April 18, 2018

"The lack of a 'liberal Tea Party' reflects a fundamental and longstanding asymmetry between Republicans and Democrats."

"The Republican Party is the agent of an ideological movement; most Republican politicians, activists and voters view their party as existing to advance the conservative cause. Because their goals of reducing the scope of government and reversing cultural change are difficult to achieve in practice, Republican officeholders are vulnerable to accusations of failing to uphold principles..... The Democratic Party, by contrast, is organized as a coalition of social groups. Democratic voters tend to view politics as an arena of intergroup competition rather than a battlefield for opposing philosophies, and the party is dominated by an array of discrete interests that choose candidates on the basis of demographic representation and capacity to deliver policy.... This year, Democratic candidates remain focused on challenging vulnerable Republican-held seats more than purging ideologically impure incumbents.... Liberal candidates and activists can succeed in pushing the Democratic Party to the left on specific issues. But they will do so by appealing to the interests and loyalties of social groups rather than engaging in broader ideological debates."

Writes polisci prof Matt Grossman at "Why There Is No ‘Liberal Tea Party.’"

What he's saying about electoral politics rings true, and yet I also think it's true that it is the left that's looking for heretics and the right is looking for converts. That may not be a contradiction.

ADDED: I think I've figured out why it's not a contradiction. These are the 2 propositions: 1. The electoral success of the Democratic Party depends on maintaining a coalition of interests groups, and 2. Democratic Party partisans create pressure on each other not to get out of line. These ideas fit together well if you take their perspective: We need to stay united. It's not effective at winning converts, because there's no appealing idea to be understood and believed in. In fact, it's threatening to those who are outside of the group. These outsiders may insult the left by saying they are "looking for heretics," but the so-called "heretics" are only people in the group who undermine the adhesiveness of the group. The conservatives can "look for converts" because they do have some abstractions that seem appealing and coherent to ordinary people, and those people can feel burned when their representatives do various pragmatic things that deviate from the ideology.

126 comments:

John Lynch said...

Nonsense.

The Democratic party is better at resisting change and cutting off oxygen to radicals that are no longer useful. Liberal media is much more in tune with the party than conservative media is.

Code Pink? Remember them? Occupy? Examples are endless. We only hear about them as long as they attack conservatives.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

The main goal of the Republicans seems to be blowing up the budget deficit.

Clyde said...

On the other hand, what is going to happen in California and other high-tax blue states next year when 1 million of their wealthy residents get their tax bills and realize that they are going to have to pay an extra $12 billion dollars because their state income tax exemption on the federal income tax form is capped? That is when your liberal Tea Party moment may arise. TEA, after all, stood for Taxed Enough Already. It's always fine for your state government to have high taxes and give you lots of free stuff if you can write off the cost of it on your federal return, but if you actually have to PAY for it?

I commented on this at Instapundit, with the perfect bon mot: I feel their payin'.

Mike Sylwester said...

From the linked article:

Democratic voters detest Mr. Trump just as much as Republicans disliked Barack Obama, but they have different ways of expressing their opposition. The Tea Party movement reflected a popular dissatisfaction with cultural change, of which Mr. Obama’s election was a powerful symbol.

Most people who are not political-science professors would say that the Tea Party movement reflected dissatisfaction with high taxes and deficits.

Political-science professors insinuate that the Tea Party movement reflected racism.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The Tea Party exists because there is a natural tension between people who want smaller government, and career politicians, who benefit from greater government power. So even a politician who is elected on a small-government platform has incentive to grow the government.

There is no such tension on the left.

rehajm said...

...what is going to happen in California and other high-tax blue states next year when 1 million of their wealthy residents get their tax bills and realize that they are going to have to pay an extra $12 billion dollars because their state income tax exemption on the federal income tax form is capped?

How ironic it is California and other leftie high tax states that are devising (illegal) schemes to avoid paying their fair share.

John Lynch said...

I would ask the Tea Party members what they are about rather than relying on their enemies to define them.

Sebastian said...

Grossman has been saying that for a while now, but he is wrong.

The Omnibus bill showed, if we didn't know it already, that most GOP politicians don't view the party as a vehicle for the pursuit of conservatism as an ideological cause.

The "ideological" Tea Party achieved little; non-ideological Trump partly took over the GOP and achieved more.

Bernie's campaign, the Dem equivalent of the Tea Party, showed, if we didn't know it already, that plenty of Dems view their party as a vehicle for the pursuit of progressivism as an ideological cause--and he almost achieved more than the Tea Party ever did.

It is true that some Dem constituencies are interested mostly in payoffs and access to Other People's Money, and therefore gravitate to the big-government party that is more likely to give the handouts.

sparrow said...

"What he's saying about electoral politics rings true, and yet I also think it's true that it is the left that's looking for heretics and the right is looking for converts. That may not be a contradiction."

I think it's cause and effect.

Kevin said...

Crossposting from the other applicable thread.

Oh I see we have a theme today. Or maybe it's just an exposition of the underlying structural dynamics.

Democratic voters tend to view politics as an arena of intergroup competition rather than a battlefield for opposing philosophies

Even when they're breaking down Supreme Court decisions...

The only thing Gorsuch and the liberals agreed on was that Clarence Thomas is an idiot.

Were this an ideologically-centered person, they would have explored how this opinion might uncover some of Gorsuch's ideology, such that they might find areas of agreement that help the left.

But the left can't have that. He's Gorsuch from the out group, period. He can do no good, only wrong. So any analysis based on intergroup competition must do two things (a) show that however Gorsuch ruled, he's still an outcast, and (b) punch Clarance Thomas by any means necessary because he's a traitor to his racial group.

You see, when you live in the land of intergroup rivalries the snark is not snark but the entirety of the argument. Everything else is just meeting the word count.

Larry J said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

The main goal of the Republicans seems to be blowing up the budget deficit.


Funny, I don't recall hearing liberals complaining about the budget deficits when Obama was doubling the national debt in an 8 year period. Like all things, "It's different when we do it."

Bill Harshaw said...

Republicans are the party of RINOs, another name for heretics.

JPS said...

Prof. Althouse,

"it is the left that's looking for heretics and the right is looking for converts."

Used to be true. The right has been making up for lost time in the looking-for-heretics business.

BCARM:

"The main goal of the Republicans seems to be blowing up the budget deficit."

No, that is incidental, a byproduct of the political advantages to be accrued. Sort of like increased social distrust and government dependency, and worsened race relations, fostered by Democrats. I assume it's not their goal, just intrinsic in a chicken-and-egg way to their success.

Kevin said...

Like all things, "It's different when we do it."

I was told, "Fuck you. You got your war, now it's our turn."

That the war vote was passed by large majorities in both Houses, was just another thing flushed down the memory hole.

wendybar said...

AS a member of the TEA Party, I am against BIG GOVERNMENT...no matter WHOSE party is running it. I want less taxes, less government, less lies and corruption, less hate and I still want to know WHOM we paid off harassment payments for....no matter what party we did it for....WHY are taxpayers on the hook for the indiscretions of horrible congressmen and women??? I believe in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Kevin said...

Republicans are the party of RINOs, another name for heretics.

There is no such thing as a DINO. You're eternally part of the group - like being born black - or you never were put up for admission.

If you think White Nationalists who repented, adopted all the principles of the left and lived their lives according to those principles would ever be members of good standing, hahahahah.

An in-group always needs an out-group. A moment focused on intergroup competition won't just see "deplorables", they'll manufacture them if need be.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"The outsiders may say they are looking for heretics, but they're only looking for people who threaten the adhesiveness of the group."
I don't think that this is quite right. There has to be something holding Democrats together other than that they are Democrats. Otherwise you would have "feminists for capitalism" splitting off & joining the tea party. They do have universal bogeymen within the group. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Koch brothers . . . remember back in the day when it was Exxon & Dow Chemical?

Kevin said...

"The lack of a 'liberal Tea Party' reflects

I would say it reflects the nature of intergroup competition. How can you get people to join your group unless you can promise them something for joining - preferably at the out-group's expense?

It is the nature of the Democratic Party to continuing expanding government until the system collapses.

Venezuela is not a cautionary tale, it's jumping to the last chapter.

Roy Jacobsen said...

...yet I also think it's true that it is the left that's looking for heretics and the right is looking for converts.

Which is just another way of expressing the aphorism "Conservatives think liberals/progressives are wrong. Liberals/progressives think conservatives are evil."

Ralph L said...

It amazes me the parties survived as long as they did with mixed ideologies. What changed that? Vietnam or Reagan?

Kevin said...

Democrats together other than that they are Democrats. Otherwise you would have "feminists for capitalism" splitting off & joining the tea party.?

You think these people would still be feminists in good standing? You think they'd still be invited to the meetings?

George Bush didn't invent, "with us or against us." He tried to use it to force a disjointed nation together, but he didn't invent it.

Chuck said...

Isn't it interesting, how Trump views politics in a Democrat-like way. Trump looks at the social interest groups on the right, the way that Democrats view their social interest groups on the left.

So we see Trump playing to "the Evangelicals," and the coal miners, and "the Second Amendment people," usually with his own favored polling numbers to help his sales pitch. Even when it is untrue, Trump clings to this thinking. So Trump makes claims about how popular he is with "the blacks." And Trump makes false claims about how he won the womens' vote with 52%. (Trump lost the womens vote; Hillary got more than 54%. Trump got 52% of white women voters by some estimates.)

I rather like this Atlhouse post. I don't think she got anything wrong, about some fundamental Democrat/Republican differences. It just sort of shows how un-Republican Donald Trump is.

Hagar said...

I think Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton must both be doing 40,000+ RPM in their graves!

Lewis Wetzel said...

IIRC, most people in positions of power within the Democrat Party come from groups that are dependent on government largess. Activists from non-profits & union members.
It may be that the GOP rank & file have better access to party positions (delegates & such) than Democrats. I know Democrats have strict delegate quotas where the GOP does not.
What would a Democrat Tea Party look like, anyhow? Would it represent the concerns of working people or the hardcore activist Left?

rehajm said...

Looking for heretics assumes there’s a set of agreed upon principles. It’s less about searching for heretics and more about redefining and prioritizing said principles under the threat of social ostracism.

There’s a special place in Hell for those that would stray.

Kevin said...

It amazes me the parties survived as long as they did with mixed ideologies. What changed that? Vietnam or Reagan?

Things used to be more class-based, with people moving between classes.

Now it's just good vs. evil with definitions being shuffled every news cycle.

Starbucks: good, trying to discuss race.
Starbucks: momentarily evil to show how much inherent racism there is.
Starbucks: good again, lighting the way.

They weren't going to kick Howard Schultz out of the club, but he became momentarily useful in advancing the cause.

Like those East Germans who didn't quite tell all the truths about their family members, he must be publicly flogged for the greater good.

gspencer said...

"rather than engaging in broader ideological debates"

When the concept of "freedom" was debated in the Founding Era, it meant freedom from government. It continues to have the same meaning to today's conservatives. Freedom from oppressors, of which there's no short supply, resonates with the vast majority of people, explaining why there's grass-roots groups like the Tea Party.

For the left, there's not any sort of large grouping that's shouting, "Give us more government." Some on the left want this to be sure, but it's not large. What the left has in abundance are, as the author notes, groups, basically tribes, demanding a share at the expense of others.

Kevin said...

Isn't it interesting, how Trump views politics in a Democrat-like way. Trump looks at the social interest groups on the right, the way that Democrats view their social interest groups on the left.

Actually his interest group is "Americans", and he's doing his best to make everyone off, not one group at the sole expense of another. He has the balls to call out to longtime Dem groups which makes both the Dems and GOPe nervous.

That's why the Dem's "crumbs" attack on his tax bill was so predictable and fell so flat.

Kevin said...

For the left, there's not any sort of large grouping that's shouting, "Give us more government." Some on the left want this to be sure, but it's not large. What the left has in abundance are, as the author notes, groups, basically tribes, demanding a share at the expense of others.

And who's going to take it from them and hand it to favored groups?

The government.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger Chuck said...

Isn't it interesting, how Trump views politics in a Democrat-like way. Trump looks at the social interest groups on the right, the way that Democrats view their social interest groups on the left.

I agree, Chuck. I believe the reason Trump won in the primaries is because the other way -- the anti-tribalism position held by most GOP presidential candidates -- had failed to sufficiently advance conservative principles.

David said...

Isn't the possession and exercise of power for self interest a philosophy? Machiavelli thought so.

William Chadwick said...

The battle-cry of a "liberal" Tea Party: Serfdom now, serfdom forever!

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger David said...

Isn't the possession and exercise of power for self interest a philosophy?

Well, you still need a common self-interest, or you haven't got a political party.

Earnest Prole said...

The idea that the Republican Party exists to reduce the size of government was given its last rites during Congress’ recent budget negotiations, was euthanized by Donald Trump when he signed the bill, and now lies six feet deep in a pine box. When it
comes to the size of government, Republicans are now to Democrats as Pepsi is to Coke: Distinctions not cost effective.

exhelodrvr1 said...

The primary Republican pillars are a disdain for large government and a concern that government will always overreach, or at least attempt to do so. Trump shares those beliefs to a far greater extent than 90% of the career Republican politicians. In actuality, he is more Republican than most Republican politicians.

The Cracker Emcee Classic said...

“.. This year, Democratic candidates remain focused on challenging vulnerable Republican-held seats more than purging ideologically impure incumbents.“

The most attainable goals are the ones that have already been done for you. Democrats flourish because of demographics, they struggle because of ideology. When your demographics start to reject your ideology then things get dicey.

CWJ said...

"...the party is dominated by an array of discrete interests that choose candidates on the basis of demographic representation and capacity to deliver [free stuff]."

Fixed it for him.

mockturtle said...

In short, Republicans have an ideology. Democrats have none. All Dems have to do is promise more and more government largesse to appease their vassals.

The Drill SGT said...

"We need to stay united."

It's simply about Power. Raw Power

Lewis Wetzel said...

"When it comes to the size of government, Republicans are now to Democrats as Pepsi is to Coke: Distinctions not cost effective."
Yet it is democrats who bring the JD down on your head if you insist that only opposite sex couples can be married.

RB Glennie said...

No `Tea Party' on the left? They are called: the `anti-globalization' movement, Black Lives Matter, the `social justice warriors', the Resistance, Never Again... the only difference is that the `Tea Party' was subject to overwhelmingly hostile news coverage, whilst the leftist `Tea Party' is treated with kid gloves for the most part.

robother said...

Interesting observation. This writer is acknowledging that the Left no longer is a principled political party, and that it really is a simply a collection of identity groups organized around tribal loyalties and hatred of a common enemy (white cisgendered men).
"Liberal" no longer applies, since it is a term used to advance neutral principles of equal justice, etc.

What Chuck refuses to see is that the Republican or conservative version of principled politics has failed, in part because it cannot generate the enthusiasm (or respond in kind to the attacks of) that tribal appeals to solidarity and hatred have. Trump is a politician who gets it.

Uncle Frank said...

I see the Tea Party as a non-ideological response to unwise government spending and crooked politicians. It could have become a bi-partisan reaction that drew both Rs and Ds into the fold and threatened both parties. But its early formation coincided with the Ds having complete control of the White House and Congress, prompting D leadership to pull out the stops for total party discipline among D politicians. What tactic works best with D politicians? Cry racism, of course. That created the narrative that the Tea Party was racist, a charge that too many R politicians allowed to fester. But it kept D politicians from migrating.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Democrats are the party of parasites. They have no clue how to create wealth. Their game plan is simply to grow government and then feed off of it (like parasites).

William Chadwick said...

Larry J.: when "liberals" (and by that I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping government sniffers and State humpers") express concern over the budget or the deficit, what they're really saying is, "I want to take even more of your money." This tends to be the Party line when a Republican is in the White House. When, say, Red Diaper Barry was in the White House, the Party line is more like "Wheeee! Spend away! We can always print more money if we need it!" Note how--for all their crocodile tears over the deficit--they show little to no interest in spending cuts and are always coming up with new ways to spend.

And when a Republican grows a pair and does propose spending cuts, their wails and moans can be heard throughout the land. That's when the Party line changes to "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor," and you get commercials with Republicans pushing little old ladies in wheelchairs off the edge of cliffs.

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...

Mike Sylwester: Political-science professors insinuate that the Tea Party movement reflected racism.

In a way - a neutral understanding of "racism", they're right. Not in the demonizing, shut-down-discussion sense used by people like this prof. Culture, including political culture, isn't "disemobodied", it originates and is practiced by specific people with specific histories, and it broadly correlates with race and ethnicity. That doesn't mean, e.g., that Chinese cannot join and adapt to Anglo-Saxon political culture, or vice-versa, but it does mean that Chinese political culture is not Anglo-Saxon political culture, and if there were cultural changes leading to the replacement of one of those traditions by the other (brought about, say, by mass migrations, or conquests, or whatever), then the "cultural change" would be "racial" in character.

Under such conditions, naturally, the composition of the group of people unhappy with the change (they prefer their own native political culture) is going to be preponderantly either Anglo or Chinese. Just as naturally, the political differences will inevitably have a racial character, even though they aren't based on any actual "you're my enemy in a zero-sum genome v. genome game" racism.

Progs are very eager to frame this "dissatisfaction with cultural change" as, not dissatisfaction with objective cultural change (which really can be objectively a change for the worse), but as that latter kind of "racism" - but only on the part of whites. The (false) premise is of course that whites object to "cultural change" only because they're no longer on top, not because the change in question is bad.

The problem with the "dems r real racists!" approach is that the movements favoring the political culture of the "Old America" *are* going to be disproportionately white, because people who are the inheritors of that culture and prefer it, who object to the "Latin Americanization" or "Third Worldization" of U.S. political and cultural life because it's "not who we are" (to coin a phrase), *are*, predictably, going to be disproportionately white. Anybody with eyes (or who looks at voting stats) can see that. There's no point in saying "nuh uh, this isn't a bunch of white people", when it objectively is, and as if there was something wrong with being white, or something inherently wrong with a policy because it is supported disproportionately by whites.

The mistake "Tea Party" types mistake is constantly playing defense against the "racism" accusations and the stupid, snide put-downs of people like that poli-sci prog. It's interesting that Trump, who doesn't play defense, does no worse, or perhaps even a little better, in making favorable impressions on non-whites, than apologists. And this when he is so hysterically denounced 24/7 as being some uniquely racist devil.

Michael K said...

Jay Cost wrote a pretty good book explaining the Democrats. It's called, "Spoiled Rotten," and it explains the interest group politics of the Democrats.

When it
comes to the size of government, Republicans are now to Democrats as Pepsi is to Coke: Distinctions not cost effective.


This is why we have Trump. It is also why Ryan and McConnell were obstructions and have not done much to help Trump run the government.

If you have doubts, read Anglo Codevilla's "America's Ruling Class" and it will all be explained.

The Tea Party filed largely because it represented Prop 13 author Howard Jarvis advice, "You can't ask pigs to step away from the trough. You have to kick it away."

Jarvis represented California when it was sane.

Michael K said...

It could have become a bi-partisan reaction that drew both Rs and Ds into the fold and threatened both parties. But its early formation coincided with the Ds having complete control of the White House and Congress, prompting D leadership to pull out the stops for total party discipline among D politicians.

I think this comment is very much on target. The other problem is that it threatened corrupt Republicans and was rejected like antibodies reject smallpox.

Gahrie said...

The reason there is no Leftwing Tea Party is because the Left is not about issues or ideas...it is about power pure and simple.

David S said...

The Democratic Party, I think, already represents liberals very well.

It's progressives or the genuine left (that is pretty much absent in American politics) that would be well served by a Tea Party like group.

I have always thought that the US should have four parties; the Dems and GOP as they currently are, and then a genuine conservative and genuine progressive party on the right and left of them.

But alas, our winner take all system of voting results in a two party and two party only system.

William Chadwick said...

That reminds me: tomorrow is the anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord. I think--just as libertarians created Capital Day as a pro-freedom counterpoint to Labor Day--"liberals," being the New Tories3--could have April 19th as their counterpoint to July 4th. As those of us on the pro-freedom side hearken back to the spirit of Sam Adams and Tom Paine, "liberals" could use April 19th to honor Major Pitcairn of the British Royal Marines. When he saw the Minutemen drawn up on the village green at Lexington, he rode up to them and said, "Disperse, ye rabble, disperse!"

Remember the Coffee Party, the short-lived statist answer to the Tea Party? I once e-mailed them via their website proposing April 19th as Pitcairn Day, and also proposed a slogan for them ("Because serfdom isn't just for mediaeval peasants any longer"), but they never responded. Ingrates.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

"The Republican Party is the agent of an ideological movement; most Republican politicians, activists and voters view their party as existing to advance the conservative cause.

I think a lot of people used to believe that, including me. But it turns out it was just a front to forward the National Chamber of Commerce and large corporations' interests. Trump's success means that it will either be transformed into another vehicle for identity group politics or another party will arise to replace it.

Michael said...

Republicans support things that they believe (rightly or wrongly) will be good for everybody. Democrats support things that will be good for some particular group in their coalition, expecting that group to reciprocate.

Inga said...

“It's not effective at winning converts, because there's no appealing idea to be understood and believed in.”

Nothing can be further from the truth than this comment. No appealing ideas? Wow.

Protecting the social safety net
Protecting voter rights
Raise the minimum wage
Protect women’s rights and choice
Protecting civil rights
Promote clean energy
Securing Universal Health Care
Supporting workers rights
Immigration reform/ protecting Dreamers/ DACA

Just a few off the top of my head. Millennials seem to find much of what Democrats represent as appealing. No need to convert these young folks, they are choosing the Democratic Party over the Republican Party in droves, all on their own by observing who the Republicans chose for the leadership in the Presidency, House and Senate.



Ron Winkleheimer said...

It just sort of shows how un-Republican Donald Trump is.

Chuck thinks this is a bad thing.

Inga said...

“The conservatives can "look for converts" because they do have some abstractions that seem appealing and coherent to ordinary people, and those people can feel burned when their representatives do various pragmatic things that deviate from the ideology.”

Democrats are “ordinary people”.

William Chadwick said...

Actually, Inga, the affinity of the Dumbest Generation for the Cult of the State and its chief political arm, the Democratic Party, may have less to do with Republicans and more to do with academic brainwashing and "liberal" agitprop.

William Chadwick said...

Oh, and Happy Pitcairn Day to Inga and all the other New Tory State-shtuppers who post here.

Inga said...

Actually William C,

I’m not impressed by your “insight”, as it seems to be nothing more than something that is a stupid conservative talking point that’s old and worn out. Young people are capable of independent thought, don’t sell them short, big mistake that conservatives have made and continue to make.

Drago said...

"Bowe Bergdahl Republican" Chuck: "I rather like this Atlhouse post. I don't think she got anything wrong, about some fundamental Democrat/Republican differences. It just sort of shows how un-Republican Donald Trump is."

LOL

The "un-Republican" just delivered the most conservative year in governance in the last 60 years.

#CNNStrongDefender Chuck doesn't even realize how he just indicted the republican democrat-me-too-ers in the republican establishment.

Apparently, for more conservative governance, you have to vote for un-republicans.

I'm not in the least bit surprised.

Drago said...

Inga: "I’m not impressed by your “insight”,...."

Other insights which do not impress modern leftists:

- Any insight from our founders
- Any biological science insight which limits the "freedom" of lefties to just wing it
- Our constitution (in particular, our Bill of Rights, which is, like, 100 years old or something)
- The actual results from every leftist experiment in government at any time
- ....

You see where this is going...

MadTownGuy said...

The Economist referred to the "Resistance" as the "Herbal Tea Party." When you've lost the Economist...

MadTownGuy said...

On reflection, I'm inclined to think of the current movements as a coalition of cults.

Tommy Duncan said...

Royal Ass Inga provides a list of Democrat ideas. The problem with the list is the inability of the left to clearly define those ideas.

Take for example "protecting voter rights". Republicans suggest that we ensure we know the legal identity of voters by requiring a picture ID. Seems reasonable in that it helps prevent voter fraud, which impacts all legal voters. But Democrats are violently opposed to voter ID requirements, fearing the proposed rules would screen out illegal voters and "repeat voters". But the Democrats can't say that out loud. So protecting voting rights is a nebulous cloud for Democrats.

William Chadwick said...

Well, when it comes to the Dumbest Generation, you obviously have more in common with them than I do, Inga. Time will mercifully spare me the coming serfdom, so may you and your little servile pals enjoy it. Although I'd prefer it if you all met a fate similar to the one your hero, Major Pitcairn, met at Bunker Hill.

William Chadwick said...

Also, Inga, you seem to mistake me for a conservative. I'm a libertarian or "classical liberal"--you know, one of those weirdos who believe their lives belong to themselves and not to the State. We actually attract the best and brightest of the young 'uns, while your gang attracts the under-thirties who are so stupid as to believe, like you, that Big Brother is their best buddy. Like the kindly older guy in the unmarked van who drives up to them and says, "Hey, kids--get inside!" Only instead of offering them candy, he offers them free stuff (paid for of course with other people's money). What could go wrong?

Gahrie said...

Protecting the social safety net

Taking money from people by force and giving it to other people.

Protecting voter rights

Preventing common sense voting reform to prevent fraud and abuse.

Raise the minimum wage

eliminating entry level jobs and promoting increased automation

Protect women’s rights and choice

Treating women preferentially and protecting the right to kill your baby.

Protecting civil rights

??????? Every civil rights amendment and law were either written by Republicans and/or passed with more Republican support than Democratic.

Promote clean energy

wasting resources through virtue signaling.

Securing Universal Health Care

But not paying for it...

Supporting workers rights

Like the right not to join a union?

Immigration reform/ protecting Dreamers/ DACA

Undermining American law and bringing in low skilled uneducated workers to take jobs from citizens.

Inga said...

“Also, Inga, you seem to mistake me for a conservative. I'm a libertarian....”

Ah yes the libertarians. I always chuckle when I recall how their experimental city turned out.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Republicans have a different set of problems than the Dems. On the campaign, the GOP talk a good game about cutting this, and repealing that, but when they get into power, they either greatly underestimate the opposition or simply start feeding at the government trough themselves.

I would say 98% of Dems are parasites, and maybe 60-70% of Repubs.

This may sound negative and depressing -- but it's not.

Somehow, someway, despite its many flaws, mistakes and sell-outs over the decades, the USA remains the last, best hope of mankind. We fought the colonials, the slaveholders, the Nazis and Communists and won. Now, we gotta fight Leftist morons and their enablers, but without guns.

It's more of a battle of ideas.

JPS said...

Kevin, 8:21:

"George Bush didn't invent, 'with us or against us.' He tried to use it to force a disjointed nation together,"

Belatedly: No, he did not. He never used this phrase with respect to this disjointed nation.

He was addressing countries that claim to be our allies while more or less blatantly aiding and abetting our enemies. He was telling them to get off the fence.

That he was addressing his domestic political opponents is a myth pushed by liberals (not that you are one), who were either being disingenuous, or who genuinely thought he was talking to them, because that's how they see us. And it's natural for them to see us that way, because they're right and good, but outrageous and unacceptable for us to see them that way.

Ray said...

I view Althouse post as trolling. Interesting viewpoint. Democrats have an ideology based on the Frankfurt School that applies Marxism to minority groups. And they view everything as political.

Republicans are less ideological and not very cohesive. And it shows in the results congress is producing.

The video of McCain’s re-election ad saying just build the wall, then once re-elected going back on his word was eye opening.

I am still amazed that Trump is doing what he promised. How un-Republican for most elected officials. And for some reason his supporters love that. He is walking the talk.

Jerusalem is a great example. How many presidents promised, and only Trump delivered.

Gahrie said...

It amazes me the parties survived as long as they did with mixed ideologies. What changed that? Vietnam or Reagan?

I think it was Gore's loss to Bush. That was when all of the attacks on conservative Democrats like Joe Lieberman ramped up.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that the difference is that, at least since before the Civil War, the Democratic Party has been the party of interests groups. (Typically ethnic) interest groups get together, and divide up the pie. In a big city, that means jobs, city contracts, etc. so many jobs for the Irish so many for the Italian, so many for the Jews, etc. Their leaders had to deliver those votes, and if they were successful, would get their allotted share of the spoils. Discipline was at the ethnic group level, and typically includes a lot of peer pressure. Thus, you have Jews sitting next to the most antisemitic groups in this country - blacks, and most recently Muslims. Try asking your Jewish Democrat friends why they supported the most antisemitic President of a generation or two (Obama) and can even be civil to, and even deal with, avid Jew Haters like Jesse Jackson, and all you get is denial and a lot of cognitive dissonance. The result is very top down, imposed by group peer pressure, because the group, and thus group leaders, would lose power to the other demographic constituencies, if their leadership failed to maintain discipline and deliver its allotted share of support (esp votes).

The Republicans, on the other hand, represented the majority white middle class. Originally, of English, German, etc decent, and later Irish, Italian, etc, as they were successfully assimilated. And, yes, I think that Trump seems to be changing this to a more Democratic interest group model. Which was probably inevitable, with white middle and working class no longer being the majority, and seeing themselves as under attack by the Dems and their demographic voting blocks.

Matthew Sablan said...

"This year, Democratic candidates remain focused on challenging vulnerable Republican-held seats more than purging ideologically impure incumbents."

-- Well, the Blue Dogs are pretty much all already purged, aren't they?

Matthew Sablan said...

"The Democratic party is better at resisting change and cutting off oxygen to radicals that are no longer useful."

-- Compare how Alan Grayson gets treated to how Christine O'Donnell got treated.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Bernie's campaign, the Dem equivalent of the Tea Party, showed, if we didn't know it already, that plenty of Dems view their party as a vehicle for the pursuit of progressivism as an ideological cause--and he almost achieved more than the Tea Party ever did."

-- Bernie pretty much acquiesced to the Democrat machine, refusing to pressure them on things like Clinton's emails.

The Tea Party was the most successful modern movement, in that they got politicians elected, helped to regain Republican control of Congress and had obtainable policy proposals, some of which have been achieved.

Bernie served as a sacrifice so that Clinton could appear more moderate, and then bought another house.

Michael K said...

I am still amazed that Trump is doing what he promised. How un-Republican for most elected officials. And for some reason his supporters love that. He is walking the talk.

Me too. And the left, like Inga and Ritmo, hate it.

He is not "growing in office" as so many Republicans do once they try to get the NY Times to say nice things about them.

Blogger Gahrie said...
It amazes me the parties survived as long as they did with mixed ideologies. What changed that? Vietnam or Reagan?

I think it was Gore's loss to Bush. That was when all of the attacks on conservative Democrats like Joe Lieberman ramped up.


I agree. The "Resistance" to Bush was almost as bad until 9/11 changed it temporarily,

Bush did a lot of damage by enabling the CIA/FBI nexus to grow great power. Jamies Gorelick and her "Chinese Wall" might have been a better policy.

The Vietnam War destroyed the old Democratic Party and left us with The Democratic Socialists of America in its place.

Inga said...

“Somehow, someway, despite its many flaws, mistakes and sell-outs over the decades, the USA remains the last, best hope of mankind. We fought the colonials, the slaveholders, the Nazis and Communists and won.”

I agree! And when conservatives like Buwaya, ( who isn’t even a citizen) haven’t a good word for this wonderful country, it just makes my blood boil. My parents waited 10 years to be able to enter the US from war torn Eastern Europe. They loved this country and became citizens as soon as was allowed, 6 years.

Maybe instead of fighting with fellow American who have a different political philosophy than yours you could recognize the need to preserve and protect OUR country.

mockturtle said...

Have to agree with you, Inga. That's the third time this month! :-O

Michael K said...

Maybe instead of fighting with fellow American who have a different political philosophy than yours you could recognize the need to preserve and protect OUR country.

Maybe you need to say that to your fellow Democrats, and there are a lot of them, who say "America was never great."

Or even, "For the first time in my life I am proud of my country "

Rick said...

Have to agree with you, Inga.

If she actually believed that she wouldn't be defending the person attacking Barbara Bush.

Jupiter said...

Inga said...

"Maybe instead of fighting with fellow American who have a different political philosophy than yours you could recognize the need to preserve and protect OUR country."

What do you mean "OUR country"? Have you got a couple dozen illegal immigrants in your pocket?

Drago said...

Inga: "And when conservatives like Buwaya, ( who isn’t even a citizen)...."

LOL

Lefties take time out from advocating for other nations citizens to vote in our elections and proclaiming the US a borderless nation which has no right to keep anyone out to complain that some guy who is not a citizen is espousing conservative ideas.

Discuss.

Drago said...

It gets worse of course, since Inga is a lily-white gal from a very white state and is attacking a brown person.

Well, if the lefties weren't daily demonstrating Fen's Law, they wouldn't have anything to say!

Jupiter said...

What Trump understands is that the Democrats have won. We are all hyphenated Americans now. Calls for unity and personal sacrifice in the national interest are really just special pleading by those who have every intention of plundering their neighbors at every opportunity. The only idiots who haven't figured this out are dim-bulb whites like Igna, who still think everything will be hunky-dory once we track down and kill the last white male.

What the Democrats just found out is that tribalism is a two-way street, and some tribes are bigger and stronger than others. Women were supposed to be part of the coalition to kill white males, but the Democrats discovered that women who are or expect to be married to white males can tell which side of the bread has the butter without any help from the Democratic Party.

Inga said...

“Have to agree with you, Inga. That's the third time this month! :-O”

I bet we have a lot more in common than we don’t. Nursing, kids, humor, spunk, love of country...you better be careful though, Kirk Parker might be reading this thread, lol.

Inga said...

And Mockturtle, I think we may have scared Tim off.😧

Inga said...

“It gets worse of course, since Inga is a lily-white gal from a very white state and is attacking a brown person.”

I give a rat’s ass what color anyone is, if they bash this country daily and are ungrateful for the honor of living here, I’ll tell them what ungrateful jerks they are.

Inga said...

“Have to agree with you, Inga.”
———————-
“If she actually believed that she wouldn't be defending the person attacking Barbara Bush.”

Who am I defending that attacked Brarbara Bush? Try not to be such a passive agressive little bitch. Be a man and say who you mean.

Jupiter said...

Inga said...

"I give a rat’s ass what color anyone is, if they bash this country daily and are ungrateful for the honor of living here, I’ll tell them what ungrateful jerks they are."

So, you're saying that buwaya should take his foreign ass back to whatever shithole country he hales from if he doesn't like the way you plan on running this one? Isn't that kind of Republican of you, Igna? Maybe you're not completely batshit crazy after all. Maybe you are actually capable of recognizing certain physical realities, at least for brief periods.

Rick said...

Who am I defending that attacked Brarbara Bush?

Professor Shannon McGregor. Sorry I didn't spell out every word for you, it's hard to know in advance how stupid you're going to pretend to be.

Rick said...

Maybe you're not completely batshit crazy after all.

Any port in a storm Jupiter. She'll use that against buwaya because she perceives him as the enemy. Meanwhile thousands of left wingers have made explicitly anti-American comments and she's criticized exactly zero of them. Never confuse her attacks for a principle.

Inga said...

“Who am I defending that attacked Barbara Bush?”

“Professor Shannon McGregor. Sorry I didn't spell out every word for you, it's hard to know in advance how stupid you're going to pretend to be.”

So I’m “defending” her by saying there is nothing wrong with just calling her “Professor”? WTF? I always thought you might have a screw loose, now I’m quite sure.

Ann Althouse said...

You can't just list policy areas and call that a coherent, compelling ideological idea that can be presented to ordinary people to believe in. I think the idea is (or could or should be) redistribution of the wealth. But Democrats don't try to push that as the big abstract idea. It's used *against* them by their antagonists. The "Occupy" movement was like the Tea Party in that it used a real idea and tried to organize large numbers of people. But it just didn't work, because the vast majority of Americans resist that idea. They'd like the opportunity to work to try to win more for themselves and fear the loss of motivation in others.

Rick said...

So I’m “defending” her by saying there is nothing wrong with just calling her “Professor”?

Correct. You're protecting her by trying to minimize what she did. She's not just requesting people call her professor she's also demanding she control what other professors are called and asserting male are awarded respect "easily". Then you used this wrongly narrow definition of her actions to attack those criticizing her.

So you criticized the people criticizing her. Doing so protects her. It ought to be embarrassing you're pretending not to understand this.

Michael said...

I would be down on buwaya too if he humiliated me every day

William Chadwick said...

I wrote: “Also, Inga, you seem to mistake me for a conservative. I'm a libertarian....”

And the Genius That is Inga reasponded: "Ah yes the libertarians. I always chuckle when I recall how their experimental city turned out." And provides a link to a story (from Salon, so we know it's objective journalism, that in no shape or form would ever slant a story in a statist direction) about a small town in Texas that allegedly went libertarian, and the chaos that ensued. This in contrast to all the places in the world that statism has turned into a living Hell. (When are you going to Venezuela, Inga?)

No matter. You've convinced me, Inga. That one anecdote completely refutes every word that Bastiat, von Mises or Hayek ever wrote; so I'm giving up libertarianism. What part of the philosophy should I give up first? "Don't hurt people" or "Don't take their stuff"? Whichever you choose, can I start with you?

Just kidding. If I did convert to State-cultism, I wouldn't bother to get your permission. I'd just hurt you and take your stuff.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sebastian said...

"I think the idea is (or could or should be) redistribution of the wealth. But Democrats don't try to push that as the big abstract idea. It's used *against* them by their antagonists."

Yes. Mean, mean antagonists. Dems would never say, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Or, "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Or, "We must send a message to the billionaire class: “you can’t have it all.” You can’t get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry. You can’t continue sending our jobs to China while millions are looking for work. You can’t hide your profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens, while there are massive unmet needs on every corner of this nation. Your greed has got to end. You cannot take advantage of all the benefits of America, if you refuse to accept your responsibilities as Americans. WE MUST COME TOGETHER AND REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY."

Jupiter said...

Ann Althouse said...
"I think the idea is (or could or should be) redistribution of the wealth. But Democrats don't try to push that as the big abstract idea."

Au contraire. That is the big, abstract idea which they use to disguise their real program, which is "Let's you and me take his stuff!". That, and the idea that "justice" consists in failing to enforce the laws. This is a program that is intended to appeal to people who can't control their impulses, and have managed to accumulate very little. They are quite capable of seeing through the faux-fairness bullshit, realizing that the "shared sacrifice" the 'Crats are always on about will be shared by someone other than 'Crats.

The 'Crats are quite open about this. Witness the frequent attempts by 'Crat governors to allow criminals to vote. They know who criminals will vote for.

Surprisingly, the 'Crat constituency, though large, is not large enough to turn us into Venezuela. Not yet.

Michael said...

Inga
Priceless high school recitation of good think. But C- for mistaking platitudes for policy or rigid thinking.

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...

Inga: And when conservatives like Buwaya, ( who isn’t even a citizen) haven’t a good word for this wonderful country...

If buwaya didn't have a great deal of admiration for this country and its people, he would not be so saddened at what a falling off there has been. The fact is, you simply lack the intelligence or the depth or breadth of knowledge necessary to understand what he's saying about this county.

it just makes my blood boil. My parents waited 10 years to be able to enter the US from war torn Eastern Europe. They loved this country and became citizens as soon as was allowed, 6 years.it just makes my blood boil.

I don't understand. That must have been back in the day when America was, what? 80-90% white? And pretty much exclusively run by white males? You could go your whole life and never meet a single Muslim individual. Not a hijab in sight. You couldn't even get gay-married then. Not only was racial segregation as common as it still is now, in a lot of places it was government-enforced. Nobody even got sacked for making ethnic, racial, or sexist jokes, or had their careers destroyed for expressing less than adulatory opinions about the behavior of gay people. Trannies? Fuggedaboutit. The place was full of jerks who thought astronauts were heroes, for cryin' out loud, not badly made-up hirsute hulks with fake tits wearing dresses.

How could you parents love such an obviously shitty, boring, bigoted, non-vibrant, non-culturally-enriched place? If they came out of sense of self-sacrifice, good for them for coming to help fix that cesspit. (Though maybe it was wrong of them to increase the number of whites in the country, an objectively bad thing.) Shame on them if they just wanted to come here to enjoy their cishet white privilege in that shitty racist homophobic hellhole.

Inga said...


“You can't just list policy areas and call that a coherent, compelling ideological idea that can be presented to ordinary people to believe in. “I think the idea is (or could or should be) redistribution of the wealth. But Democrats don't try to push that as the big abstract idea. It's used *against* them by their antagonists. The "Occupy" movement was like the Tea Party in that it used a real idea and tried to organize large numbers of people. But it just didn't work, because the vast majority of Americans resist that idea. They'd like the opportunity to work to try to win more for themselves and fear the loss of motivation in others.“

Ok, fine. Some compelling ideas that liberals, Democrats and progressives embrace are being our brother’s keeper, having empathy for the less fortunate, giving people who need it a hand up- not a hand out, being members of a society as opposed to being an island, being members of the society of man, world wide. Acceptance of differences, inclusion. Redistribution of weath is too broad, too vague, has a negative connotation and doesn’t truthfully describe what modern day liberalism is about. A better way to look at it is the way Elizabeth Warren describes it, it’s a rigged system in favor of the wealthy, progressives think this is wrong and the average working man should be given a fighting chance.

Gahrie said...

it’s a rigged system in favor of the wealthy, progressives think this is wrong and should give the working man a fighting chance

Which is why millions of people want to move here to improve their lives. Many of them quite literally risk their lives to come here.

Elon Musk showed up here with $12 and became a billionaire as he changed the world. He explicitly acknowledges the fact that the US is the only place in the world where this is possible.

Inga said...

“Which is why millions of people want to move here to improve their lives. Many of them quite literally risk their lives to come here.”

Indeed they do! Because despite things not being ideal, America still strives to make things better, to progress.

Jupiter said...

Inga said...
"A better way to look at it is the way Elizabeth Warren describes it, it’s a rigged system in favor of the wealthy, progressives think this is wrong and should give the working man a fighting chance."

Well, that seems reasonable. Anyone who can't get behind that straightforward policy recommendation deserves to have his property redistributed! But let's not bring "work" into this, Igna. That's a micro-aggression. There are people who have had some very bad experiences with "work", and it is extremely insensitive to mention it while pandering for their votes.

Inga said...

“Indeed they do! Because despite things not being ideal, America still strives to make things better, to progress.”

Hmmm, another one of the compelling ideas of progressivism.

Jupiter said...

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...
"Shame on them if they just wanted to come here to enjoy their cishet white privilege in that shitty racist homophobic hellhole."

Wait, AD. You're saying Igna's parents were thought criminals? Oh Noes! I happen to know that particular stain extends at least to the fifth generation. Sorry, Igna. To the camps! Kulak!

Inga said...

“How could you parents love such an obviously shitty, boring, bigoted, non-vibrant, non-culturally-enriched place? If they came out of sense of self-sacrifice, good for them for coming to help fix that cesspit. (Though maybe it was wrong of them to increase the number of whites in the country, an objectively bad thing.) Shame on them if they just wanted to come here to enjoy their cishet white privilege in that shitty racist homophobic hellhole.”

My parents came seeking refuge and a place to live peacefully and thrive and that’s exactly what they got. They and their offspring, my siblings and I, our children and grandchildren and in the case of my oldest sister, great grandchildren, have been grateful.

Inga said...

Angelic Buzzard,

There are a FAR more decent people that inhabit the US than the loud angry minority of Americans who are racists, xenophobic, homophobes and Islamaphobes.

Thank goodness and thanks to our founding fathers.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Ok, fine. Some compelling ideas that liberals, Democrats and progressives embrace are being our brother’s keeper, having empathy for the less fortunate, giving people who need it a hand up- not a hand out, being members of a society as opposed to being an island, being members of the society of man, world wide. Acceptance of differences, inclusion.

That's not an ideology, its sloppy sentimentality. For instance, I'm for giving a hand up, not a hand out. I don't know anyone who isn't. The question is how is that to be managed. Large impersonal bureaucracy using tax dollars to administer a one size fits all program that over 50 or so years not only hasn't fixed the problem of poverty, but has exasperated it? Or try something else?

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...

Inga: There are a FAR more decent people that inhabit the US than the loud angry minority of Americans who are racists, xenophobic, homophobes and Islamaphobes.

Thank goodness and thanks to our founding fathers.


Inga, never let it be said that your charmingly dingbat responses, to any comments requiring the comprehension and reasoning abilities of a normal 3rd-grader, are not appreciated and enjoyed here.

William Chadwick said...

Here's a message for Inga from the Ghost of Sam Adams, in commemoration of her holiday, Major Pitcairn Day:

“If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

mockturtle said...

And Mockturtle, I think we may have scared Tim off.😧

Yes, Inga, so it would appear. ;-) Guess he couldn't take it.

Inga said...

“Inga, never let it be said that your charmingly dingbat responses, to any comments requiring the comprehension and reasoning abilities of a normal 3rd-grader, are not appreciated and enjoyed here.”

I’m such a sweetheart I even appreciate pretentious, condescending bitches like you. It takes all kinds to make the Althouse comments threads jump. Far be it from me to call you boring.

mockturtle said...

it’s a rigged system in favor of the wealthy progressives

FIFY. Works better without the comma.

Inga said...

“Yes, Inga, so it would appear. ;-) Guess he couldn't take it.”

Come back Tim in Vermont, I miss you. I promise not to make any references to the size of penii. And if I slip up and do so inadvertently, I will quickly make the disclaimer that it was not yours that was in question.

Original Mike said...

Inga said...”My parents waited 10 years to be able to enter the US from war torn Eastern Europe.”

Why didn’t they just sneek in?

Michael K said...

Inga, were you in Jacksonville Florida this week?

It is named after that Nazi Andrew Jackson. I thought you might have been there on flag patrol.

Do you have blond hair ?

n.n said...

The prerequisite for liberty is self-moderating, responsible behavior. Progressive liberalism (i.e. monotonic divergence) is antithetical to liberty and individual integrity, thus [color] diversity, selective-child, political congruence, redistributive change, conflation of logical domains, etc.

Inga said...

“Inga, were you in Jacksonville Florida this week?

It is named after that Nazi Andrew Jackson. I thought you might have been there on flag patrol.

Do you have blond hair ?”

No Michael, I’ve never been to Jacksonville. I was in Tallahassee a few years ago for my third daughter’s law school graduation. Why would I be opposed to military flags? My oldest daughter is career Navy, she’s been in the Navy since 2002. I love being on military bases with all the great looking young folks in their uniforms, flags and all. I’ve been to Camp Pendleton, Great Lakes Naval Station many times, my daughter was married in the Parris Island chapel and I’ve been to Marine Air Station Beaufort, S.C.

My hair was black all my life until the last few years, now it’s very salt and pepper and my eyes are blue, any other questions?

Michael K said...

No, I just thought she sounded a bit like you.

A scold and all.

Matthew Sablan said...

I think the property damage, rapes and assaults were bigger hits against the Occupy movement than an unpopular ideology.

Luke Lea said...

And then there are the issues of class, which is what Trump is all about: trade and immigration and how they affect the lives of ordinary working people. Trump change, not chump change will ring in the hood before it's all over.

Bruce Hayden said...

“The "Occupy" movement was like the Tea Party in that it used a real idea and tried to organize large numbers of people. But it just didn't work, because the vast majority of Americans resist that idea. They'd like the opportunity to work to try to win more for themselves and fear the loss of motivation in others.”

The problem with the Occupy movement was that it was AstroTurf almost from the first. The same culprits were funding it, were supplying the busses to get the protesters where they were needed - which wasn’t DC, which would have been the logical place to protest, since that is the real seat of power, etc. but, maybe not surprisingly, it was almost nonexistent in the one place where it might have had an effect. I was in DC at the time, and got some pictures of their sad encampment, of maybe a half dozen tents, being protected by almost as many cops. The left, the Dems, are too top down to allow that much spontaneity. Haven’t really allowed it with their shock troops since probably the 1968 Convention.

Kirk Parker said...

Wow.

"Protecting voter rights" == protecting the ability of ineligible voters to cast a ballot anyway.

"Raise the minimum wage" == the hell with economics, let's kill that Golden Goose faster!

"Protect women’s rights and choice" == oh, did someone mention killing? Let's be sure to protect the ability of women to kill their babies with no consequences.

"Promote clean energy" == let's all starve to death while freezing in the dark.

"Securing Universal Health Care" == it's better and cheaper if someone else pays for it!

"Immigration reform/ protecting Dreamers/ DACA" == the hell with borders, too!