October 10, 2017

Donald Trump is lashing, rupturing, imperiling, imploding, plunging, laboring, brooding and — to quote Senator Corker — "on the path to World War III."

As reported by Robert Costa, Philip Rucker, Ashley Parker in The Washington Post.

If we scroll halfway down the long page, we see that what's prompting the leakage to the press is not so much the threat to America and the world but the threat to the Republican Party:
"We have been watching the slow-motion breakup of the Republican Party, and Trump is doing what he can to speed it up," said Patrick Caddell, a veteran pollster who has worked with Stephen K. Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist, who now runs Breitbart News, a conservative website.

"Trump is firmly placing himself on the outside, trying to become an almost independent president," Caddell said. "He knows that many people will be with him, that he helps himself when he's not seen as the Republican president. But what about his program? That's the question — and possibly the cost of what he's doing."...

The president has groused to numerous White House aides about his concerns over his popularity with "my people" — his base. He blames the Republican establishment and others for failing to enact his agenda and making him look feckless...

Trump's political calculus is complicated by Bannon's return to his previous role at the helm of Breitbart. Now working to forward a nationalist agenda from outside the confines of the administration, Bannon has vowed war against any Republican lawmakers he believes are insufficiently conservative or who fail to help push through the agenda he and Trump outlined during the campaign....

131 comments:

rehajm said...

Bannon has vowed war against any Republican lawmakers he believes are insufficiently conservative or who fail to help push through the agenda he and Trump outlined during the campaign....

Some of us are mad they won't push through the agenda they ran on themselves.

Rob said...

Better feckless than wreckless. Or dickless. Or fuckless, if that's a word, and if it isn't, it should be.

rehajm said...

Apparently Corker had trouble figuring out the tax code like what needs to be reported as income. He's a walking advertisement for tax reform.

Rob said...

* Reckless, not wreckless.

AllenS said...

... and the left has antifa.

Kevin said...

If we scroll halfway down the long page, we see that what's prompting the leakage to the press is not so much the threat to America and the world but the threat to the Republican Party

These elite journalists are still waking up to the ideas that the average farmer or coal miner grasped the first time they heard Trump speak.

Jersey Fled said...

You can't drain the swamp by only focusing on the Democrats. There are plenty of Republicans who like the climate there too.

Kevin said...

Obama had for months threatened to veto any bill of this kind. But Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, offered a compromise. He agreed to shorten the review period Congress would have before voting on the deal; allowed for disapproval on the deal to survive a 34-vote, veto-sustaining minority; and accepted clarifying language in the bill that Congressional approval of the deal is not necessary for its enforcement.

And still has his job heading the Senate Foreign Relations Committee because Mitch McConnell likes him there.

Burn it down, Trump. Burn it all down.

Tim Gilliland said...

As if Costa had the slightest concern for what happens to the Republican party, you know, short of seeing them all burning in a lake of fire writhing in pain.

Molly said...

How about this re-write:

"We have been watching the slow-motion breakup of the Republican Party, and Trump is doing what he can to speed it up," said Patrick Caddell, a veteran pollster who has worked with Jimmy Carter, former President, whose humiliation at the hands of Iranian Muslim leadership effectively ended his Presidency."

Now I Know! said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Ellison said...

"said Patrick Caddell, a veteran pollster who has worked with Stephen K. Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist"

A Democrat. I have liked his appearances on FNC, and he's only center-left, but he's a Democrat who worked for Jimmy Carter.

"Pollster" does not mean "non-partisan", or else KellyAnne Conway is some kind of angel.

C'mon, WaPo, get an editor.

Now I Know! said...

Trump has personally insulted half of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. Maybe that has played a role in him having no legislative successes?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Now I know! was going to burst. whew - that's over.

Bob Ellison said...

You had it before me, Molly. I bow to your speed and expertise.

Tim Gilliland said...

Only half? Damn he needs to get to work!

Now I Know! said...

I'm loving Trump's war on the Republican Party.

BTW, Trump just tweeted "I will be using the power of the pen to give great HealthCare to many people - FAST"

Sounds totally conservative to me!

Hagar said...

These people could be of use here in Albuquerque this week. The hot air balloon fiesta is on.

Hagar said...

One thing that is wrong about U.S. newspapers is that the papers do not openly announce which political party they are associated with.

SDaly said...

You know what about a dozen people nationwide actually care about? Whether Trump is a conservative (as long as he appoints judges/justices like Gorsuch).

exhelodrvr1 said...

The recent McCain voting fiasco is a perfect example of the problems with depending on the traditional Republican party/politicians to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. Anyone who doesn't understand that is either pretending for personal reasons, and thus is actually part of the problem, or is hopelessly dense, and thus is actually part of the problem.

Now I Know! said...

In his most recent Tweet, the Doofus-in-Chief just wrote "Liddle' Bob Corker." (Corker is 5'6" tall.)

Absolutely none of the Republican agenda will be passed now. None. It's over.

Instead, Trump will continue to focus blame and cast aspersions on Republicans in Congress for his failures. Trump has turned into the shitshow we all knew he would be.

rhhardin said...

You'd want to know which are gerunds, which are deverbal nouns and which are just present participles.

WisRich said...

Bannon said the GOP establishment was trying to nullify the 2016 election. Conspiracy nut, right?

In this article, Corker essentially confirmed it.

Now I Know! said...

Senator Corker says that Trump is possibly going to lead us into WWIII. Does anyone disputes that Trump is capable of that?

JPS said...

Now I Know!

"Senator Corker says that Trump is possibly going to lead us into WWIII. Does anyone disputes that Trump is capable of that?"

Of course he's capable of it, in the sense that he has the power to do so. Does he have the intention? Is he doing so?

And is Corker, who saved the Iran deal, which I believe makes a nuclear exchange in the Middle East more likely, the man to call him out on these grounds?

Now I Know! said...

In the same tweet the Doofus-in-Chief calls Senator Bob Corker a "fool." So says the President whose own Secretary of State calls him a moron.

The only bigger morons are the morons who voted for this moron.

JPS said...

Corker was a fool to shore up the Iran deal. It's true even if Donald Trump says so.

Now I Know! said...

The Doofus-in-Chief just challenged his Secretary of State to an IQ test!

Gahrie said...

Once again, if you judge a man by his enemies.....

Gahrie said...

Trump has personally insulted half of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. Maybe that has played a role in him having no legislative successes?

You failed your high school government class, didn't you?

Bob Ellison said...

Bob Corker was not astute in his analysis.

Trump may make nuclear war more likely. World war, unlikely. The rulers of the big nations of the world don't want to kill everybody anymore. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are long gone. The only ones left like them rule in small, non-powerful places, like North Korea and Venezuela.

But nuclear war may be more likely because Trump has called for action against North Korea, and has threatened them with destruction if they don't comply. That's unlikely to lead to a world war, and it's possible that it will lead to responsible action by China and Russia and other amoral states.

You can't just lie down forever. You must show your power and prepare to deploy it.

Gahrie said...

The only bigger morons are the morons who voted for this moron

Does that make anyone who voted for Hillary an evil, corrupt bitch?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

You cannot impeach Trump for imploding. So - 3 more years.

Gahrie said...

Absolutely none of the Republican agenda will be passed now. None. It's over.

You might be right.

Instead, Trump will continue to focus blame and cast aspersions on Republicans in Congress for his failures.

So do most Republican voters. That's where the blame belongs.

Ralph L said...

It's refreshing to have party discipline enforced in public. The Democrats have the media do it for them--and for the Republicans, but not in a way good for us.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

I like it when Trump fights back - but this battle with Corker is counter productive. Trump should stfu.

Now I Know! said...

I am all for blaming Republicans in Congress. Afterall, they are the ones up for election a year from now. But it is also fun to note that the morons who support Trump can't see that Trump did everything he could to undermine the passage of the Republican agenda. But by all means please feel free to implode the Republican Party over the next twelve months.

Quaestor said...

What's really going to be interesting is Bob Corker explaining to the GOP voters of Tennessess what an indespensible man he is to President Trump's agenda. Corker is up for re-election in 2018. Ten weeks from now.

WisRich said...

Quaestor said...
What's really going to be interesting is Bob Corker explaining to the GOP voters of Tennessess what an indespensible man he is to President Trump's agenda. Corker is up for re-election in 2018. Ten weeks from now.

10/10/17, 8:47 AM
-------

Corker has said he's not running for reelection. He's going Bulworth.

Sebastian said...

Yes, the GOP is splitting, because real and potential GOP voters are split.

Dems can bribe their special interests to conform. GOP, not so easily.

Trump could unify the party and achieve greater success, but lacks the skill, vision, and desire. Therefore, not much will happen besides growing acrimony and base disaffection.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Corker not seeking re-election.

J. Farmer said...

We have been watching the slow-motion breakup of the Republican Party, and Trump is doing what he can to speed it up

I think that is true. The modern Republican Party really built itself in the shadows of the Cold War, and it is an anachronism. Trumpism's tripartite issues of immigration, trade, and war are precisely where the Republican Party needs to head. And of at least 16 primary candidates, Trump was the only one to really put it together, though how much of that fact he's aware of, I have no idea. Conservatism Inc. is still, largely, vehemently opposed to these issues. Trump should further triangulate by going after issues that are broadly popular but despised by the GOP establishment (e.g. lower Medicare to 55, $12/hour minimum wage, etc.). As Nietzsche said, "that which is falling should also be pushed."

Ralph L said...

I don't know or care what Caddell wants to happen, but as Washington goes, his analysis has been amazingly honest and forthright in years past.

I wasn't paying attention, but why did the Repub caucus let Corker get away with his surrender of Senate prerogatives?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Trump cannot stop himself on Twitter. Lets face it, sometimes Trump's return fire insults are lame. He needs to turn his twitter account over to David Burge.

tim in vermont said...

Since when does enforcing immigration laws on the books make one a nationalist?

tim in vermont said...

When did Republicans take that position?

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Just think about it, if the DNC had not colluded with the Clinton campaign to defeat Sanders, Sanders would be President today.

The liberals know that. They also know the establishment Democrats do the same the GOPe does. Both parties are in conflict between their base and the establishment uniparty controlled by Wall Street.

fxB1zNk3hJ8r11DRSmyQh1dLGkIF said...

It's been like months since the last time the Republican Party broke up, so it was due.

AReasonableMan said...

Now I Know! is doing solid work here at Althouse.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Hey, Once Written aka Now I Know, obviously needs to vent xis frustration, otherwise xe's gonna blow a 50 amp fuse.

Don't worry! The Revolution is at hand!

"A front group for the Revolutionary Communist Party USA has declared November 4, 2017, as the day their revolution to depose the "fascist Trump/Pence regime" begins. Soros-funded "Refuse Fascism" is calling on leftists across the nation to take to the streets and declare that the Trump presidency is "illegitimate."

I'm sure it will work!

exiledonmainstreet said...

AReasonableMan said...
Now I Know! is doing solid work here at Althouse."

Yes, you would think that.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
narciso said...

The framework that Clinton crafted was the same sort of junk, as the Iran deal, which isn't surprising Wendy Sherman handled both. Corker who has been insider trading, failing to declare income was the catspaw to legitimate the deal. And trump is taking way his precious achievement at least in part.

Sebastian said...

"Trump was the only one to really put it together," So much so that he persuaded a solid minority of GOP primary voters. The rest turned out on election day, voting against Hill. But the splits continue. No one has a clue, and no one wants to have a clue.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@narciso:

Corker who has been insider trading, failing to declare income was the catspaw to legitimate the deal. And trump is taking way his precious achievement at least in part.

Huh? How do you figure that? Corker was an opponent of the JCPOA, and as stupid as the Corker-Cardin bill was, it was a last ditch effort by Congress to get something Obama's veto pen, not to mention unnecessarily inserting Congress into an era it had no obvious role to play.

Now I Know! said...

Thank you ARM. It's fun to keep the Dufus-in-Chief's supporters on the run.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Hitlery still lost. We have that.

Seeing Red said...

Mitch and Ryan not getting anything done is on Mitch and Ryan.

J. Farmer said...

@Now I Know!

You should up your trolling game. It's decent, but it could be really second level. At the moment, you're about as subtle as a knee to the groin.

traditionalguy said...

Denny Hastert could always get the GOP to vote the right way... almost like he was in a secret cabal. That Terrible Trump is not going along with the GOP anymore. And Trump is not a Jerry Sandusky enabler either. What will DC do next.

Unknown said...

corker and GOPe senate override the supermajority requirement for treaty to make iran deal and i am supposed to trust corker and GOPe

crazy times

Drago said...

"It's fun to keep the Dufus-in-Chief's supporters on the run."

Yes, "on the run", all the way to the white house with republican majorities at their highest levels since 1928.

Maybe "on the run" doesn't mean what you think it means.

The disruptor in chief continues his disruption with some wins and lots of establishment pushback but simultaneous exposing of many establishment republicans as guys who have been lying to their base for a generation and the lefties going even further left.

That's a very good thing.

If you guys on the left have any more "success' in keeping republicans "on the run" the republicans will be on their way to 56 - 58 senators while retaining control of the house and expanded governorships in 2018!

Btw, did you know that 4 of 6 New England" Governor's are republican...'cuz "on the run"....

Lol

M Jordan said...

“WASHINGTON—Sen. Bob Corker failed to properly disclose millions of dollars in income from real estate, hedge funds and other investments since entering the Senate in 2007, according to new financial reports filed by the Tennessee Republican.”

“I am extremely disappointed in the filing errors ...”

Swamp, meet drain. You go first, Senator Corker.

Fernandinande said...

"You're a lashing, smashing hunk of man
Your sweat shines sweet and strong
Your organ's working perfectly
But there's a part that's not screwed on"

Ry Cooder on slide.

LYNNDH said...

Maybe the Republican Party is breaking up, realigning. Would really like to see some/most of the old dinosaurs leave. The Democrats are also breaking up, destroying themselves in a quest to be the new Socialist Party. Not sure what will emerge when the dust settles for both parties.

Quaestor said...

Now I Know! is doing solid work here at Althouse.

Solid. Like the space between ARM's ears. Solid.

Ficta said...

Any thread that gets me to revisit Memo From Turner is a good one.

Kirk Parker said...

"Trump is doing what he can to speed it up,"

Yes, this is what his voters elected him to do.

Seeing Red said...

On the run?

More like bent over laughing.

So did you create a macro to make it easier on yourself?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Now I Know! said...
Thank you ARM. It's fun to keep the Dufus-in-Chief's supporters on the run.

10/10/17, 9:21 AM


This is hilarious! Thank you for the morning laugh!

Oh wait... you're serious?

That's even funnier!

grackle said...

Trump has personally insulted half of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate.

The eunuchs that populate most of the GOP “leadership” in Congress are beyond insult. They will not be missed. I was skeptical of Bannon when he left the Whitehouse but I am all in with him now.

Trump will continue to focus blame and cast aspersions on Republicans in Congress for his failures.

I love it when Trump tweets their sorry asses. Last time I looked the responsibility for passing legislation is within the exclusive purview of Congress. The commentor needs to buy a copy of the Constitution and read up.

J. Farmer said...

@LYNNDH:

The Democrats are also breaking up, destroying themselves in a quest to be the new Socialist Party.

I don't think that is what is causing friction in the Democratic Party. The notion that the party wants to be "the new Socialist Party" I think is pretty laughable. The two Democratic presidents of the 25 years have both been corporatist, centrist. Bernie Sanders was bucking the trend by advocating more statist solutions, and many of his solutions are very popular among the American party, and in pretty much any nation-state anywhere. The problem with the Democratic Party, in my estimation, is that it is beholden to identity politics.

Sebastian said...

"many of his solutions are very popular among the American party" The taxes needed to pay for them, not so much.

TreeJoe said...

There is a belief by the core of both parties that to harm the party is synonymous with harming the country.

Evidence does not seem to bear that out. If anything, it would appear that the more a major political party is struggling the more it focuses not on entrenchment but on offering policies that genuinely seek to improve the country.

tcrosse said...

Trump may be a doofus, but he's not the one doing the How I Lost the Election book tour.

Birches said...

Inga is so boring.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

When Bannon left the White House and the lefties were crowing about it, I remarked that Bannon will be much more effective in progressing Trump's agenda and that of those who voted for him by being OUTSIDE of the DC Swamp.

Bannon Unchained!

The left was so proud that they forced Bannon out, not realizing that it was likely a mutual agreement. Bannon out and free to do what deporables will do and Trump doesn't have to be "responsible" for his actions. Let loose the hounds!!

Be careful what you wish for lefties.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Uh oh. Drudge has a siren up. New Yorker is out with their Weinstein article.

3 women accuse him of rape.

Now I Know won't be a bit happy.

Mark Jones said...

If Trump is trying to destroy the national Republican party--if--well, why shouldn't he? They've made it crystal clear that they consider him their enemy every bit as much as the Democrats. Trump wasn't elected to play nice, or to be more of the same. Why should the GOPe expect any more consideration or respect from Trump (or the voters who support him) than they've shown him (or them)?

Now I Know! said...

Uhmm, Bannon destroying conservative Republicans is fine by me. He said on Fox that he is going to primary every Republican except Cruz. I guess Lyin' Ted is now alright.

rcocean said...

Trump never attacks, he only counter-attacks.

The Senate Republicans, led by people like Sasse, Graham, Flake, McCain, and Corker have deliberately stymied Trump's legislative agenda, they've attacked Trump personally. These attacks have been going on for over 2 years. None of these clowns have been disciplined.

And, all of them hate Trump because he broke up their Con Game of talking Conservative and acting Liberal. They've been exposed. Corker is an empty suit in any case. He has to play the "I'm the political heavyweight - Trump's just a game show host" because that's all he's got.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

It was not exactly a secret that Trump's base wants him to disrupt the GOPe which is owned by Wall Street and the National Chamber of Commerce. Its sole purpose to perpetuate cronyism within the power elite while keeping the middle and working classes pacified.

You know why Lois Lerner is enjoying her retirement and facing no repercussions for using the IRS to suppress political speech? Because the GOP at least implicitly approved of her actions. The GOP didn't want a bunch of people stirring up trouble and upsetting their apple cart. The TEA party groups had to go. So, now you have Trump. The old order simply cannot grasp that the political landscape has changed.

rcocean said...

Corker, et al, remind of Jerry ford. Till the day he died, Blockhead Jerry could never accept that fact that "A movie actor" was a much better POTUS then he was. After he was the "Serious" DC Insider who listened to Henry Kissinger!

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Uhmm, Bannon destroying conservative Republicans is fine by me. He said on Fox that he is going to primary every Republican except Cruz"

That is because you are too witless to understand that that Bannon wants to replace those GOPe tools with populists who will back the Trump agenda.

Tell me, genius, how have the special elections worked out for you so far? What's Ossoff doing these days?

The Dems have no bench to speak of.

Big Mike said...

He blames the Republican establishment and others for failing to enact his agenda and making him look feckless...

I've seen John McCain's political ad regarding Obamacare, and to my eyes it seems to be pretty explicit about ending that mess. In July McCain said "Have no doubt: Congress must replace Obamacare, which has hit Arizonans with some of the highest premium increases in the nation and left 14 of Arizona’s 15 counties with only one provider option on the exchanges this year." Then it came time to vote. I don't think Trump is the feckless one here. I think John McCain left his courage on the floor of his cell in Hanoi.

Corker's gone, Flake and McCain are going. The "Go along to get along crowd" in the Republican Congress needs to wake up. They aren't thwarting Trump as much as they are killing their own careers.

Kirk Parker said...

Ron,

Let's hope that Lerner does give the occasional nervous glance over her shoulder.

Nonapod said...

I don't think the Democrat party wants to label themselves as a new Socialist party. The United States of America is probably the last place on Earth that the term "Socialist" is still considered a negative.

But let's be honest here, for the most part the Democrats in power are essentially Socialists in that they're constantly advocating for more and more government, more and more entitlements. Many of them may not yet openly admit that they want single payer health care, but pretty much everyone knows that that's the end point of all there machinations. What do you think Obama Care was? Does anybody still truly believe that the ACA wasn't purpose built to absolutely collapse the private health insurance market? Did you believe that Gruber was just lying?

As I see it, the only real difference between the Bernie wing of the left and the establishment Dems is that Bernie just admits he's actually a Socialist. The establishment Dems just want to keep dissembling, pretending that they're not Socialists in order to (they believe) continue to be electable to the more mainstream American voter who are still turned of by the word "Socialist". Bernie is more honest even if he is a moron.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

As to destroying the Republican Party aka GOPe, this was the goal of the Tea Party. Once they realized that there was no way that the GOP was ever 'really' going to listen or enact their wants they changed tactics. The decimation of Palin by the GOPe was the big fat slap in the face that made the Tea Party wake up.

Since the Dems are a lost cause they realized that the only way to effect change in the GOP was from the inside out. So they/we started electing Tea Party candidates at the grass roots level. It was going to be a long hard and likely futile effort.....UNTIL.....along came Trump.

Trump. The outsider candidate. The not conservative, not republican, not democrat but outside the swamp. Not a cog in the machine, but more like a wrench in the workings of the machine. Just what we wanted.

Now that Trump is still throwing monkey wrenches into the works and traitors like Corker are throwing in the towel and with guerilla warriors like Bannon working from the outside, perhaps the Tea Party/aka Irredeemable Deplorables may get their wish and take down the GOPe from the inside out.

Sometimes playing the long game is the smarter thing to do. It isn't the most satisfactory way in that we are not going to see instant results. We (personally) may not realize the results of the metamorphosis until long after we/I am dead. That doesn't matter as long as the goal is met.

Drago said...

It's hilarious reading Inga swinging massively too and fro based on whatever the latest meme in the lefty media is feeding her.

The even better news is that the entire left appears fossilized in the same mushroom thinking and have demonstrated they are nowhere near to adapting to what is happening on the ground, even though they are swimming in the evidence.

Zero adaptability is the singular distinguishing feature of the left. 1 playbook and 1 play. The lefty "idea" cupboard is literally that bare.

Thank goodness.

Drago said...

Of course, Inga is still reeling as one after another of her recently minted "New Leader Of The Free World" fall on their faces politically.

rcocean said...

"Because the GOP at least implicitly approved of her actions. The GOP didn't want a bunch of people stirring up trouble and upsetting their apple cart.:

Yeah, they were so fucking reluctant to investigate Lerner. Republicans had to scream, shout, and jump up and down. And they just did a perfunctory hearing and gave up. Meanwhile, they couldn't wait to investigate Trump-Russia from Day 1.

You wonder what Side the Republican Congressmen are on.

rcocean said...

Inga is boring. Maybe she should start her own blog, and she and her Althouse buddies could play there 24/7.

Comanche Voter said...

Trump may become like Philip Nolan (the Man Without A Country) who was sentenced to a lifetime of never hearing the United States of America being mentioned again. But I'm not certain that Trump (or his supporters) will care if the current Republican Party Posse of Posturing Poodles is never mentioned in his or their presence again.

buwaya said...

Instapundit brings up an old (2010) piece by Angelo Codevilla, illustrating yet again the broken state of the American republic. Codevilla had the whole thing down decades ago, including, not least, the bipartisan nature of the essential interests of the state.

https://spectator.org/39326_americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution/

"...Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class."

And this case, as so many others this year, illustrates Codevillas thesis superbly.
This is evident with hindsight, re the details of public policy since the early 2000's and not the sturm und drang of mere public controversy - much of it, as we now know, manufactured by the organized and coordinated MSM.

I also note that nobody (or very rarely) on the other side cares to engage on this matter of the fundamental populist criticism of the American state, of the "swamp", its interests and nature. Everything is a a deflection, mainly through promoting a fog of trivial matters.

There is no actual defense of public policy desiderata on that side either, no reasonable argument, not even much along the lines of academic work. On immigration policies for instance. And less so now than ever.

buwaya said...

"The even better news is that the entire left appears fossilized in the same mushroom thinking and have demonstrated they are nowhere near to adapting to what is happening on the ground, even though they are swimming in the evidence."

Because they are attached to a given set of economic interests, no matter their denial.
They share that cultural identity.

Unknown said...

“Inga is boring. Maybe she should start her own blog, and she and her Althouse buddies could play there 24/7.”

I have a strong feeling that Inga hasn’t commented on this thread at all.

donald said...

Ossoff. Heh.

Ray said...

The working class vote is up for grabs, and Trump has appealed to them. Both the GOPe and Democrats have not. Trump's core issues is immigration, the Economy, and Guns. GOPe has different views on immigration, Foreign Affairs, and the Economy. Gun Control I think the GOPe are neutral on and don't want to rock the boat. Truthfully, I am not sure what the Republican Party's Core Beliefs are now days. The Democratic Party is made up of people that hate each other.

Bannon is interested in going after parts of the Democratic Party. I was VERY Surprised in another thread, when the Toothless Revolutionary commented that a lot of what Bannon talks about, Economic Nationalism, sounded good.

My take on the two parties.

Republicans
- Kinda the party of big business, especially manufacturing
- Chamber of Commerce
- Agriculture
- Small Business theoretically
- Conservative Christian on Social Issues
- Libertarians
- Home Schooled
- Charter Schools
- People who support Gun Control
- Military
- Patriotism
- Free Trade

Democrats
- Identity Groups including such as Asian, Black, and Latino
- Gay
- Jewish (more secular)
- Arab / Islamic
- Government Unions
- Educators that are unionized
- Private Unions
- Educated
- Media (MSM)
- Book Publishers
- Non Profits
- Socialists / Leftists
- Open Borders / Globalist Types

Sam L. said...

There are a lot of us out here who have been taught by example that the GOP is NOT our friend. Some individuals, yes, but not the party as a whole.

Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...

I don't think that is what is causing friction in the Democratic Party. The notion that the party wants to be "the new Socialist Party" I think is pretty laughable. The two Democratic presidents of the 25 years have both been corporatist, centrist. Bernie Sanders was bucking the trend by advocating more statist solutions, and many of his solutions are very popular among the American party, and in pretty much any nation-state anywhere. The problem with the Democratic Party, in my estimation, is that it is beholden to identity politics.

The current conflict in the democrat party is between the national socialist wing and the international socialist wing. The Hillary wing worships power. The Bernie wing worships other peoples stuff.

Neither side is going to win a national election.

Jim at said...

"Some of us are mad they won't push through the agenda they ran on themselves."

Precisely.

Achilles said...

In order to troll you have to be able to touch a topic that makes the target angry. Saying "Haha Trump is fighting with those republicans" is not going to make us angry. It is why we sent him there. We all knew the GOPe had to be cleaned out before we could really get things done legislatively.

I would honestly prefer it takes a few elections to get things done peacefully. 2018 Corker and flake have already quit. There will be 58-62 republican senators. McCain will be gone most likely. Strange is already gone.

Things are going very well for republican voters. Not so much for the swamp.

J. Farmer said...

@Achilles:

The current conflict in the democrat party is between the national socialist wing and the international socialist wing. The Hillary wing worships power. The Bernie wing worships other peoples stuff.

What is the difference between the "national socialist wing" and the "international socialist wing?" And again, the two most socialist things the federal government does are Social Security and Medicare. Let a GOP candidate run on eliminating SS and Medicare and see how well he or she does. Trump ran on preserving and protecting SS and Medicare. How are you even defining "socialist?"

Jim at said...

"Now I Know! is doing solid work here at Althouse." - ARM

Figures you'd appreciate the drooling ravings of a 12-year-old.

buwaya said...

"What is the difference between the "national socialist wing" and the "international socialist wing?"

Interesting question.
The original communist movement was "international" - heck, its song was the "Internationale"!

These were mainly Euro and American people and parties. Since then because of the long march this has proceeded through the Western hierarchies and become a fairly consistent haut-bourgeois ideology. Their big thing is internationalism, consolidation and globalization under a supreme bureaucracy.

Nationalist socialism was the third-world flavor, where the revolutionary parties were fighting mainly against Western colonial overlords or hegemons, so nationalism was the main thing with which to oppose the foreigner. If this sounds Nazi-like, well yes it was and is. There is sometimes a fanatical tribalism in this socialism. North Korea is the most extreme case, but some others have come dangerously close.
Venezuela is one of these in fact, in spite of the attempted export of the "Bolivarian" revolution.

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

I'll repeat what I think is the most interesting question, which you did not answer.

How are you even defining "socialist?"

AJ Lynch said...

Talk about contrasting personalities with somewhat similar work backgrounds.

Trump, of course, is a big real estate developer while Senator Corker made a fortune in construction and then as a real estate agency owner. Perhaps they are natural opponents and that is why they bang heads.

buwaya said...

"How are you even defining "socialist?""

I thought you were worried more about nationalism-internationaism.

The old short definition works - state control of the means of production.
The form of this has varied and been updated since the original ideas.

Formerly it was thought that these had to be essentially state executive agencies, like the military or postal service.

Later it seemed that it worked better if they were intensely supervised and directed by the bureaucracy. State ownership failed sort of like how colonialism failed, as overt control was clumsy and not needed.

The American system is an enormously elaborated instance of that. Simpler European systems may be less "socialist" in fact. The US system affords even more scope for corruption, exploiting complexity.

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

I thought you were worried more about nationalism-internationaism.

Those were another commenters words, not mind. I was inquiring as to what he meant by them.

Later it seemed that it worked better if they were intensely supervised and directed by the bureaucracy. State ownership failed sort of like how colonialism failed, as overt control was clumsy and not needed.

Are there any countries that are not socialist? Which ones and why?

Marty Keller said...

"Socialism" is merely a new version of the ancient imperial structures perfected millennia ago in Egypt, Babylon, and China, and updated regularly by successor empires. The nifty twist that "socialism" throws in to confuse the gullible is the assertion that these imperial structures (e.g., Leninist, Maoist, Chavizmo, Sandersist) exist on behalf of the little guy instead of the nomenklatura. And, indeed, the "softer" versions of socialist imperialism deliver, invariably for a finite period of time, amenities that pluralities if not majorities willingly consume.

But when, inevitably, you run out of other people's money, you gotta go get it from somewhere. The communist empires perfected the two-fer: they looted their neighbors and they looted their own citizens. Poor Maduro doesn't have the first option, so he's running the second one to its inevitable catastrophic end.

Europe's decline is slower but no less inevitable, unless they can liberate the creative genius of their citizenry to produce far greater surpluses than they consume; with a declining birth rate and increasing immigration, Europe is facing different but still inevitable ends.

The US seems hellbent, the Trump interruption notwithstanding, on following suit.

buwaya said...

"Are there any countries that are not socialist? Which ones and why?"

From Instapundit - this (from Cato) is not a bad list - they have a consistent system, though with significant subjectivity.

Hong Kong
Singapore
New Zealand
Switzerland
Ireland
United Kingdom
Mauritius
Georgia
Australia
Estonia

I don't know about some of these more obscure places, and frankly not many would know how easy it is to do business in Mauritius or Georgia.

There are all sorts of quibbles here besides that - one of mine would be that the efficiency and relative impact of regulation counts for a lot, vs whatever the rules actually are, in which case the US should fall considerably lower.

Also note that economic freedom does not always produce economic results. A great deal is cultural, a great deal is the result of accumulated capital, and social capital, a great deal is circumstances.

Birkel said...

UnknownInga64 @ 1:44 PM
Good one. Funny stuff.

Now I Know is Once Written.

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

From Instapundit - this (from Cato) is not a bad list - they have a consistent system, though with significant subjectivity.

I would say "significant subjectivity" is an understatement. So the UK is less socialist than the US? And Signapore? It's a country I have a decent amount of experience with and have lived in. Most of the housing in Singapore is provided by a government-owned housing corporation. Over 20% of Singapore's economic activity is from government-owned enterprises.

Michael K said...

"Once written, twice stupid" is speeding up my reading of the blog.

I can scroll faster now that I don't have to read the lefty comments. All, of course are content free.

A fact would not hurt you "once.."

Michael K said...

"2018 Corker and flake have already quit. "

Flake doesn't know he has quit yet. He still thinks he can make up the 18% gap in the primary.

buwaya said...

Indeed, Farmer. In fact, moreover, the original platform of Lee Kwan Yew's political party was labor-socialist and in many ways still is, under the hood; Australia has semi-single-payer and terrible electricity rates as a result of interventionist policy; Britain has...well a great deal of state intervention besides the NHS; and nearly all land in HK belongs to the state.

And yet you can say that the state (at all levels) in their cases, does not oppress business to the degree that it does in the US. That is a testament to the sheer viciousness, whimsy, inefficiency, impunity and corruption which distinguish the US system of economic regulation.

Rebecca Miles said...

After 9 years in marriage with my hubby with 3 kids, my husband started going out with other ladies and showed me cold love, on several occasions he threatened to divorce me if I dare question him about his affair with other ladies, I was totally devastated and confused until an old friend of mine told me about a spell caster on the internet called DR. Okojie who help people with their relationship and marriage problem by the powers of love spells, at first I doubted if such thing ever exists but decided to give it a try, when I contacted him, he helped me cast a love spell on my husband and within 24hours my husband came back to me and started apologizing, now he has stopped going out with ladies and he is with me for good and for real. Contact this great spell caster for your relationship or marriage problem and all kinds of problem you find difficult to resolve and he will put a lasting solution to it. You can also contact him if you are unable to bear children. Here is his email drokojiespellhome6@gmail.com

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

And yet you can say that the state (at all levels) in their cases, does not oppress business to the degree that it does in the US.

Does not oppress business? It owns them. Do you mean to tell me that if the US simply abandoned regulatory activity and took total control of more than a fifth of US economic activity, it would then be less socialist than it is today? You're employing a definition of socialist that is completely detached from its historical meaning. As to this business of regulation, what is the threshold at which a country becomes socialist? You included the UK on your list, and the UK has far more regulations for, say, labor law than the US does. As far as ease of doing business, Singapore routinely ranks at the top, but then so do countries like Denmark and Norway, which are often considered poster children for the social democratic model.

This is precisely my point about using a word like "socialist." It's a 19th century anachronism that has little to do with the realities of the 21st centuries.

Bad Lieutenant said...

No, the problem is that the frog has already been parboiled to the extent that he thinks of the pot as comfy and the pond as frigid. If you're saying we need to roll back the degree of freedom in our economy back to say the 20s, I'm right there with you. But throwing up your hands is bullshit.

J. Farmer said...

@Bad Lieutenant:

If you're saying we need to roll back the degree of freedom in our economy back to say the 20s, I'm right there with you.

Well an economy of the 1920s would have no standing military. You fine with that? Try running on a national ticket that advocates eliminating the DOD, Social Security, and Medicare and see how far you get. The socialist versus capitalist dichotomy makes no sense. Every country, to one degree or another, has a blend of the two. Degrees of free markets coupled with government regulation. And that was even true of America in the 1920s. So even then you'd still just be discussing a matter of degree of state intervention in the economy, not whether it should intervene or not.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Well an economy of the 1920s would have no standing military. You fine with that?

Wrongo, J. A peacetime economy along 1920s lines should have a thriving Navy and Marine Corps which should be able to handle anything up to a full-out war, at which time you mobilize the army based upon your core of career professionals. That's what we did in WWII and it worked. It would also seem amenable to your preference for, what do you call it, non-intervention.

Try running on a national ticket that advocates eliminating the DOD, Social Security, and Medicare and see how far you get.


Are you talking about what is right, what is wise, or what will sell?

J. Farmer said...

@Bad Lieutenant:

That's what we did in WWII and it worked.

So, as I asked, you would be fine with the US going back to the military it maintained in the 1920s?

Are you talking about what is right, what is wise, or what will sell?

What will sell. Kind of how democratic politics works.

But you're still missing my point. Even if we went back to the economics of the 1920s, that would still be "socialist" in the sense that it is frequently used on this blog. Hence, my point, is that the word socialist has no real meaning in modern politics.

So, my question, as to buwaya, remains. At what point did the US become "socialist" and why wasn't it "socialist" before that? What countries in the world currently are not "socialist?"

buwaya said...

"So, as I asked, you would be fine with the US going back to the military it maintained in the 1920s"

In the 1920's (just before the Washington Naval Conference to limit arms) the already US possessed, probably, the largest Navy on earth. This can be argued vis-a-vis the Royal Navy, in terms of existing hulls, but the US was in a much better position re maintenance and hulls building.

After the Washington Naval Conference the US was unquestionably the leading naval power, taking all factors into account, newness of hulls, etc.

What the US didn't have, yet, was a global presence such as the RN did.

Bad Lieutenant said...

So, as I asked, you would be fine with the US going back to the military it maintained in the 1920s?


Yes, keep playing the sophist. Perhaps you'll live longer if I give you the answer you want. Lot of pressure there...

I don't know enough about the force structure we had in 1920 to know whether it would meet today's needs. Broadly, if we kept all the bases, stockpiled sufficient arms and/or ensured rapid R&D and manufacturing capability, and developed a skeleton structure of oh let's say 100,000 men under arms that could be rapidly scaled to 10 million men in event of major war, then yeah, why not?


"At what point did the US become "socialist" and why wasn't it "socialist" before that?"

What is YOUR answer to that question?

J. Farmer said...

@Bad Lieutenant:

What is YOUR answer to that question?

I would never use that word. That is my entire point. The way "socialist" is bandied about today, it applies to pretty much every country since the industrial revolution. As for "socialist" to mean social control of the means of production, it fits almost no countries in the world.

gadfly said...

The question for Steve Bannon is: "Since when have alt-righters, especially white nationalists, become conservatives. When Bannon moved to the extreme far right, he became a dyed-in-the-wool fascist.

J. Farmer said...

@gadfly:

In what regard, politically, is Bannon "to the extreme far right?"

Bad Lieutenant said...

Broadly, if we kept all the bases,


Oh, and to be clear, same or greater Marines, Navy, and I don't know how you'd structure the Air Force.

J. Farmer said...

@Bad Lieutenant:

At what point did the US become "socialist" and why wasn't it "socialist" before that?

I gave you my answer; what is yours?