I just sort of assumed he was sort of a "Bloomberg Democrat" or "Bloomberg Republican" or whatever. Any insight?
But his heartlands tour is already in progress:
Ford Rouge Plant
Muslims In Dearborn
Dinner with Obama/Trump Supporters In Ohio
I can see him bringing the young tech people, Bernie supporters, and other 'undecided' mid-spectrum voters out. Of course he's not radical enough for the far left, but he's certainly not stuck with a party label at this point.
But at the end, would he latch on to the Democratic operation, or build his own infrastructure? I'm assuming that he won't go head-to-head with Trump in a primary.
Trump is a pretty good example of why electing a president with zero government experience was a really bad idea.
Trump is a pretty good example of why electing a president with zero government experience was a really bad idea.
How is that relevant to the future? This isn't the thread for rehashing the last election or trashing Trump. Do you know of a way that the Democratic Party can keep a gazillionaire from running as a Democrat? And winning the nomination?
Only if they refuse his party registration.
Only if they refuse his party registration.
Well, it's not the party that accepts voter registrations. It is the local clerk, if you live in a jurisdiction that requires party registration to vote in primaries. So the a party doesn't have any way to refuse someone.
California just requires that you state a preference, and, shazaam, you're a Democrat. Do you know of a way they can legally refuse and stop him from running as a Democrat?
As far as I know, only the states can set requirements for running in a primary. The parties don't control that.
If someone wants to run as a Democrat, there is literally no way to stop them from running. If they win the primary, they get the delegates. So unless the super delegates decide to override all the primary election results, that person gets nominated.
And I really doubt Democrats are going to be in the mood for someone with trouble deciding which party to run in.
Trump won the Republican primaries with the same handicap.
I don't think Zuckerberg's audience/followers even watch TV. He's appealing to an entirely different generation, who have been friends with him on Facebook their whole lives. (there was a period where every time I logged on, I was told I had a friend request from Zuckerberg).
Now, he may not be attractive to the Breitbart/Daily Stormer crowd but I think TV has lost its power to define knowledge and power. And I think the founder of Facebook has a much bigger reach than you might expect
Zuckerberg has already been featured in one biographical movie. (The Social Network) That won Golden Globe awards, Top 10 for the year awards, Academy Award nominations and awards, and accolades from Roger Ebert.
You think Sanders had better name recognition going into the 2016 primaries?
He talks like he's trying to avoid losing. No one wins by trying to avoid losing.
Does Zuckerberg even have a dedicated voting fanbase? People KNOW who he is, but that doesn't actually translate always to people liking him or being motivated enough to vote. Not to mention the people who would be perhaps most interested in him, are also the most fickle of voters.
At any rate, if we are talking "future", it doesn't matter which democrat wins the presidential nomination if the party doesn't control congress, or a large number of state governments. The future of the democrat party has to extend beyond presidency if it wants to get anything done.
Yes. The future of the party, for now, needs to be focused on 2018, not hypothetical celebrity Presidential runs.
At any rate, if we are talking "future", it doesn't matter which democrat wins the presidential nomination if the party doesn't control congress, or a large number of state governments. The future of the democrat party has to extend beyond presidency if it wants to get anything done.
we need something to get us to that point and there's only so much alcohol can do.
Well, there's always Joe Biden
Joe Biden has been saying yes to nearly all the political invitations coming his way, with new ones arriving almost daily
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, maybe we have moved into an era where actual politicians can't compete with even minor celebrities in the Presidential race, but I think it's a real stretch to conclude that from one case.
An argument could be made that Ronald Reagan represented an earlier incarnation of the same phenomenon. Yes, he had been governor of California first... but he clearly got THAT position based on his celebrity and his presidential win likely had more to do with celebrity than political experience too.
Schwarzenegger would almost certainly have run for president if he were a natural born citizen... instead he went back to movies. Sonny Bono was an even earlier entertainer turned GOP politician, but probably never had the notoriety needed for a presidential run.
The closest to a similar example on the Democrat side would probably be Al Franken... though he has now been a noted Senate workhorse for about a decade and thus would probably qualify as a bona fide politician. Heck, at this point he may be better known as a Senator than for his prior career as a comedian.
There is nothing inherently wrong with celebrities running for office... but it is disturbing that celebrity can get someone blatantly unfit elected. Or rather, celebrity can bring attention to campaigns that would otherwise be largely ignored, and thus allow a skilled grifter to con their way into office.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But really, it's not even that. It's the assumption that seems implicit in talk of someone like Zuckerberg that just by being a minor celebrity and having money, he's automatically a serious contender.
Its definitely a sad state of affairs but that doesn't mean its inaccurate one.
I see some serious issues with Zuckerberg, but I would give him more credit then just "minor celebrity and having money". He is by all accounts a highly intelligent person.
"At Ardsley High School, Zuckerberg excelled in classes. He transferred to the exclusive private school Phillips Exeter Academy, in New Hampshire, in his junior year, where he won prizes in science (math, astronomy, and physics) and classical studies. On his college application, Zuckerberg claimed that he could read and write French, Hebrew, Latin, and ancient Greek. He was captain of the fencing team.
...
During Zuckerberg's high school years, he worked under the company name Intelligent Media Group to build a music player called the Synapse Media Player. The device used machine learning to learn the user's listening habits, which was posted to Slashdot and received a rating of 3 out of 5 from PC Magazine.
Apparently he also worked with "the cyber" after high school as well.
Whatever issues he may have, he is very smart, and actually made (and gave away) his own billions, unlike others in politics. He also has a high level of understanding of some aspects of communication. Oh, and he can stab things pretty well with a fencing foil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We also need to remember that the rules of politics have changed. Or rather, the rules have been exploded and are streaming down like confetti. The days where a candidate could be brought down over something like being Catholic, divorced, black, Mormon, Jewish, female, or whatever the hell Trump is, have ended. Candidates can admit to having been an alcoholic, smoking weed, using cocaine, etc. The days where something like the "Dean scream" ruins a candidate are gone. I think the simplest explanation is that TV is no longer the dominate force in shaping public opinion, the way it once was. For better or worse, we have entered a new era.
-thejeff- Again, I disagree. Zuckerberg is a self made billionaire, and iconic "wiz kid". That is far more then some useless chump who inherited a bunch of money and unearned fame. Also, I think you are underestimating him by calling him a geek. He seems fairly charismatic, especially in social media (kind of important) and I'm guessing he is athletic enough to not bounce the ball when he throws out the first pitch.
While the right might embrace anti-intellectuals like W Bush and Trump, the left creams their jeans over guys like Steve Jobs. Zuckerberg seems Jobs equal in terms of intellect and business acumen, and while Jobs was a scrawny dweeb, Zuckerberg looks young and athletic.
I'm not one for choosing billionaires to represent me, but Zuckerberg is a far more viable candidate then you give him credit for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump is an exception , but i think the rule is still there. I mean hillary was done in by the fact that EMAILS EXIST ON MULTIPLE COMPUTERS! WHAT? Who knew!?
well certainly, what is and isn't a deal killer has shifted. See the GOP trying to take footage of Ossof dressed as Han Solo and making it into an attack ad, only for that to backfire and give him free publicity.
I do suspect however, once Trump is gone, that a bipartisan bill will be introduced and pass that will legally require a lot of norms that Trump flouted (Divestment, releasing of taxes, etc). That is probably going to significantly curtail a lot of people from following in Trump's shoes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like Joe Biden back in office just for the sick meme's that would follow. All the sassy Joe evicts trump memes mmmmm that's good meme.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Vidmaster @Guy I would definitely vote for Biden for the memes regardless of his policy positions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I miss the Onion articles with Biden washing his Trans-Am on the white house lawn in cut off jean shorts. Also, 38-special playing via cassette deck :)
I feel like Vice Presidents are always made fun of in some fashion when compared to the president, usually questioning their competence (Exception being Cheney, whose position was reversed with Bush in this manner). Then as soon as they are not in office, suddenly it becomes fashionable for everyone to like them.
@Pan The Onion Joe articles were so effing awesome.
@TheJeff I'd actually be in favor of always having Joe Biden, for the memes and because I think he's that rare "decent human being" that exists in DC regardless of ideology.
@CB Trump doesn't read books, that's a well documented thing he's said over and over. I'm surprised he got as much "correct" in that interview as he did. However, the article does bring up an interesting point. What would Andrew Jackson have done about the Civil War? There isn't much in the way of his writings (that I've read) that shows he'd pick slavery over the Union. He wasn't particularly vocal about the few events between 1837 when he left office and 1845 when he died (The Amistad Case, Prig v Pennsylvania, Texas entering the union)
But, lets not derail the thread with awesome Joe Biden memes or nerdhistory discussions.