Demographics won't save the Democratic party unless this lurch rightwards best illustrated in the person of Ted Cruz is actually indicative of overall GOP policy and candidates.

There will always be a group of center to left and a group of center to right, and people will drift from one group to the other. All the talk about either party being a permanent minority is over looking that fact.

Now the Dems need to have a better brand, but most elections are settled within a ten point spread. The Dems or GOP may end up with a different name, but the basic groupings will always be there.

Meanwhile in Washington...for the 63rd time:

House fails to override Obama's veto of healthcare law repeal | Washington Examiner

I think this is a good reason to spend money. I don't know how much is too much but $1B seems a reasonable amount for a shot to significantly advance the cancer battle.

Obama names cancer task force - CNNPolitics.com

I really, really doubt this is true, but I would not put it past the Repbulican Party these days:

Iran Makes Damning New Claims About GOP Trying To Sabotage Obama’s Prisoner Exchange

Henry Kissinger gives that a thumbs up.

If you are inclined to dislike the GOP, you will think it is true. If you are inclined to like the GOP, you will think that it is false.

While I dislike the GOP, I certainly trust them more than I trust Iran, so I'd need more evidence before I believed this.

I'd like a more unbiased source to report it first before I give it even the smallest amount of credence.

Well, how about we not give a fuck about that and get the truth instead? Does that even matter anymore? And if there is no proof, then I guess the slander points are noted. This is Yellow Journalism at it's finest. I wish it weren't effective, but I know people will fall for it.

+1

I got it off my facebook thread where there was numerous articles, just clicked on the first one there :)

Well, unfriend that idiot. :)

The truth does not get clicks. Something pointing out that the other side eats babies and kicks puppies gets shared.

I'd have to "unfriend" Facebook-I got it off their newsfeed. :) I'd be curious to see if anyone gets this from a more "professional" news organization-wasn't on CNN when I checked (no jokes)

Wasn't sure where to put this, but I figured this thread somewhat works.

Why Is Healthcare So Expensive? | Yale Insights

I think transparency is the key. Transparency in prices. What other service do you buy that you do not know the planned/estimated cost before making a decision?

Not alot of interesting Obama specific news. Cruising around I saw

-- Not attending Nancy's funeral
-- Bibi still PO'd and dissing Obama
-- Obama and Trudeau bromance
-- Still evaluating candidates for Scalia
-- Approval rating is at 48-51% on different polls (a noticeable improvement since the beginning of the year)
-- Visiting Cuba but no meet with Fidel
-- Drones still knocking off terrorists

He must be enjoying all the attention paid to the presidential race. Good for him, he deserves a break.

LMAO! He deserves a break. Oh Good heavens...it's an 8-year career...set for life. Doesn't need to work the last year of it. Take a year off, dude. You deserve it because, unlike every other President...you just, well...deserve it! :)

Hey Dutch:

It's a sad reflection on our country that this problem, which is becoming increasingly more obvious, is absent from the political discussion.

Haha! Damn it feels good...

I really do think this was the right thing to do. Kudos to Obama for making it happen.

I think there's a pretty good chance that Cuba and US ties will really take off.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/travel...uba/index.html

So did Cuba enact and enforce some new laws lately that ban baseball players and rock n roll fans from working hard labor in cane fields?

You're such a terrible cynic, Dutch.

I think his cynicism is working rather well IMO

Why thank you! To both of you. :)

Meanwhile in crazy Michelle Bachmann land..

Michele Bachmann Says God Sent Brussels Attacks to Humiliate Obama | Mediaite

Kudos to Obama on preventing this. I'm sure smart tax/financial wizards will figure some/other ways around the new rules but I'm glad Obama has taken a stand here.

A large, global consulting company I'm familiar with has been incorporated in 2 foreign countries to maximize tax savings while taking most of its income from the US. Just not right and think something should be done about it.

Pfizer-Allergan merger scrapped after Obama cracks down on tax breaks - Apr. 6, 2016

I wasn't entirely sure where to put this, but I didn't think it really needed its own thread either. An absolutely amazing essay written by Vox editor Emmett Rensin (a self-defined socialist, FWIW) on the corrosive influence of "smugness" in American liberalism:

The smug style in American liberalism - Vox







Anyways, read the whole thing. It's one of the best political articles I've read in a loooong while.

To what extent did liberal elites drive away "the dispossessed"* with their smugness and to what extent did conservative politicians attract them by pandering to them?

How much is liberal "smugness" a perception manufactured by conservative talk radio and Fox News? Were "the dispossessed" really driven away by smug liberal arts professors at elite institutions and by the New York Times? Or were they driven away by being told what liberal arts professors at elite institutions and the New York Times thought of them by, again, conservative talk radio and Fox News?

Karl Rove and Frank Luntz made "liberal" an epithet. Sure, the attitudes of some liberal elites probably helped, but we are talking about a cadre of campaign strategists who turned making stuff up into successful electoral strategy.

I mean, I don't know what to do with this essay. Yes, "smugness" exists. I'm fine with most of the examples used. But is the conclusion that we can't have vibrant liberalism if the beneficiaries of those policies are excluded from the discussion? OK, I can buy that. But how do we bring them back to the table? Do they even want to come back to the table? White, working-class Americans have bought the GOP's "lower taxes and less government means more jobs and money for you" mantra hook, line and sinker, [i]despite all evidence that it doesn't actually work." We can listen, we can explain, but honestly, it's gone and that type of discussion in the context of politics was euthanized and buried by the soundbite.

In this vein I'd argue it's more accurate to view "smugness" as a defense mechanism. As the essay points out, it has its roots in essentially a classist view of the world that was openly espoused in politics through mid-century. Then we (liberals) became embarrassed by it and moved away from it, before coming back to it as a release as we lost the culture wars.

To this point The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was a catharsis, not a policy platform. We weren't attempting to convince people by pointing out the superiority of our positions. We were commiserating that we simply couldn't get through. Hamilton Nolan's post on Gawker that the essay cites is an angry polemic, not a statement of intellectual superiority.

Like I said, I don't know what to do with this essay. "Smugness" is corrosive to the discussion. Got it. Now what?


*I think Ben's made the similar point in one of these threads about blacks also being on the receiving end of "smugness". Apologies if I remember that wrong.

There article talks about about the whole "What's the Matter with Kansas" nonsense, which is not a conservative creation. It talks about The Daily Show, which is not a conservative creation. And simply detailing it as a catharsis and calling Nolan's post a polemic and therefore saying it shouldn't have any effect on the national dialogue is fooling yourself. These 'catharsis' and 'polemics' indicate that these folks simply don't respect white working class people. Regardless of whether it's an 'intellectual' response, it indicates the inner mentality of the people watching.

The notion that saying well, dialogue is gone, and listening or explaining can no longer work, so why not ridicule is a self-fulfilling prophecy. And Trump is showing that white working class Americans aren't necessarily all into the GOP's low government capitalism - a core of that is free trade, and Trump supporters are flocking to the guy who says, no we need to protect our industries with tariffs. The GOP's low government capitalism has been ok with immigration, even looked the other way with illegal immigration. And now Trump is saying no, we need to clamp down on immigration. The white working class is actually not following the GOP's mantra hook, line, and sinker and their move to Trump actually seems to indicate that there may be somethings far more complicated going on below the surface... but you'll never get there if you treat these folks with ridicule and sarcasm.

Well, call me cynical then, but I don't think liberals are getting white, working-class Americans back because I don't think white, working-class Americans want liberal policies.

White working class Americans are not voting for Trump because of his tariff positions (or even in spite of them).

I believe a decent amount of them are - or at least part of the whole. There is a whole bunch of white working class people who blame globalized capitalism for their lot, privileging businesses over common people (this is something that the Republicans and Democrats do in their view), and free trade agreements part of that critique. They feel that their jobs in manufacturing have been outsourced, and that's due to NAFTA and other pro-trade policies (which, IMO, also inflames the anti-immigrant sentiment). Trump is channeling the rhetoric of Buchanan - who main focus was on trade deals.

I'm a liberal. And I think that this article really does hit on something that I see as a problem with liberalism right now.

Speaking generally--there are a fair number of liberals I know who care more about being more correct than you than they do about trying to convert you. That it matters more to them that they be right and you be wrong about, say, gay marriage, than they do the hard work of bringing you over.

Now, that's certainly not all liberals. But most of my facebook friends are liberal, and the ones who seem the most engaged politically will (for example) share some story about some no-name state legislative back-bencher in, say, Oklahoma, who compares homosexuals to dogs. And then they all comment and comment and comment to each other about how wrong that is. And then I guess they all feel better about themselves. But I am not sure what good that did.

Convincing people is hard. Making fun of people you think are wrong is easy. And I see too many liberals being easy.

I think that this board actually gives us a skewed view of the worst of each side. In real life, I pretty much avoid political discussion except with people who agree with me, or when I get anti-Obama email forwards from my racist aunt.

Even though this is the internet, I actually see much more intelligent and nuanced conservative thinking here than I do in real life (with a few exceptions like my Brother In Law). Like, molson and I are both appellate lawyers. And, I suspect, if we worked in the same office, we would have sniffed out each other's politics and just avoided political discussion. It would have been easier to just avoid awkward moments by the coffee maker and talk about the NFL draft instead. But, because the board gives us a bit of distance, we are able to post politically, and, I hope, give each other some food for thought.

But that kind of basic exchange does not seem to happen nearly enough on the outside. Conservatives tell me I'm going to hell or that I am naive. And liberals tell conservatives that they are too stupid to know what's good for them (and Lord save Blacks or Hispanics from liberal finger-wagging if they ever decide to be conservative). And then we all wonder why the country is split down the middle.

This most definitely! I actually was thinking about this board somewhat. I mean we all KNOW a Trump supporter here. And yet, we'd never claim that JIMG was stupid or was just being 'duped'. We may not be able to convince him (though we may try), but we realize that his viewpoint is based on a different morality and political viewpoint.

However, to JIMGs we (I'm talking about fellow liberals) read about or hear about, a good portion of us believe they are rubes who are simply too dumb to figure out they are being lied to. And then say our policies are there to help those same people.

As an aside, I'd also like to point out that the article is written by a socialist, not some conservative saying "don't be mean to my people". He's writing it because he wants liberals to focus on moral and political policy differences and debate on those ends, where somethings may actually get done, as opposed to treating the white working class as poor dumb fucks who can't tell what's really good for them.

But he completely ignores the Great Sorting of the last forty years. The idea that working whites abandoned the Dems because of smugness is ridiculous whether or not smugness is a problem today. Working whites abandoned the Dems as the parties coalesced around ideologies more than geographies. The working whites, especially in the South, were always more conservative than the post war Dems that embraced liberal economics and, starting with civil rights, social liberalism. They naturally found a home in the GOP that was always economically conservative and after civil rights embraced social conservatism.

I'll agree the urban Dems too often dismiss the valid concerns of rural voters, and I'll agree that a lot of rural voters don't like the archetype of liberal Dems, but that doesn't mean a less smug group on DailyKos would swing conservative voters back to the Dems.

Counterpoint: Democrats can’t win white working class voters: The party is too closely identified with blacks, Latinos, and other minorities.

Key quote:



Democratic legislative policy, where it comes to programs for the poor, hinges on the social contract concept that people are willing to spend to help others. This is as opposed to the Republican concept of self-reliance, whereby you take away any and all "artificial interference" and allow people to create their own success. Yes, I'm generalizing.

Working class whites, however, demonstrably don't want to pay taxes to help others. Even if they benefit from government programs themselves. This isn't an entirely irrational view, to be fair. One can agree to pay $X taxes for $Y benefit, but the problem is when someone else is getting 2x$Y benefit for the same taxes paid (or less). Especially true if one doesn't really believe in the social contract.

Again, sure, "smugness" is corrosive to the liberal discourse. It's not the reason Democrats are losing working-class whites.

I think both of you are ignoring the point of the article to advance a different narrative. Rensin NEVER said that smugness lost the white working-class. In fact he explicitly says that smugness of the American left is a consequence of the loss of the white working class. He points out that the reason working class whites left is a side tangent to the point he's making:



The article is more about how does American liberalism relate to the white working class today. And how can it claim to stand for the interests of the working class if it actively disdains them.

White working classes may indicate they don't want to pay taxes to help others now, but it wasn't always that way. For example:

The last few paragraphs gets to Rensin's point (and he admits that, yes, it may be too late - but I don't necessarily accept that). It's a call to a greater liberalism, one that actually cares about the people it says it is trying to help. Recall, Rensin is a socialist. He doesn't think the Republicans are better than the Democrats - he wants the Democrats to do better (which I'm pretty sure also includes a more robust program to help the poor):

Heh. Found this from 6 years ago:

Actually I found the most interesting quote the last two paragraphs (something that Rensin would 100% agree, I'd think):


While, of course, I do happen to be a Clinton supporter, I think this notion of pushing universal policies, in the guise of what Sanders is looking at, may be a decent way of enticing some of the white working classes back - there is indeed a reason why there is a slight overlap between Trump and Sanders supporters - which some Sanders people saying, they may vote for Trump.

So in other words, 'smugness' is the response as opposed to violence or throwing some sort of tantrum. OK. Other than that, you're just pointing out the Democratic party lost Dixiecrats who were fine with having a bigger federal government that intervened in economic matters but not one that tried to step in regarding civil rights.

It's not an either/or between smugness, violence, or tantrum throwing. One can try to pursue policies that have some common interests, and you know, it's not as if Blue Dog Democrats disappeared after the 1960s - though it is failure of the Democratic party to prevent their continued picking off.

But if smugness isn't the cause of the abandonment of the white working class, why would less smugness bring them back? Shouldn't we be looking at the cause of the abandonment?

Who got the ACA passed? Who fought to keep SCHIP around? Who increased the funding of Pell Grants? Who opposed cuts to social services from 2000 to 2008?

Are these not things that help the people Rensin is describing? If not, what things should we be working on?

This is what annoys me. I looked at Rensin's twitter feed and surprise he's a Sanders' supporter. Here's a key tweet: Emmett Rensin on Twitter: "Psst
Hey kid
I heard you like incrementalism
did you know that Bernie Sanders is an incremental compromise between liberalism and the left?"

This is a well-traveled road at this point:

• An activist wing of the Democratic party says that not enough is being done on X
• Democratic "establishment" points out that actually they managed to do A and B, are working on C, but the GOP is going to successfully obstruct D and E.
• Activists shout that it isn't enough
• "Establishment" says we feel your pain, really we do, and we'll keep working, but this here is reality right now
• "Don't tell me about reality! You know nothing about me!"
• "OK, I understand and I agree, I'm not in your shoes. Let me go flagellate myself in the blogosphere for a while. Oh and by the way, could you come out and vote in the mid-terms so we can maybe do D and E from above?"
• "No way! I'm not voting for you! You do nothing! In a way, you're worse than the Republicans! You're bad and you should feel bad!"
• GOP posts significant wins in midterms.
• Activist: "See! You suck! Now make the changes we want or we're leaving the party!"
• Establishment: I have a fucking headache.
• FIN

This, of course, is the necessary drawback of having a "big tent" party. Such is life.

Look, if we're going to talk about how smugness poisons liberal discourse, could we also talk about the impact on intra-party discourse from things like disruptive hysterics, unrealistic demands, casual acceptance of GOP talking points, refusal to listen to reasoned arguments and outright demonization of upper-middle-class Democrats who apparently have the temerity to want to have a say in the direction of the party?

His main point being that by being smug, thinking the white working class is just dumb, IS distracting the left from looking at the causes of abandonment. Instead of looking at moral or policy questions, too many on the left simply think well, they are just rubes.

Note, he does not say that the right is any less wrong, but that their wrongness is based on incorrect morals or policy decision making, rather than lack of intelligence. I recall him sending a tweet which basically said something like the KKK is a product of people of ordinary intelligence who are morally vile and evil people, rather than rubes who don't know better.


To a certain extent. But a lot of these programs are, as you are well aware, couched in terms of "helping the middle class". It is as if the entire political discourse has been wondering what the middle class are going to be happy with.

I'm sure you have also seen the strange phenomenon of Sanders supporters whose second choice is Trump. Part of it, I think, is the idea that Trump doesn't belong to a group that talks down to poor white working class voters (I don't think Hillary Clinton does either, FWIW, which is why she had so many of their votes in 2008 - but what she has been associated with, the liberal establishment, definitely does). Interesting this also drives the narrative, that I've seen quite a bit, that a new realignment in American politics is coming and it may revolve around the Democrats becoming the meritocratic cosmopolitan liberal party which focuses on identity politics, while the Republicans go further into becoming a right-wing populism party.