On another thread at this Blog I commented on Boot's OpEd, noting that following the article Boot was described as a foreign policy advisor to McCain, Romney and Rubio. But Boot was "on the ground" all the way with Bush/Cheney on Iraq and Afghanistan. Boot has not expressed guilt on his part or on the part of Bush/Cheney that he was in lockstep with. Trump came about as a result of the failings of the Republican Party starting with Reagan and establishment Republicans can't handle Trump's Republican base of older undereducated white males who fear the changing demographics.
 

"Elites (one elite, John Boehner) didn’t allow immigration reform to proceed to a vote in the House, thus setting in motion a chain of events which aided Trump immensely."

This seems a peculiar take on the situation. I could understand this take if immigration "reform" were popular among Trump supporters. But the exact opposite is true. Trump supporters understand immigration "reform" to refer to a kind of bait and switch scam, where amnesty for illegal aliens is coupled to promises of enhanced border enforcement to prevent future illegal immigration. But where everybody understand the enhanced border enforcement will never take place. That's why requiring the border enforcement come first is recognized to be a poison pill; "Reform" advocates are flatly opposed to ever delivering on that end of the grand bargain. They just expect people who want border security to be suckers.

Bringing this kind of 'reform' to a vote would actually have strengthened Trump's support. Just entertaining the possibility was bad enough.

"Most voters, it seems, don’t want Trump."

Most voters don't want Clinton, either. Virtually none of the polls have her support rising even to 50%. And the reason is even Democrats don't think she's remotely trustworthy.

I can't see why anyone would think Hillary Clinton, of all people, could run on "shaking things up in DC". She's about as establishment as establishment candidates get.
 

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], not all elites should be lumped together; and the same for populists. Addressing income/asset inequality will require qualified elites. The most objective of populists cannot accomplish this on their own. Globalization cannot be ignored. America cannot force its will on the rest of the world.
 

"Explain candidly where you went wrong and pledge to do better. Have you really heard anyone in DC take this line with respect to Iraq, the financial crisis, the budget crisis, immigration reform, and so on?"

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-mistake-iowa-118109

"Clinton should be running on not just campaign finance reform, but overhauling the structure of Congress at a minimum."

How will Clinton "overhaul the structure of Congress" exactly? That's a big thing to put on anyone's plate, especially those not even in Congress.

Anyway, goals to change the overall system/structure is good & Sandy Levinson friendly. Elites have things to answer for. But, they got help. At the end of the day, each voter has a responsibility here & those who don't carefully think out their vote have no cause simply to push the blame to others.

 

I also don't see Boehner's action to block immigration reform as an elite failure. It was a clear case where he didn't want to antagonize the Trumpovic base.

Of the other three examples you give -- the Iraq War, "budget dysfunction", and the banking deregulation/crisis -- 2 (the War and the budget) are unambiguously cases of Republican dysfunction, not the dysfunction of elites generally. And again, the Congressional dysfunction on the budget arguably reflects what the Trumpowicz base wants.

If you want to make progress on this issue, false equivalency is not the way to go about it. Let's put it in real terms: the R base is deeply flawed. R elites need to stop catering to them. Stop with the dog whistles, stop with the lies to them, stop the madness generally. Then, and only then, can we have legitimate policy debates.


 

Our national discourse is subject to self-analysis only. If you are outside the discourse your analysis will be the proverbial unheard falling tree.

So who are the players? Political leaders, academics, and the media.

Nonetheless, the single most consistent fact of our national discourse self-analysis is the refusal to examine the role that changes in two of the three players--the media and the academy--have had on the substance of the discourse.

What is the role of "objectivity" or the rise in college educations among reporters? What is the role of terrible metaphors like "spectrum" and "polarization" that have trapped our academy in a Newtonian understanding of Darwinian processes? What is the damage done by the overwhelming whiteness of the media? Or the failure of elites to recognize that all politics are identity politics because they get their identity from their ideology and project that as a moral "should" onto voters who self identify by race or region?
 

"If you want to make progress on this issue, false equivalency is not the way to go about it. Let's put it in real terms: the R base is deeply flawed. R elites need to stop catering to them."

Ok, I can understand why a Democrat would like the Republican party to say to it's base, "Bugger off, we don't need you!" It's no skin off your nose if the Republican party becomes a minor party.

But, surely, you can understand that they're not going to do that.
 

The R elites don't need to disavow the base altogether, what they need to do is stop catering to the racism and (often related) anti-intellectualism. As Bill James once pointed out (I'm paraphrasing), if you don't start with true statements, no amount of analysis is going to get you anywhere.
 

But, surely, you can understand that they're not going to do that.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 12:31 PM

They're going to have to do it eventually. The changing demographics makes winning with the white racist vote less likely with each passing year.
 

"The R elites don't need to disavow the base altogether, what they need to do is stop catering to the racism and (often related) anti-intellectualism. As Bill James once pointed out (I'm paraphrasing), if you don't start with true statements, no amount of analysis is going to get you anywhere."

Kind of ironic comment, that.
 

Trumpowicz? Is he a cousin of Andy Sipowicz?

Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein, neither of whom are stereotypical "Democrats," have been critiquing Congress for years. They have determined Republicans in particular in recent years are notably worse. The messengers on this thread might not be to your likely, but Republicans themselves have said the same thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/03/08/republicans-created-dysfunction-now-theyre-paying-for-it/

This is not a matter of making Republicans "a minor party." Both parties over their existence changed in significant fashion.
 

I am not the slightest bit that Republicans themselves have said the same thing. The Republican party is involved in something of a civil war right now, and both sides in the war are Republicans.

But, again, the Republican party can't ditch the part of it's base that Democrats are offended by. That's practically the entire base.
 

Over the past 70 years, the Dems evicted first the Communists and then the racists. But asking the Rs to do the latter is a bridge too far I guess.
 

But, again, the Republican party can't ditch the part of it's base that Democrats are offended by. That's practically the entire base.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 3:15 PM

Democrats are not your problem. People with dark skin are your problem. They despise you. You need their votes more than ever, because the percentage of racist whites is decreasing every day.
 

Bartbuster, liberals have been calling everyone who dares to disagree with them about anything racists, (Unless they're black, then they get called "Oreos".) for about as long as I can remember. You really think anyone is listening anymore?

Mark, the R's are only too glad to perform similar evictions, to more effect. (Look how Bernie did...) But if they evicted everyone Democrats view as racist, well, see my remark to BB: There wouldn't be anyone left.
 

Blogger Brett said...
Bartbuster, liberals have been calling everyone who dares to disagree with them about anything racists, (Unless they're black, then they get called "Oreos".) for about as long as I can remember. You really think anyone is listening anymore?

You misunderstand. I think it's fucking awesome that you're not listening.
 

Professor Griffin:

Economics is the major story of this election. Since 2008, the US has endured its second economic depression (a recession without a recovery) in less than a century.

Post recession GDP growth beginning in early 2009 averaged around 2%, less than 1/3 of a standard post-WWII recovery and even less than post-recession growth during the Great Depression. Obama is the first US president in our history without a single year of at least 3% GDP growth. Currently, economic growth has slid to 1% and toward a second recession within the depression.

Our hamstrung economy cannot create enough jobs to keep up with population growth. The percentage of Americans with any sort of work has been falling relentlessly since 2008. The official U3 unemployment rate became detached from reality back in 2010 because the calculation does not count the millions of able bodied men and women who cannot buy a job and have given up looking. If the U3 counted all the men and women who were working or looking for work in 2007 and all the new entrants into the work force, the real unemployment rate has been stuck at about 10% since 2009.

This depression has devastated the working class, especially the male working class. The percentage of white men with work is the lowest since they started measuring stats and the percentage of minority men with work is back to the bad old days in the 1970s before the Reagan Prosperity.

After staying home in record setting numbers in 2012 rather than vote for either Obama or Romney, Trump has energized the white working class, which set new turnout records in the GOP primaries this year. In contrast, despite a contested race, minority working class turnout fell during the Democrat primaries, which fell off 20% from the uncontested 2012 primaries.

Trump is exploiting the depression by offering a fascist campaign scapegoating foreigners for our eonomic woes and offering himself as the leader who can "make America great again." If to exchange foreigners for Jews, the 2016 Trump campaign bears more than a passing resemblance to the 1932 Hitler campaign.

The mandarins running our party establishments, bureaucracy, professions, academia and increasingly Wall Street have been a problem for decades, but they did not concern the voters much during the economic boom at the end of the tewntieth century.

It's the economy, stupid.
 

But if they evicted everyone Democrats view as racist, well, see my remark to BB: There wouldn't be anyone left.

In 2012 and again this year, the Rs will lose over 70% of the black vote, the Asian vote, the Hispanic vote, the Jewish vote, and (I'd bet) the Muslim vote. How about if the Rs just convince those voters they aren't racist?
 

A man breaks his leg and tries to walk. A rival tells him it's a bad idea. "Yeah, you'd say that," he answers angrily, "you want me to beat me to the finish line."

Brett keeps on focusing on "the Left" or whatever, but let the cat out of the bag once. Republicans themselves have seen the problem and there is even a "civil war" in the party over the question. The dispute there is that from within and without that there is a clear (and correct) understanding that the long term good of the party would be to alter their approach.

As in the past, this would not need to make them a "minor" party. Democrats in fact appreciated Republican failures in this respect in certain respects (as BB notes) in recent years. But, cannot do that. Among the critics (Democrats, Republicans, independents), there are people like Mark Field. It's a trap!
 

Trump today in exercising his 1st A speech rights warned his base of the justices Hillary would appoint if elected, with a possible suggestion that the 2nd A might address, "I don't know."

Regarding Brett, perhaps he might have some ideas on how Trump, as President, would address the changing demographics that Trump's base of older undereducated white males fear.
 

The civil war in the GOP isn't over racism, it's over whether or not the party should actually attempt to deliver on what it claims to represent, or just continue the old bait and switch. Neither side in the war takes Democratic charges of racism seriously, but the party establishment is sometimes willing to pretend there's validity to them, as an internal weapon.

I would say that Trump could address the imposed demographic changes in the US in several ways. Ceasing to deliberately import large numbers of foreigners who are hostile to US culture and uninterested in obeying our laws. Deporting people who are here illegally. And improving the economy to the point where Americans can afford to have children again.

Let's be clear about this: The demographic changes the US has undergone over the last several decades were not natural or inevitable, they were deliberately engineered in the teeth of public opposition. Democrats set out to 'elect a new people', and the Republican establishment was content to let them, it made their business donors happy.

I think much, perhaps most, of the hysteria concerning Trump is prompted by the fear that he really will interrupt this program before it is complete.
 

Brett, thanks for the confirmation that the GOP isn't going to stop it's racism! Those sound like great ideas to improve your appeal with darker skinned people!
 

I don't think the GOP should try to be popular with people who aren't here legally. We should just kick them out, and let them be unhappy with us in their own countries. People, darker skinned or otherwise, who are here legally, are a different matter. The GOP does well with Latinos who immigrated legally, badly with those who came here illegally and got amnestied. No surprise there, the Democratic Party has long had a lock on the criminal vote.

It would indeed be a shame if other ethnic groups joined blacks on the Democratic plantation. They should realize it's a kind of Ponzi scam, everybody can't get racial spoils, it's mathematically impossible.
 

The GOP does well with Latinos who immigrated legally,
# posted by Blogger Brett : 6:18 PM

No, you don't. They despise you.
 

Trying to understand "elite failure" and Trump without dealing with the trade issue is ridiculous.

Huge numbers of Americans hate free trade. Elites love it. In that situation, the public should be entitled to override the elites and enact the policy, even if it is wrong. And I say this as a free trader.

It's one of the great outrages of my life that the two parties have no provided ANY representation for the tens of millions of Americans who oppose trade deals and support protectionism, all because elites thought they knew better.

This is as big as any issue identified in the OP as to why Trumpism (and also Sandersism) caught fire. And no, Mark Field, this is a failure of the Democrats as well as the Republicans-- indeed, with their union base, the Democrats should have been the natural anti-trade pro-protectionist party.
 

And no, Mark Field, this is a failure of the Democrats as well as the Republicans-- indeed, with their union base, the Democrats should have been the natural anti-trade pro-protectionist party.

I didn't mention trade, certainly not as an issue to blame on Rs. I'd agree that Dems deserve some of the blame for the one-sided nature of trade deals, and for the maldistributive consequences of the deals.

That said, it's racism which drives the R base. They may be unhappy on other issues too, such as trade, but they weren't the ones voting for Bernie. The fact that he gave them a non-racist option for opposing trade deals, and they didn't take it, means that something else mattered just as much or more.
 

Not providing ANY (caps mean words are being used in a special way?) representation means actual representatives that spoke against trade deals and support protectionism but not enough to matter by some unclear standard.

For instance, many people opposed NAFTA. There were actual elected officials who voiced this sentiment. They lost at the end of the day, but not because "the two parties had not provided ANY representation" of the opposition.

"Not enough" is not the same thing. And, sure, Trumpism latched on to that issue as part of their overall nativist policy. Few horrible politicians gain significant popularity without having something going for them other than horrible things. Finally, where did Mark Field say the Democrats had no role regarding failure to appropriately handle trade?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Not sure the exact contours of this "elites" should ignore what they believe rule on trade too. It the public wants, they are quite entitled to stop electing these people. But, they keep on doing it, perhaps implying on balance, balancing everything, they are not that against it as a whole.



 

Is Brett's:

"And improving the economy to the point where Americans can afford to have children again."

applicable to himself? May we assume the "Americans" he refers to are note limited to whites and includes all who are Americans regardless of color? Or can Trump accomplish this primarily for his base? Might free Viagra help? Son of Trump's base have gone international in the direction of Asia and produced mixed race children that they presumably can afford. But is it clear that the older undereducated white men who constitute Trump's base are not having children because they can't afford them? Or are there other reasons that Trump's base are not having children?
 

Joe:

The reason NAFTA, most favored nations status for China, the WTO, and other trade deals went through is that in a 2 party system, individual votes don't matter at all. Unless 1 party takes up your cause, you have NO (CAPITAL LETTERS) representation.

The anti-trade position has at many points been a majority position. But it was never picked up by either party because elites never cared what the masses thought.
 

Joe:

In a democracy, the job of politicians is to do what their constituents want on major issues. For instance, it doesn't matter that Tim Kaine would prefer restrictions on abortion- the people who hired him don't and his job is to do what they want.

When politicians ignore their constituents on major issues, the public gets frustrated, and that greases the skids for the Trumps of the world.
 

In a democracy, the job of politicians is to do what their constituents want on major issues.

This is not right. The job of a representative is to exercise his/her judgment in order to advance the "permanent and aggregate interests" (Madison's phrase) of the country.
 

"On another thread at this Blog I commented on Boot's OpEd, noting that following the article Boot was described as a foreign policy advisor to McCain, Romney and Rubio. But Boot was "on the ground" all the way with Bush/Cheney on Iraq and Afghanistan. Boot has not expressed guilt on his part or on the part of Bush/Cheney that he was in lockstep with. Trump came about as a result of the failings of the Republican Party starting with Reagan and establishment Republicans can't handle Trump's Republican base of older undereducated white males who fear the changing demographics."
Yes! I agree with you!
------------------
I'm working in the thay man hinh xiaomi. It's amazing
 

Dilan, you are using words in a way I don't agree with.

"Representation" to me does not mean that "one party" has to take up the cause. It means there are people representing us in state and national legislatures that in some significant way promote it. And, there is on this subject. Not trivial either. Problem for them is that though factions of each party support them, the coalitions in place are such that they don't win out. This is true for various things.

Also, when it's that terrorist watch list thing, which appears to be something the public wants, you get all cynical when the Democrats in particular promote the issue strongly. The fact you think it's a bad idea and I guess unconstitutional [it's fair to oppose it on that ground, but at a different blog, it was bigger than that] factors in, but suddenly this whole democracy thing works a bit differently.

Finally, surely (I know this), politicians need to listen to their constituents to some degree, but Mark Field is correct that this isn't simply a plebiscite. The representatives are balancing various interests here. Plus, to belabor the point, the people are electing these people. If this is such a game changer, wonder why (it's complicated, obviously, though that warrants toning it down a tad).
 

Basic point for me is that it's fair to critique elites, and since we are babies, the powers that be do have special powers, but it's complicated. It isn't just the elites. And, even then, the criticism often is a bit off.
 

Free trades versus the masses. Take a peek at "Libertarian Party on Free Trade" at:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Libertarian_Party_Free_Trade.htm

I'm not suggesting that all free traders are libertarians. But some voters in 2016 are looking at Johnson/Weld and the Libertarian Party. Perhaps the masses should not go Libertarian Party this year.

As to criticizing elites, lumping all elites together, as not listening to the masses, keep in mind how we continue to honor and idealize the Founders/Framers (and to a lesser extent Ratifiers) back when, when they were the elite of those days. "We the People" back then recognized and accepted representative governance at both the federal and states levels. Technology today can provide us what the masses think, want, from time to time. But what the masses think, want changes, sometimes in a fickle manner.
 

GDP growth is predicted to slow down because of the Boomers retiring, falling birth rates, and the rising national debt. Since no Republican president seems to be able to address the deficit in a way other than increasing it, even if economics were the incentive to vote for Trump, it'd be a poor idea. Gutting taxes and increasing the military are great campaign promises, but they are fiscally irresponsible in practice.
 

I find both Dilan and Brett's ideas here to be a bit simplistic and conspiratorial for my tastes. As to trade agreements, there's been significant 'representation' against it. There were literally hundreds of Congresspersons that voted against NAFTA, for example. There was a vigorous discussion within both parties. The parties aren't required to decide to split on everything and each 'take a side.' Ditto for Brett's idea about 'electing a new people.' We used to have a restrictive immigration system based on wacky, eugenics inspired principles. We got rid of that during the Civil Rights movement and add our post-war economic strong showing, immigration has been upticking from the 70's on. But we've poured billions into stemming the flow, creating huge government bureaucracies and involving somewhat intrusive government measures. Obama's administration has been steadily deporting hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants. Not sure why it hasn't occurred to someone like Brett that 1. stemming immigration is hard and 2. the federal government is not good at doing hard things. It's an odd libertarian argument to just spend more and do more and things will improve...
 

Stephen's post closes with this:

"Clinton should be running on not just campaign finance reform, but overhauling the structure of Congress at a minimum."

Clinton is campaigning on much more than campaign finance reform. But the "overhauling" recommendation may not be feasible. While Clinton can in her campaign urge Congress to do its job, what exactly does Stephen have in mind about the structure of Congress? While Congress has power under the Constitution to do some restructuring on its own (rules), Article V comes to mind with its difficulties (as long noted by Sandy with his urge for a second constitutional convention). What can the President do about Congress other than veto and the bully pulpit.

Thanks again to PMS for her (too) brief comments on the economy, a quite complicated and complex subject on which many are stupid. Income/wealth inequality did not happen overnight. Curing it requires long range policies. Unfortunately politicians' long range is their next election.

 

Griffin: Elites leaned against more regulation from the 1980s onward and so weren’t looking out for ordinary citizens when the shadow banking sector got big. In one of their biggest failures that still doesn’t get enough attention, elites didn’t care to explain why they had to save the banks during the 2008 financial crisis and then didn’t hold anyone responsible.

These "elites" are the mandarin class of technocrats running the party establishments, the bureaucracy, the professions, the media, academia and increasingly Wall Street.

The banking regulators directed the creation of and subsidized the subprime home mortgage market during the 90s and the party establishments defended this system from any congressional reform during the 00s until the mass default of the subprime home mortgage market in 2007. These same banking regulators were the ones who bailed out the banks who ended up with the defaulting mortgages and then ensured that none of their ranks was held accountable.

The problem with your theory that voter rage at the mandarins for this malfeasance is driving this election is that the media did not widely report this story.

Elites (one elite, John Boehner) didn’t allow immigration reform to proceed to a vote in the House, thus setting in motion a chain of events which aided Trump immensely.

Big business (including Trump) have allied with the Democrat establishment for decades to import illegal immigrants to perform cheap labor and then become Democrat voters. Understandably, the GOP establishment is willing to look the other way when business imports cheap labor, but is more reticent to import Democrat voters.

If the GOP had caved and enacted an amnesty for several million more illegals, the voters would be outraged and Trump would likely be in a better position today.
 

"It's an odd libertarian argument to just spend more and do more and things will improve."

Foreign policy matters is one thing that splits libertarians but it also works better when you think of it as a conservative argument.
 

SPAM I AM! continues to push the failed Cruz Canadacy immigration policy which seems to coincide with Trump's base of older undereducated white men on immigration.

SPAM I AM! might put on his libertarian hat on regarding the views of the Libertarian Party on free trade.

It seems, reading between the lines, that SPAM I AM! would like to see Trump in a better position today, perhaps more focused on 2nd A absolutism. Alas, SPAMI AM! and perhaps Brett as well forget that it was Scalia's Heller opinion (5-4) that shot down (pun intended) 2nd A absolutism with wide dicta on permissible limitations (aka gun control measures). Friedman's NYTime column today puts Trump's 2nd A statements yesterday in perspective with reference to the assassination of Israel's Rabin by a right-winger spurred on my rhetoric not dissimilar to that of Trump yesterday.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

PMS: GDP growth is predicted to slow down because of the Boomers retiring, falling birth rates, and the rising national debt.

As the government welfare state replaced the family as the primary source of economic support in several areas, the most important being support of the elderly, children went from being economic necessities to expensive luxuries and the reproduction rate in every progressive political economy (including now the United States) is below replacement rates. The shrinking number of replacement workers is reduced even further by government minimum compensation mandates, which make it too expensive to hire the young and low skilled. Finally, the government redistributionary welfare state effectively pays people to remain under and unemployed.

Productivity growth (per worker production of goods and services) has flatlined because a punitive tax code punishes wealth creation and the regulatory burden in tandem with big business capture of the regulatory bureaucracy to carve out breaks for themselves is killing off current small business and represents an enormous entry cost for prospective small business entrepreneurs. For the first time in American history, the number of new business start-ups has fallen below business failures. Because the constant inflow of small business was the source of most new productivity and job growth, these benefits are disappearing with the small businesses.

Because the percentage of Americans with work is falling and GDP growth is a fraction of historic levels while government welfare state spending soars, every single progressive political economy is operating off public debt or printing money and is heading toward soverign insolvency. Government using borrowing to remove investment capital from the private economy slows GDP and job growth even further.

Both the Dem and GOP party establishments are fully invested in this failing system. Only fundamental constitutional refrom is likely to reverse this decline.
 

"As the government welfare state replaced the family as the primary source of economic support in several areas, the most important being support of the elderly, children went from being economic necessities to expensive luxuries and the reproduction rate in every progressive political economy (including now the United States) is below replacement rates."

Twaddle. As I've shown you before, when nations industrialize and become First World nations their fertility rates go down. This is as true for relatively low government ones like Signapore as it is for 'big government' ones like Scandanavian nations, illustrating it has little to do with the amount of government and everything to do with standards of living.
 

Shorter Mr. W: Greater economic productivity results in less procreativity (even with increase in sexual activity).

SPAM I AM! is trying to revive Reagan's discredited "Welfare Queens."

SPAM I AM! concludes:

"Only fundamental constitutional refrom is likely to reverse this decline."

Is there any "fun" in the fundamental constitutional reform SPAM I AM! thinks is called for? Is such reform more regulation?
 

Mr. Whiskas: The demographic transition seems to lead every advanced society to below replacement birth levels. However, the US was, between 1990 and 2007, a conspicuous exception to this.

It would be nice to know why. Actually, it's remarkably important to figure out why, if we as a species don't want to go extinct...
 

There are a great many faster ways to go extinct than the demographic transition.
 

Mr. W:

The causal relationship between the government welfare state (especially public pensions) and the reproduction rate has been show in multiple studies. The earlier effect of industrialization on reproduction was the elimination of the need to have large numbers of children to work on the farms. This transition was completed decades ago and couples in industrialized countries were still reproducing far above the replacement rate.

Mark:

By 2050, the EU is projected to lose as much native population as they did during the Black Death pandemic. This demographic death spiral of every succeeding generation being smaller than the previous generation in unsustainable.
 

Shag: SPAM I AM! might put on his libertarian hat on regarding the views of the Libertarian Party on free trade

The US is a trading nation and politicians with a clue about political economy need to point out to the working class folks demogued by both the socialist Sanders and the fascist Trump that about a quarter of our economy relies on international trade and what Trump and Sanders are advocating would inflict a rerun of the Hoover recession on the nation.

They also need to start educating the entire population that the totalitarian political economy we adopted over the past century has crippled economic growth and caused mass unemployment across the developed world.
 

The US reproduction rate just hit a new low.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fertility-rates-drop-lowest-level-measured-us-cdc/story?id=41233697
 

Bart, the demographic transition, which explains how industrialization lowers first death and then birth rates, is one of the most well known demographic phenomena, far more established than any study you might offer of contrary explanations. As I've said, when states with relatively low social welfare spending go through the same process as those with comparatively higher it demonstrates it doesn't have to do with such spending.

Here's Singapore's fertility rate
http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-using-current-birth-rate-to-justify.html

Here's the US, notice they're nearly exactly the same
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/06/chart-of-the-week-big-drop-in-birth-rate-may-be-levelling-off/

To argue that long time libertarian darling Singapore's drop, which was simultaneous with the United States, is attributable to 'progressive' policies in both is laughable.
 

Brett,

Even in that period it hovered right around the edge of replacement level. Some of that was economics, but a lot of it was, ironically, immigration-related (immigrants had significantly higher birth rates, and we got a lot of immigrants during that time).
 

Mr. W:

The so called "demographic dividend" to which you appear to be referring was a product of medical advances which reached the Boomers, but not their parents, reducing the percentage if dependents. This has nothing to do with the falling reproduction over the past generation.
 

So SPAM I AM!'s message to Brett and others of his ilk who constitute Trump's base of older undereducated white men who fear the changing demographics, from the libertarian standpoint is, get educated on the significance of free trade that's part of the Libertarian Party program. Brett was at one time a self proclaimed anarcho-libertarian and may not be up-to-date on the Libertarian Party agenda.

SPAM I AM! adds:

"They [US politicians?] also need to start educating the entire population that the totalitarian political economy we adopted over the past century has crippled economic growth and caused mass unemployment across the developed world."

America, according to SPAM I AM!, is to blame for this. Apparently that's why SPAM I AM! has wet dreams for The Gilded Age of the 19th century, as he calls it America's best days.

Regarding reproduction rates in CO, the Mile High State (of mind), cue to BB.
 

Mr. W:

There is a secondary effect at work here. Because children have moved from economic necessities to luxuries, couples forego children like other luxuries in bad economic times. Collapsing economic and job growth is also slowing down reproduction
 

These poll numbers are GREAT news for John McCain!!!
 

Shag:

America is in no way the current totalitarian economy, which is an imported antithesis of our founding principles.
 

In what SPAM I AM! said that I quoted, who is the "we" that did the adopting over the past century? Was America earlier the totalitarian economy rather than "currently"? Presumably, according to SPAMI I AM!, the importation took place after The Gilded Age. SPAM I AM! is almost as precise as Trump with language.
 

Bart, If you think X is the cause of phenomenon Y, but you have examples of some cases where X is low and others where X is high but they have similar levels of Y then it isn't X causing Y.
 

Technically, that could imply multiple causes. Which is, I think, generally going to be the case for social phenomenon.

I think, though, it's the same general phenomenon: At one time, your only support in old age was likely to be your children.

In welfare states, you expect to be supported by the government, and so don't have enough kids. Having kids reduces your present lifestyle

In a free market, you expect to be supported by your savings, and so don't have enough kids. Having kids reduces your present lifestyle, AND how much you can save for retirement. Double whammy.

It's the same general problem: For society to be stable you need enough kids to be born, but individuals do not have enough incentive in a modern society to bear the expense of this.

I've proposed that government retirement programs have payouts scaled to the total economic productivity of your children. Want a decent SS check? Better have some kids, and raise them right!
 

There are already too many humans on the planet. Incentives for creating more humans would be idiotic.
 

Ah, liberals. Who doesn't love their extinctionist ambitions?

 

Ah, liberals. Who doesn't love their extinctionist ambitions?

# posted by Blogger Brett : 5:12 PM

Avoiding overpopulation is not the same thing as going extinct.
 

Having said that, I'm a big fan of the cancer that is trying to make you extinct.
 

At one time, your only support in old age was likely to be your children. In welfare states, you expect to be supported by the government, and so don't have enough kids. Having kids reduces your present lifestyle.

In the past, the wider family, religious group and so forth also factored in. Thus, we begin with an incomplete analysis. Having less children was something that developed over time. It was not something that started with "welfare states." Many children already was becoming unproductive including as health improved, farming no longer was as central, sending children to the military/church etc. less prevalent etc. Again, perhaps we are not seeing the whole picture, too much focus on "the government."

In a free market, you expect to be supported by your savings, and so don't have enough kids. Having kids reduces your present lifestyle, AND how much you can save for retirement. Double whammy.

There is no complete "free" market; the market was always regulated in various respects. How many kids here one has depends on various factors. Many people actually have no "savings" -- they live paycheck to paycheck. Incomplete again.

It's the same general problem: For society to be stable you need enough kids to be born, but individuals do not have enough incentive in a modern society to bear the expense of this.

It isn't clear to me there is some general shortage of children though there are various things society can do to offer incentives. One common thing in this country from its beginning was to encourage immigration. But, that sort of thing turns some off, including the fact "the wrong sort" would dominate. This used to be Irish or Italian etc. These days, it tends to be a different sort of person.

I've proposed that government retirement programs have payouts scaled to the total economic productivity of your children. Want a decent SS check? Better have some kids, and raise them right!

Not sure how this works. Parents can raise kids quite well and they still for a range of reasons are not economically productive. They very well can be nice people without that happening. After all, there are a range of reasons why children, decades after adulthood perhaps, are not successful. Perhaps, we should stop them from marrying economically non-productive mates. The criteria there should be fairly easy.
 

Mr. W: Bart, If you think X is the cause of phenomenon Y, but you have examples of some cases where X is low and others where X is high but they have similar levels of Y then it isn't X causing Y.

Human societies consist of the cumulative interactions of millions of individuals and no single rule of behavior applies universally with perfect causation across multiple societies. (This BTW is one of the reasons effecient central direction of a society or societies is impossible, but makes possible your cherry picking.) The studies to which I refer look at the causation across a couple dozen or so nations and find a statistically significant relationship between the welfare state (especially public pensions) or betweens recessions and reduced reproduction rates.
 

Joe, I'm writing blog comments here, not essays for publication in a sociology journal. You've got to expect me to leave some things unmentioned or simplified.

"It isn't clear to me there is some general shortage of children"

You're kidding me, right? We're looking at replacement rates in various Western countries ranging from about 2 in a few, to as low as 1.2 or so. Anything below about 2.1 is a general shortage. Approaching 1 you get horribly warped age demographics.
 

Having said that, I'm a big fan of the cancer that is trying to make you extinct.

That's a disgusting thing to say.
 

Brett: At one time, your only support in old age was likely to be your children. In welfare states, you expect to be supported by the government, and so don't have enough kids. Having kids reduces your present lifestyle.

Public pensions encourage classic socialist free riding - only those who have children pay, everyone takes.

Joe: Having less children was something that developed over time. It was not something that started with "welfare states."

The collapse of reproduction rates occurred during the past couple generations with the advent of birth control allowing couples to choose whether to have children and thus providing a vehicle to accomplish the free riding encouraged by the welfare state.
 

The current world-wide birth rate is 2.5, so there's no risk of "going extinct" -- world population is still increasing, and would continue to increase for a while even if the rate fell below replacement. And, of course, the actual pace of any future decline would depend on the new birth rate.

As for the demographics if we ever do reach actual decline, that's a short term problem until the population re-balances at a lower level. Though given all the predictions that robots will take all our jobs, perhaps not even that.
 

"Joe, I'm writing blog comments here, not essays for publication in a sociology journal. You've got to expect me to leave some things unmentioned or simplified."

Uh huh. Granting that, your summary to me was problematic.

Not kidding. Mark Field's 6.29 comment sounds correct though don't claim much expertise here.
 

They're not concerned about world-wide birth rates. They're worried about white birth rates.
 

Has anyone mentioned the role high college loans may have on birth rates?
 

Bart, if you have two dozen big cities which have a homelessness problem and Democrat mayors, and there are also four big cities which have a homelessness problem but have Republican mayors, then the most reasonable conclusion is not that having a Democrat mayor causes a city to have homelessness problems, but that big cities do.
 

WHere does Michael Bloomberg fit in that scenario?

One thing that came to mind regarding the whole population thing is that I personally think a factor here in the future will be the importance of unity/support beyond the immediate family. Think this was true traditionally and goes beyond government. For instance, religion often is a matter to form "kin" broadly speaking.
 

Brett,

I think you're somewhat correct. All modernized, first world nations tend to have lower birth rates, whether they are big or low government, because well off nations have more resources and either way that means people are going to be free to have or not have children according to their choice rather than some necessity (not limited to needing the kids to take care of them, this also includes things like being confident that your kids will grow to adulthood and make good money so that you need fewer kids for that reason, but it also includes things like regular and easy access to reproductive control technology and education towards using it).

However, I should note that conservatives seem to try to have it both ways with regards to social welfare programs: on the one hand we often hear that they incentivize or 'subsidize' poor women to have more children, but then we hear, a la people like Bart, that they actually inhibit reproduction! Talk about cherry picking...

I also think it's quite strange that a self professed libertarian thinks the government (would that be the federal government?) should have any role whatsoever in that most personal of decisions, when and how many children to have. I could see an argument from a libertarian perspective to eliminate policies we currently have that might be seen to 'nudge' people to have less kids, but policies to 'nudge' them in the other way strike me as just as much 'big government.'
 

In the end reproduction in any modern society is going to be a decision that is, thankfully, largely in the hands of the women involved. If you want there to be more children born in any given nation you have to convince more women to have more kids. More and more women have educational, career and social goals that they rightly see as threatened by having children. A proposal 'from the left' that would seem to address this would be measures to combat pregnancy-related discrimination and promote 'mom-friendly' work conditions like flex time, working from home, etc., so that women seeking careers could feel more free to have children while they do.

joe

I think religion can play a part in the way you describe, but it also can have direct results to the extent it has tenets touching on reproduction and how seriously adherents take them. Ireland has a higher birthrate than Wales, for example, I'd be surprised if that wasn't involved there.
 

I think any number of things will have various effects, so it will depend on how you go about it. Government as much as non-government.
 

Mark: "That's a disgusting thing to say."

It can't have escaped your notice that BartBuster is a rather disgusting person. Militantly so.

Mista Whiskas: "I also think it's quite strange that a self professed libertarian thinks the government (would that be the federal government?) should have any role whatsoever in that most personal of decisions, when and how many children to have."

I try to distinguish between my ideological preferences, and what is likely to work. You've heard that quote concerning Communism? "Wonderful theory, wrong species"?

I'm open to the possibility that it's equally applicable to libertarianism, no matter how much I happen to like anarcho-capitalism.


 

Madison was an imbecile and is to blame for so many of the problems with American democracy, and as usual, he was wrong here.

On subsidiary issues, sure, politicians use judgment. But when they ignore constituents on major issues, you get a Trump a Brexit, or even political violence.

On major issues their job is to obey their masters, the voters.
 

"I find both Dilan and Brett's ideas here to be a bit simplistic .. for my tastes."
 

In a 2 party system, the only representation that matters is where 1 party takes up your cause, and the voters have the right to expect zero deviation on major issues. The elimination of the pro-life Democrat is one of the great political accomplishments of my lifetime. I don't care about their superior judgment. Obey their masters.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

It can't have escaped your notice that BartBuster is a rather disgusting person. Militantly so.

# posted by Blogger Brett : 8:15 PM

lol

Physician, heal thyself. You are a scumbag.
 

"The R elites don't need to disavow the base altogether, what they need to do is stop catering to the racism and (often related) anti-intellectualism. As Bill James once pointed out (I'm paraphrasing), if you don't start with true statements, no amount of analysis is going to get you anywhere."
I agree with you Mark.
-------------------------------------
I'm working in the thay man hinh xiaomi. It's amazing
 

My tour through the NYTimes this morning led me to "Review: In 'Hillbilly Elegy,' a Tough Love of the Poor Who Back Trump," of a book by J.D. Vance. Another article that I'll get back to later today is described as both Trump and Clinton ignore the poor. I did read Tom Edsall's new column that talks about changes in the Republican Party but also the Democratic Party that may result from Trump. All of these have a bearing on Stephen's post and how this thread has been developing.

I am reminded of the great Mel Brooks and his movie "Life Stinks" that I have watched several times over the years on TV. Brooks has said he thought this was one of his best movies and I agree. I watched the movie a few months back after Trump declared his candidacy and had Trump in mind as I watched. I don't think The Donald would have ever taken the challenge that Brooks' character did, but perhaps Trump as a loser this Fall might seek redemption via this method of actually living the life of his base of older undereducated white men who fear the changing demographics.

Speaking of which base Brett gets more and more chameleon as he now makes reference to favoring anarcho capitalism over anarcho libertarianism. Also, regarding the lower birth rates, Brett expresses concern that the species might become extinct. Brett is not specific about the species he is referring to but based upon his comments at this and other threads, it seems he is focusing on whites, however whites is defined. Overall world population is increasing, so he seems not to be concerned with all humans becoming extinct. And Brett has a cockamamie proposal for addressing his concern that might correct the situation in America. But that proposal does not seem to fit either anarcho type Brett was/is. Perhaps Brett is being trumped by his own petard.
 

"Speaking of which base Brett gets more and more chameleon as he now makes reference to favoring anarcho capitalism over anarcho libertarianism."

Anarcholibertarianism IS anarchocapitalism; You don't get socialism without a great deal of coercion. The people who think themselves libertarians and socialists are just fooling themselves.

"Brett is not specific about the species he is referring to but based upon his comments at this and other threads, it seems he is focusing on whites, however whites is defined."

You are quite relentless to see racism in anyone who disagrees with you, even if you have to add it yourself, it being missing from what they say. I'm pretty clear about the species I'm referring to: The human race.

Yes, it's true, the very poor parts of the world, that haven't yet become developed, still have high replacement rates. They, too, will drop below replacement if they escape poverty.

Since keeping them in poverty is not an acceptable way of assuring the continuation of the species, I'd say we need to find some way for developed regions to maintain their populations without importing excess people from poor regions. As, ideally, at some point we want the whole world to be a developed region.
 

I'm pleased that Brett is thinking of the entire human race and not merely a sub-specie thereof. Brett's closing paragraph is quite idealistic for an anarcho-whatever. Looking back to much earlier times, before colonialism came about, self-help seemed to work as there were open spaces to enter. Colonialism controlled the situation in combination with immigration laws, but the world's population continued to grow. Perhaps for the sake of discussion we can agree that there are some limitations to what the world can accommodate for humans. Applying the zero sum game, there will be regional issues that the haves may not wish to address. At issue is the survival of humans on a livable earth that can address changes, manmade and otherwise, that occur. Limitations suggested in Brett's closing paragraph may exacerbate problems. Agains, the zero sum game comes into play. And of course there may be environmental issues if the whole world were to become developed. So Brett's idealism remains cockamamie. While I do not expect a utopian world, it is only by cooperation that humans can prevent dystopia. Some may call that cooperation coercion/socialism, but if so, it is preferable to anarchy of whatever that Brett believes in.

So, is Brett prepared to address income/asset inequality for the entire human race and not just a sub-set thereof that he may identify with? That would be good. Also, in an anarcho-whatever world, especially in America, is Brett prepared to address 2nd A inequality for purposes of MAD without actually getting mad?
 

I just finished reading Binyamin Appelbaum's NYTimes article "The Millions of Americans Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Barely Mention: The Poor" and it ties into Brett's and my recent comments. How many of us really care enough to address the issues of the poor, including via taxation? As Mel Brooks put it "life Stinks" for many here in America.
 

Shag, there aren't any "sub-species" of humanity. At least not yet, germ line genetic engineering might lead to speciation. Right now we're all one species, with a lot less genetic variation than you see in many other species. Recognizing such genetic variance as does exist doesn't require exaggerating it.

And not liking Donald Trump, (I don't much like him, myself.) doesn't require pretending he doesn't talk about the poor.
 

Saw "Life Stinks" some time back. Nice idea. Didn't really like the execution that much. But, perhaps, it was partially a matter of his style. The movie "Saving Grace" might be a good companion film -- pope "slums" as a priest in a poor town.

Finishing off the movies, perhaps we can get the accountant friend in "Dave" to help settle our economic problems. Perhaps, we can top it off with some Dolley Madison. Her husband might have been some sort of imbecile (not really) but hey at least he indirectly helped promote ice cream!

http://www.pbs.org/food/features/ice-cream-founding-fathers/
 

Take a look at "Human Races and Subspecies" at:

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/human-races-and-subspecies/

I can readily accept no subspecies of humans , alas, there remain doubters when it comes to human races. As Rodney King once said "Can't we all just get along?"