[Al_U_Card]

Like those empires that came before it, the American dream has been co-opted by the plutocracy as that income gap widens. The well-to-do have always controlled the reins of power but the "wild-west" expansionist mentality favored those with gumption and tenacity. Nowadays, toeing the line is the expected (and rewarded) behavior. Iconoclasts and mavericks are now anathema to this exercise of privilege in the American experience.

[mike777]

the general guess in GOP race:

1) if the same person wins OHIO and FL in march they will win all
2) If only 2-3 really in race on 3-15...trump will lose
3) if 4+ race on 3-15 trump will win

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2016-January-07, 22:38, said:

the general guess in GOP race:

1) if the same person wins OHIO and FL in march they will win all
2) If only 2-3 really in race on 3-15...trump will lose
3) if 4+ race on 3-15 trump will win

My guess: if Trump wins the Republican nomination, we all lose.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2016-January-07, 23:56, said:

My guess: if Trump wins the Republican nomination, we all lose.

my guess is Winston wins

wins...big...including Senate and perhaps perhaps house.

Winston and his will control the govt and economy.

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2016-January-07, 23:56, said:

My guess: if Trump wins the Republican nomination, we all lose.

Huh, that would just mean Clinton waltzes in, I would think you would be happy about that? Not as much as if it was Sanders but even so.

Although I still say Trump is a joke candidacy and will not be the nominee.

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2016-January-08, 08:13, said:

Huh, that would just mean Clinton waltzes in, I would think you would be happy about that? Not as much as if it was Sanders but even so.

Although I still say Trump is a joke candidacy and will not be the nominee.

Not at all. This country needs two effective parties willing to negotiate compromises so the interests of all can be served. Sane, effective conservative leadership is not to be feared; unfortunately, there is no party left for those types of conservatives - they are now called independents or Democrats.

[helene_t]

But the GOPs in congress are going to obstruct everything no matter who was their candidate so you might as well hope for the one who has the smallest chance of becoming president.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2016-January-08, 08:13, said:

Although I still say Trump is a joke candidacy and will not be the nominee.

I think so, too, although the longevity of his candidacy scares me.

I'm hoping that when people actually go into the voting booths they'll come to their senses. It's easy to say you'll vote for him in a poll, because he's charismatic and makes all the headlines. But when it really matters, maybe people will be more rational.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on 2016-January-08, 09:09, said:

But the GOPs in congress are going to obstruct everything no matter who was their candidate so you might as well hope for the one who has the smallest chance of becoming president.

This is not necessarily so. It is the Tea Party caucus in Congress (about 60 members) who compel the rest of the GOP to dance to their tune. The latest budget was created by a coalition of Democrats and constructive conservatives who worked without the Tea Pary votes, which will need to be done to get anything done going forward.

I think this will happen because, to survive, the GOP will eventually have to face and defeat the internal challenge created by their own gerrymandering. A party held hostage to its most extreme elements cannot function.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2016-January-08, 09:48, said:

This is not necessarily so. It is the Tea Party caucus in Congress (about 60 members) who compel the rest of the GOP to dance to their tune. The latest budget was created by a coalition of Democrats and constructive conservatives who worked without the Tea Pary votes, which will need to be done to get anything done going forward.

I think this will happen because, to survive, the GOP will eventually have to face and defeat the internal challenge created by their own gerrymandering. A party held hostage to its most extreme elements cannot function.

Doesn't the same rationale apply to the Dems? To whom are they in thrall? What faction is holding them hostage or are they that different from the GOP?

[billw55]

barmar, on 2016-January-08, 09:27, said:

I think so, too, although the longevity of his candidacy scares me.

I'm hoping that when people actually go into the voting booths they'll come to their senses. It's easy to say you'll vote for him in a poll, because he's charismatic and makes all the headlines. But when it really matters, maybe people will be more rational.

Agree.

I am not normally a conspiracy buff, but Trump-as-Clinton-plant is one of the more believable ones. Basically, a strategy to out early R supporters as ignorant bigots, thus staining the party in the minds of the swing voters. OK, it probably isn't true by Occam's Razor - but I wouldn't be shocked.

[cherdano]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-January-08, 10:24, said:

Doesn't the same rationale apply to the Dems?

No.

[y66]

Guest post from Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor from 1998-2005

Quote

BERLIN – There is an alarming political shift to the right occurring on both sides of the Atlantic, linked to the growing force of openly chauvinist political parties and figures: Donald Trump in the United States, Marine Le Pen in France. Other names could be added to the list: Hungary’s prime minister, Victor Orbán, who advocates “illiberal democracy,” or Jarosław Kaczyński and his quasi-authoritarian Law and Justice party, which now rules Poland.

Nationalistic, xenophobic political parties had been on the rise in many European Union member states long before Syrian refugees first arrived in appreciable numbers. There has been Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Vlaams Blok (succeeded by today’s Vlaams Belang) in Belgium, the Freedom Party of Austria, the Sweden Democrats, the Finns Party, and the Danish People’s Party, to name just a few.

The reasons for such parties’ rise and success vary greatly at the national level. But their basic positions are similar. All of them are raging against the “system,” the “political establishment,” and the EU. Worse, they are not just xenophobic (and, in particular, Islamophobic); they also more or less unashamedly embrace an ethnic definition of the nation. The political community is not a product of its citizens’ commitment to a common constitutional and legal order; instead, as in the 1930s, membership in the nation is derived from common descent and religion.

Like any extreme nationalism, the current one relies heavily on identity politics – the realm of fundamentalism, not reasoned debate. As a result, its discourse takes an obsessive turn – usually sooner rather than later – in the direction of ethno-nationalism, racism, and religious war.

The rise of extreme nationalism and fascism in the 1930s is usually explained in terms of the outcome of World War I, which killed millions of people and filled the heads of millions more with militaristic notions. The war also ruined Europe’s economy, leading to a global economic crisis and mass unemployment. Destitution, poverty, and misery primed publics for toxic politics.

But conditions today in the West, in the US and Europe alike, are rather different, to say the least. Given these countries’ affluence, what accounts for their citizens’ attraction to the politics of frustration?

First and foremost, there is fear – and apparently a great deal of it. It is a fear based on the instinctive realization that the “White Man’s World” – a lived reality assumed by its beneficiaries as a matter of course – is in terminal decline, both globally and in the societies of the West. And migration is the issue that brings that prognosis home (not just metaphorically) to today’s angst-inspired nationalists.

Until recently, globalization was largely viewed as favoring the West. But now – in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and with the rise of China (now turning into this century’s leading power before our eyes) – it has become increasingly clear that globalization is a two-way street, with the West losing much of its power and wealth to the East. Likewise, the world’s problems can no longer be suppressed and excluded, at least not in Europe, where they are now quite literally knocking on the door.

Meanwhile, at home, the White Man’s World is threatened by immigration, globalization of labor markets, gender parity, and the legal and social emancipation of sexual minorities. In short, these societies are undergoing a fundamental shock to traditional roles and patterns of behavior.

From all these profound changes has arisen a yearning for simple solutions – to build fences and walls, for example, whether in the US South or in southern Hungary – and strong leaders. It is no accident that Europe’s new nationalists view Russian President Vladimir Putin as a beacon of hope.

Of course, Putin has no appeal in the US (the world’s greatest power won’t turn away from itself), or in Poland and the Baltic states (where Russia is regarded as a threat to national independence). Elsewhere in Europe, however, the new nationalists have made common cause with Putin’s anti-Western posturing and pursuit of Great Russia.

With the new nationalism threatening the European integration process, France holds the key. Without France, Europe is neither conceivable nor practicable, and a President Le Pen would certainly sound the death knell for the EU (as well as bringing disaster for her country and the continent as a whole). Europe would then withdraw from twenty-first-century world politics. This would lead inexorably to the end of the West in geopolitical terms: The US would have to reorient itself for good (toward the Pacific), while Europe would become Eurasia’s appendix.

The end of the West is a dim prospect, to be sure, but we aren’t there yet. What is clear is that more depends on the future of Europe than even the most vociferous advocates of European unification had previously believed.

Nur sagen.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2016-January-08, 17:35, said:

Guest post from Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor from 1998-2005


Nur sagen.

Remarkable.

In 2014, while on a Rick Steves' tour of Southern Italy, our local guide in Rome bemoaned the resurgence of fascist sentiments within the young of Italy and wondered aloud how the horrors of having lived with fascism might be explained to a new generation. No one had any answers. But with an unemployment rate of near 25%, it is understandable that the youth of Italy are searching for answers.

How much further back are we in the U.S.?

[kenberg]

From the cited article:

Quote

First and foremost, there is fear – and apparently a great deal of it. It is a fear based on the instinctive realization that the “White Man’s World” – a lived reality assumed by its beneficiaries as a matter of course – is in terminal decline, both globally and in the societies of the West. And migration is the issue that brings that prognosis home (not just metaphorically) to today’s angst-inspired nationalists.

I note that he does not describe this fear as misplaced or irrational, indeed he describes it as an instinctive realization.

I am not quite ready yet to see myself as doomed. I have always had a somewhat naive outlook.

But even I see trouble ahead.

[Al_U_Card]

"Le style est l'homme meme." (The style is the man.) certainly seems to apply to The Donald. As for substance, perhaps his (or lack of same) appeals to voters of a conservative nature because it seems genuine and not scripted or forced.
My favorite geo-political gadfly, Mark Steyn, has an interesting piece on Trump's appearance in Vermont (Bernie, where art thou?). Worth the read, if only to understand how his appeal underpins his growing support as candidate for the Prez.

Trumping his opponent's aces...

"It's assumed by the GOP establishment that once the field narrows Trump will bump up against his natural ceiling. I think the opposite is true. Trump has essentially sat out these stupid ten-man TV debates and then resumed his rise once they're over. If it came down to a four- or three- or two-man race, the man I saw on Thursday night would be a formidable debate opponent. And I don't doubt he could hold his own against Hillary."

[kenberg]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-January-09, 10:25, said:

"Le style est l'homme meme." (The style is the man.) certainly seems to apply to The Donald. As for substance, perhaps his (or lack of same) appeals to voters of a conservative nature because it seems genuine and not scripted or forced.
My favorite geo-political gadfly, Mark Steyn, has an interesting piece on Trump's appearance in Vermont (Bernie, where art thou?). Worth the read, if only to understand how his appeal underpins his growing support as candidate for the Prez.

Trumping his opponent's aces...

"It's assumed by the GOP establishment that once the field narrows Trump will bump up against his natural ceiling. I think the opposite is true. Trump has essentially sat out these stupid ten-man TV debates and then resumed his rise once they're over. If it came down to a four- or three- or two-man race, the man I saw on Thursday night would be a formidable debate opponent. And I don't doubt he could hold his own against Hillary."

From the article:

Quote

Somewhere in there is the germ of a stump speech, but it would bore him to do the same poll-tested focus-grouped thing night after night, so he basically riffs on whatever's on his mind.

It brought to mind Billie Holiday explaining that she never does a song in the same way twice. "It would be like marching, like close order drill, it wouldn't be music". Maybe a Trump rally should be thought of as a blues concert. I'll stick with Lady Day.

[kenberg]

Just a word or two more about the guest post from Fischer.

He speaks of "White Man's World". The scorn is dripping from his pen. It invites responses of various sorts. For example, a million or so refugees have risked their lives to get to "White Man's World" and many more hope to come. Could we just back off a little on the contempt? Trump says the problem is the Mexicans, Fischer says it is White Men (not himself of course, but presumably me). Jerry Falwell thinks Satan is the problem. I don't think it is the Mexicans and I don't think it is Satan. I also don't think it is me.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on 2016-January-09, 14:09, said:

Just a word or two more about the guest post from Fischer.

He speaks of "White Man's World". The scorn is dripping from his pen. It invites responses of various sorts. For example, a million or so refugees have risked their lives to get to "White Man's World" and many more hope to come. Could we just back off a little on the contempt? Trump says the problem is the Mexicans, Fischer says it is White Men (not himself of course, but presumably me). Jerry Falwell thinks Satan is the problem. I don't think it is the Mexicans and I don't think it is Satan. I also don't think it is me.

The words "manifest destiny" come to mind as far as disparities in the world go. Being on top brings great responsibility that often finds itself shunted aside for the vagaries of power and control. Like all (previous) empires in decline, they refuse to see the writing on the wall and the barbarians at the gate. (Or wall, if the Mexican thing is a propos...)

Even though the Syrian emigrees should be entitled to go where they would, trying to control masses of humanity only tends to work on subliminal levels. Once herded into pens, they tend to break out and seek vengeance. It seems reasonable that it is likely all of us. Each in their own way, intolerance, subjectivity and tribalism. You may not hate your brother because he is family. Nor your neighbor because he is close. But the immigrant/stranger at a distance is an easy target for our foibles.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2016-January-09, 14:09, said:

Just a word or two more about the guest post from Fischer.

He speaks of "White Man's World". The scorn is dripping from his pen. It invites responses of various sorts. For example, a million or so refugees have risked their lives to get to "White Man's World" and many more hope to come. Could we just back off a little on the contempt? Trump says the problem is the Mexicans, Fischer says it is White Men (not himself of course, but presumably me). Jerry Falwell thinks Satan is the problem. I don't think it is the Mexicans and I don't think it is Satan. I also don't think it is me.

Fischer is not saying the problem is white men. He's saying the problem is people who "more or less unashamedly embrace an ethnic definition of the nation" and who reject "the political community as a product of its citizens’ commitment to a common constitutional and legal order."

I'm pretty sure he would not put you in that group in a million years.