Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Most Consequential Development of the Primary Season
No, not the Trump phenomenon, which I regard as the re-emergence of the Perot-Buchanan voter, though that’s certainly important. But long-term, that won’t be as big a turning point in American politics as what I’m talking about: the embrace of socialism by millennials. We’re the future, and we’ve fallen in love with what we imagine Sweden is like. Some of us will be voting this way for decades to come.
Having written before that I think Sanders will win NH but fizzle out everywhere else, I’m now going to start harping on the long-term ramifications of the campaign. This post was prompted by an excellent write-up in the Orange County Register, which I think is worth your time.
I’m going to add another important factor to consider: how people vote during their life is significantly influenced by the political environment in their first Presidential election. You can argue “people get more conservative as they get older,” but that doesn’t explain why old folks who turned 18 during the Eisenhower administration voted more Republican than both the people slightly younger than them (Kennedy 18-year-olds) and the people slightly older than them (Truman 18-year-olds):
I’ve said before that the Dubya Bush years will be hurting the conservative movement for decades. Looks like the Sanders campaign has re-ignited the passion many millennials had for Obama. This voting block will be hounding the Democrats for decades, and while we’ll take significant amusement at this division over here on the right, we’ve got to get ready for a socialist nominee from the Democratic party in the near future.
Published in Politics
Socialism: Stealing from Peter while falsely claiming to benefit Paul.
A lot of this is the backlash for 2008, period. And populist, far-left and far-right candidates and parties are gaining strength around the world, not just in the US. We can’t look at this in isolation; it’s not credible to believe we’re that exceptional. The financial crisis sure looked like a global crisis of capitalism; it should come as no surprise that the far-left saw it as precisely that: It’s what the ideology predicts, after all.
Nor should we be so surprised — or at least, I shouldn’t be — that extremist candidates and movements have flourished in its wake. It’s exactly what happened after the Great Depression. I just pray the world can pull itself together before the rest of that history repeats itself.
Agreed with everything you posted here. I’ll add that the feeling of a yuuuuge disconnect between “elites” and general populace is alive here as much as in Europe. Across the pond, the EU’s leaders really do seem to be completely unaccountable; here, while there’s certainly a disconnect, I also get the feeling that both sides are punishing their party for not being more severe.
How exactly are they punishing their parties? Are you talking about the Bernie and Trump stuff? Be honest, we all know that Bernie and Trump will not be the nominees no matter what the populace wants. The elites will not allow that to happen. I sometimes wonder if that is not what is happening. The populace is putting Bernie and Trump up so the elites have to reveal exactly how corrupt the process is.
The one thing that will definitely happen after this primary season is that controls will be put in place to keep a Trump or Bernie situation from happening again.
Your argument seems to be “elites won’t let outsiders win, regardless of what the populace wants, so the populace isn’t punishing their party.” This seems stupid: a significant portion of voters are supporting “outsider” candidates and pledging not to support the nominee if an “establishment” candidate is picked. We’ll see if they follow through, but so far polls and votes on our side show a consistent >50% who vote for either Cruz or never-before-elected candidates (Trump/Carson/Fiorina). Before January not even Cruz could get double digits.
We know this? I’d frankly be reassured if we knew this, but I don’t know it at all.
Am I an elite or am I part of the mob, by your reckoning? Because if I’m an elite, I’ve got to let you in on the secret: I’ve got no control over them. None. I have no idea what I’ll do if they vote for Trump or Sanders, and no way to stop it. I’m just praying the Founders knew what they were doing with the Constitution and the electoral college, frankly.
And if I’m part of the mob, well — I’m not going to vote for them, but I can’t speak for the rest.
But the primaries are all play acting before the convention and selection of the nominee So none of this really matters it is just bread and circuses for the plebes. Makes them feel like they are part of the process while the elites steer things the way they want. Even if an anti establishment get the nominee what really matters is who ends up POTUS. Since that is likely to be HRC we are back to an establishment type.
Your cynicism is impressing me. Nevermind Jeb’s $100 million war chest wasted. Nevermind a significant portion of the Democratic base openly embracing socialism and rejecting a Clinton. Nevermind never-elected candidates and the one elected Republican who pissed off all of his colleagues getting >50% support in the GOP.
Look, I’m not saying HRC won’t pull it off and win. There’s a chance she will. But only focusing on that misses the popular sentiment rejecting candidates with any kind of conventional record. Of course the “establishment” is going to try to influence the process: every elected official and pundit and thinktank has a vision of how they’d like America to be, and merely by stating that vision they’re “influencing the process”, to say nothing of donations or ads or endorsements. But notice how unexpectedly our side has developed versus our expectations a year ago, and how much traction the socialist gets. This is not the narrative the “establishments” wanted.
The “outsider” narrative on the GOP side and the “socialist” narrative on the Democrat side is exactly the narrative that the elites wanted. The only issue is that they have attached themselves to the wrong avatars. Jeb was meant to be the “outsider” because of his years in the wilderness and Clinton was the new “socialist” following BHO tradition. Trump was a GOP spoiler Clinton wild card similar to the one they played with Ross Perot under Bill Clinton.
The only issue is that the wacky foils took on a life of their own. I doubt they thought the foils would become this popular. So everybody is scrambling. Not to worry. After Trump has done his damage he will be shut down as Perot was and Bernie will be shut down on the Democrat side once HRC looks like she has been in a actual race instead of preordained by the powers that be. Remember it is a show for the plebes. It has to look good or they will not buy it.
I will grant you that the HRC email thing looks bad but that is only from the GOP side. The average voter does not even know about it or thinks it is part of the GOP war on women.
Sorry Claire, I suspect elites have more money and connections than you, but you are welcome to watch the show with the rest of us.
All this means is that the kids craving socialism are not educated enough recognize socialist policies when they are passed/enacted by fiat. And furthermore, how is “you didn’t build that” paying lip service to free enterprise? How is mandating by law that citizens purchase a product or face fines paying lip service? I’m not aiming this at any of you reading this, but more the kids thirsting for it. They are ignorant of the very thing that they claim to want because they now have it, and pretty blatantly at that.