Said Trump, at his rally in The Villages, Florida. Transcript. He chuckles over "especially a female socialist president" — so it's a joke, an inside joke for you people who think women are irrational and disabled by empathy.
Presumably, he realizes that many of us are picturing Joe Biden stepping — or getting pushed — aside soon after he wins, if he wins, and Kamala Harris elevated to the presidency. Trump is scaring us about socialism and mixing in the idea that socialism presided over by a female is an especially dangerous form of socialism. He does go on to say that Harris is the most liberal member of the Senate, so there's something especially dangerous about Harris's "socialism," but he does say "any female socialist president," so he frames it as a stereotype of women. I see that he's using that form in a kind of stand-up comedian mode, and I recognize it as humor, but it only works as humor because the stereotype is understood and has some relationship to what people believe is true.
पोस्ट्स
१३० टिप्पण्या:
Women are more sympathetic, but less empathetic. Men are more empathetic, but less sympathetic.
It takes empathy to hunt effectively, but too much sympathy will keep you from feeding your family. “To kill the buffalo, you must be the buffalo."
Oh no, Trump lost the Althouse vote he was never getting
because she was instructed to parse a speech as they do in "women's studies"
I think he’s tripping over different ideas. Harris was chosen primarily because she is female. But she’s also socialist (maybe—for this I’m ignoring whether that’s true or not). The fact that she was chosen for her gender means she’s probably not the best person for the job. That’s what I think he was trying to hit on—she’s a socialist plus she’s there because she’s a woman, not because she’s capable.
But the way he phrased it, well, if we’re assuming 4-D chess, then I guess the media jumping all over “woman” forces them to discuss “socialist.” A game I’m getting tired of being witness to. Which won’t effect my vote since I think it’s vital Democrats not be rewarded for their behaviour, but still, I’m getting tired of it.
The thought of a woman socialist president isn't scary because women are highly empathetic. It is scary for just the opposite reason - women tend to lean more totalitarian in their personalities. Imagine a Karen as president.
“That’s not the way it’s supposed to be” is correct, but not in the sense that people aren’t supposed to elect socialists. People can elect anyone they want. But parties are not supposed to sandbag their own members by using a doddering old fool to slip in their preferred candidate through the VP slot after that candidate was soundly rejected by primary voters. The primary is supposed to have meaning.
He was playing off our Karenophobia. Karens' lack of empathy is the key factor.
No, because it is legitimately scary.
The number of people murdered for having the wrong beliefs would be high.
Secret police are less racist, but more murder-y.
Women don't do structure, and it's structure that collapses the system.
What they do instead of structure is feelings. Not empathy exactly. If they had empathy they could understand men's concern with structure.
" an inside joke for you people who think women are irrational and disabled by empathy. "
I'm hoping 'rational' leftist women choose to abstain from voting for either of the candidates.
That would be nice.
I am Laslo.
MRCTV: San Francisco Mayor to pay Pacific Islander and black women to become pregnant
The real nightmare is what is underlies this, the thinking behind it.
She's a female socialist -- a member of the Democratic Party -- and she is not unrepresentative of left-wing women. They can rationalize anything they want.
I think it's more that Kamala is an unpopular, irrational woman blown to the top on a fickle breeze.
Kamala represents the political equivalent of the NBA, NFL, and MLB.
She hates you but needs your respect.
So she would demand what will not be given freely.
Kamala Peron.
Bad poll choices. Especially "Yes, because women are highly empathetic," because this itself is a stereotype, and false. You for instance have no empathy whatsoever. You don't know what empathy is.
Empathy isn't "haha they're burning your house down, haha they're burning your house down, haha they're burning your house down...wait, they're burning my house down...THAT'S NOT FUNNY!" That's the opposite of empathy.
"especially any female socialist president"
He said, "especially a female socialist president".
I read him as trying to dissuade women who might think "Oh, I'm voting for Biden because I'm excited to have a female president", and he's pointing out Harris isn't just female, but a socialist.
Top search term on Google last 24 hours: "How do I change my vote?" NM trend line looks nearly vertical.
My money is on this clip from Trump being played 200 times over the weekend, while the name Hunter Biden is only mentioned 20 times.
People may think "Joe has always been moderate, so I'll vote for him. I can't decide between him and Trump because both are moderate and I really like a woman being on the ticket"
So Trump is saying, "Don't fall into that! Harris is the most far left person in the Senate! Don't vote for her because you're excited she's a woman! She's a Socialist!"
If Biden can be pushed aside, so can Harris.
Harris was chosen because she is a female from the colored persuasion.
A missed opportunity, Trump could have won laudits by announcing Mike Pence's transition to become the first female vice president.
I have to call our host out, on some pretty fancy mind reading. The dnc/media, usually is forced to take our Presidents words literally. But he has been learning and cleaning some of that up...slowly. Now to keep the hate going, the use of mind reading is required.
I think he was saying electing Biden so they can replace him with a female socialist person as President is not the way things should happen. He is pointing out that we had a chance to elect the first female President, but we rejected that. We also had the chance to elect the first socialist President, which we also rejected. But the "powers that be" want a female, socialist President and electing Biden is the only way left. I think that's why Pelosi brought up the 25th amendment commission, but now I expect that the day after Biden is elected, the Hunter Biden stories will explode all over the media. Impeach Biden, et voila: First Female Socialist President. So I didn't vote for any of the options.
They accuse him of everything anyways..even though none of it is true....but the Propagandists keep on repeating the lies, and the ignorant believe them.
Like tim maguire said...she was picked BECAUSE she was a "black" female. ONLY. PERIOD. The Democrats would have nominated her if they thought she would be a good president. They didn't. They nominated a delusional old white man.
It's a very subtle and sophisticated joke, rhhardin level. People dig Trump about how he doesn't read, so let's say he's not a big CS Lewis guy. Trump independently came up with the same notion expressed in the below, and he delivered it in one short line, using four or five words, and made it funny.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Trump's plan, I don't say he achieved it, was to say you'd want the first woman president to be one that isn't remembered for collapsing the country. Appeal to women's ego.
The implication is that you can find one. A woman-positive message.
Four or five words, repetition, getting into character...he baked all the elements of CS Lewis' now cliched observation into a "take my wife" type joke. It is a bizarre form of it, but it is fucking genius.
He chuckles over "especially a female socialist president"
Trump didn't chuckle at that point. When did he chuckle?
It's not about irrationality or empathy. It's about chuckling. Everyone knows women see chuckling when there's no chuckling. We never talk about it, but we all know.
You can't have someone with their finger on the nuclear button who might see chuckling when nobody chuckled. I mean, that's just common sense. We need to solve this imagined chuckling problem, then it will be time to consider a female for president. Trump knows all this, of course. I'm sure this isn't the first time he's been falsely accused of chuckling.
If you dont vote for Joe, you aint black. Pretty simple.
And even more, I don't want this woman, socialist or not, to be president, let alone become president without being elected.
Yes, because women are vicious and nasty.
There are several more apposite choices missing from the survey.
A woman socialist President is scary because:
1. Socialists are irrational, emotional, divorced from facts and reality and single minded in their pursuit of power over everyone else.
2. Women are irrational, emotional, ignore facts and reality for 'feelings' and also can be single minded in their desire to control. Karen in charge of everyone!
A woman socialist President would just be a double whammy of horror.
Plus....we are conditioned/brainwashed to treat women differently than men. We have to be kinder and more understanding of women. We wouldn't be able to "call out" a woman and hold her feet to the metaphorical fire like we can a man.
It would be a complete disaster.
Tim Maguire said. re: Harris she’s a socialist plus she’s there because she’s a woman, not because she’s capable.
This and that she is a BLACK (sorta) woman. Not just any woman but a BLACK woman. Wooo Hooo!!!!
Gotta fill in all the Woke check boxes ya know.
The only reason Harris is on the ticket is because she's female. If there is another, name it.
In the mind of a feminist, the only reason anyone would think she's unqualified is because she's female.
Take a look around you. Observe the women that hold power in this country. It's a disgraceful track record for the "fairer sex". Hillary for Sec. of Defense? It's being seriously considered.
Feminism is a marxist tool designed to destroy the American family.
Of course it wouldn't have been complete without the ignorant and/or insulting mispronunciation of "Kamala."
I voted 'joke'. That said, and as a card-carrying female, I have to admit that MOST women lack the objectivity necessary for good leadership. Women are more inclined to pettiness, defensiveness and a tendency to micromanage. It has nothing to do with intelligence but everything to do with basic gender differences.
Suburban women are going to love this.
I have been wondering if the latest bombshell reports about the Biden family business are actually the plan to get Biden out of the way, if he wins, and put Harris in his place. Maybe Joe (or Jill) is starting to have delusions of grandeur about his "being" president and "they" want him to know it is never going to happen. With Joe's narcissism he may think the polls indicated a deep groundswell of support for him personally. His handlers know they have a ton of information on him and can release it they choose. If Joe wins and abdicates for "poor health", he is somewhat limited in his future role. If Joe wins, but steps aside for the "good of the country" he can pretend to be the elder stateman (and continue to get richer) and those with information on him promise never to release it. The country feels sorry for Kamala for being thrust in a role she obviously is ill-equipped for and give her a break like Gerald Ford got.
In order to argue Trump's point is sexist you have to concede Harris is a socialist.
Blogger Sydney said...
The thought of a woman socialist president isn't scary because women are highly empathetic. It is scary for just the opposite reason - women tend to lean more totalitarian in their personalities. Imagine a Karen as president.
Sort of like Gretchen Wittmer but with 50 states at her disposal.
After 40+ years of working in non-profit and education, I can absolutely agree that women tend to lean more totalitarian - and can do so while lecturing others on empathy and sympathy.
The more subtle point is that by voting for Biden you are electing a socialist woman because, one way or another, Biden is not going to be around for long after the election.
Coming from the lady who just wrote a post about crazy uncles.
I think it's a slap at Harris's credentials, which are limited to ber demographics. The female-ness is an intrinsic part of anything she's given.
How about she was so empathetic she couldn't get recognized as a viable candidate by her own party? So many delegates for Althouse to count? Her accomplishment tally on the scoreboard was so high that.... Try she was a photogenic vagina of color who will follow donor's orders badly needed to round out a faltering male. That this passes for feminist modeling amongst today' liberals is a tell. She has a clear history of needing men to get ahead, ask Willie Brown.
RoseAnne,
It'll be a contest between the Harris camps who want to get rid of the fake "moderate" biden and the FBI/CIA/fake moderate Rem camps who want him in and use his corruption as leverage to control him.
The fact that women are overly driven by emotion is not up for debate. To deny this is equivalent to denying that men are violent.
The Villages is a crazy place. It's basically one giant gated retirement community. Disney World for geriatrics. There are historical plaques all over the place that are all bogus. It's just the kind of crowd that would be receptive to scaremongering over "socialist."
The Republican fusion of traditionalists, libertarians, and Cold Warriors that coalesced in the mid-20th century and culminated in Reagan's presidency is no longer useful. The problems we are faced with today are a result of the neoliberalism that became dominant during Reagan's first term.
He said it to trigger the usual crowd into screaming about it.
And if it gets reported, all that people will remember afterwards is "Kamala is a socialist".
those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Maugham said something similar: There is no one more ruthless than a woman of a certain age who thinks she's doing good.
My comment about Karenophobia got lost.
Socialism is thought of as soft and feminine already, so a woman socialist is probably a bridge too far for the US. If we elect an open socialist, it will have to come in a muscular macho package: Somebody who looks and sounds like Henry Rollins.
‘...but he does say "any female socialist president," so he frames it as a stereotype of women.’
No. You hear it as a stereotype of women through your filter. If it is a stereotype, it is a stereotype of female socialists. Do you have a problem with that, Professor?
"Women are more inclined to pettiness, defensiveness and a tendency to micromanage.”
I give you Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The thought of a woman socialist president isn't scary because women are highly empathetic. It is scary for just the opposite reason - women tend to lean more totalitarian in their personalities. Imagine a Karen as president.
Maybe, but history shows that male socialists are violent thugs who will kill and maim innocents to keep us all in line. There is no way a "female" socialist is worse than Maduro.
Maybe you can defend his statement by claiming it was an inartful, thoughtless thing that came out of his stream-of-consciousness style, but if you defend this on the merits, you lack any basic understanding of history (and current events).
women tend to lean more totalitarian in their personalities. Imagine a Karen as president.
Think about the Governor of Michigan. Scary.
"women are irrational and disabled by empathy"
Men tend to not let their emotions influence their reasoning to the extent Women do.
Your word choice is disabled, a poor and limiting framing.
Women are much more capable for many other things in the panoply of life, and vice versa.
Both sexes have strengths that enable them to perform their specialized roles more effectively.
As we move to a more equitable balance of social power between the sexes, I hope we learn to appreciate and celebrate the differences rather than homogenize them.
As an example I'm up for a Ivanka as president one day, but would I go into a fire fight with her.
NO fucking way.
It was his way of specifying Harris. Ham-fisted, indeed, but nothing more nor less than that. Your attempt to squeeze more than that out of it is lame.
Harris was chosen because she's black and allegedly owns a vagina.
And we're supposed to pretend that those reasons are good enough.
The whole premise that Kamala Harris is a socialist is ludicrous, and those saying she is are stupid or lying, (or both). (But then, there are many who even today think Obama was a socialist, so stupidity is probably the cause of most such claims.)
Should Harris be sworn in as President, I for one want her to name Michelle Obama as her Veep, just to watch the entire press corps expire from nonstop orgasmic bliss.
"It has nothing to do with intelligence.”
I am not so sure. It takes intelligence to see that pettiness of the kind Hillary displayed on election night is ultimately self defeating and bad for the community as a whole.
A Democrat senator who runs for president is always going to be the "most liberal senator." Presidential candidates are out on the campaign trail all the time and only come back to Washington for the really important votes that their party depends on. They aren't there for the less important "free" votes that they could cast even against the rest of the party. Whether Harris, or before her John Kerry, really is the "most liberal senator" is hard to say. You'd have to look at their voting records over their careers, not just in the years running up to an election. Certainly, in today's Congress, virtually everybody in a party votes the same way on the really important issues. It's only in minor issues that they can stray.
Cookie, how would you define "socialist"? And could you define it in a way that would exclude Harris?
Kamala is a destroyer. And a female destroyer is the cruelest destroyer of them all. She would be a President without pity.
Think of Trump and Biden speeches as improv or jazz or riffing. They start out with a theme, then swing away from it in a wide arc, and then come back to what they were supposed to be talking about. With Biden, the swing can take him to topics that are barely -- if at all -- connected, and he may not arrive back at his original message.
Trump's underlying theme is that Biden/Harris are socialists. Then he's saying that they won't be elected: Harris won't be the first woman vice president or president. Then he veers back to his message that Biden/Harris are socialists and won't get elected and what comes out is something about Harris not becoming the first female socialist president.
The whole premise that Kamala Harris is a socialist is ludicrous
It's unlikely that she would call for the Workers of Silicon Valley to seize the means of production, for San Francisco real estate to be redistributed to the People, or for Napa Valley vineyards to be collectivized.
I have frequently gotten into trouble with women for referring to their gender as "the Socialist Sex," although experience, plus their own arguments, plus all the statistics I have seen on the Gender Gap, tend to confirm it. Radical Feminists have argued that one of the reasons women are superior to men is that women are more "empathetic" (which usually comes down, politically, to being generous with other people's money) and more collectivist--reason and individualism being characteristics of the hated male sex. So if Trump is making the point that a woman socialist in charge would be even worse--that is, stupider and more tyrannical-- than a male socialist, I would agree with him. AOC, for example, makes Bernie Sanders look smart and libertarian by comparison.
As someone earlier suggested, life under female socialists would be like living under a Karen-ocracy. (Pause for shudder.)
I have frequently gotten into trouble with women for referring to their gender as "the Socialist Sex," although experience, plus their own arguments, plus all the statistics I have seen on the Gender Gap, tend to confirm it. Radical Feminists have argued that one of the reasons women are superior to men is that women are more "empathetic" (which usually comes down, politically, to being generous with other people's money) and more collectivist--reason and individualism being characteristics of the hated male sex. So if Trump is making the point that a woman socialist in charge would be even worse--that is, stupider and more tyrannical-- than a male socialist, I would agree with him. AOC, for example, makes Bernie Sanders look smart and libertarian by comparison.
As someone earlier suggested, life under female socialists would be like living under a Karen-ocracy. (Pause for shudder.)
Geez. Lighten up, Francis.
Cook: “The whole premise that Kamala Harris is a socialist is ludicrous,....”.
Cook wants the socialist lunacy to remain pure. Political hyperbole simply won’t do. People who engage in it must be ignorant of “pure socialism.” /s
We can’t know that socialism sucks because it’s never been tried in its pure form. Right?
I find the mixture of socialism and Castro-family corruption the most displeasing.
No matter how wired TRump is.
The first female president will be a Republican, the party of seriously intelligent women. Kristi Noem is my prediction.
Hillary came close. Imagine her as POTUS. Truly disturbing.
The most interesting part of the revolting development of the Harris presidency will be finding out who Management chooses for her VP. That should give us a clue who's really in charge.
And Dick, right on cute criticizes the pronunciation of kamala's name.
Here's a secret for you, nobody knows how to pronounce it. I see it pronounced all 3 ways all the time. Even her boss pronounces it 2 differ ways. Sometimes in the same sentence.
Why are you even here?
John Henry
Ralph L quotes Maugham: Maugham said something similar: There is no one more ruthless than a woman of a certain age who thinks she's doing good.
If you know any animal rights activists you will know this to be true.
Hombre,
Germany tried it for about 10 years in the 30s and 40s.
John Henry
I would do anything to make Trump articulate. But that isn't going to happen.
If the left get in, we are back to hidden corruption, high taxes, uncontrolled immigration (legal and illegal) punitive regulations, fake green deals that do nothing but line the pockets of the ultra connected left, (see Al Gore) and again - FBI sanctioned grifting at the highest levels of governmetn while ordinary Americans work to pay for Hunter's crack.
and probably more war.
Ann Althouse said about Trump...
"He chuckles over "especially a female socialist president" — so it's a joke, an inside joke for you people who think women are irrational and disabled by empathy."
Socialism and empathy are neither functions nor extensions of each other. It's time to put the 80's shoulder pads away and realize that Trump is not speaking against women. He's speaking against that particular woman and people of her ilk.
Beyond that, it's time to admit that Kamala Harris would not be on the ticket if not for her skin tone and gender. She called Biden a racist in a debate and was later eviscerated (nay, emasculated) by Tulsi Gabbard. She dropped out before Iowa. She's as sincere and likeable as Droopy Joe is bright and honest. Her "qualifications," such as they are, include that she is female and a POC.
Socialism really has noting to do with empathy other than to ply the naive with its supposed altruistic values. Socialism is micromanagement at its worst. It's a total mistrust in the creative ability of people to devise their own solutions.
Nancy Pelosi has been pretty obvious that Biden is not long for the presidency. She's warming up 25A in the bullpen already and the election has not been held yet.
She's made no bones about why. It's not about PDJT, it's about future presidentts. Ie; Biden
John Henry
Doctor Jill is speaking now.
Joe has suffered and healed his family with love and understanding.
She realizes the election is lost and she's pushing for Joe's canonization as a saint.
Farmer asserts: The problems we are faced with today are a result of the neoliberalism that became dominant during Reagan's first term.
I would argue that many of the problems we face today are the result of neo-conservatism that emerged during the Bush administrations.
daskol @ 7:54, excellent quote from C.S. Lewis. One of my favorite quotes of all time.
"Cookie, how would you define "socialist"? And could you define it in a way that would exclude Harris?"
Well, I don't have a definition for it, but a succinct dictionary definition states: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
How does this describe what Harris advocates, (or the Dems in general)?
The biggest functional socialists in our society are the big corporations and banking houses, who ask--and get--bailouts for the disasters caused by their own crimes and greed. That is, our money repays them for what they cause to be lost, and, as we saw a decade ago, they take our money and pay themselves billions in bonuses. Or the billionaires who own sports teams and have local municipalities pay in part or all for building (or rebuilding) giant sports complexes, the profits from which will go to the billionaire owners. Public monies turned into private profit for the oligarchs.
It would nice if we could get some actual payback and benefits from our money, such as through some form of single payer health insurance, as only one example. The public's money would thereby provide a beneficial public service.
Robert Cook said...
The whole premise that Kamala Harris is a socialist is ludicrous, and those saying she is are stupid or lying, (or both). (But then, there are many who even today think Obama was a socialist, so stupidity is probably the cause of most such claims.)
The only thing they are missing is they didn't kill enough political opponents to satisfy Cook.
They have to get rid of the 2nd amendment first.
Now Joe is doing the populist shtick. Wall Street versus Main Street. Is anybody buying it?
Robert Cook said...
Well, I don't have a definition for it, but a succinct dictionary definition states: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
So higher taxes and more regulation and for all intents and purposes operational control.
How does this describe what Harris advocates, (or the Dems in general)?
They want higher taxes, more regulation, and for all intents and purposes operational control. The Green New Deal is 100% a Socialist move.
The biggest functional socialists in our society are the big corporations and banking houses, who ask--and get--bailouts for the disasters caused by their own crimes and greed. That is, our money repays them for what they cause to be lost, and, as we saw a decade ago, they take our money and pay themselves billions in bonuses. Or the billionaires who own sports teams and have local municipalities pay in part or all for building (or rebuilding) giant sports complexes, the profits from which will go to the billionaire owners. Public monies turned into private profit for the oligarchs.
You need to read about National Socialism. All the people you are talking about are supporting Democrats. All of them.
It would nice if we could get some actual payback and benefits from our money, such as through some form of single payer health insurance, as only one example. The public's money would thereby provide a beneficial public service.
If you had ever been served by the VA you would know how stupid this statement is.
Nobody in the military would wish single payer on the rest of the nation. It is awful.
Just before the 2016 election I was talking with a very liberal friend of mine and we both agreed that we did not want Hillary to be the first female president. We both did not want history to remember that the best the US could do as a female president was a former presidents wife. She voted for Stein and I voted for Trump.
I would hope that again many women decide we don't want the first female president to be someone that could not win it on her own but needed to get there by electing a senile old man who is then forced to step down.
Being equal does not mean that you get what you want because a man gave it to you, it means earning it with your own abilities.
I see that he's using that form in a kind of stand-up comedian mode, and I recognize it as humor, but it only works as humor because the stereotype is understood and has some relationship to what people believe is true.
Ann voted for Hillary Clinton.
Even better go read Ann's "thinking" behind voting for Hillary Clinton.
And she is whining about stereotypes.
Maybe he's thinking of Thatcher and thinking that the first female president is going to be, like Thatcher, from the party that is not the mommy party.
What chuckle? I viewed and listened in vain to find it. In a similar fashion as to those who accuse Trump of racism, the accusation that he was chuckling over his comments about Harris tells us far more about the observer than the observed.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
Ever read the illogical screed that that false statement comes from?
That cruel neutrality seems to make you think that you can be a squatter in Trump’s mind. SAD
Cook, the so-called socialists or leftists or progressives have modified the "class struggle explains everything" power dynamic to "race struggle explains everything," and this transformation is complete. It is fair indeed to characterize the identitarian left, the proponents of antiracism, as "socialists," for that is how they mostly exist today in the wild. It's an ugly, deracinated form of the ethic, but that's what it is. I prefer the old-fashioned universalist class-conscious types like you, but your kind isn't driving the bus anymore.
they may be statists, but the government doesn't control or manage their operations,
Harris may not be socialist enough for Cookie, but she’s way too socialist for me.
As shown by her performance in the debate with Pence and the D Debates, Harris is a complete Left-wing mediocrity who will become President because of Joe Biden. He could've picked a more intelligent, qualified candidate, but didn't care. The USA may end up paying a big price for his negligence.
@mockturtle:
I would argue that many of the problems we face today are the result of neo-conservatism that emerged during the Bush administrations.
The term is used nowadays to refer almost exclusively to the hawkish foreign policy elements of the Bush administration. In that sense, it didn't really emerge during Bush's administration but Reagan's and was really put into force during Clinton's. The neocons famously hated H.W. Bush, who they viewed as too close to Arab oil interests and insufficiently deferential to Israel. They supported Clinton in '92, and R. James Woolsey's appointment as CIA director was widely seen as a sop to that faction of Clinton's support.
While I certainly am opposed to the foreign policy called neoconservative, I think it's too narrow to explain most of the problems we are facing. The neoliberalism first introduced under Carter and then more so under Reagan and Thatcher became the dominant global ideology. The "Washington consensus" of trade liberalization, market reforms, and financialization. It's essentially an effort to take the division of labor, and the social stratification that goes with it, and apply it globally. The "liberalism" in neoliberalism refers to the 19th century meaning of the word.
The first female president will be a Republican, the party of seriously intelligent women.
I think ronetc (10:17) is right. Someday Althouse and her sister liberal feminists will realize that they cannot expect to appeal to sisterhood solidarity until they are willing to swallow hard and support a conservative female candidate for high office.
I have to honest, I think the very first comment in this thread is the correct view of the two sexes. People always mess up the distinction between empathy and sympathy. Empathy, at least to my male brain has nothing particular to do with emotion itself, sympathy does. When I see someone misusing the word empathy, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
Am I wrong here?
A vote for Biden is a vote to make Harris president- it really is that simple. Had Biden's handlers chosen a nice recognized "moderate", he might well have won a semi-landslide- he basically chose a hard left-winger- not really much further right than Bernie Sanders himself, but without the likability.
And even if Biden isn't shoved aside for Harris, Biden will sign whatever bills the Congress puts in front of him- packing the court, paying reparations, etc. That is what you will be getting, including, likely, another shutdown order issued in January.
Now Trump is on. I guess I'm just not in the mood for political speeches anymore.
Everything in the Progressive Church, nothing outside.
I wonder how many feminists, masculinists, would have voted for Palin as President. How many branded her with the letter "F", feminine female.
Individual dignity. Intrinsic value. Inordinate worth. Diversity of individuals. Minority of one. Principles before em-pathy and what are ostensibly "secular" quasi-religions (e.g. law, ethics).
Robert Cook said...
Well, I don't have a definition for it, but a succinct dictionary definition states: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Thank you for your honesty, Robert. I take it that you agree with this as a working definition?
I do, though I usually say "control" instead "regulation" and leave out "ownership" as irrelevant. If you have control it doesn't matter who technically "owns" something. If you don't control something, your ownership is meaningless.
Our production, distribution and exchange is already so pervasively regulated, and has been for many decades, as to meet your definition of "socialist"
Harriss/Biden are pretty explicit about their desire for more regulation of production, distribution and exchange and for more intense enforcement of existing and prospective regulations.
That's what they promise. Should we believe they will do it?
Why does this NOT make them socialists by your definition?
PDJT, on the other hand ran on an promise of reducing regulations and regulatory control of production, distribution and exchange.
And he has kept that promise. By your definition, and mine, that would make him not just non-socialist but anti-socialist both in word and deed.
Prove me wrong.
John Henry
While I certainly am opposed to the foreign policy called neoconservative, I think it's too narrow to explain most of the problems we are facing.
Since you like to split hairs, Farmer, I will do likewise. Please note that I said "many", not "most". ;-)
What would be worse about a female President from the left is the same as we saw with Obama, you can't criticize a minority even if it's a majority. A female President from the right would be savaged. Look at women like Amy Coney Barrett, or Palin. They have been attacked for their very identity as women in the most vile of ways, and not with facts, but made up bullshit, and that was just for getting close to power.
"Why does this NOT make them socialists by your definition?"
How does it? They don't advocate community ownership of the means of production, distribution or exchange. They--and the the Dems overall--bow down with the Republicans in sworn fealty to the corporate and financial lords who do own those things.
As for regulation, this is appropriate and is written into the Constitution. Every society requires rules to govern social interactions and behavior, and the larger and more complex a society, the more complex will be those rules of conduct. Proper regulation protects workers from being exploited and harmed by opportunistic employers, consumers from unsafe or harmful products and services sold by deceptive vendors, and society at large from the various ills that capitalism can wreak on the economy and the environment.
Obviously, "proper" government regulation has not been operative for many years, (and continues to be dismantled), given the grievous economic and environmental damage that commercial activity has done and continues doing to the world.
Kerensky/Lenin
Hindenburg/Hitler
Biden/Harris
Sorry Godwin.
@John Henry:
Prove me wrong.
Our production, distribution and exchange is already so pervasively regulated, and has been for many decades, as to meet your definition of "socialist"
Then by that definition, every developed country in the world is socialist, which is one of the reasons it isn't a very useful term. Capitalist vs socialist, like nature vs nurture, is not a useful dichotomy. Every country in the world practices the same basic system: the mixed economy. A mixture of free markets and economic planning, of private enterprise and public enterprise.
PDJT, on the other hand ran on an promise of reducing regulations and regulatory control of production, distribution and exchange.
And he has kept that promise. By your definition, and mine, that would make him not just non-socialist but anti-socialist both in word and deed.
It isn't that simple. There has undoubtedly been an effort to rollback some of the regulatory state. But on the subject of regulation, the movement is not unidirectional. Regulations have been removed, and they've been added, too.
The Ten Thousand Commandments, which is published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted in their 2020 edition: "In the worst case—one-in, two-out and net-zero “regulatory budget” notwithstanding—Trump could be adding more than he is subtracting in terms of the broader federal administrative state interventionist dynamic. And just as some of the relaxation of regulatory action does not show up in the Federal Register, many of the interventions now in play may not show up immediately or lend themselves to measurability." You can read the whole thing here.
@mockturtle:
Since you like to split hairs, Farmer, I will do likewise. Please note that I said "many", not "most". ;-)
Haha. Fair enough. But so long as we have the trimmers out, I'll just note that I wasn't quoting you.
One of the reasons the GOP has not been very ineffectual at becoming a right-populist party is that it is not institutionally equipped to make critiques of liberal capitalism. It's still stuck in its Reaganite "government is the problem" mode. If the GOP wants to remain a viable party, it needs to ditch the libertarianism and the Cold War nostalgia. Go left on economics and right on culture.
So after Jill and Joe and Donald, it's Barack's turn. The incredible shrinking man. He was somebody in 2008, or he was expected to be. Now every time he shows up he's smaller and less significant. His big asset was that he wasn't Bush. That's still true and you don't have to have voted for Obama to think it was an advantage. But he'd better do something before he shrinks even more.
And after Barack, back to Joe. He's shouting and has a Walter Brennan old man face ...
Now back to Trump again. Politics is like vaudeville. Before radio, movies, and television, you could deliver much the same act in every city and town in the country. Afterwards, everybody knew what the act was, and you couldn't use it anymore.
Harris is not an empathetic person, although she may try to feign it. But she was the prosecutor who put innocent black men in prison, knowing that they were innocent, and not caring about the harm that was done to them. And she would have no problem with imprisoning her political opponents, either. She's a wannabe Stalin with a prettier face.
ronetc said...
The first female president will be a Republican, the party of seriously intelligent women. Kristi Noem is my prediction.
Gov. Noem was definitely a rising star at the Republican convention. I would like to know more about what she believes and what kind of policies she might pursue if she were raised to the national stage. She's very attractive and she has a pleasant speaking voice. Those are good starts, and better than many female politicians, but what direction would she lead the country if given the opportunity? That would be the big question.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
How does it? They don't advocate community ownership of the means of production, distribution or exchange.
Someone else was just talking about this earlier today or last night. Argue one thing and progressives come back with something different.
You defined socialism (or posted and accepted someone else's. Same thing) as regulation of the means of PD&E. Now you want to talk about ownership.
As I said in my comment, "ownership" is a meaningless distraction. What you call regulation and I call control is all that matters. You may have a piece of paper that says you "own" your house. But the govt controls via literally thousands of regulations pretty much everything you might want to do with it. Want to rent it out? Govt will need to approve the rental agreement and in many jurisdictions the amount. Want to add an electrical receptacle? You need approval from city hall. And so on.
Our ownership of our houses and everything else is a polite fiction. The ONLY thing that matters is who has control (my word) or can regulate (your word)
So by either of our definitions we live in a socialist, or at least socialistic, society. Harriss/Biden want to increase the amount of socialism. PDJT has been reducing it.
As for whether we need regulations, I am a liberal/minarchist. I agree we need some regulations. I doubt we disagree there though we probably disagree on how much, of what and by whom? (City, State, Feds, private agencies like National Fire Protection Association).
We live in a society of people. It is always going to be more, or less socialist. Some people, like you (I think) want more. Others, like me, want less.
They--and the the Dems overall--bow down with the Republicans in sworn fealty to the corporate and financial lords who do own those things.
Well, they do "own" these things. They have pieces of paper that say they "own" them so they must "own" them.
But do they control them? Or does the govt control what they can and can't do?
Forget ownership, it is bullshit. The only thing that matters is control. Or regulatory authority as you put it. I see the two as basically synonymous.
John Henry
I just realized that J Farmer and Robert Cook have never met a true Scotsman.
Dems used to be the "Mommy Party." Now they are the "Mommy Dearest Party."
For wire hangers, substitute MAGA, guns, global warming "denialism," transphobia, cultural appropriation, the use of the phrase "sexual preference," and dozens of other transgressions that will send all the woke liberal Joan Crawfords into a screaming hissy fit.
Yes John Henry at 6:36
I just hope the first woman president sounds like a woman and not like a little girl. It was rather disappointing to hear ACB for the first time. Intelligent and capable though she undoubtedly is, she sounds childish and weak.
@Birkel:
I just realized that J Farmer and Robert Cook have never met a true Scotsman.
Oh, no, I know a lot of socialists. And I read a few others in Jacobin and Current Affairs. But none of them are running for president.
Nonetheless, you are quite correct that socialist (like racist, fascist, isolationist, etc.) has been casually bandied around as a pejorative for decades, helping to evacuate the term of nearly all meaning. I generally think it's good to avoid such terminology unless someone has self-applied it.
Eh...don't get offended. I was called a 'breeder' because I didn't want my dick sucked by a homosexual male. I did get a different Doctor though.
It was rather disappointing to hear ACB for the first time. Intelligent and capable though she undoubtedly is, she sounds childish and weak.
It was a Debate!
I guess the reason the NFL can get away with their 'Coming Out Day' celebration of LGBTQ Month is that the stands are empty and no one can boo. If they do this today during the games, it will be the last NFL game I ever watch and I'm sure the few fans they still have will feel likewise. Satan always overplays his hand.
Changes in the real world can outpace the words and models we use to describe the world. Much happens in politics that doesn't fit the familiar right/left model of the political world. There are actual socialists in the US today -- people who believe in public ownership and direct control of the means of production and distribution, people who want to see private ownership done away with. There are more of them now than there were 20 years ago. But Biden and Harris, who owe their support to financial, entertainment, and tech companies, aren't among them.
Of course, you can use the word "socialist" in a looser sense to describe greater government control of the economy, rather than outright ownership and the abolition of private property. But if you use it in that sense you may be describing something we already have and have had for some time. Many people who were around in the Thirties called what FDR gave us socialism, often in a negative sense, sometimes in a positive one.
The situation is complicated by the fact that where "socialism" is a positive, rather than a negative term, politicians who aren't socialists in the classic sense find ways to apply the label to themselves. So far, we don't really have a word to describe the race/gender/sexual identity/ecology based politics of today's left.
I'd be okay with Robert Cook's definition of socialism, except that I understand that many European socialists (whom our homegrown State-fellators are always urging us to emulate) have abandoned the idea of State ownership of the means of production and are content with means of production staying nominally in private hands as long as Big Brother ultimately calls the shots. So are those "revisionists" no longer socialists?
Fine by me. It's all statism, and it all stinks. I'm willing to stay with the old civics textbook definitions, wherein "capitalism" is defined by the means of production being in private hands; "socialism" being the major means of production owned by the State; "communism" being ALL the means of production owned by the State; and "fascism" meaning the means of production nominally being in private hands but with the State ultimately calling the shots. In fact I enjoy tweaking "liberal" noses with the old-school textbook definitions. The libs say stuff, "I am NOT a socialist! [Or a communist.] I don't want to nationalize businesses! I just want to direct them toward the Common Good." "Oh," I say, "so you're a fascist, then?"
Ultimately, as Robert E, Heinlein pointed out, such labels don't do us much good. As REH pointed out eons ago, mankind ultimately breaks down into two groups (I'm paraphrasing) : those who desire to force their neighbors to do stuff; and those who have no such desires.
Thanks for sharing such a nice post keep posting.
Escorts Agency in Lal Kothi
It was my understanding that Kamala was picked because her fund raising organization was the best they could find. Why that may be is beyond me, but being female and a socialist is just gravy on the ice cream.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा