In response to the comments on my post yesterday about the fallacy of drawing analogies among the politics of various different countries, yes, many Western countries are experiencing the same stresses. My very point is that their responses will be informed by each country’s own history, experience, preferences, social conditions, and so on.
That’s also the fallacy on which the “cafeteria” theory of politics relies. Those who think that we can import government programs from other countries as we would automobiles will be shocked to learn that the political viability of those programs rests on factors which simply don’t exist here—things like social cohesion, greater trust in government, conformity with rules just because they’re rules, and so on.
“My very point is that their responses will be informed by each countries own history, experience, preferences, social conditions, and so on.”
That, I think, is undeniably true. Which is why I pointed out common issues here and abroad, choosing to use immigration as an example. Whether the stimuli or the responses, the two are not necessarily culturally unique. Europe has historically been more amenable to immigration for example. But the problems with it are not unique to the US. And now Germany, UK and Italy have awakened. Sweden can’t be far behind as they are losing their country as we speak.
I believe that elitism vs everyman-ism falls into the same category, and therefore the response shows commonality despite relative degrees of labeled left / right tendencies.
You know, a short hand here is simply that elitist power seekers eventually overplay their hand and precipitate revolt. Always and everywhere.
” elitist power seekers”
I think that the use of elitist largely serves to avoid using the word wealthy.
” we can import government programs from other countries”
Have we ever imported an intact government program from another country? I dont think so. I dont think we have even tried. (To be clear, I think that we should look elsewhere for ideas, but adapt them to our needs.) If anything, I think that we have been guilty of assuming we can export our programs and values into other countries, mostly unsuccessfully.
Steve
Maybe not social programs — but economic programs and social reforms yes.
The Thatcher program of deregulation, cutting taxes was broadly adopted by Reagan.
Clinton’s moderate liberalism with modified support for free trade, public spending was the same one Blair used.
If you look back to history – the biggest social reform that various parts of the Anglo-sphere did and influenced each other was suffrage reform.
Women’s suffrage was adopted in the U.S in 1920, in the U.K. from 1921 to 1928, Canada in 1918.
The first wave of reforming the franchise occurred in the 1825-1835 in the US, 1832 in the U.K.
A more recent example is gay marriage, Canada in 2004, US 2004-2015, UK 2014.
Most of the deregulation credited to Reagan was done by Carter, except for deregulating banks, and we know how that always turns out. (S&L crisis anyone?) I think Clinton was more like what I talked about. Adopting ideas and modifying them enough to be accepted in the US. What I was thinking is that we have never imported specific programs like the NHS, Germany’s apprentice system, Swedish education system, etc.
Steve
â€elitist power seekersâ€
“I think that the use of elitist largely serves to avoid using the word wealthy.”
It’s used because many if not most of the elite aren’t wealthy (although they’re generally well-off. Determining what income level or financial status one has to have to be considered wealthy is something for another discussion). The vast majority of academics aren’t wealthy. Ditto journalists except again for a small minority of talking heads. Ditto most government bureaucrats. writers, entertainers, etc. But they consider themselves to be the elite, the movers or wannabe movers and shakers of the world, the people that matter. Whereas Trump despite his wealth they do not consider elite, otherwise they wouldn’t be opposing him so strenuously. Just my opinion.
Elitists = those who think they are smarter, are more moral, are better than the “masses.†The definition has less to do with money than ego and the quality of virtual signaling and political correctness attributed to one group versus another. That’s why calling those opposed to her candidacy “deplorables†was so easily mouthed by HRC, as she considered her constituency to be the superior ones.
Tars and Jan beat me to it. But then we all know steve was just trying to deflect………
Academics dont run the country. Journalists dont run the country. Actual policy that is passed is done to benefit the wealthy. Iyt was the wealthy who moved all the business to China and got wealthier doing it. It wasnt some academic who decided companies in CHina would give up their intellectual property so they could make lots of money. That was a group of the wealthy wanting to make more money. Immigration has persisted as an issue becasue the wealthy want cheap labor. Its why the GO will continue ot focus on a wall and very carefully avoid doing anything that will cut the flow of cheap labor into the country. Its why tax cuts will alwasy be aimed at the wealthy.
In order to protect the money class you guys needed to demonize another group, the mysterious elites.* Most bizarre is the attempt to make Trump a non-elite. This is a guy who never did anything for anyone other than himself. A goodly number of the billionaire class at least make some attempt to give something back, but not the ones like Trump. Born wealthy and entitled. He employed illegal aliens and shipped his business overseas to make more money just like many of the other wealthy, but now he is a regular guy. Which is why it just makes so much sense to call his true beleivers cultists. You have to stretch reality beyond any believable bounds to believe he actually cares about anyone.
* The exception here is social issues. No real money to be made there so the wealthy dont dominate social issues. The GOP supporters did get tired of having the academics and journalists telling them it was wrong to treat gays and minorities the way they were treated. First it wasnt OK to beat gays. Then it wasnt OK to deny them jobs. Then it wasnt OK to tell them they couldmnt get married. Same general issues with minorities. Now we see the same course for trans people and the social conservatives have decided they have enough. They lost on all of those other issues and as much as they would like to go back to putting gays back in the closet they have given up on that issue, but they are willing to vote for any conservative who now promises religious liberty, ie they can continue to enforce their prejudices.
Steve
I don’t know where to even start with your posted perspective, Steve.
Academics cultivate the mindset of youth – also known as “indoctrination.†When you capture and mold the POV of children, they become your political disciples, voting for policies reflecting the history/civics taught them during their stint in public education. For instance, Howard Zind’s version of American history, is now a commonly used text in public schools.
Journalists provide a microphone to spread selected information and a POV by a filtering process, in which they can either feed or starve a narrative. Because of the press, who knew there were 17 egregious mistakes made in those FISA applications, none favoring Trump? Who knew the Steele Dossier was used as the primary evidence to get FISA warrants, only after all the wired info showed no evidence of wrongdoing and was then omitted in any evidence collection submitted to the courts? Who knew the only source of the Steele Dossier was rumor, barroom talk, and called “garbage†by that same source? Who knew that the Nunes report (heavily dissed by the MSM) was considered accurate by the IG, while the Schiff corrective memo (undisputed by the same MSM) was not truthful? The press, basically, has become a loyal, reliable mouthpiece for one party’s narrative, and that is how minds are changed and glue is set for who or what the public believes – something much more powerful and influential than money.
Furthermore, no matter how repugnant Trump’s presidency has been to some, many people have benefited from his policies. Government stats demonstrate improvements across all demographics in employment, a rise in household incomes, greater small business optimism and investment. In fact percentage income increases are higher in the working classes versus management increases. Also, policy changes like “The Right To Try†Act, positive VA changes, calling out China’s deviant trade behavior are but a few examples of this president’s more positive actions the last 3 years. However, all the MSM reports is abysmal news about chaos and malfeasance via primarily anonymous sources. Even the â€whistleblower,†whose secondary observations don’t even meet the standards of whistleblower protection, has not raised any doubts or investigations within our incurious press – this while Trump’s predecessor quietly prosecuted more whistleblowers (8) than any other modern presidency, with a backdrop of press crickets.
Lastly, Steve, I truly believe you have become so insulated in the dogma of the past that you have failed to see how both parties have evolved and actually changed places. The democrat party has now become the one of the well-connected, celebrity oriented, rich high tech members of this country. Wall Street contributions are greater to Dems as well. And, ironically, working classes in all ethnicities, feel more connected to common-sense, more conservative policy choices.
jan- Students are disciples? Wow! You really are a full blown cultist. So much of what you say is wrong, just repeating stuff from Breitbart or some other right wing site, that it would take too mcuh time to go over everything. However, since I still care for lots of patients, and chair what has become a fairly large department, I do feel an ethical obligation to make sure that people know how harmful the Right to Try Act can be, though last time I checked few had used it. If you understood the bill and the problem you would also understand why that is the case. Batemen-House gives a longer critique at the link, but RTT mostly just makes it so that you dont have to report any adverse events (with a few exceptions) with investigational drugs. There is no oversight and no limits on costs. With EA you get the drugs just as quickly, you have to report adverse events, costs are reasonable, the protocol becomes public knowledge and you can use a drug even if it is in an early investigational stage, not in any stage of clinical trial. IOW you can get drugs earlier.
RTT was mostly just an attempt by a special interest group to make sure there was no government involvement in the process. RTT allows for an unsrupulous provider and/or drug company to take advantage of desperate patients, without the advantage of geting drugs any sooner. It was ideologically based, not patient based. Fortunately, the reputable drug companies are staying away from this.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20181024.111856/full/
Steve