4 ms·

"We don't want no government run healthcare, and keep your goddam hands of my medicare!" - angry person at Obama rally, 2008. Watching the comment boards on al

by jariel 6y ago

"We don't want no government run healthcare, and keep your goddam hands of my medicare!" - angry person at Obama rally, 2008. Watching the comment boards on all of the various sites, it was hilarious to see FoxNews commenters recently rally behind Trump's $2K last minute populist wrench-in-the-works veto threat/demand. All of a sudden 'empathy for working people' became a really important issue! It was always there of course among rank and file working class, they just needed someone 'patriotic!' to say it. And then the other articles would lament socialism with bated breath. I'm not taking sides here, other than to point out this one very specific and recent populist issue very viscerally demonstrated how this can happen. I should say it's also not entirely duplicitous, the same policy can be arrived at via different principles. In particular, populist-Constitutionalism can be a funny thing when it clashes with ideology, for example, the 1st Amendment doesn't protect 'free speech' at all in the way people think it does, many are surprised to learn. Edit: I should add, in the months leading up to the budgetary standoff, as 'one party' was pushing hard for said stimulus checks, there was no support at all among the Fox News commenting section, at least from my observance. And then when some 'other person supported it' the support was loud and clear.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> And then the other articles would lament socialism with bated breath. FWIW there is a line of reasoning in which neither of these is inconsistent. The strongest opposition to socialism is really opposition to central planning, with the consequent inefficiency and corruption that tends to imply. Giving everybody a uniform amount of money is about the smallest amount of central planning you can have and still be said to be doing anything. The decision of what to do with the money goes to the individual rather than the party apparatchiks. It's something you can do (help people) without doing the thing you don't want to do (give power to bureaucracies).
- jariel 6y ago
  Yes, you can try to bend that reed in the wind, but mass welfare and social assistance is fundamentally, straight up socialism. There is a completely unambiguous divide on that issue in the regular political context - Democrats are 100% on the side of more personal stimulus, and Republicans entirely on the other side. That war plays out like clock work every budgetary period. Trump's last minute monkey-wrench was really interesting for a whole slew of reasons beyond the scope of this, the flip-flop was crystal clear among the commenting proles. The evidence, is of course that 'large stimulus checks' had been pushed by the Dems for months (!) leading up to the final negotiations, and nobody thought they were a good idea until 'Trump Said It'.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    But that's really just the other members of the coalition fighting over the pie. If you send people checks, the money comes from somewhere. The somewhere is more taxes or less military spending or something like that. So they fight sending people money primarily because they want to use the money for something else. The opponents aren't the anti-socialist crowd, they're the pro-defense spending crowd. Also: > There is a completely unambiguous divide on that issue in the regular political context - Democrats are 100% on the side of more personal stimulus, and Republicans entirely on the other side. Keep in mind that "tax cut" and "giving people money" are economically equivalent. EITC was created and expanded under Republican administrations.
    - jariel 6y ago
      Yes, but: Both of your comments are out of sync with crude, real-time populism. $2K checks means "MONEY FOR ME NOW" to the proles, ideas like 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich), or 'we have to pay for other things over there or' 'but the deficit is big!' - are all rational, but ultimately second order thinking. Not populist. Those matter to people 'paying attention'. Most people are not. You're also missing the fact that it's a very poignant 'flip flop' in that for months, the 'Evil Nancy Pelosi and AOC' had been pushing for exactly that, and were ridiculed for it. Trump's move was savvy: he wanted to put Mitch McConnel in a corner and he really did, and he was smart enough to know that his followers are not ideological and will get riled up and support pretty much whatever he says. Especially if it's 'free money'. It's a really crystal clear example of flip flopping among the proles, in this case, purely on the basis of individual populism. And again I'm not taking sides here, I'm not saying whether it's a good or bad idea etc. just realpolitik populist observation.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > ideas like 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich), or 'we have to pay for other things over there or' 'but the deficit is big!' - are all rational, but ultimately second order thinking. Not populist. Those matter to people 'paying attention'. But those people (i.e. McConnel) are the ones opposing the $2000. Sending the money is hugely popular with the public, including Republicans. Also: > 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich) The top marginal rate has been in the 35-39.6% range since 1993. And before then it was lower.
dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
You're misattributing that quote. It comes from a letter Obama received from a woman when he was president (by his telling).
- jariel 6y ago
  It's from my personal memory of seeing the woman on the News yell at him, which I remember because I just couldn't stop laughing. Unfortunately, I can't find the reference, but while trying I did come across some references to him also talking about letters he had received to that effect.

by jariel 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> And then the other articles would lament socialism with bated breath. FWIW there is a line of reasoning in which neither of these is inconsistent. The strongest opposition to socialism is really opposition to central planning, with the consequent inefficiency and corruption that tends to imply. Giving everybody a uniform amount of money is about the smallest amount of central planning you can have and still be said to be doing anything. The decision of what to do with the money goes to the individual rather than the party apparatchiks. It's something you can do (help people) without doing the thing you don't want to do (give power to bureaucracies).

jariel 6y ago
Yes, you can try to bend that reed in the wind, but mass welfare and social assistance is fundamentally, straight up socialism. There is a completely unambiguous divide on that issue in the regular political context - Democrats are 100% on the side of more personal stimulus, and Republicans entirely on the other side. That war plays out like clock work every budgetary period. Trump's last minute monkey-wrench was really interesting for a whole slew of reasons beyond the scope of this, the flip-flop was crystal clear among the commenting proles. The evidence, is of course that 'large stimulus checks' had been pushed by the Dems for months (!) leading up to the final negotiations, and nobody thought they were a good idea until 'Trump Said It'.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  But that's really just the other members of the coalition fighting over the pie. If you send people checks, the money comes from somewhere. The somewhere is more taxes or less military spending or something like that. So they fight sending people money primarily because they want to use the money for something else. The opponents aren't the anti-socialist crowd, they're the pro-defense spending crowd. Also: > There is a completely unambiguous divide on that issue in the regular political context - Democrats are 100% on the side of more personal stimulus, and Republicans entirely on the other side. Keep in mind that "tax cut" and "giving people money" are economically equivalent. EITC was created and expanded under Republican administrations.
  - jariel 6y ago
    Yes, but: Both of your comments are out of sync with crude, real-time populism. $2K checks means "MONEY FOR ME NOW" to the proles, ideas like 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich), or 'we have to pay for other things over there or' 'but the deficit is big!' - are all rational, but ultimately second order thinking. Not populist. Those matter to people 'paying attention'. Most people are not. You're also missing the fact that it's a very poignant 'flip flop' in that for months, the 'Evil Nancy Pelosi and AOC' had been pushing for exactly that, and were ridiculed for it. Trump's move was savvy: he wanted to put Mitch McConnel in a corner and he really did, and he was smart enough to know that his followers are not ideological and will get riled up and support pretty much whatever he says. Especially if it's 'free money'. It's a really crystal clear example of flip flopping among the proles, in this case, purely on the basis of individual populism. And again I'm not taking sides here, I'm not saying whether it's a good or bad idea etc. just realpolitik populist observation.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > ideas like 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich), or 'we have to pay for other things over there or' 'but the deficit is big!' - are all rational, but ultimately second order thinking. Not populist. Those matter to people 'paying attention'. But those people (i.e. McConnel) are the ones opposing the $2000. Sending the money is hugely popular with the public, including Republicans. Also: > 'tax cut' (which FYI usually are targeted at the rich) The top marginal rate has been in the 35-39.6% range since 1993. And before then it was lower.

dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago

You're misattributing that quote. It comes from a letter Obama received from a woman when he was president (by his telling).

jariel 6y ago
It's from my personal memory of seeing the woman on the News yell at him, which I remember because I just couldn't stop laughing. Unfortunately, I can't find the reference, but while trying I did come across some references to him also talking about letters he had received to that effect.