Elon is being an idiot. If the rich and the corporations realized that the Republicans truly want to destroy our democracy, this would be over. Destruction of American democracy will absolutely mean worse rate of return. It is in their interest to fund the democrats and lobby congress to end tax loopholes and make things more fair. Their greed is making them short sighted.
People saying that they are basing their vote on economic issues always make me laugh my ass off.
It translates into 1 of 2 things:
1) They are economic idiots (highly likely even if 2 is what is actually going on); or
2) That isn't the reason, that's the excuse. to vote for the guy/party/identity the are behind but they don't want to say that (or even actually realize it, themselves).
This is especially true when 1 of the two parties has exactly zero plans/policies that would supposedly "fix" the economy--unless you define fixing the economy as cutting taxes on the rich and corps and cutting spending on regular citizens.
I am laughing my ass off over that in order to avoid throwing up in disgust.
"In fact, more than a third of independent voters and a smaller but noteworthy contingent of Democrats said they were open to supporting candidates who reject the legitimacy of the 2020 election, as they assigned greater urgency to their concerns about the economy than to fears about the fate of the country’s political system."
Let's review: what exactly is wrong with the economy right now? The job market is great. Gas prices are down. The stock market is doing its thing. But we have inflation. Something like 8 or 9 percent. That's admittedly not good.
Let's just set aside most Americans' pitiful understanding of the economy. Inflation is actually a worldwide problem, and in general the people we elect to office actually make little immediate difference. Things would be roughly the same if Trump were still in office, other than the fact that he'd be lying about the numbers and the word "inflation" would mysteriously disappear from the vocabularies of primetime Fox News hosts. Alas, we have our general political culture to thank for this.
Regardless, the 8-9% is an annual rate. And while we certainly don't want it to continue for long, so far it's been, if memory serves me, about a year since inflation started really becoming a concern.
In other words, unless groceries are being hit worse than average, what was a $100 grocery bill a year ago is now a $109 grocery bill. Wow. Almost enough to drive a man to clip a coupon or two.
So this is the huge concern over the economy. While Americans are gainfully employed and otherwise fattening ourselves on our enviable standard of living, many of us are ignoring the threat to democracy because we're freaking out over a minor dent in our pocketbooks - which is ironically being driven by us spending loads of money anyway.
I'm kind of sensing some echoes of 1992 here, when the media arguably sensationalized a minor economic slowdown that was actually reversing itself as the election approached and in one year turned an incredibly popular presidency into a one-termer. I have a feeling that "the economy" is far worse in the minds of many people than it is in reality, and more or less amounts to Americans complaining about how expensive things get when you have lots of money to spend.
This isn't the worst economy. I lived through the 70's. Lines for gas, 21 % interest rate, 9% unemployment .
I just got back from Europe. Gas prices are higher, inflation is higher, don't know what unemployment is but they have different labor laws. So it's not unique to the US.
I don't see why someone would prefer a election denying, Trump loving Republican who has no more control over the world economy than the Democrats do. The best they have to offer is fascism.
Enjoyed your podcast with Adam Kinzinger, a straight-talking, common-sense guy -- reminds me of 1970s Senator Harold Hughes of Iowa. Not afraid to speak the truth. Let the chips fall where they may.
The Bulwark's cast of contributing writers has diversified a bit and Cathy goes to great lengths to try to defang whataboutism in her article. Still, I just have to shake my head at it. The stated goal of The Bulwark, as far as I understand it, is defending Democracy by helping form and support a pro-Democracy coalition against Trumpism. Its niche in this fight is helping to pull more center and center-righters more firmly into that coalition. Great, but wouldn't that goal be accomplished more easily by selling the strengths of the pro-democracy center and center-right's new coalition partners than harping on the flaws?
I don't mean that flaws should be ignored. What those 3 council members said should be called out and punished (as they are) but linking them to progressivism more generally rather than making them bad apples or even a bad subset of progressivism seems like it only serves to alienate the good parts of the progressive base (which I think is most of it) from this pro-democracy coalition while simultaneously reinforcing the biases of the right against them that have allowed so many centrists and center-righters to see their choices as fighting for democracy or fighting against a damn near demonic left which supposedly eats the blood of children, wants pure communism, a litterbox for every kindergarten student, to cancel all conservative voices with constant twitter mobs, and every other fringe to straight up fabricated story.
I would assume most anti-racists believe that we need to do more to solve our legacy race issues and think that because they think the inherent biases everyone has from living in a society that is clearly not yet colorblind (see nationwide and statewide candidates of a major party straight up pandering to racist attitudes almost openly) make being colorblind impossible without constant effort and self-examination which most people just can't, won't or don't think to do. Therefore, some nudging out of our collective ruts is required before a more colorblind society can be achieved. They'll differ on what the word nudging means in practice. That said on the political side I think most would want protections against minorities encoded in law to give a recourse against egregious discriminatory behavior. On the cultural side I am guessing most would deem simply informing a friend or acquaintance making off color remarks that they don't appreciate it and explaining why is plenty. No twitter mobs required. They'd also want to give these historically marginalized groups some space to be heard and recognized both to grant equality of *opportunity* to them and in the hope that more knowledge of their existence would foster more tolerance and that equal opportunity will help even results across groups over time and in turn weaken the siege mentality that can reinforce racial identity. I don't see how acknowledging that racial identities currently exist and have an effect on people's actions necessarily entrenches racial identity or how you could fix something without recognizing it exists. There are people that want and/or do go further but it is a fringe of the fringe that is progressives. How small must that be? As I said, I am assuming here, and I do so because I agree with that position and try to be one of those moderate anti-racists as best I can. If you think I am just refusing to see reality here then please try to correct me but I'm pretty confident I've weighed what information and experience I have as open mindedly and thoroughly as I can and I just don't see more harm in the moderate anti-racist position than good and I don't see most progressives going overboard with it.
Now I get that even if I am right the moderate progressive anti-racism position I just described could be more than what many center and center-right people would want to accommodate. It is fine with me to minimize this potential disagreement with some people in that group in the context of this fight for democracy. But it seems to me I am not being afforded the same courtesy here which is quite frustrating still even if it isn't surprising anymore. It seems that this was an opportunity to play up what the pro-democracy coalition has in common, a willingness and ability to punish bad actors in one's own coalition for example, but instead it feels like this site is still stuck thinking they need to push out progressives from the pro-democracy coalition to make room for the center-right. Oh well.
I appreciate the gentle tone of this scolding, so I'll try to respond in like spirit.
Cathy Young is one of my favorite Bulwark writers because her mind and her way with words make her work stand up on its own, so the reference to the Bulwark having "diversified a bit" its cast of writers struck me as oddly patronizing. Not surprisingly, I found her take on the issue she addressed congenial: I consider the articulate Left's focus on racial identity as the fundamental aspect of personhood and the treatment of politics as a zero-sum competition among identity groups to be mostly unconstructive. I'll confess, though, that I thought that we'd already heard enough about the LA Council brouhaha and had drawn all the lessons that were there to be drawn from it. But writers write what they want to write about, and readers who like their work read it.
To the bigger question, the need for an alliance that crosses ideological lines to save democracy is crucial enough to postpone arguments on policy differences, no matter how deeply felt. The importance of that one issue should be enough to keep us from gratuitously insulting each other, and if that isn't enough, then common courtesy should be. This is, nevertheless, an alliance in which some people will have clenched teeth, at least some of the time. Not every article can be about Trump; if it were, we'd be playing his game. Publishing an article that someone disagrees with is not the same as pushing that person out. To find that in Ms. Young's article is, I think, to look for and find something that isn't there.
"...Musk offered a version of what was in his tweet — including the recognition of Crimea as Russian because it’s been mostly Russian since the 1780s ..."
Let's see: If that is Elon the Forgetful's rationale, what would he have said in 1776 about the colonies trying to declare their independence from England, when they had been mostly English for 150 years? Oh, I see; George III would have had to mention it to him before hand, as Putin did about Crimea.
If the LA. Councilpeople are using racist language then they aren’t progressives. Maybe they are progressive-leaning centrists or moderates or fence-sitters but using racial slurs means you are not progressive. We need to be careful when applying definitive political terms and be prepared to change the descriptive adjective to fit the reality noun.
Interesting Fun Fact---When Western technology companies want to do business in the People's Republic, as a part of the deal, the companies MUST give the Chinese government access to their source code (just ask Bill Gates...when Microsoft entered China, they had to hand it over. Oddly enough, a few months later, the Army Knowledge Online portal was routinely hacked by Chinese sources--AKO was built on Microsoft architecture). Therefore, since Elon builds Teslas in China, there is a reasonably good chance that the Chinese state security service can hack Tesla cars. Think on that the next time you see a Model 3 at a stoplight...
I remember, after China joined the WTO, reading about how China was forcing companies to provide their trade secrets to their Chinese partners. I could never understand that (don't have the required level of hubris) and thought this will not end well.
Trump keeps showing his supporters how “smart” he was as President- bilking the “swamp” for personal gain. Of course, his supporters a/k/a taxpayers footed the bill. And yet they hate Democrats more because reasons…
"In fact, more than a third of independent voters and a smaller but noteworthy contingent of Democrats said they were open to supporting candidates who reject the legitimacy of the 2020 election, as they assigned greater urgency to their concerns about the economy than to fears about the fate of the country’s political system.'
What I find particularly irksome, is that these people are presumably voting Republican due to their "concerns about the economy", but the Republican party in particular (and Conservative governments in general) have always done a TERRIBLE job managing the economy.
Under conservative governments, deficits skyrocket as taxes are slashed for the uber rich and for corporations.
Dems need to do a much better job at selling their economic track record.
But let's assume counterfactually for a second that Republicans will manage the economy better than the Dems. So these voters are essentially saying that they will take short-term economic gains over literally maintaining a representative form of government. What a disappointing set of priorities.
I remember talking to a friend that people who vote Republican are not voting in their economic interests. I found this to be true for most of them. Are the culture wars more important to them than their economic concerns, or have they bought into that distraction?
Yes because the current crop of Republicans want to cut medicare, SS and get rid of the ACA. What will people do then? Especially if Trump gets in, we'll never see another election.
Elon is being an idiot. If the rich and the corporations realized that the Republicans truly want to destroy our democracy, this would be over. Destruction of American democracy will absolutely mean worse rate of return. It is in their interest to fund the democrats and lobby congress to end tax loopholes and make things more fair. Their greed is making them short sighted.
People saying that they are basing their vote on economic issues always make me laugh my ass off.
It translates into 1 of 2 things:
1) They are economic idiots (highly likely even if 2 is what is actually going on); or
2) That isn't the reason, that's the excuse. to vote for the guy/party/identity the are behind but they don't want to say that (or even actually realize it, themselves).
This is especially true when 1 of the two parties has exactly zero plans/policies that would supposedly "fix" the economy--unless you define fixing the economy as cutting taxes on the rich and corps and cutting spending on regular citizens.
I am laughing my ass off over that in order to avoid throwing up in disgust.
"In fact, more than a third of independent voters and a smaller but noteworthy contingent of Democrats said they were open to supporting candidates who reject the legitimacy of the 2020 election, as they assigned greater urgency to their concerns about the economy than to fears about the fate of the country’s political system."
Let's review: what exactly is wrong with the economy right now? The job market is great. Gas prices are down. The stock market is doing its thing. But we have inflation. Something like 8 or 9 percent. That's admittedly not good.
Let's just set aside most Americans' pitiful understanding of the economy. Inflation is actually a worldwide problem, and in general the people we elect to office actually make little immediate difference. Things would be roughly the same if Trump were still in office, other than the fact that he'd be lying about the numbers and the word "inflation" would mysteriously disappear from the vocabularies of primetime Fox News hosts. Alas, we have our general political culture to thank for this.
Regardless, the 8-9% is an annual rate. And while we certainly don't want it to continue for long, so far it's been, if memory serves me, about a year since inflation started really becoming a concern.
In other words, unless groceries are being hit worse than average, what was a $100 grocery bill a year ago is now a $109 grocery bill. Wow. Almost enough to drive a man to clip a coupon or two.
So this is the huge concern over the economy. While Americans are gainfully employed and otherwise fattening ourselves on our enviable standard of living, many of us are ignoring the threat to democracy because we're freaking out over a minor dent in our pocketbooks - which is ironically being driven by us spending loads of money anyway.
I'm kind of sensing some echoes of 1992 here, when the media arguably sensationalized a minor economic slowdown that was actually reversing itself as the election approached and in one year turned an incredibly popular presidency into a one-termer. I have a feeling that "the economy" is far worse in the minds of many people than it is in reality, and more or less amounts to Americans complaining about how expensive things get when you have lots of money to spend.
Probably best to stop calling it Trumpism and start calling it antisemitism
This isn't the worst economy. I lived through the 70's. Lines for gas, 21 % interest rate, 9% unemployment .
I just got back from Europe. Gas prices are higher, inflation is higher, don't know what unemployment is but they have different labor laws. So it's not unique to the US.
I don't see why someone would prefer a election denying, Trump loving Republican who has no more control over the world economy than the Democrats do. The best they have to offer is fascism.
“Voters See Democracy in Peril, but Saving It Isn’t a Priority.”
Pollster: Given threats to American democracy, who do you plan on voting for?
Concerned Voter: The GOP, or course.
Pollster: May I ask why?
Concerned Voter: The price of bacon is too damned high.
Enjoyed your podcast with Adam Kinzinger, a straight-talking, common-sense guy -- reminds me of 1970s Senator Harold Hughes of Iowa. Not afraid to speak the truth. Let the chips fall where they may.
Please keep the headlights on Elon Musk. Democracy dies in darkness.
The Bulwark's cast of contributing writers has diversified a bit and Cathy goes to great lengths to try to defang whataboutism in her article. Still, I just have to shake my head at it. The stated goal of The Bulwark, as far as I understand it, is defending Democracy by helping form and support a pro-Democracy coalition against Trumpism. Its niche in this fight is helping to pull more center and center-righters more firmly into that coalition. Great, but wouldn't that goal be accomplished more easily by selling the strengths of the pro-democracy center and center-right's new coalition partners than harping on the flaws?
I don't mean that flaws should be ignored. What those 3 council members said should be called out and punished (as they are) but linking them to progressivism more generally rather than making them bad apples or even a bad subset of progressivism seems like it only serves to alienate the good parts of the progressive base (which I think is most of it) from this pro-democracy coalition while simultaneously reinforcing the biases of the right against them that have allowed so many centrists and center-righters to see their choices as fighting for democracy or fighting against a damn near demonic left which supposedly eats the blood of children, wants pure communism, a litterbox for every kindergarten student, to cancel all conservative voices with constant twitter mobs, and every other fringe to straight up fabricated story.
I would assume most anti-racists believe that we need to do more to solve our legacy race issues and think that because they think the inherent biases everyone has from living in a society that is clearly not yet colorblind (see nationwide and statewide candidates of a major party straight up pandering to racist attitudes almost openly) make being colorblind impossible without constant effort and self-examination which most people just can't, won't or don't think to do. Therefore, some nudging out of our collective ruts is required before a more colorblind society can be achieved. They'll differ on what the word nudging means in practice. That said on the political side I think most would want protections against minorities encoded in law to give a recourse against egregious discriminatory behavior. On the cultural side I am guessing most would deem simply informing a friend or acquaintance making off color remarks that they don't appreciate it and explaining why is plenty. No twitter mobs required. They'd also want to give these historically marginalized groups some space to be heard and recognized both to grant equality of *opportunity* to them and in the hope that more knowledge of their existence would foster more tolerance and that equal opportunity will help even results across groups over time and in turn weaken the siege mentality that can reinforce racial identity. I don't see how acknowledging that racial identities currently exist and have an effect on people's actions necessarily entrenches racial identity or how you could fix something without recognizing it exists. There are people that want and/or do go further but it is a fringe of the fringe that is progressives. How small must that be? As I said, I am assuming here, and I do so because I agree with that position and try to be one of those moderate anti-racists as best I can. If you think I am just refusing to see reality here then please try to correct me but I'm pretty confident I've weighed what information and experience I have as open mindedly and thoroughly as I can and I just don't see more harm in the moderate anti-racist position than good and I don't see most progressives going overboard with it.
Now I get that even if I am right the moderate progressive anti-racism position I just described could be more than what many center and center-right people would want to accommodate. It is fine with me to minimize this potential disagreement with some people in that group in the context of this fight for democracy. But it seems to me I am not being afforded the same courtesy here which is quite frustrating still even if it isn't surprising anymore. It seems that this was an opportunity to play up what the pro-democracy coalition has in common, a willingness and ability to punish bad actors in one's own coalition for example, but instead it feels like this site is still stuck thinking they need to push out progressives from the pro-democracy coalition to make room for the center-right. Oh well.
I appreciate the gentle tone of this scolding, so I'll try to respond in like spirit.
Cathy Young is one of my favorite Bulwark writers because her mind and her way with words make her work stand up on its own, so the reference to the Bulwark having "diversified a bit" its cast of writers struck me as oddly patronizing. Not surprisingly, I found her take on the issue she addressed congenial: I consider the articulate Left's focus on racial identity as the fundamental aspect of personhood and the treatment of politics as a zero-sum competition among identity groups to be mostly unconstructive. I'll confess, though, that I thought that we'd already heard enough about the LA Council brouhaha and had drawn all the lessons that were there to be drawn from it. But writers write what they want to write about, and readers who like their work read it.
To the bigger question, the need for an alliance that crosses ideological lines to save democracy is crucial enough to postpone arguments on policy differences, no matter how deeply felt. The importance of that one issue should be enough to keep us from gratuitously insulting each other, and if that isn't enough, then common courtesy should be. This is, nevertheless, an alliance in which some people will have clenched teeth, at least some of the time. Not every article can be about Trump; if it were, we'd be playing his game. Publishing an article that someone disagrees with is not the same as pushing that person out. To find that in Ms. Young's article is, I think, to look for and find something that isn't there.
"...Musk offered a version of what was in his tweet — including the recognition of Crimea as Russian because it’s been mostly Russian since the 1780s ..."
Let's see: If that is Elon the Forgetful's rationale, what would he have said in 1776 about the colonies trying to declare their independence from England, when they had been mostly English for 150 years? Oh, I see; George III would have had to mention it to him before hand, as Putin did about Crimea.
If the LA. Councilpeople are using racist language then they aren’t progressives. Maybe they are progressive-leaning centrists or moderates or fence-sitters but using racial slurs means you are not progressive. We need to be careful when applying definitive political terms and be prepared to change the descriptive adjective to fit the reality noun.
I just gained 20 pounds. I’ll try and wear something slimming to the event on Thursday night.
If we view the waiting as a Buddhist lesson in patience. . . .one cannot push the river.
Interesting Fun Fact---When Western technology companies want to do business in the People's Republic, as a part of the deal, the companies MUST give the Chinese government access to their source code (just ask Bill Gates...when Microsoft entered China, they had to hand it over. Oddly enough, a few months later, the Army Knowledge Online portal was routinely hacked by Chinese sources--AKO was built on Microsoft architecture). Therefore, since Elon builds Teslas in China, there is a reasonably good chance that the Chinese state security service can hack Tesla cars. Think on that the next time you see a Model 3 at a stoplight...
I remember, after China joined the WTO, reading about how China was forcing companies to provide their trade secrets to their Chinese partners. I could never understand that (don't have the required level of hubris) and thought this will not end well.
Trump keeps showing his supporters how “smart” he was as President- bilking the “swamp” for personal gain. Of course, his supporters a/k/a taxpayers footed the bill. And yet they hate Democrats more because reasons…
But, but he DONATED his salary!
"In fact, more than a third of independent voters and a smaller but noteworthy contingent of Democrats said they were open to supporting candidates who reject the legitimacy of the 2020 election, as they assigned greater urgency to their concerns about the economy than to fears about the fate of the country’s political system.'
What I find particularly irksome, is that these people are presumably voting Republican due to their "concerns about the economy", but the Republican party in particular (and Conservative governments in general) have always done a TERRIBLE job managing the economy.
Under conservative governments, deficits skyrocket as taxes are slashed for the uber rich and for corporations.
Dems need to do a much better job at selling their economic track record.
But let's assume counterfactually for a second that Republicans will manage the economy better than the Dems. So these voters are essentially saying that they will take short-term economic gains over literally maintaining a representative form of government. What a disappointing set of priorities.
I remember talking to a friend that people who vote Republican are not voting in their economic interests. I found this to be true for most of them. Are the culture wars more important to them than their economic concerns, or have they bought into that distraction?
Yes because the current crop of Republicans want to cut medicare, SS and get rid of the ACA. What will people do then? Especially if Trump gets in, we'll never see another election.