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.
A Blue Jackass Is Not a Pale Horse
I’ve seen expressed recently among some Republicans a fear of Democratic victory in the upcoming midterm elections. Indeed, I was chastised for my nonchalance about what is so clear a threat to the very existence of America. And I was told “If the Democrats get in control again, I don’t think we’ll have a country anymore for much longer.”
I’m sorry, but that simply isn’t the case. This existential terror about the future of the country if Democrats win the midterms is misplaced.
First, before I am accused of it (although I’m sure I will be anyway), I’m not a Democrat and the Democratic Party is not my first choice. I would prefer that everyone vote for LP candidates where possible. The Democrats, for me, are a far distant second. However, in many places, the laws are written to preserve the duopoly and prevent third-party candidates from being on the ballot, so voting for the LP is not an option.
With regards to the existential threat, call me cynical, but I hear this every election. And it cannot possibly be true that every election is “the most important election of our lifetimes.” I realize it’s what politicians and partisans say, but it’s just nonsense. If every election is a Flight 93 election, then none of them are.
The truth is that there’ll be another one in two years, and still another two years after that. If things are so precarious that electing one team of hacks to Congress this year instead of the other will destroy the country, then things are already too far gone, and the best choice would be to pack up your belongings, pets, and loved ones, and move to Hudson Bay.
I just don’t share the sense of urgency because it just doesn’t match reality. In 2009, when the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, it didn’t destroy the country. The fact of the matter is that when Democrats are in power, they can’t seem to find their ass with both hands.
The case of 2009-2010 is actually a good one. When the Democrats had control of the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2009, did they enact a workers’ paradise? Did we get single payer? Did Barack Obama, the Kenyan socialist, remake America?
No. They couldn’t have passed single payer because even on the best of days. At the apex of their power, the only thing they could pass was a scheme cooked up by Republicans in the 1990s. And that was when they controlled everything!
This is why the talk of socialism is overwrought. When the blue team was in charge, they didn’t institute single payer. Instead they passed a nation-wide version of RomneyCare, and it cost them their congressional majority in the process.
Now, I’ve seen it pointed out that it ain’t 2009 anymore. That the Democratic Party has tilted left. That there used to be Blue Dog Democrats way back then and they’re all extinct now. That the Democratic Party in 2018 is dominated by socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is the new face of the party.
Sorry, but that’s a bunch of hogwash. First, I was told in 2009, back when they were passing nation-wide RomneyCare, that Democratic moderates were an extinct breed. That talking point is a nice way to scare people into voting, but it doesn’t match reality. The number of Democrats who have a favorable view of socialism is up only about four points from where it was eight years ago.
I’ll concede that Democrats in Congress probably tilt further left than they did in 2009, but that’s because most of their moderates have been boiled away. There is about to be a massive influx of moderate members, elected from purple and red districts, who will be jealous and their new status and want to be reelected.
The case of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is highly specific. She’s not the harbinger of some new embrace of socialism. She won her primary because her opponent got lazy and took his seat for granted. America has always generally resisted socialism, so it would need to be sold to the public. Ocasio-Cortez ain’t the one to do it. Every time she’s given an opportunity to explain any details, she promptly makes an ass of herself. But she gets pointed to by Republicans to scare people go voting.
The fact of the matter is that a Democratic majority probably wouldn’t be able to pass much if anything. They might be able to get bills through the House, but there’s a limit to the amount of damage they could do. And when they overreach, and they will because they always do, they’ll be punished for it.
What a Democratic majority will do, the thing that I actually want them to do, is provide a check to the President. That’s something they can do with just a House majority, and it desperately needs to be done, because it is something the Republican majority refuses to do.
But no, it certainly won’t be the end of the country. Indeed, divided government tends to be a good thing. The greater danger is when presidential actions go unchecked.
Published in General
Deflationary overseas trade and robots in a system that requires 2% inflation. Good luck with that.
When it comes to our elected Democrats, I don’t think they are stupid at all: A few may be ignorant and unwilling to learn, but mostly they are just arrogant. Incredibly arrogant.
New Gruber videos discovered. God help us if the GOP doesn’t do something.
John McCain made your life better, how? Not one person on this site can answer that question.
Right. And the guy who is gonna save us is this guy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-fgD8Xgg1Y
God help us indeed.
I think this is an excellent example of something bad that Trump has done, and that should be subject to some form of checking.
What exactly do you think Democrat control of Congress will do about that? They don’t talk about trade either, other than to criticize Trump for it because he’s Trump.
#fakenews
Had you actually watched the video you would see that while he agreed that 15 years ago he was for single payer, that was not what he was proposing for today in the US. He actually advocated for private insurance without state mandates.
That is what you get for trusting the title and not the video.
The GOP had enough control to do something constructive. They lied about repealing the ACA. Trump lacks civic knowledge and experience. That is not his strength. he needs help.
link
I watched it. Your interpretation is … very charitable.
What you do see is a man unmoored from any ideas or theory about the purpose of government. So he’ll say whatever the needs of the moment demand.
No the 50 some republicans in the Senate and a republican controlled House could save us. That is the point right now. Trump is not on the ballot.
Except he absolutely is.
My interpretation to closer to the truth than your sarcasm.
‘What I’d like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state…”
“get rid of the artificial lines and you will have great plans”
Yep – totally advocating for single payer – no wait – the complete opposite of that.
<Narrator:> No he isn’t
Note to Fred – Using the word ‘absolutely’ does not change the figurative into the literal.
The should just let Avik Roy take the lead on all of it. That is the only way you are going to beat the left on health insurance.
Sure if Tariffs were an end and not a means. If Trump placed tariffs and walked away with the “mission accomplished” this would be bad. Instead he has a reworked NAFTA deal and the EU willing to come to the table. Tariffs as a tool seem to be working.
Looking at your second link there is a problem. At no time has the argument been Canada threatens our national security. Canada is irrelevant to the question being asked. “Is there a national security reason for the United States to have a robust domestic steel industry?” It is a yes or no question.But Canada doesn’t answer this question, if the answer is yes it does not matter where the steel is coming from.
Fact Check – True
No he is not. The biggest blue wave that is even theoretically possible, 435 Democratic seats in the House and Trump wakes up the next day President.
You seem to be suggesting that Trump’s trade policy negotiations are a “Flight 93” event that will end the country’s prosperity as we know it.
You’re wrong again.
All tariff laws are legislation, created by Congress and signed by president. The deals are negotiated beforehand. The executive branch usually does the negotiation. So, there is no Trump to check, since legislation is *created by Congress*. Stop listening to neo-Cons that are ignorant of our Constitution.
Even if ObamaCare was identical to RomneyCare, it would be:
“Nation-wide RomneyCare” is a self-contradiction for health care. And is completely consistent with Socialism.
I didn’t argue that Trump acted unilaterally on passing tariffs, or that his activities were somehow unconstitutional. But since you mentioned it, I would point out that just because a Congress passed a law over 50 years ago allowing the President to unilaterally impose tariffs for “national security” reasons, it doesn’t mean that they should have, or that the current or future Congress shouldn’t change that law to remove that power.
Plus, it’s actually not very smart to choose this comment of mine to criticize, given that my point is regardless of what Fred wants them to do, the Democrats are not interested in doing it.
There was too much government interference before the ACA. The ACA just increased it and made everything worse. Fred will say “it’s socialistic but not socialism”.
A lot of us voted for this so-called “idiot” President, and will do so again. Trump’s threat of, and use of, tariffs has been masterful. If this is idiotic, I want more!
I was sympathetic (if not in agreement) towards the “check on the President” theory of electing democrats during Trump’s term until the Kavanaugh hearing. Solid judicial picks are one real way to limit the scope of government, especially the administrative state. Democratic control of the Senate would only stop what has been an good run of nominations across the federal bench.
Also, most of the “checks” on the President would be to limit his better impulses, and could enable his worse ones. A Republican congress could not get a majority to reform healthcare. Democrats would, and we wouldn’t like the results. We wouldn’t see any regulation reforms that haven’t already been punted from Congress to the Executive bureaucracy.
Now, I understand if I were more libertarian myself that I wouldn’t like the President’s instincts (hard to call them policies) on immigration, trade, and criminal justice. So far, the actions of enforcing immigration laws as written is good. If congress doesn’t like it they can change the law. With trade, Trump rhetoric makes me very nervous, but then it usually cools back down once the other nations make some concessions. As for criminal justice reform, it’s always struck me as the issue most likely to receive some bipartisan support. The issue is a wash regardless of which party control Congress.
Cause it’s Republicans calling for socialism and more and more regulation of everything.
Got it.
Back to Fredo Land….
When a sovereign country traps everyone in a health insurance system, it’s socialism. This is a must read thread from Phil Kerpen.
Well, remember, the Democrats, in Fredo Land at least, are less of a problem than the Republicans.
If this is true, it would be a very big deal. As it is, Trump’s promises are to be worse than Obama, but his actual impact has mostly been trivial (eg. NAFTA’s mostly minor, if mostly regrettable, changes), or temporary (lots of shameful tariffs and findings).
We’ve only had one post Hoover Presidential term before before that did not dramatically improve trade conditions, Obama’s first. That was regrettable, but it didn’t “destroy” much. If it did destroy the central basis for modern American prosperity, this would be a kinda flight 93 election, no?
Hypocrisy about hyperbole aside, the critical error Fred makes is to assume that because Democrats make angrier noises about Trump, they’re clearly the people working against him on the issues that matter to @Fredcole. In fact, on the two most common anti-Trump issues to concern liberal Republicans, trade and the existence of white identity as an important part of caucasian’s self image, Democrats and Trump are obviously allied. Elizabeth Warren will decry specifics of Trump’s foolishness du jour, but she still advocates protectionism in general. Sherrod Brown doesn’t even pretend not to lean that way.
Across the Democratic Party, you will find people like 2016 Ted Cruz, condemning Trump’s protectionism while advocating their own. So far it hasn’t made a difference in part because Ryan and McConnell are fantastic at stopping protectionist bills coming to the floor. Put Pelosi in charge and you’ll see Trump finding a lot more opportunity to do as Fred believes he is currently doing.
There are, of course, trade supporting Democrats and protectionist Republicans. If Fred is sincere in his position that it is vital to have trade advocates limiting Trump’s ugliness, he’d be supporting Peter Roskam in Il-6, but Heitkamp in North Dakota. If it’s more important to simplify, he’d support Republicans.
There is no fact based argument for blanket voting for the predominantly protectionist party in order to oppose protectionism.
Really? He was, off the top of my head, a critical supporter of the Surge, and for having the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act avoid a filibuster. Without McCain, Trump would have needed every single Senator for every single bill, and judge, which would probably have made McConnell’s job impossible; the incentive for Paul and the like to constantly make ridiculous demands would be overwhelming, before you even consider the separate pulls of Cruz, Collins, etc. every bill would be like Obamacare repeal.
He was a critical reason that Fred’s claim that Obama didn’t achieve all that much in his first term has any validity. Thanks to McCain and every other GOP Senator holding the line, the radicalism was dramatically inhibited. I campaigned hard against McCain, and there are a lot of marks against his name. But if you think that there are no trade offs in evaluating him, you’re missing one of the most fundamental insights of conservatism; almost nothing is without trade offs.
Do you know who is on the ballot next month? It ain’t him.