Sunday Open Thread [6.26.16]
Longtime columnist George Will has officially left the Republican Party, he told a group of conservatives on Friday. Will, a conservative columnist for the Washington Post, confirmed to PJ Media that he switched his Maryland party registration from GOP to unaffiliated.
At a meeting of the Federalist Society Friday in D.C., Will told the group it’s worth refusing to back Trump even if it hands the election to Democrat Hillary Clinton. “This is not my party,” he told the group. “Make sure he loses. Grit their teeth for four years and win the White House.”
A new CNN/ORC poll finds President Obama’s approval rating remains on the upswing, with 52% now approving of his performance as president, now five points above the 47% who approved in January.
The Associated Press on the big difference between the UK and the US: “Widespread economic angst. Intense opposition to immigration policy. The rise of populist and nationalist sentiments, particularly among less-educated and older white voters. The politics behind the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union sound awfully familiar to the politics that have propelled Donald Trump to the Republican presidential nomination.”
“But before saying the victory by the ‘leave’ side is a harbinger of a Trump victory on Election Day in the United States, it’s wise to consider the many differences between the two allied nations with historic ties like few others.”
“The greatest difference: The United States is a significantly more racially diverse nation.”
The Democratic Party Platform looks pretty progressive:
The platform draft committee took a first step toward giving Sanders a major concession, voting to adopt language in support of a $15 minimum wage. […] The panel also aligned itself with progressive ideas such as abolishing the death penalty and expanding Social Security, the Associated Press reported. The minimum wage language adopted echoes a common refrain by Sanders, calling the current federal minimum of $7.25 a “starvation wage.”
New York Times: “When Mitt Romney traveled to Europe as a presidential candidate in 2012, he created an uproar when he wondered aloud whether London was sufficiently prepared to host the Summer Olympics… When Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey went on a trade mission to Britain, he was roundly criticized for an errant comment about vaccinations amid a measles outbreak back home.”
“Those moments seem quaint when compared with Donald J. Trump’s news conference in Turnberry, Scotland, a day after Britain voted to leave the European Union. Over the course of 40 minutes, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee made pronouncements, predictions and asides that would have set off serious backlash for almost any other candidate.”
Dan Balz: “Here’s one example of a connection between what happened in Britain and the rise of Trump in the United States: In Britain, nearly the entire political establishment was aligned in favor of staying in the European Union. The ‘remain’ campaign was in some measure an effort by these political elites to scare rank-and-file voters with dire forecasts about what a post-Brexit economy might look like that included threats of spending cuts and higher taxes.”
“But when voters went to the polls, in a huge turnout, they either weren’t afraid of those forecasts or didn’t believe what they had heard because they had given up on the political leaders of their country. In either case, it was an explicit rejection of what they were being told and an embrace of their own instincts and personal experiences.”
Michael McFaul on why the conservative’s favorite strong man loves the Brexit vote.
When Vladimir Putin worked in Dresden, he watched helplessly as Soviet ally East Germany slipped out of Moscow’s orbit, united with West Germany, and joined the democratic side of Europe. … Putin then witnessed the dissolution of the Soviet Union, an event that he later described as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. Former Soviet allies and parts of the Soviet empire peeled away, also joined the democratic side of Europe and eventually became members of NATO and the European Union. For nearly three decades, the West was consolidating as the East was disintegrating. The momentum toward a Europe whole and free was so powerful that earlier Russian leaders even flirted with joining as well.
That trend has now reversed. The decision by a majority of British voters to exit the European Union was not the first event in this reversal but maybe the most dramatic. Europe is now weakening as Russia, its allies and its multilateral organizations are consolidating, even adding new members. Putin, of course, did not cause the Brexit vote, but he and his foreign policy objectives stand to gain enormously from it.
Alex Massie was on hand for Trump’s contribution to the Brexit discussion.
Friday, as it turned out, was an appropriate moment for Donald Trump to arrive in the United Kingdom. “Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence,” the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said in a statement issued as he landed to visit his golf course at Turnberry. “I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.” The implication was clear: Where Britain led this past week, the United States might follow in November.
But that gets it backward. This people’s revolt represented, in many respects, the Americanization of British politics. The “leave” campaign’s slogan — its devastatingly effective slogan — of “take back control” was positively Trumpian. Indeed, some of the same forces of alienation, discontent, economic insecurity and racial animosity that produced Trump in the United States have now hauled Britain out of the European Union. This past week’s revolution, arguably the greatest political insurrection since the dawn of the democratic era, offers further evidence that some political trends recognize no borders or boundaries. It was more than just a political battle; it was a culture war, too. And it bore the hallmarks of the one that began in the United States 50 years ago.
A new Sunday Times poll shows that more 52% of Scottish people would vote to leave the U.K. if they would hold a second referendum on independence following Britain’s exit from the European Union.
A new Sunday Post poll shows that 59% of Scots now support independence.
Scotland’s leadership is openly contemplating whether they can veto the UK Brexit vote.
It would not surprise me one bit if the Scots and their work for independence is the place where this vote gets a real push back. Because I am sure they are definitely feeling buyer’s remorse for staying in the UK.
“adopt language in support of a $15 minimum wage”
Weasel words, just like Hillary’s position statement. The DNC specifically rejected a federally mandated $15:
If I only read DL, I would think the platform is calling for a federally mandated $15 and I would wonder why Bernie can’t endorse that. Also:
Meanwhile:
LOL!
The language surrounding any “progressive” points is soft with regard to commitment to action.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284888-democratic-platform-draft-shows-sanderss-clout
Don’t be fooled. The platform committee refused to sign on to a $15.00 minimum wage and refused to condemn the TPP for one reason only: Hillary Clinton was lying through her teeth when she ran on those positions. When she becomes President, she’ll settle for something far less than $15 an hour and she’ll “rethink” her position on TPP and support it. And some of the writers here at DL will wax sophistical and support her and will not condemn her because that’s what you do when you want to be part of the establishment.
I don’t recall Clinton ever committing to a $15 min wage. Did I miss that in one of her speeches? Here is what she has on her issue page:
“Hillary believes we are long overdue in raising the minimum wage. She has supported raising the federal minimum wage to $12, and believes that we should go further than the federal minimum through state and local efforts”
But what the heck. Once you’ve decided on condemnation it doesn’t really matter if it’s actually true.
“Scotland’s leadership is openly contemplating whether they can veto the UK Brexit vote.”
Since it’s a non-binding referendum, they can’t veto. What they can do is block any action by the Parliament, which has yet to decide on any details regarding implementation. The referendum does not force Parliament to actually do anything.
Fascinating Dave that you find comfort in Hillary supporting a LOWER minimum wage. Well, just remember your comfort because Hillary will settle for even less than $12.
I notice your silence about the TPP. Cat got your tongue?
@DG “she’ll “rethink” her position on TPP and support it.”
I hope she fixes it first… But with a few minor changes, I’d support it too.
“And some of the writers here at DL will wax sophistical and support her and will not condemn her because that’s what you do when you want to be part of the establishment.”
No.. Because that is what you do if you support regulated free trade. The problem isn’t with free trade, it with exploited free trade. There’s a difference.
You know… Tariffs are fundamentally regressive.
I realize the gun nuts aren’t around right now, but maybe they saw this story:
Gun advocate shoots and kills daughters before being killed by cops
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20160625_ap_38d5a5de0a394722991200816759f763.html
Here’s what she posted on Facebook in March:
“It would be horribly tragic if my ability to protect myself or my family were to be taken away, but that’s exactly what Democrats are determined to do by banning semi-automatic handguns.”
@D “What they can do is block any action by the Parliament, which has yet to decide on any details regarding implementation.”
They can request a delay while they’re doing their own exit referendum.
LE is evidence that the sophistry has already begun. It’s going to be DLC Democrats all over again. Token liberalism at best.
@DG “LE is evidence that the sophistry has already begun.”
Really??? Free trade IS a liberal AND progressive position. Tariffs ARE regressive and primarily hurt the poor.
The problem isn’t with free trade, it’s with some of the details that are a gift to the 1% that damage the country. Kill those bad details, but don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
@a “Gun advocate shoots and kills daughters before being killed by cops”
That’s more the norm than the exception. After all, 90% of all gun deaths are family and friends. Most common target after self is spouse.
I’m so over the purity contests – especially ones that completely discard social issues as not the “real” issue and label everyone who disagrees with anything (and I mean anything) you believe as “establishment”. It’s insulting and patronizing, but knock yourself out since that’s worked so well for you.
That said, if you’re confused why your candidate didn’t succeed, perhaps you can have that discussion with people from minority groups. Believe me, we heard you. Loud and clear.
@DG
“Fascinating Dave that you find comfort in Hillary supporting a LOWER minimum wage.”
Where did you get the idea I was comfortable. Oh you mean because I failed to ignore your premise error?
“I notice your silence about the TPP. Cat got your tongue?”
Still nice attempt at deflection, but you still either did not know or choose to ignore that Clinton has never supported the $15 and therefore your conclusion that she should be condemned on that basis fails. I did not address TPP because your argument already had one fatal flaw and therefore is invalid. Still, I’m will to debate you about TPP when we both have read the TPP: here’s the link https://ustr.gov/tpp/#text
“They can request a delay while they’re doing their own exit referendum.”
True, except Scotland wants to be in the EU, so their exit referendum would be on exiting the UK.
I’m kind of sympathetic to the woes of the those who have made their lives in other countries, including GB, while remaining citizens of their home countries. It’s estimated there are 1.5M British citizens living and working in Europe and .5M Poles in UK(the largest group of foreigners in the UK). Not sure what they will have to face in near term.
@pandora: It’s not about purity. It’s about priorities. You being sick of something doesn’t make it wrong. Nor does victory make you right. Your insistence that the main problem with our society is its treatment of non-white men ignores the fact that we’re headed over a cliff. It won’t matter who’s sitting up front if the train crashes.
@LE: Free trade is NOT a liberal idea, it is a laissez-faire economic idea. NAFTA was pushed by Republicans until Clinton joined the chorus. Only half the Democrats in Congress voted for it, while two-thirds of Republicans did. And while it might help the poor — that’s debatable — it clearly has harmed the American middle class.
The sort of trade pact you envision does not exist in the real world, where they are written mainly by the corporations that profit from them. That’s the problem with the TPP. Leave out the constant downward pressure on wages and you still have the problem of corporate interests outweighing the interests of sovereign nations.
Please explain how that’s liberal.
“It’s not about purity. It’s about priorities. You being sick of something doesn’t make it wrong. Nor does victory make you right. Your insistence that the main problem with our society is its treatment of non-white men ignores the fact that we’re headed over a cliff. It won’t matter who’s sitting up front if the train crashes.”
It’s about “certain” people’s priorities – and on DL it happens to be solely white men. I have said (again and again) that I agree with those concerns. I have said that we can include other issues, as well. Every time I get told that I’m wrong, that if I don’t agree with them 100% then I’m the “establishment” (amazing claim coming from white men to women and POC, don’t ya think?), that I just don’t understand what really matters… to them. Who knew some people couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time? 😉
They had a HUGE disconnect with primary voters. Their answer? It’s not me, it’s you.
Please note Glass_Steagall success in platform and TPP fail in same:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284888-democratic-platform-draft-shows-sanderss-clout
Also note important example of reasons to not support “corporate extortion” and welfare:
Why I’m boycotting all Nabisco products.
The company is sending jobs to Mexico and destroying jobs for Americans because of corporate greed.
http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/chicagos-sweet-oreos-sour-with-corporate-greed/
@a “Free trade is NOT a liberal idea, it is a laissez-faire economic idea.”
There’s a huge difference between free trade and laissez-faire trade.
Free trade generally means you set the rules (e.g. no child labor, no slavery, pollution controls, trucking safety standards,…) and then you trade freely.
NAFTA isn’t perfect, but that’s what it tries to be.
Laissez-faire trade implies anything goes while you look the other way.
The first IS liberal and progressive. The second is “conservative” where the “conservative” people don’t give a crap about human rights of people that don’t look like them. That is neither liberal nor progressive.
“Please explain how that’s liberal.”
Because lack of free trade hits the poor the hardest. Tariffs are quite regressive.
Jk – beware the language of “support” for Glass-Steagal. I suspect it will be far from the robust call to arms of progressive platforms past.
Puck,
Absolutely correct and also note that this platform has to pass the full committee
John Kowalko
“We won some very important victories in our effort to try to make it clear to the American people that the Democratic Party stands with the working class,” Sanders said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“But we lost some very important fights. We’re going to take that fight to Orlando, where the entire committee meets in two weeks, and if we don’t succeed there, we’re certainly going to take it to the floor of the Democratic convention.”
It’s not about purity. It’s about priorities.
Wonderful. Now tell me the last time the Dem Party Platform made any difference to either winning an election OR to long-term governing.
A sharp spike in racist incidents reported after the Brexit vote
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Are “sophistical” and “sophistry” even words?
“Now tell me the last time the Dem Party Platform made any difference to either winning an election OR to long-term governing.”
We’ve lost plenty of elections with weak platforms – pick a year.
When is the last time a Democratic leader had enough conviction to fight for Democratic principles in the Democratic platform?
We’ve won plenty of elections with weak platforms — pick a year. So are you answering the part where an excellent platform made any difference to governing or are you just stamping your feet?
I’m “so over” the pathetic kneejerk whimpers of “Purity!” whenever a progressive policy is advocated. We rightly applaud purity on rights for women, gays, and POC, now let’s have some purity for the overarching issues that affect all of us.
That’s not what’s being called purity. Purity is used whenever someone calls another person “establishment”, “corporate shill”, “not a “real” progressive”, etc. over any difference on policy. It’s when someone insists that everyone shares their priorities and that everyone lists them in the exact same order; when it’s not enough that your #1 priority is my #2 priority – which somehow translates into my not caring about your #1 priority. (Truthfully, I don’t rank my priorities in a list. I tend to organize them into groups of 4 – 5 things. Yep, I’m a multi-tasker! But, to me, they are all connected.)
Everyone on here advocates for progressive policy – that’s not where the disagreement lies. The debate is more along the lines of how do we achieve those policies.
“We rightly applaud purity on rights for women, gays, and POC, now let’s have some purity for the overarching issues that affect all of us.”
While we all applaud those things there are a ton of people working hard (boots on the ground) to advance these issues – issues that directly impact their daily lives. Are you suggesting that they abandon these issues to work on what you consider the #1 priority? Sorta like, “Hey! Everybody working on women’s issues, gay rights and minority issues, stop what you’re doing and work on this.”
And I don’t really disagree with you about what the #1 priority is. What I’ve had a problem with since the beginning is how willing some people are to make this the only priority. How quickly some people have tossed aside (and even sneered at) social issues when, in reality, they make the argument against income inequality, taxing the 1%, single-payer, etc. so much stronger.
“I’m “so over” the pathetic kneejerk whimpers of “Purity!” whenever a progressive policy is advocated. We rightly applaud purity on rights for women, gays, and POC, now let’s have some purity for the overarching issues that affect all of us.”
Yes. “Purity” is only a vice when it comes to economics around here. Everything else, the more pure, the better.
“Free trade generally means you set the rules (e.g. no child labor, no slavery, pollution controls, trucking safety standards,…) and then you trade freely. NAFTA isn’t perfect, but that’s what it tries to be.”
And it comes nowhere close. This was the palaver Clinton used to sell you a conservative idea.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21370-the-workers-scorecard-on-nafta
@a “And it comes nowhere close. This was the palaver Clinton used to sell you a conservative idea.”
Conservative??? Free trade??
No… The conservative idea was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Learn some history. It was the progressives/liberals of the day that killed that.
Oh… And that article you liked has a real problem with cause and effect.
NAFTA was bad because Mexico suffered when we had a recession. Yea… Right… Some great thinking there.
How about Delaware canceling it’s free trade agreement with the rest of the states? What would that do to the Delaware economy?
Free trade is good… when implemented properly, of course.
“How about Delaware canceling it’s free trade agreement with the rest of the states?”
Foreign countries aren’t US states, so your analogy does not work.
@p “Foreign countries aren’t US states, so your analogy does not work.”
Sure it does. The free trade agreement between the states proves that it can be made to work.
Lickspittle
It’s been incredible difficult for me, but I have sworn off Oreos. And Oreos call out to me so this is a big deal. No scab child labor cookies in my house dammit!
And I thought Delaware was the home of corporate crooks?
@m “It’s been incredible difficult for me, but I have sworn off Oreos.”
Those things are vile. What’s worse, the cookie or the HFCS filling.
Look… Just go to your friendly local bakery and get some good cookies.
…supports the local economy too.
So what conservatives did in the 1930s trumps what they did in the 1990s? Why? So you can win an online argument? Get real. And learn some history yourself.
Empowering corporations is not liberal. Modern trade agreements (post- WWII) have done just that. Back in the 1960s, back when declaring our intention to rule the world was spoken aloud, they used to admit this.
So when you say “properly implemented,” you’re really saying “ideally.” And there have been no such “ideal” trade deals since the Marshall Plan, in which we demanded European governments adopt policies to our liking (ironically, one we insisted on was universal health care. We set up that policy in Iraq, too. Just not here) as part of the aid.
I linked to something illustrating the harm to Mexico because the harm to the US is pretty obvious. But maybe not to you.
Also: “The free trade agreement between the states proves that it can be made to work.” Only because the federal government insists on it. There is no such authority in world trade — although the US would like to set up such an authority, which would be supra-sovereign.
I really think you fail to understand the issues. Your responses are boilerplate neolib bullshit.
Charging another of engaging in purity tests is code for “I’m available to compromise my values for the sake of the values of those who control my party and so should you.” What a pity that the values that are compromised involve the well being of most American people. Note also that those who change others with engaging in purity tests do NOT frequently engage in advocating for the very progressive principles that they claim they support PRECISELY WHEN those policies by the party are being debated and decided. That would disqualify them from being in sync with the establishment. Instead they wait until the debate is over and the decisions are made to voice those values to go through the obligatory motions of appearing progressive. It’s mere tokenism.
But one thing said above is true, but not in the way it was intended. What a crying shame that it *sometimes* (not always and never only) takes a white man in America to remind us of the critical importance of getting progressive values instantiated–you know, values that require little thought like maybe the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee shouldn’t support an energy policy that results in the American people’s drinking water potentially becoming flammable. But there I go being a purist again.
I spy a purity test:
Note also that those who change others with engaging in purity tests do NOT frequently engage in advocating for the very progressive principles that they claim they support PRECISELY WHEN those policies by the party are being debated and decided.
And then there’s a whole lotta judgement about the rest of us who are looking for a rational governing solution that moves the progressive ball down the field. By people who only show up to complain that we aren’t doing it right.
Way to advocate for your progressive values. For a document that is promptly forgotten the minute it is ratified.
@a “I linked to something illustrating the harm to Mexico because the harm to the US is pretty obvious. But maybe not to you.”
That’s ridiculous. I could just as well claim that the free trade between the states caused a recession in NJ when it conceivably started in NY. Ridiculous.
If you understood anything about recessions, they tend to not respect borders regardless of trade agreements. Go back and look at the ’30s again. Even countries we didn’t trade with well (i.e. tariffs), suffered as we did.
@a “So what conservatives did in the 1930s trumps what they did in the 1990s? Why? So you can win an online argument?”
The action in the ’30s was done by conservatives. The action in the ’90s was done by 1%ers. Are you aware of the difference between these two groups???
Saying that conservatives did a free trade deal in the ’90s is a joke.
“Empowering corporations is not liberal.”
It also isn’t conservative.
My cookie habit is great. I need something that comes with a lot of cookies in the package. I eat them several times a day. I’ve been subsituting blueberries but they will be gone soon. I guess there is the lemmon wedding cookies at Touch Of Italy if I start withdraw symptoms.
Wow. You have some seriously weird understanding of history.
You also have a weird understanding of liberalism if you think empowering corporations doesn’t clash with liberalism.
If NAFTA was liberal, why did most Republicans vote for it? You’re making no sense.
@a “You also have a weird understanding of liberalism if you think empowering corporations doesn’t clash with liberalism.”
I didn’t say that. I said that rent seekers and conservatives are not one and the same. One exploits the other.
“If NAFTA was liberal, why did most Republicans vote for it? You’re making no sense.”
Actually… A lot of Republicans voted against it. It passed with votes from both parties.
And it did have provisions to protect workers and to protect the environment. One reason there’s lees pollution in Mexico today is because of NAFTA. If they polluted like the Chinese, they’d be in violation of NAFTA.
Bottom line. There’s a lot that a true liberal should like in NAFTA.
Most of the complaints I’ve heard from progressives make the claim that the border between North American countries is somehow much much more important than a border between states when it comes to jobs. It really isn’t.
How is a Detroit job lost to South Carolina much different from a job lost to Mexico??