I would agree that punching Spencer was probably driven by media attention to the alt-right. Absent that it isn't clear to me anyone would have known who he was. I can't prove it but my suspicion is that had he not been punched on camera he would remain unheard of among mainstream society (he probably still is outside of political junkies like us here on OT).
On the bigger question of this stuff becoming somehow more acceptable... I'm just not convinced. Even if there's been an increase in their numbers (something I'm not sure we can measure) we're still talking about a tiny, tiny group of people with no power or electoral significance.
I think jr is closer to the mark and your first paragraph is begging the question. I'm open to being corrected but I don't think there's any good evidence that neo-nazis or the KKK or similar groups are any more mainstream than they were 8 years ago. It's easier to stage re-enactments of old battles than try to figure out what to do about the resentments and inequities that have survived the end of de jure racism.
Read it how you want. My alma mater had a bit of a reputation for sports riots when I was attending. To my knowledge that tendency was never exploited for political purposes.
That's because that's what's happening. There's a reason these incidents tend to happen at private, liberal arts universities or in their vicinity. Nothing is easier than trolling immature people awash in an intellectually shallow dogma, that being the whole intersectionality/woke thing.
Conservative provocateurs bring a hustler magazine to a Puritan prayer vigil then pin the unhinged reaction on their political opponents and score a propaganda victory.
I think you're painting with way too broad a brush here. Most people aren't policy experts, they respond as best they can to incentives within the system. I've been on the business side of the healthcare industry long enough to know that views about the government's role vary pretty widely. There are bad and cynical actors but you don't find a lot of ultra libertarian ideologues. They'd never make it in an industry so intertwined with the government.
There's already an obvious way to do this, which is opening up Medicare Advantage (part C) to the under 65 population. That's administered by private insurers and subject to heavy regulation. You could then phase out Medicare parts A and B (outdated fee for service model) over time.
All of the big insurers are already in the MA game to some degree. What would die off would be smaller plans with sicker populations (the ACA has already killed a lot of those anyway because of coverage mandates and minimum spends on care).
I suspect that would get you there by the numbers. Excepting the 'keep your government hands off my Medicare' crowd I'd guess most people know who in particular they're beholden to. But is there an appreciation for how employer, HIX, Medicaid, and Medicare interact, and the big holes in the webbing that anyone could fall through?
I think the former is really the tougher battle in the political world as it currently exists. Even Bernie voted for the ACA.
The Republican party, or at least it's leadership in Congress does not seen to understand how most people experience healthcare in this country, or deliberately avoids discussing it by referring to some mythical group of people who are choosing to opt out (something I don't think is really possible as long as ERs are treating uninsured people).
Of course it also isn't clear to me that most voters are sophisticated enough to understand the nuances of our system. I suspect most vote out of fear of losing what they have or paying more for less.
Well if you phrase it that way then it is pretty daunting. I think if the concern is impoverished women there are all kinds of things progressives already largely support (access to birth control, universal subsidized daycare, minimum wage and paid leave) that can help. Obviously there are hurdles with these types of programs as Lee said above. To me more criminalization is not only ineffective and counterproductive but a sign that we're giving up on solving these problems.
I actually think what just happened with the attempt to repeal and replace the ACA has done a lot to expose the weakness of that argument. It's something some vocal Republicans and some libertarians believe in theory but which has pretty limited traction when people start to contemplate how it would actually play out.
I agree that it's the harder fight but I also try to follow a first do no harm principle. Failing to do that is what gets us carceral feminism and a lot of the other policy failures libertarians rightly criticize.
It reminds me of the issues with pay day lenders. On the one hand I do agree it's predatory but I think just banning it could be worse for the people it's trying to help by trading one evil for another. Instead of dealing with the lender who is at least subject to some oversight they now get to decide between not buying groceries or taking their chances with Bobby the loan shark. Better to attack the poverty that puts people in these situations to begin with.
There's a lot of this in our politics where we fight symptoms instead if diseases.
To me the better response to situations like this is a robust social safety net to ensure that people entering into these types of arrangements really are doing it of their own free will. The problem isn't unusual or taboo sexual relationships, the problem is economic insecurity.
Banning it is another trip down the road of trying to pass laws and use law enforcement and the criminal justice system to save people from themselves which has a pretty sorry history in this country, including for the people who are supposed to be receiving the protection. It also rests on a lot of retrograde and questionable assumptions about sex and power dynamics.
@leeesq I think what you and @pillsy are saying is true as far as it goes. What it doesn't account for is the fact that political Islam does exist. We live under a government that's encouraged it to exist when it's AK-47s and RPGs were pointed at enemies (the USSR) or governments we don't like (Assad). That's without even getting into the long standing Shia v. Sunni feud or the situation in Gaza and the West Bank.
I have a lot if criticisms of the far left in this country (the obsessions with identity politics and related dogma will never be my bag). But I don't think they're the ones feeding radical Islam. It's our intelligence community and military intervening on their side.
That's exactly what I mean though. It isn't only about drinking wine and eating pork, it's about what a culture that defines itself in no small part by it's secularism does with a minority that defines itself in large part by religion. And not religion in the watered down mainline Protestant, post Vatican II Catholic way, but a way that looks to them like something that was left behind in the bad old days.
I think like Pillsy said below you need to treat them as fully enfranchised citizens and provide adequate economic opportunity. It could still take multiple generations and will certainly have all kinds of hiccups. But then this is why I don't think animosity in Europe to more immigration from certain parts of the world is so crazy. It isn't an easy thing to do well and it's hard to known if you're succeeding.
America has a certain set of founding myths and principles about immigration. Now we've been grossly hypocritical and failing to live up to those things in very profound ways from day 1, but it's still part of our cultural DNA. I'm not sure it's fair to hold other countries to that standard, especially when they were founded on myths and principles of self governance for people who shared certain linguistic and cultural traits, or in the case of modern France about particular political principles arising out of rebellion against absolute monarchy.
Now I know that France is a bit more flexible about what it means to be French, than say, Germany, but I also know that official secularism is one of the things hard wired into their cultural DNA. It's possible that Islam without a major reformation of some kind will never be compatible with that.
No disagreement. It lacks popular legitimacy and is therefore an easy punching bag. I do think it could work but it would need to be done very slowly with very limited goals. All the talk about a United States of Europe in the early aughts was premature by decades. It would still be premature if it was just starting to bubble up now.
Well that's one of the many parts of the platform I don't agree with. Once they're there I think the only acceptable answer is to enfranchise and assimilate as best you can.
I won't argue that there isn't hypocrisy on the part of these populist movements or that xenophobia has nothing to do with it. When Jean-Marie Le Pen was leader of the National Front the party was the unapologetic home of France's skinheads. All I'm saying is that the reconstructed party wouldn't be a contender if that was all this was about, and that centrist liberal parties and politicians wouldn't be getting pinched by populists if they'd done a better job managing these issues. It's not like they don't have all of the structural advantages in the world's advanced democracies.
The legacy of France's empire is something they'll be living with for generations, that's true. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to pack more, similarly situated people into the ghettos they already have.
The shooter in this instance was a French national. Not seeing anything else yet that's definitive on his background.
On the broader issue I don't think it's controversial to say that European countries have not done a good job at integration. You see it with the descendents of the Gastarbeiters in Germany, you see it in the Banlieus in France.
Failed public policy has already turned these places into breeding grounds for extremism and I see no reason to think the latest efforts will go better. If I was a tax payer over there I'd ask why my government that's already mucked this up is intent on throwing more fuel into the fire.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “An Unfortunate Turn of Events”
I would agree that punching Spencer was probably driven by media attention to the alt-right. Absent that it isn't clear to me anyone would have known who he was. I can't prove it but my suspicion is that had he not been punched on camera he would remain unheard of among mainstream society (he probably still is outside of political junkies like us here on OT).
On the bigger question of this stuff becoming somehow more acceptable... I'm just not convinced. Even if there's been an increase in their numbers (something I'm not sure we can measure) we're still talking about a tiny, tiny group of people with no power or electoral significance.
"
I think jr is closer to the mark and your first paragraph is begging the question. I'm open to being corrected but I don't think there's any good evidence that neo-nazis or the KKK or similar groups are any more mainstream than they were 8 years ago. It's easier to stage re-enactments of old battles than try to figure out what to do about the resentments and inequities that have survived the end of de jure racism.
"
Read it how you want. My alma mater had a bit of a reputation for sports riots when I was attending. To my knowledge that tendency was never exploited for political purposes.
"
That's because that's what's happening. There's a reason these incidents tend to happen at private, liberal arts universities or in their vicinity. Nothing is easier than trolling immature people awash in an intellectually shallow dogma, that being the whole intersectionality/woke thing.
Conservative provocateurs bring a hustler magazine to a Puritan prayer vigil then pin the unhinged reaction on their political opponents and score a propaganda victory.
On “Mugged By Reality: A Conservative for Universal Health Care”
By what metric?
"
I think you're painting with way too broad a brush here. Most people aren't policy experts, they respond as best they can to incentives within the system. I've been on the business side of the healthcare industry long enough to know that views about the government's role vary pretty widely. There are bad and cynical actors but you don't find a lot of ultra libertarian ideologues. They'd never make it in an industry so intertwined with the government.
"
Sadly this is probably true.
"
@nevermoor @burt-likko
There's already an obvious way to do this, which is opening up Medicare Advantage (part C) to the under 65 population. That's administered by private insurers and subject to heavy regulation. You could then phase out Medicare parts A and B (outdated fee for service model) over time.
All of the big insurers are already in the MA game to some degree. What would die off would be smaller plans with sicker populations (the ACA has already killed a lot of those anyway because of coverage mandates and minimum spends on care).
"
I suspect that would get you there by the numbers. Excepting the 'keep your government hands off my Medicare' crowd I'd guess most people know who in particular they're beholden to. But is there an appreciation for how employer, HIX, Medicaid, and Medicare interact, and the big holes in the webbing that anyone could fall through?
I'm not so sure.
"
I think the former is really the tougher battle in the political world as it currently exists. Even Bernie voted for the ACA.
The Republican party, or at least it's leadership in Congress does not seen to understand how most people experience healthcare in this country, or deliberately avoids discussing it by referring to some mythical group of people who are choosing to opt out (something I don't think is really possible as long as ERs are treating uninsured people).
Of course it also isn't clear to me that most voters are sophisticated enough to understand the nuances of our system. I suspect most vote out of fear of losing what they have or paying more for less.
On “Morning Ed: World {2017.04.27.Th}”
Technically it was heifers. It wouldnt be nearly as surprising to find that steers still chase beavers.
On “Morning Ed: United States {2017.04.25.T}”
As best as I can tell the current approach is as follows:
1. Draconian enforcement for the poor, addicted and mentally ill.
2. Blind eye to the rich provided it remains discrete.
3. Policy based on moral panic and highly politicized research alleging (but never substantiating) rampant and outrageous criminal conduct.
The similarities to prohibition are pretty striking.
"
Well if you phrase it that way then it is pretty daunting. I think if the concern is impoverished women there are all kinds of things progressives already largely support (access to birth control, universal subsidized daycare, minimum wage and paid leave) that can help. Obviously there are hurdles with these types of programs as Lee said above. To me more criminalization is not only ineffective and counterproductive but a sign that we're giving up on solving these problems.
"
I actually think what just happened with the attempt to repeal and replace the ACA has done a lot to expose the weakness of that argument. It's something some vocal Republicans and some libertarians believe in theory but which has pretty limited traction when people start to contemplate how it would actually play out.
"
@saul-degraw @pillsy @leeesq
I agree that it's the harder fight but I also try to follow a first do no harm principle. Failing to do that is what gets us carceral feminism and a lot of the other policy failures libertarians rightly criticize.
It reminds me of the issues with pay day lenders. On the one hand I do agree it's predatory but I think just banning it could be worse for the people it's trying to help by trading one evil for another. Instead of dealing with the lender who is at least subject to some oversight they now get to decide between not buying groceries or taking their chances with Bobby the loan shark. Better to attack the poverty that puts people in these situations to begin with.
There's a lot of this in our politics where we fight symptoms instead if diseases.
"
To me the better response to situations like this is a robust social safety net to ensure that people entering into these types of arrangements really are doing it of their own free will. The problem isn't unusual or taboo sexual relationships, the problem is economic insecurity.
Banning it is another trip down the road of trying to pass laws and use law enforcement and the criminal justice system to save people from themselves which has a pretty sorry history in this country, including for the people who are supposed to be receiving the protection. It also rests on a lot of retrograde and questionable assumptions about sex and power dynamics.
On “Le Président de la France”
@leeesq I think what you and @pillsy are saying is true as far as it goes. What it doesn't account for is the fact that political Islam does exist. We live under a government that's encouraged it to exist when it's AK-47s and RPGs were pointed at enemies (the USSR) or governments we don't like (Assad). That's without even getting into the long standing Shia v. Sunni feud or the situation in Gaza and the West Bank.
I have a lot if criticisms of the far left in this country (the obsessions with identity politics and related dogma will never be my bag). But I don't think they're the ones feeding radical Islam. It's our intelligence community and military intervening on their side.
"
That's exactly what I mean though. It isn't only about drinking wine and eating pork, it's about what a culture that defines itself in no small part by it's secularism does with a minority that defines itself in large part by religion. And not religion in the watered down mainline Protestant, post Vatican II Catholic way, but a way that looks to them like something that was left behind in the bad old days.
"
If only it were that easy. And that's not even getting into the French take on organized religion.
"
I think like Pillsy said below you need to treat them as fully enfranchised citizens and provide adequate economic opportunity. It could still take multiple generations and will certainly have all kinds of hiccups. But then this is why I don't think animosity in Europe to more immigration from certain parts of the world is so crazy. It isn't an easy thing to do well and it's hard to known if you're succeeding.
America has a certain set of founding myths and principles about immigration. Now we've been grossly hypocritical and failing to live up to those things in very profound ways from day 1, but it's still part of our cultural DNA. I'm not sure it's fair to hold other countries to that standard, especially when they were founded on myths and principles of self governance for people who shared certain linguistic and cultural traits, or in the case of modern France about particular political principles arising out of rebellion against absolute monarchy.
Now I know that France is a bit more flexible about what it means to be French, than say, Germany, but I also know that official secularism is one of the things hard wired into their cultural DNA. It's possible that Islam without a major reformation of some kind will never be compatible with that.
"
No disagreement. It lacks popular legitimacy and is therefore an easy punching bag. I do think it could work but it would need to be done very slowly with very limited goals. All the talk about a United States of Europe in the early aughts was premature by decades. It would still be premature if it was just starting to bubble up now.
"
Well that's one of the many parts of the platform I don't agree with. Once they're there I think the only acceptable answer is to enfranchise and assimilate as best you can.
"
@pillsy
I won't argue that there isn't hypocrisy on the part of these populist movements or that xenophobia has nothing to do with it. When Jean-Marie Le Pen was leader of the National Front the party was the unapologetic home of France's skinheads. All I'm saying is that the reconstructed party wouldn't be a contender if that was all this was about, and that centrist liberal parties and politicians wouldn't be getting pinched by populists if they'd done a better job managing these issues. It's not like they don't have all of the structural advantages in the world's advanced democracies.
"
The legacy of France's empire is something they'll be living with for generations, that's true. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to pack more, similarly situated people into the ghettos they already have.
"
The shooter in this instance was a French national. Not seeing anything else yet that's definitive on his background.
On the broader issue I don't think it's controversial to say that European countries have not done a good job at integration. You see it with the descendents of the Gastarbeiters in Germany, you see it in the Banlieus in France.
Failed public policy has already turned these places into breeding grounds for extremism and I see no reason to think the latest efforts will go better. If I was a tax payer over there I'd ask why my government that's already mucked this up is intent on throwing more fuel into the fire.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.