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.
Day of the Demagogues
As the results of New Hampshire’s primary were coming in Tuesday night, some commentators on Twitter were jubilant about the “disruption” the victories of an inane socialist demagogue and a foul-mouthed nationalist demagogue represented to the “establishment.” Yes, mobs are disruptive. Madame DeFarge enjoyed a good shakeup herself.
Senator Bernie Sanders believes that eight years of the most leftist president in American history have left the plutocrats in total control. Channeling the late Hugo Chavez, he promises to lift the minimum wage to $15 per hour, provide free college educations for all, and deliver universal health care (with only a small tax on the middle class). How will he pay for it? “With a tax on Wall Street speculation.”
Now, I’m no particular fan of Wall Street, but this is rubbish. Sanders bellows: “The greed, the recklessness, and the illegal behavior drove our economy to its knees. The American people bailed out Wall Street, now it’s Wall Street’s time to help the middle class.” Without defending bailouts (and if you want an excellent history of how the government encouraged risky behavior by bankers, see “Gambling with Other People’s Money” by Russ Roberts), let’s remember that in 2008 the banks were given loans, not bailouts, and the purpose was not to support billionaires but to head off what Congress had reason to fear was a total freeze up of the financial system. Maybe they were wrong, but Congress was genuinely terrified that without a quick infusion of government money, there could be a full scale liquidity crisis, i.e., when you and I went to our ATMs, we’d get an error message.
If you’ll indulge another objection to the greedy-bankers-robbing-the-middle-class tale, the banks paid back the “bailout” money (with interest) as Jim Geraghty of National Review reminds us. Further, while you’ll never hear this from Bolshy Bernie, it wasn’t private greed that created the financial crisis but government coercion and incentives that encouraged lending to “non-traditional” (i.e., non-creditworthy) customers. There’s more to say on this, like the fact that many of those sainted middle class victims of the financial crisis were actually house flippers who made risky bets. That’s not to say many innocent people were not hurt. But spare us these black/white morality tales. Oh, and Sen. Sanders: Even if you confiscated all of the wealth of America’s “billionaire class” (what a ridiculous term for a few hundred individuals), you wouldn’t come close the $17 trillion in new spending you’ve proposed.
Meanwhile, the Dodd/Frank bill that was supposed to be the cure for what went wrong in 2008 — the bill the Democratic House and Senate passed and Obama signed — it’s a big cause of our anemic growth now. The big banks have done okay with the thousands upon thousands of new regulations. In fact, they’ve gotten even bigger. But medium and small banks, the ones who typically finance new ventures and thus create new job opportunities, are going under. The ones that remain are actually discouraging new deposits. That’s right. They can’t lend out the money because of the strictures of Dodd/Frank, so they don’t want new money. An employee at one of the surviving banks told me that she now spends about 30 percent of her time on Dodd/Frank compliance. What would she have done with that time otherwise? “Helped our clients to become more efficient.” Businesses that are more efficient are more profitable. More profits equal more employment. Profits — shhh, don’t upset the Democrats — are good.
Not that the leading contender for the Republican nomination grapples with any of these questions. Like Sanders, he’s not interested in reform so much as looking for scapegoats. Sanders blames greedy billionaires for the problems of the middle class and the poor; Trump blames treacherous immigrants, crafty foreigners, and incompetent leadership in Washington. Some people seemed surprised that there was overlap between Sanders and Trump supporters, but it makes perfect sense.
Some commentators on the right, particularly on talk radio, have ridden the hobby horse of immigration very hard — even to the point of welcoming Trump’s rise as a ratification of their fixation. But in Iowa, immigration was rated important by only 13 percent of GOP caucus participants. In New Hampshire, only 15 percent said it was important to their vote. Terrorism, government spending, and the economy all ranked higher.
Trump and Sanders are disruptive, and people who welcome chaos for its own sake are dangerous. The Founders of this country were extremely wary of excessive power — whether in an executive or in a mob. They designed the system to be stable and somewhat resistant to every shift in public mood, and it has served us very well. But the voters are the ultimate custodians of the American system, and by turning to demagogues in both parties, they’ve ventured into scary terrain.
Published in General
BDB
Your comment illustrates a commonality in “moderate” and left-wing reactions to complaints about immigration policy. Both eschew persuasion and proceed immediately to snark. From there it’s a small step to smear – the dreaded “Racism!” It happens every time.
The difference is that left-wingers are more focused and practical than their dupes in the middle or on the right. That’s why projects like “Battleground Texas” exist. National Democrats are not interested in changing the minds of the people in the state; they’re concerned with changing the people in the state. It’s all about demographics to them. (“Ideas? Those are for the chattering classes. We want votes.”)
Some people will never see past their own prejudices. California can go left, Colorado and North Carolina can teeter and even Canada can throw out its own immigrant-friendly Conservatives and it never registers. Our own craven and corrupt Democrats can be unanimously pro-immigration and still some on our side refuse to question their allegiance to the concept. I point out that if legal immigrants voted 4 to 1 Republican the Democrats would – once again – be “nativists” and “xenophobes” and it still doesn’t register.
Sad.
Stop all immigration now. End this 50-year experiment in cultural transformation.
To quote the late, great philosopher Warner Wolf: “Give me a break!”
Kind of proves others’ points.
Actually we do have immigrants here in New Hampshire. There is a fairly strong immigrant resettlement program moving people here. Many pros and cons about it, but the worst seems to be that once dropped here the “benevolent” group that resettles them takes minimal responsibility for ensuring that they are able to assimilate. New Hampshire seems to do a fairly decent job of making up the difference, but it has created some concern and I suspect that is where some of the issues with immigration arise. Still, as Mona Charen pointed out – immigration isn’t high on the list of concerns here. I’m still bewildered over Trump’s victory here – I surely didn’t vote for him. But to a certain extent I think I’ll blame it on the incessant media support for him. He is held up by every television news/opinion show as a paragon of differentness – yet never is his real record of failure and abuse of crony capitalism laid out for the viewer. You have to search out articles to read and few people do this anymore.
I think you are correct again Jamie and that isn’t a shot at you, I mean it sincerely.
I don’t know if you are being satirical or trying to take a shot at Mike, your record on that doesn’t help, but these few comments like this lately are sound analysis whether you intend them or not.
I have my interpersonal issues with you, but they’ve never included my not giving you credit for your inquisitive intelligence and it is evident in this comment.
Republicans abandon limited government conservatism. They blessed and funded the extra Constitutional government neither of us support and in the process appear to have cemented it into being with blessing from the judiciary.
So now we have an extra Constitutional federal government that touches all parts of our daily lives. Those recently in charge have used the extra Constitutional government for the benefit of their donor constituencies (both D and R). The sizeable portion that is not included in those constituencies have had enough.
Now they are supporting strong men (Sanders and Trump) who promise to wield the power of extra Constitutional government for the benefit of those who feel slighted by the D and R parties.
I think you’ve brought clarity to the discussion. At least for me.
How is it law abiding to let the “good” illegals back in?
I’m confused, I thought we couldn’t ignore the Trump voter despite them not being conservative. Now they’re going to reinvigorate the party as a vanguard of the Conservatariat?
Edited per Ball’s suggestion.
There’s no “e” on the end of your neoconlogism.
I was trying to add a bit of both and you are, of course, correct here. What I can’t agree with is why smart conservatives are supporting him. I understand why people not immersed in the movement would go for Trump – they see corruption on both sides and simply want the pendulum to swing in their favor. They have no real dog in the fight beyond their own rational self interest. Here, on Ricochet, we have people who are committed to principle. Who do care what the movement stands for. Some have adopted a scorched earth policy when it comes to the Republican Party but offered no real solutions as to what comes after. That worries me. Others claim that we must reach out a section of the public that isn’t particularly conservative by abandoning our principles on certain issues. No thanks, tried that, it got us bailouts, Medicare Part-D, No-Child Left Behind and unfunded nation building exercises of foreign adventurism.
Both Sanders and Trump have proposed plans that will lead to depression. Sanders wants to levy a tax on every transaction in the financial markets, and Trump wants to crank up tariffs. Financial meltdown will show those elites!
Who? I’ve not witnessed this outside of a handful of folks on Ricochet.
Hopefully, the realization that gov’t is the problem and much less of it is the solution.
Agree. I think we should reach out with limited gov’t principles.
Jamie, I think it is also worth considering that we (you and I) are not conservatives.
I think we use the term incorrectly and interchangeably too often.
Conservatives wish to conserve and preserve existing institutions. Republicans to that end are the conservative party. Since they do not wish to eliminate the existing government institutions we are having an election about which strong man will manage them for the voting constituency that supports him or her.
Presently, emotive words like fabulous, wonderful, winning etc. are winning the day delivered by a strong man with a perceived track record of pop culture success. The strong men that promise more of what we’ve already seen: Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Christie, etc. are coming in varying degrees of second.
The one candidate with a track record of something different, or at least different from the aforementioned gang is Cruz. He is an outlier.
Ricochet is having a discussion about wanting their strong man in charge and those supporting Trump want their strong man in charge.
Ricochet hopes the non-Rubio Republican strong men will quit and their support will coalesce around Rubio and take down the Trump strong man so that Rubio can wield the extra Constitutional power levers, not eliminate them.
I think the failure in that thinking is that without the Trump supporters those supporting Bernie and/or Hillary outnumber them.
Then there is you and me. You buy into the gradual moderate change theory. I reject it.
I hate to break this to you, but we are in a recession thanks to the policies of the non-Sanders/Trump cohort so you are going to have a hard time with this argument.
I am all for doing better than Trump/Sanders, but if your solution is incumbent Republican politicians that are funding the current mess I wish you well with that.
I call myself a Classical Liberal – that is the tradition the Right in America generally seeks to conserve (as opposed to Europe).
Agree w/ you completely, BDB.
I don’t post often, but I do value Ricochet’s diverse viewpoints and (relatively) civil discourse and spend 2-4 hours/day on the site. That being said, the comments have become increasingly tedious to wade through in the last six months.
Bill Bennett often speaks of Socrates’ three requirements for effective discourse: Knowledge, Candor, and Goodwill.
Goodwill seems to be waning on Ricochet as of late.
I like the idea and you are consistent in that regard.
I think when you quiz the vast majority of self professed conservatives they are very different from you.
They insult people because they don’t want to debate the issue. They don’t want to talk about the complexities of the issue, or how to balance the peoples’ interests and needs. They just call you an ugly name in an attempt to shut you up.
And this is why *Trump*. People perceive (and I think they’re largely right) that their “representatives” are not looking after their interests or even balancing their interests against others’ interests. The people are looking for representation.
Our immigration system is not being managed well, but mismanaged, on purpose, to benefit powerful people.
As usual, I’ll respond to the innumeracy rather than the demagoguery.
This is artful question writing. Problems of terrorism, government spending, and the economy are all effects/symptoms of our illegal immigration and other multi-cultural practices of the left.
From Ann Coulter, February 10
Trump could probably help himself by saying: “Fine. You don’t want a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants? How about we temporarily suspend all immigration?” Let’s take a breather while we watch what happens to Europe.
Not only would a pause in immigration be wildly popular….”
To me the puzzle is why none of the other major GOP presidential contenders has helped himself in this way.
McDonald’s was showing quarterly declines in revenue in the US. They decided to change a longstanding policy and offer their breakfast menu items all day long. Suddenly, their traffic, revenues and profits rose.
Immediately, McDonald’s major competitors began to offer their breakfast items all day long.
Why didn’t Burger King, Wendy’s and all the other fast food outlets simply castigate McDonald’s for minimizing the sacred and all-American triumvirate of breakfast, lunch and dinner?
Why is it that only with immigration policy is an under-served market right to be ignored?
Why do Republicans, but not Democrats, hold their own voters in such disregard?
Why is importing one million people into America every year for 50 years not viewed as social engineering? And why are all of the major candidates on the so-called conservative side not only in favor of that policy, but want it to continue forever?
Thirteen percent of the 330,000,000 Americans are foreign-born, a greater percentage than at any time in our history. Why?
Stop immigration now.
Donors
Compare Bernie Sanders contribution data to Republican contribution data or Hillary Clinton’s for that matter.
Newly arrived immigrants are less likely to report labor law violations and when we import them from 3rd world nations their relative outlook on wages is dramatically less than native born Americans.
Please see previous.
BrentB67
I hoped folks would understand that my questions were rhetorical, and that they were meant to illuminate the cravenness of those politicians supposedly on our side, but I do appreciate your pithy notations.
Now let’s get to the heart of the matter, my friend:
Stop immigration now: Agree or disagree?
Agree, temporarily. I am strong proponent of legal immigration.
I think your idea of stopping all immigration temporarily has merit and is far better than trying to target a certain group.
If you are looking for support among either political parties or their supporters you are on a fool’s errand.
I justBrentB67
“If you are looking for support among either political parties or their supporters you are on a fool’s errand.”
But immigration is a political question.
What other avenue do you suggest if not politics?
I think you are seeing the political solution – Trump? I doubt his commitment or ability to address the problem, but he gets credit for being the first candidate to put the problem at the forefront of the campaign.
We keep seeing this same pattern throughout history. When things go bad, people follow those who find someone else to blame.
Trump’s most important contribution is showing the impotence of the party’s ruling clique in the face of a popular revolt, even one led by such a flawed and imperfect messenger.
I said months ago that Trump could be credited for 2 things: bringing up immigration and dispatching Jeb Bush. He has moved the GOP in a more traditional and conservative direction, closer to its flesh-and-blood base.
What we need is a better messenger.
Try this thought experiment: Visualize General David Petraeus, but with his sexual morality intact. Imagine him a constitutionalist and a believer in limited central government. (Ascribe Governor Abbott’s “Texas Plan” to the general for purposes of this argument.)
Now add to this “Petraeus” the immigration position of Peter Brimelow.
Start a website. Solicit donations from the American people.
Enter him in a primary.
It’s not so hard to see him winning, is it?
Now don’t go all literal on me, writing about the real Petraeus or your perception that I am seeking some “man on horseback.” Avoid squirrels and shiny objects that may keep a person from dealing with the question.
Which is that such a man is not so hard to imagine and that such a man could win.
Abbott had some big boots to fill and has done so poorly. One of my small reasons to doubt Ted Cruz.
Otherwise it is a fun thought experiment.
No it is not civil to call you a liar, traitor ect.
“They took our jobs” may accurately reflect Mr. Trump’s political position. It is completely with in bounds to discuss the economic and employment impacts of immigration. I have seen well thought out arguments on both sides of this issue.
Rather than offering any type of argument whatsoever you helpfully give us “Dey took our jerbs!” The only implication of this “rhetoric” is that those who disagree with you on an issue are half-wits with speech impediments. This is not intelligent, civil discussion.
Another avenue besides politics where conservatives and traditionalists should work to change the status quo is the conservative print media. Those publications are even more suicidally dedicated to immigration than the Republican Party.
National Review, where Mona Charen has been a long-time contributor, is a perfect example. Buckley established his magazine’s bona fides by expelling the Birchers from NR’s pages. But since 1980 and the arrival of the neo-conservatives, those former leftists have made Trotskyist purges a regular feature.
Pat Buchanan, Paul Gottfried, Peter Brimelow, Sam Francis, Ann Coulter, John Derbyshire and Mark Steyn have all disappeared from NR for one reason or another since the mid-1990s. But although the causes are myriad, the ostracized all have one thing in common.
They are/were all anti-immigration, even those who are immigrants (Brimelow, Steyn and Derbyshire) themselves. A curious coincidence.
And now – “Contra Trump.”
In publishing that issue National Review claimed “guardian of the gate” status for conservative principles. Is it just me or does anyone else find it contradictory that a magazine dedicated to the principles of ordered liberty sets itself up as a gatekeeper of ideas?
NR tolerates some non-orthodoxy. Many staffers refer to themselves more as a libertarian than conservative. But libertarianism is the epitome of theoretical, airy-fairy, we-can-never-be-wrong-because-no-one-will-ever-do-this-nonsense-in-real-life political posturing. It’s safe.
We should insist that anti-immigration perspectives be safe there too.
Yes, but is that the relevant similarity? Given Mark Krikorian is well-liked by and regularly writes for NR, it seems something else would likely be in play.
And given that Steyn, Coulter, and Derb are all… characters (I’m not terribly familiar with Brimelow) I’d wager that there’s something else going on.
Agreed, entirely and I’d encourage members to flag comments that use that phrase in this way.
On the other hand, some — not all, some — immigration hawks might want to make a little more effort to ensure their perspective isn’t so easily caricatured.