No, Bernie Bros, Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist
Good piece at Forbes by econ prof Jeffrey Dorfman, explaining that "a better name for what the Nordic countries practice would be compassionate capitalism":
The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left's embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.
Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Unions are reasonably powerful in many industries and negotiate contracts, but the government does nothing to ensure any particular outcome from those negotiations. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government's perception of what is fair.
A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.
We can also confirm these isolated facts by looking at a comprehensive measure of capitalism relative to socialism. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based, pro-free market, think tank, compiles a worldwide ranking of countries called the economic freedom index. Its website explains that its ranking "is an effort to identify how closely the institutions and policies of a country correspond with a limited government ideal, where the government protects property rights and arranges for the provision of a limited set of "public goods" such as national defense and access to money of sound value, but little beyond these core functions." Clearly, a socialist country should perform poorly in any ranking based on these principles.
And this is important:
It is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.
Bernie's "Medicare for All" for California will cost twice the annual budget of the state. So, at the current budget, nothing else gets paid for, and we're still half in the hole.
How does a person with this command of rudimentary math and, sorry, adulting, not get sent back to repeat second grade?
How about we not again make "anyone can be President!" a reality?
A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.
That's about as "free market" as SNAP benefits or agricultural subsidies.
Kevin at February 17, 2020 11:07 PM
The committed (or need-to-be-committed) Bernie Bros would have you believe that any cooperative venture is socialism - Norway, Denmark, the local police department, the local fire department, the local health department, etc.
Sorry, Bernie Bros, but free markets do have mechanisms by which people can get together and form cooperative ventures for their own benefit, safety, and security - i.e., governments, corporations, guilds, foundations, etc. Government regulation of free markets is not socialism; the police department is not socialism.
Conan the Grammarian at February 18, 2020 3:52 AM
Don't forget that the Bernie Bros are the ones who think gulags "weren't that bad" - that they were about re-education. I guess that's why they call them "concentration" camps.
So, was Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn delusional? Did he make it all up? Let me guess, the gulag was like a spa, or math camp.
Tell that to the folks in La Cabaña who got a 7.62 millimeter re-education from comrade Che Guevara. Or the families of the re-educated who were billed for the bullet by Mao's thugs.
The Bernie Bros may be well-educated, but their willful ignorance is boundless.
Conan the Grammarian at February 18, 2020 4:03 AM
Well of course, taxes would raised, but does it really matter if you are paying $800 extra in taxes or insurance? Money is coming out of your pocket either way. It just feels like less of a burden because it is partially subsidized by our employer and we never see it.
If taxes are increased to pay for it, it won’t break the budget and the people that will pay more are the middle income who have been skating by hoping that they won’t get injured or ill and when they do, rely on taxpayers or go fund me and the rich.
Jen at February 18, 2020 4:28 AM
You are forgetting that the US government is pretty inefficient Jen. $800 for insurance becomes $2000 when it runs through the government. That is what happens when someone has a monopoly. There is no reason to do a good job.
Ben at February 18, 2020 6:00 AM
And the Nordics were extremely tribal and homogenous up until recently. People will sacrifice for family. One of the side effects of diversity is a reduction in community cohesion. These same Bernie Bros cannot stop screaming "racissss!" and having wet dreams about political violence against those with whom they disagree long enough to give the Nordics anything but a cursory analysis so that they see only what they want to see.
They love China, but how does that Han Chinese hegemony treat any other ethnic group in China? There's no slap-happy sit-com about how the Han neighbors learned to love the new Uyghur arrivals in the neighborhood.
El Verde Loco at February 18, 2020 7:24 AM
Another feature of the Nordic economies is that they have large trade surpluses, thanks to tourism. That makes it easier to support a large welfare state.
"Well of course, taxes would raised, but does it really matter if you are paying $800 extra in taxes or insurance?"
The problem is that it won't be $800; it'll be a lot more, while at the same time, the people doing the work will be paid less. History has shown that the following downward spiral nearly always occurs (exceptions are small community-based things where the leadership is known personally to much of the consumer base):
1. Productivity decreases, which makes production costs go up.
2. As costs go up, wages go down, and the most skilled people in the industry find other jobs.
3. The product being "free" makes demand go up, as supply is going down.
4. Eventually, supply fails to meet demand.
When the product is "free" to the consumer, the combination of these two things results in the product being rationed. Once rationing occurs, these effects set in:
A. Distribution becomes corrupt, as people who have political influence use their power to jump the line.
B. People who can afford to go offshore to get the product, getting service that is superior to that available through the socialized system.
The combination of these two things undermines public confidence. As costs continue to spiral, the public starts to resist further tax increases to support the system. At this point, either it collapses, or authoritarian government kicks in and rams the tax increases through -- but doing so makes the government no longer representative. Guess what happens next. Economic and societal decline is the least bad possible result.
Cousin Dave at February 18, 2020 7:56 AM
No nation which doesn't provide its own national defense can be described as capitalist.
(I just made that up, but it's great, right?)
Crid at February 18, 2020 8:00 AM
Jen, these are the people that can't run a caucus correctly. Are you sure you want them to be in charge of your health care?
Remember, we have a branch of socialized medicine. It's called the VA. How's that working out?
https://www.stripes.com/news/veterans/five-years-after-phoenix-scandal-va-still-doesn-t-keep-reliable-wait-time-data-1.591757
I R A Darth Aggie at February 18, 2020 8:06 AM
No nation which doesn't provide its own national defense can be described as capitalist.
Concur. They're not even paying us enough (or at all) to rent the US military.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 18, 2020 8:10 AM
Distribution becomes corrupt, as people who have political influence use their power to jump the line.
Jimmy Kimmel's kid will always get what he needs. Yours? probably not so much.
People who can afford to go offshore to get the product, getting service that is superior to that available through the socialized system.
Which will lead to criminalizing "medical tourism". Unless you have political influence and just need to get your treatment done immediately, in which case DoJ will look the other way.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 18, 2020 8:17 AM
> Jimmy Kimmel's kid will always
> get what he needs. Yours?
> probably not so much.
Well… He will if you buy it for him.
Crid at February 18, 2020 9:05 AM
Bernie has talked about nationalizing banks and the energy industry (oil, gas, coal). This is real socialism. He talks about a national min wage--though our legal system doesn't allow the fed gov to do this except for gov contractors. There is talk of national rent control (which is a major cause of the homeless crisis) but again our legal system does not allow the fed gov to do this. He has railed against too much choice as being "wasteful"--why do you need more than one deodorant on the market, he said. These are seriously socialist impulses and goals. His favorable view of the old soviet russia, of cuba and of Venezuela also are giveaways. Bloomberg had defended China. Warren talks of censorship of everything. These same people want an "exit tax" for anyone moving offshore--ie a wall to keep you in. It is really scary stuff.
cc at February 18, 2020 9:17 AM
To me that they can’t run a caucus or the Obamacare website correctly gives me some hope. Because if they weren’t incompetent they would do the IRS scandal except with healthcare. You voted for the other guy? back of the line. You’re a Dr who is pro life or have qualms about doing/recommending trans operation for kids? Tough luck for you.
Joe j at February 18, 2020 9:20 AM
> When the product is
> "free" to the consumer
This is exactly the correct way to word this.
Crid at February 18, 2020 10:35 AM
> > Jimmy Kimmel's kid
IJS, your kid means enough to you that you'd pay for talented people to care for him if he was sick, right?
Makes the world go 'round.
Crid at February 18, 2020 10:40 AM
Why are Democrats talking about fixing health care? Didn't they already do that with the infliction of obamacare on the country? Shouldn't they be bragging about how accessible and affordable high quality health care is thanks to them? If they're not they're admitting they're failures. Definitely don't want them "fixing" health care.
KSRich at February 18, 2020 11:24 AM
Conan: Sorry, Bernie Bros, but free markets do have mechanisms by which people can get together and form cooperative ventures for their own benefit, safety, and security...
Americans have lots of ways of cooperating to get health care: insurance companies, including mutuals that pay dividends to their members; HMO's; PPO's; health care cooperatives...
Some are non-profits; some are owned by their members; some are cooperatives; some are for-profits that you can buy shares of for a few hundred dollars; some pay dividends to members or share holders... they compete for business, which motivates them to provide products and services they can brag about and advertise.
I think what a lot of Democrats don't like is associations that are voluntary - they can't stand the idea of other people going around doing things their own way. Also they don't like to pay for things.
Ken R at February 18, 2020 12:07 PM
"health care cooperatives..."
Obamacare banned these. But, if memory serves, a bill passed last year overturned that ban.
Cousin Dave at February 18, 2020 12:09 PM
IJS, your kid means enough to you that you'd pay for talented people to care for him if he was sick, right?
Yes. Except under BernieCare, you wouldn't have that option. That's when you find out they mean free health care for other people. Like illegal aliens.
Your kid? under socialism, your children belong to the state, who allows you to raise them. If they decide they're too costly to treat?
I R A Darth Aggie at February 18, 2020 12:38 PM
People who obsess over labels as opposed to focusing on policy proposals engaging in juvenile thinking.
Call it "compassionate capitalism" if you prefer.
What is important is that if Bernie is advocating policies similar to what is found in certain Nordic countries (which he is) then discuss the merits or detriments of those policies.
The labels are ultimately frivolous.
Artemis at February 18, 2020 3:47 PM
Cousin Dave: "health care cooperatives... Obamacare banned these. But, if memory serves, a bill passed last year overturned that ban."
Instead of "cooperatives" I should have said cost sharing plans. Medical cost sharing plans have been around since at least 1993. They're exempt from the ACA. The ones I'm familiar with are Christian based, non-profit organizations. They're not "insurance". They facilitate cost sharing between members, negotiate medical bills, and advise and assist members in finding medical services. The coverage is very good and they're very affordable. My daughter's family of four joined one in 2014, when obamacare sent their medical insurance premiums through the roof, and have been very satisfied with it ever since. Democrats, unions and liberal advocacy groups don't like them, maybe because they're voluntary and not controlled by the government.
Ken R at February 19, 2020 2:23 AM
McArdle nails it on Bernie:
She goes on to say:
This is not a man simply "...advocating policies similar to what is found in certain Nordic countries...." This is a man infatuated with dictators and collectivist autocracy.
Conan the Grammarian at February 19, 2020 9:29 AM
It's Arty, Conan. What can you expect? He also assured all of us that no nation has ever used widespread voucher systems for their education.
"A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child."
Oops.
Ben at February 19, 2020 10:42 AM
"This is not a man simply "...advocating policies similar to what is found in certain Nordic countries...." This is a man infatuated with dictators and collectivist autocracy." -Conan
*This!!!*
Bernie Bros scare the crap out of me. They're enamored with "revolution!" They admire the Jacobins and Che Guevara. They think billionaires "shouldn't exist!" These people don't care about free tuition or healthcare; they care about power. Pay attention to their rhetoric, and pay attention to who inspires them.
ahw at February 19, 2020 10:59 AM
Conan Says:
"This is a man infatuated with dictators and collectivist autocracy."
That is just propaganda Conan.
Far be it from me to try and break you free from your delusional state though.
I do find it comical however that one such as yourself would confidently declare the following:
"I'm not worried about Trump becoming a dictator. He can't. Not even his own party would stand for it."
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2018/06/weve-got-a-brat.html
As you whined and complained continuously about the authoritarian nature of Obama for 8 straight years... and now are preemptively complaining about "dictator" Bernie.
At the same time you don't seem to care one wit about the current presidents quotes that he can do anything he wants as president:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4809509/user-clip-trump-constitution-i-president
Let's get real... you don't actually care about dictators or authoritarianism.
You are just a rabid partisan who says whatever you feel you need to say on any given day to prop up "team red".
You have no principles... I honestly didn't think even you could sink this low.
Feel free to whine and complain about Bernie though, no one cares what people like you think about authoritarianism anymore... we all have figured out your concerns were fake and politically motivated.
Artemis at February 19, 2020 1:04 PM
Ben Says:
"He also assured all of us that no nation has ever used widespread voucher systems for their education."
I've said no such thing Ben.
It says a lot about you when you have to resort to complete and utter lies to try and win cheap points.
This would be a great time for you to provide a link with a quote to prove your case... but you will not and can not because I haven't made the statement you attributed to me.
Artemis at February 19, 2020 1:10 PM
Read the article, Artie. McArdle's a good writer and a pretty sensible person. You might learn soemthing.
Are you saying Bernie did not honeymoon in the USSR? Are you saying he did not praise the Sandinistas? Are you saying he did not refuse to call Maduro a dictator until backed into a corner by a journalist who'd been arrested by the Maduro government and could call Bernie's bluff?
Please, Artie, tell us more about Saint Bernie, the three house owning millionaire enemy of capitalism.
Wrong, Artie. I care that the current president is a loud-mouthed ass. If the Democrats offered a decent alternative, they'd have my vote. Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang both had my attention at the beginning of their campaigns.
But Trump a dictator? C'mon. No one in government, neither Republican nor Democrat is going to let Trump get away with an Enabling Law the way Hitler did. The US military is not going to let him impose a loyalty oath on its officers, like Hitler did to the German army.
Trump overstepping executive boundaries, like Obama did, is entirely possible. Every president gets tired of having to go through a legislature to get anything done and eventually resorts to using the regulatory agencies under his command and executive orders. So far, Trump's limited most, but not all, of his executive orders to overturning Obama-era EOs.
He's not the one who re-interpreted Title IX to suit his own political preferences or delayed implementation of parts of the ACA when it became politically inconvenient for him.
Trump's clemency for Blagojevic was misplaced in my opinion, but the harm Blago can do the body politic out of prison is minimal, even in Illinois. Trump's clemency for Alice Marie Johnson, on the other hand, I thought was the right thing to do.
Obama's embrace of Trayvon Martin helped stir up racial animosities. His "the Cambridge police acted stupidly" was as impolitic as any Trump tweet. Yet, you were silent then.
Unlike you, Artie, I apply standards to both parties equally. Your so-called standards change with the party affiliation of the subject.
You had no concerns at all with Obama governing by executive order, "re-interpreting" a Congressional law, changing the application of a Congressional law.
When "the one" delayed implementation of parts of the ACA without consulting Congress, you were silent.
When his DoE sent out the "Dear Colleague" letter fundamentally changing the interpretation of Title IX, you were silent.
"The more he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
I actually considered voting for Democrat, Paul Tsongas,in the '92 campaigns until he lost the nomination to Clinton. Name one Republican you've supported or considered voting for.
I was a fan of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, although I disagreed with him on many things. Name one Republican whose work you've even read, whose arguments you've listened to.
You're a partisan hack, Artie. You call yourself principled, but you don't know what the word means.
Apostrophe, Artie. President's.
Nor did I care one wit when Obama and his supporters said much the same thing; other than to point out the authoritarian leanings such comments illustrated in a president determined to act "where Congress won't."
"Standing in the House of Representatives chamber before lawmakers, Supreme Court justices and VIP guests, Obama declared his independence from Congress by unveiling a series of executive orders and decisions - moves likely to inflame already tense relations between the Democratic president and Republicans. ~ Reuters: "Obama warns divided Congress that he will act alone" (January 28, 2014) - emphasis mine
Trump, on the other hand, still asks Congress to deliver bills to him to sign in his SOTUs.
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." ~ Paul Begala
I've yet to hear you admit where your idol stepped over the line, or even that he did at all. So much for your "principles."
Good night, Artie.
Conan the Grammarian at February 19, 2020 2:14 PM
> That is just propaganda Conan.
> Far be it from me to try and
> break you free from your delusional
> state though.
> I do find it comical however that
> one such as yourself would
> confidently declare the following
Three comma omissions in a row!
Is Orion secretly Ben??!!
> I was a fan of Daniel Patrick
> Moynihan, although I disagreed
> with him on many things.
Same. I fear even this fragmented admiration will not withstand a reading of the new Shlaes... Her podcast description of "the domestic Best and the Brightest" seems to pungent to be overstated.
Crid at February 19, 2020 3:46 PM
Conan,
There is nothing to discuss when you cannot bring yourself to condemn the current president claiming that as president he has the authority to do anything he pleases.
You have lost all potential credibility with regard to any conversations regarding dictatorial proclivities.
Bernie has been in government for a very long time and has never asserted any privilege to just do as he pleases.
You are too far gone to see reality for what it is... your brain has been turned into mush.
Artemis at February 19, 2020 3:49 PM
I listened to that and mostly agreed with her. I always felt Moynihan was too enamored of government solutions to problems.
Despite that, where Moynihan still stands out is that, unlike his political contemporaries, he was willing to do the digging to uncover the actual problem, instead of embracing a politically-expedient explanation. He was wrong on the solution, but right on the core problem.
What's more, like Goldwater, when he told you something, you knew he believed it, that it was not just a party talking point that he'd abandon next week when it became politically untenable. He worked for Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford before running for senator. He was a prolific author and scholar.
Never? Any privilege? You sure? Have you followed his career that closely? He's never used his position, perhaps when he was mayor, to get any special treatment?
Mayor of Burlington is the only executive position he's ever held. And, you're sure he never asserted any privilege in that job, perhaps to get a restaurant reservation or to get out of a parking ticket.
And what about as senator? Never asserted any privilege? Not even the usual senatorial ones, like premium parking at the airport, franking, or immunity from arrest?
Be careful with blanket statements like that one, Artie. They can come back to bite you in the ass.
I'm sure community organizer Obama never asserted privileges to do as he pleased before he had a job that allowed him to say "I've got a pen and I've got a phone - and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions...." By the way, you were silent then, too, Artie.
Artie, we're still waiting on those names. If you're truly the political independent you've told us you are, you'll have no trouble telling us when you've embraced someone or some idea from the other side of the aisle.
Conan the Grammarian at February 19, 2020 5:49 PM
Conan,
You are clearly too delusional to even follow a simple conversation.
I stated the following:
"Bernie has been in government for a very long time and has never asserted any privilege to just do as he pleases."
From this statement you suddenly jump to this:
"Never? Any privilege? You sure? Have you followed his career that closely? He's never used his position, perhaps when he was mayor, to get any special treatment?"
That is called shifting the goal posts Conan.
That you continually do things like this suggests that you are either too stupid to understand a conversation... or that you are too delusional to detect reality and instead insert your own content... or that you are fundamentally dishonest.
Right now we have a president who has verbatim declared that article II of the constitution entitles him to do anything he likes without restriction or checks against his executive power.
That isn't the same thing as if a major happened to get a special table in their local diner.
Keep jumping through those hoops though Conan... cognitive dissonance must be a real trip for you.
Artemis at February 19, 2020 6:54 PM
“Right now we have a president who has verbatim declared that article II of the constitution entitles him to do anything he likes without restriction or checks against his executive power.”
Going to need a link to a “complete” quote on this. Audio If possible. Somehow, just a tad skeptical. Sounds like a wet dream from the Nation magazine.
Irked at February 19, 2020 7:40 PM
Irked,
You can start here if you like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl_gO3uOds8
His defense team during the impeachment hearing also put forth similar arguments that Trump can do anything he wants.
This is the part that is so amazing to me... no other politician that I am aware of has been so ridiculously brazen about their dictatorial proclivities... and yet here we are with folks whining and moaning about Bernie and his so-called authoritarian potential.
I will take that seriously when those same folks seem the least bit concerned about our current president going all over the place declaring that the constitution allows him to do whatever he wants.
Artemis at February 19, 2020 8:12 PM
Irked, the comment was made in 2019 in reference to Trump having authority as president to fire Meuller, who was a DoJ Special Prosecutor - not an Independent Prosecutor, like Ken Starr who was under the purview of Congress. It was a stupid statement, altogether Trumpian in its grandiosity.
Was it a sign of an impending authoritarian takeover? Not likely. More likely a sign of frustration with a House that was obsessed with fishing for impeachment bait. But, taken out of context, like Artie presents it, one might be led to believe that Trump is hatching insidious designs to make himself a dictator.
Still waiting on those names, Artie.
Conan the Grammarian at February 19, 2020 8:35 PM
Conan,
Trump said it multiple times over several interviews and speeches.
I especially love how you excuse Trump's clearly dictatorial statements as "Trumpian in its grandiosity" as if when Trump says these things it doesn't count.
This is why you are a ridiculous hypocrite with no principles.
According to you, Bernie takes a vacation to Russia and that is direct evidence of his authoritarian pedigree... but Trump out and out states he can do as he pleases as president and he is just piddling on the floor again like a cute little puppy.
What exactly are your excuses for him ignoring the impoundment control act that enforces congressional appropriations as dictated by the constitution?
https://www.gao.gov/products/b-331564
What exactly are your excuses for his continual violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution even going so far as to call it a "phony" clause?
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-said-emoluments-clause-in-us-constitution-is-phony-2019-10
What exactly are your excuses for him executing a foreign general on allied soil without congressional approval or involvement?
The list goes on and on Conan... you can keep pretending it is "cute" and just Trump being Trump all you like... but you just look ridiculous at this point.
The guy does as he likes and says he has the authority to do as he likes.
Until you come to terms with this reality and properly address it nothing you say about authoritarianism can be taken seriously... you clearly don't actually care about any of that.
For you it is just partisan convenience. Trump has simply exposed you for the authoritarian lover that you really are.
Artemis at February 19, 2020 9:37 PM
I’m searching for a word here and not finding it. There must be a special kind of clueless naïveté or willful blindness for anyone to actually describe the executive branch of the federal government for the last three years, in any way as *authoritarian*
Dysfunctional, yes. Hamstrung by spurious and meritless law suits and investigations? Yes. Undermined by democratic political operatives posing as civil servants.? Yes but authoritarian? You are joking right?
Isab at February 20, 2020 4:24 AM
Let's be honest, Trump's been responsible for a fair amount of his administration's dysfunction. He's admitted that his tweeting makes it harder for Barr to do his job. He's quick to anger and to lash out, alienating many of his former allies.
While we may need someone to clean the Augean stables, we need to understand that such an undertaking cannot be done by a mortal. The price of a clean stable is an angry, self-centered semi-divinity. We need a Zeus to keep our Heracles in line.
However, I agree with you. Despite his intemperate utterances and general ignorance, Trump is not an authoritarian. None of his harshest critics has been arrested, detained, or shot. There is no Enabling Act being pushed through Congress. He's simply what he's always been, a loud-mouthed boor.
Conan the Grammarian at February 20, 2020 4:43 AM
Conan Says:
"Despite his intemperate utterances and general ignorance, Trump is not an authoritarian. None of his harshest critics has been arrested, detained, or shot."
This right here is the fundamental problem with the distorted way you view reality.
For Trump to be an authoritarian critics need to be arrested, detained, or shot... for Bernie to be an authoritarian he simply needs to have gone on a vacation you didn't approve of in advance.
I've got news for you since you appear to be confused... Bernie never arrested his harshest critics, or detained them, nor has he been responsible for shooting anyone either.
For that matter Obama didn't arrest, detain, or shoot his harshest critics.
Your brain has been turned into mush... your outlook completely warped.
No one is being measured by the same measuring stick.
The problem that you are going to run into is that after this complete debacle and your obvious failure to hold to any principles at all no one is going to care when you or people like you whine and cry about authoritarianism in the future.
It is clearly just an act for you to try and win cheap points... your concerns were never genuine.
Artemis at February 20, 2020 6:07 AM
Conan Says:
"The price of a clean stable is an angry, self-centered semi-divinity. We need a Zeus to keep our Heracles in line."
You have clearly lost your mind.
Artemis at February 20, 2020 6:10 AM
It’s an analogy, Artie, tailored to Isab’s view of Trump as elected to clean up the swamp. The Labors of Hercules (Heracles in Greece) included cleaning the Augean stables.
The Greeks did not look upon their gods the way modern Christians look upon theirs. Ancient Greek gods were capricious, greedy, lustful, and cruel; to be placated, not worshipped. Read a book once in a while.
Still waiting on those names, Artie.
Conan the Grammarian at February 20, 2020 7:35 AM
High schooler, overseas, probably intense institutional care in childhood… Help with medications, food & meals, clothes & toilet. There's no evidence of library learning or practical experience.
Crid at February 20, 2020 8:09 AM
Conan,
Describing Trump as an angry self-centered demigod may or may not be an analogy for you.
For many evangelical supporters of Trump that is actually how they see him... as an anointed person put in place by god.
But please keep telling me how unconcerned you are regarding the authoritarian and dictatorial issues at play here.
You need to devote your attention to Bernie's vacation time.
Artemis at February 20, 2020 8:16 AM
Conan Says:
"The Greeks did not look upon their gods the way modern Christians look upon theirs. Ancient Greek gods were capricious, greedy, lustful, and cruel; to be placated, not worshipped. Read a book once in a while."
You really are dense by the way.
For you Trump is not an authoritarian... he is just analogous to an angry self-centered demigod who should be placated by the masses.
I am fully aware of greek mythology... as should have been obvious by my chosen blog handle.
You just aren't really making a great case for yourself.
The Ancient greek gods ruled by might and authority and had no patience for rule of law... they were divine dictators.
So essentially your argument is that Trump doesn't show any dictatorial proclivities that concern you... he is just analogous to the authoritarian gods of ancient greek myth.
Let's be clear on this Conan... that may be the most ill conceived argument you have ever constructed, and that is really saying something.
Trump isn't at all like a dictator... he is more like an angry god... got it.
Artemis at February 20, 2020 8:39 AM
I love the demand that you condemn things.
That's as close to persuasion as the SJW generation can get.
Crid at February 20, 2020 10:11 AM
Isab,
Arty does believe what he writes. No matter how unhinged that is how he sees things. As you've said, an unintentional troll. Which is why I don't recommend engaging in him. Just look at this thread. You may as well argue with that Time Cube guy.
Ben at February 20, 2020 10:21 AM
Crid,
I only demand philosophical consistency.
That is something folks like you will never understand.
One rule/standard for you and another for everyone else.
I suspect you are going to be very unhappy in the sunset years of your life when the chickens come home to roost.
Artemis at February 20, 2020 10:40 AM
Ben,
I see things based on facts and evidence.
It simply makes no sense to declare Bernie is an authoritarian based on unfounded suspicions rooted in where he goes on vacation... when the current president is on camera several times declaring that as president he can do whatever he wants.
If the latter doesn't bother you, the former shouldn't either.
That is just facts and logic.
To believe and act otherwise is to be a total hypocrite or completely delusional.
Artemis at February 20, 2020 10:43 AM
I believe that you believe that Arty. No matter how obvious you've been in this thread alone that it isn't true you cannot see it. Such is your life.
Also, Crid is already in his sunset years. Hence all the random nostalgia for things and people from decades past. Those chicken had better hurry up or they are going to get here too late.
Ben at February 20, 2020 2:15 PM
Ben,
It isn't about what I "believe"... none of what I am saying is based on faith or feelings.
When I say that the government accountability office found that Trump was in violation of the impoundment control act that isn't just a fuzzy sense... it is based in objective reality:
https://www.gao.gov/products/b-331564
"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA."
That is a direct quote... not imaginary.
If you are incapable of recognizing that reality then I cannot help you.
Artemis at February 20, 2020 3:10 PM
Artie, that was a comment in McArdle's article, not an accusation I made to argue that the socialism Bernie advocates is not simply "policies similar to what is found in certain Nordic countries," but full-blown state ownership of the means of production, which inevitably leads to authoritarianism and economic ruin - it always has, wherever and whenever it has been tried.
You like to cherry-pick comments out of context and proclaim that you've won the argument and the other person's brain is "mush."
You claim to be a smart an independent thinker, but your arguments come straight out of the Democratic Party's talking points memos (you guys get those by email?). You claim to be non-partisan while accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being ignorant and hyper-partisan, yet when challenged repeatedly to name one Republican you've considered voting for, or one conservative columnist or scholar whose work you've read or regularly read, you can't name one. Not one.
I know your type, Artie. Come a leftist revolution, you'll gleefully send anyone who has dared offend you, even in the most insignificant way, off to the firing squads. You'll inform on your neighbors and hold yourself up as a righteous leftist. And if you can't find something with which to get them arrested, you'll make it up. If I thought you could hit the broad side of a barn or not shoot yourself in the foot, I'd say you'd join the firing squads.
You're not worried because Trump might be an authoritarian; you're concerned because he's not your kind of authoritarian. You'd welcome a socialist takeover of the US, authoritarianism and all.
Conan the Grammarian at February 20, 2020 4:53 PM
Conan Says:
"Artie, that was a comment in McArdle's article..."
I understand that, my point is that even commenting on something so trivial when trying to make a case for something so serious is stupid and more reminiscent of McCarthyism than of serious intellectual inquiry.
"I made to argue that the socialism Bernie advocates is not simply "policies similar to what is found in certain Nordic countries," but full-blown state ownership of the means of production, which inevitably leads to authoritarianism and economic ruin - it always has, wherever and whenever it has been tried."
Except you have presented absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would suggest that Bernie advocates "full-blown state ownership of the means of production".
Such a claim is ridiculous on its face given his track record and his actual recorded statements.
You are engaging in baseless accusations trying to paint him someone as a boogieman without even the slightest shred of credible evidence in support of your claims.
"I know your type, Artie. Come a leftist revolution, you'll gleefully send anyone who has dared offend you, even in the most insignificant way, off to the firing squads."
You can kindly go fuck yourself Conan... I would never support any such thing... not for you and not for anyone else.
"You're not worried because Trump might be an authoritarian; you're concerned because he's not your kind of authoritarian."
You are projecting Conan.
I don't support any kind of authoritarianism whatsoever... I do support rule of law.
You are the one ignoring the evidence of dictatorial behavior right under your nose because the person behaving that way happens to be on your preferred side of the political fence.
I am saying you are partisan because you have markedly different standards for Trump than you had for Obama and than you appear to have to Bernie.
I am consistent across the board.
You can take it to the bank that if Obama or anyone else started saying that as president they have the right to do anything they like I'd hold them to account... you on the other hand make excuses.
Artemis at February 20, 2020 7:07 PM
Conan Says:
"You claim to be non-partisan while accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being ignorant and hyper-partisan, yet when challenged repeatedly to name one Republican you've considered voting for, or one conservative columnist or scholar whose work you've read or regularly read, you can't name one. Not one."
You are in so deep even the premise of your question drips of your inability to comprehend what it is like to be a non-partisan independent thinker.
Not only have I "considered" voting for a Republican before... I *have* voted for a Republican before.
Let's be clear about something Conan... your argument for why you aren't deeply partisan is that one time nearly 30 years ago you "considered" voting for a Democrat that never even made it beyond the primary.
That isn't just weak sauce... that is water.
You couldn't even commit to the idea that if Paul Tsongas somehow became the candidate in 1992 you would have likely voted for him over Bush... just that you gave it consideration until he was not even an option.
The very premise of your question and the fact that you cannot even manage to name one Democrat you have actually pulled a lever for ~40 years suggests exactly how partisan you actually are.
I happen to largely agree with Ronald Reagan's position regarding gun control and his support of the Brady amendment.
The issue at hand is that the current Republican party has moved so far to the right that even Reagan would be considered a bleeding heart liberal today.
That isn't an issue with me being partisan so much as modern day conservatism becoming so ridiculously regressive it doesn't even remotely resemble the kind of conservatism that was grounded in some semblance of logic and reason.
Artemis at February 20, 2020 7:38 PM
> I only demand philosophical
> consistency.
Who do you imagine cares? When you imagine someone who reads these comments, why do you think they care about your demands? And what are their lives like?
Crid at February 20, 2020 7:56 PM
Also, don't mix metaphors, or people will think you're very young and naive.
Crid at February 20, 2020 7:57 PM
Crid,
I don't imagine anyone here cares about much of anything.
I just have enjoy pointing out illogical and inconsistent arguments.
Artemis at February 20, 2020 7:59 PM
Bernie isn’t socialist. He’s a fucking communist.
I hate commies.
Feebie at February 20, 2020 8:47 PM
That might be the only point on which we ever agree. Too many religious zealots (social conservatives) are ruining the Republican party (as Goldwater once warned). Likewise, too many socialist zealots are ruining the Democratic party.
It's not that the Republicans have moved "too far to the right," it's that the so-called Religious Right has too much influence in the party, especially at the local and state level.
And, yes, I'd likely have voted for Tsongas. Bush was always a bit too much of a Northeastern liberal Republican for my taste. Tsongas was a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.
For most of my adult life, the Democratic Party has pushed massive social programs. This has caused me to shy away from voting for Democrats, not out of partisanship, but out of a dislike of social engineering and a preference for limited government. I worry about the people who would be empowered if one of the current Democratic candidates were to win the election - Antifa, BLM, etc.
I'm not as worried about the idiots who would be empowered by a Republican victory. The American system can fight off those who would turn the country into a theocracy. The Founding Fathers feared that and built defenses into the system. They had never seen a socialistic revolution until the French Revolution shocked the system years later. We're not as well defended against that.
I can defend Trump's deregulation as something with which I agree, even though I abhor the man himself. Hell, I still defend Carter's deregulation, though I regard him, overall, as a failed president; and a buffoon.
And yes, Artie, you are a Democratic Party partisan. That you say you "once" voted for an unnamed Republican in an undisclosed race is hardly proof that you're not. Names, Artie. Name that Republican.
Conan the Grammarian at February 21, 2020 4:55 AM
“It's not that the Republicans have moved "too far to the right," it's that the so-called Religious Right has too much influence in the party, especially at the local and state level.”
The dems were fine with the religious Christian right, when they voted for democrats.
Now they dont, and the democrats demonize them like they are a threat to to constitution. Truth is, we will never see prayer in public schools again unless it is Muslim prayer. Yes, the dems are that cynical, and an exception will be made in the name of their primary deity, the great god, “Multiculturalism”
Isab at February 21, 2020 6:37 AM
Harry Truman started the process of driving evangelicals out of the Democratic Party and Carter completed it.
Reagan formed a loose coalition of the evangelicals (social conservatives), Goldwater Republicans (fiscal conservatives) and Rockefeller Republicans (liberal Republicans), which helped cement the Religious Right's position in the party hierarchy.
Like Cassandra, Barry Goldwater had warned against such a move, but the prospect of millions of committed voters was too strong a siren call to ignore.
In an ironic twist to Goldwater's warning, the Democrats are suffering for having let the quasi-religious leftist zealots into their party hierarchy. The unshakeable belief in the absolute righteousness of their cause has made these zealots unwilling to compromise and is playing the same havoc on the Dems that the Religious Right once played on the Republicans.
Conan the Grammarians at February 21, 2020 2:51 PM
Conan Says:
"That might be the only point on which we ever agree. Too many religious zealots (social conservatives) are ruining the Republican party (as Goldwater once warned). Likewise, too many socialist zealots are ruining the Democratic party."
You have an asymmetry issue here Conan.
The religious zealots have literally taken over the Republican party to such an extent that reason and logic no longer has a place... if you show one moment of independent thought you are booted from the party altogether and/or threatened with violence.
Just look at what happened to Justin Amash who was a life long Republican and congressional representative since 2011... he came out saying that in his estimation Trump had engaged in impeachable conduct based on the obstruction of justice charges in the Mueller report.
Guess what happened... he was completely ousted from the party and is now an independent.
Similarly, Mitt Romney (you know, the guy who previously ran for president under the republican ticket)… he voted for Trumps removal from office... and was immediately uninvited from CPAC because the chairman of the conservative politican action committee feared for his "physical safety":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/10/cpac-chair-mitt-romney-impeachment/
Who exactly was going to violently attack Mitt Romney?... Why were they going to physically attack Mitt Romney?
This is not the behavior of folks committed to democracy... this is the behavior of authoritarian zealots.
Kick folks out of the party who disagree with the party line... threaten violence against folks who disagree with the party line.
When Clinton was impeached none of the 5 Democrats who voted in favor of his removal ended up being kicked out of the party or threatened with violence by representatives of the liberal establishment.
This isn't just a minor difference Conan... this is a fundamental difference in the way the parties have come to operate.
One party does not tolerate even the slightest dissent from any of it's members... the other does.
Threatening folks with violence for political dissent is at the heart of authoritarianism.
If you cannot see the difference here then you are willfully ignorant or completely dishonest.
Artemis at February 22, 2020 9:40 AM
Amash was not "kicked out" of the Republican Party. He chose to become an independent, blaming both parties. Amash further argued that Congress no longer functions as an independent legislative body saying, "We are fast approaching the point where Congress exists as little more than a formality to legitimize outcomes dictated by the president, the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader."
The Clinton impeachment was decades ago. The Democratic party (for which you are a partisan) is a different party today. Clinton's "triangulation" would not be accepted in the party today.
Where have we seen that before? Oh yeah. We saw it in Connecticut when the Democratic Party refused to back longtime Democratic Congressman, Joe Lieberman, because he was not liberal enough for the base. And this only a few years after he had been the Party's vice presidential candidate. Lieberman was forced to run as an independent. He won re-election against a very liberal candidate backed by the Democratic Party.
Convenient memory you've got there, Artie.
Now, about those names.
Conan the Grammarian at February 22, 2020 3:57 PM
Conan,
If you believe Amash stopped being a Republican because of the Democrats then you are a moron.
No one decides to abandon their life long party to become an independent because of the opposing party.
The guy was run out of town after he expressed his opinion that Trump had committed impeachable offenses.
Even Trump acknowledges this when he tweeted the following:
"Great news for the Republican Party as one of the dumbest & most disloyal men in Congress is “quitting” the Party. No Collusion, No Obstruction! Knew he couldn’t get the nomination to run again in the Great State of Michigan. Already being challenged for his seat. A total loser!"
Pay close attention to the fact that the ostensible head of the current Republican party put quotes around the word quitting... that wasn't an addition or edit... when you put quotes around a word like that it is called scare quotes indicating that the actual meaning is the opposite of what the word traditionally means.
In other words... Trump himself knows that Amash did not quit... he was booted out.
I will also note you have said nothing regarding the threats of physical violence against Mitt Romney, which seems like the more important point to address.
"We saw it in Connecticut when the Democratic Party refused to back longtime Democratic Congressman, Joe Lieberman, because he was not liberal enough for the base."
He lost his primary election Conan... what was the party supposed to do?... overrule the voting public and install Lieberman instead of backing the person who actually won the primary election?
The guy lost to Ned Lamont and his response was as follows:
"For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand,"
He then proceeded to run as an independent despite losing his primary election.
He wasn't run out of town by the democratic establishment... he lost an election to an opponent.
Apples and Oranges Conan... stop being so dense.
Artemis at February 23, 2020 2:33 AM
No one? Artie, politicians have been known "abandon their life long party" when they feel they have no choice or feel they'd get a better deal in the other party. Churchill changed parties twice. Reagan left the Democratic Party. Arlen Specter left the Republican Party. The list of politicians who changed parties over ideology or opportunity is a long and storied one.
That Amash floated a possible run for president shortly afterward should tell people that his main motivation for this move was publicity, anticipating a frustrated electorate would vote for the guy disgusted by both parties.
Lieberman lost the primary to Ned Lamont because the party backed the ultra-liberal multi-millionaire, Lamont, over the incumbent and more moderate Lieberman in the primary. Joe was not liberal enough.
Ralph Nader called Lieberman, "Big Businesses’ favorite Democratic Senator!" Apparently the party agreed and supported Ned Lamont over their 18-year incumbent in the primary.
California Democratic Party stalwart, Maxine Waters, called Lamont, " a man "speakin' my language'" as she campaigned for him against Lieberman in the primary.
Lieberman was way too cozy with George W. Bush to suit the liberal party partisans, even agreeing to work with Bush to keep Social Security solvent, instead of letting the president "sink with his proposal" as the party wanted.
Nonetheless, some recognized the "Dump Joe" movement for what it was. New Republic editor, Jonathan Chait, a frequent critic of Lieberman, wrote:
And today, you have AOC vowing to primary incumbent Democratic office-holders who are not liberal enough for her; much like Lamont tried to primary Lieberman. Sounds like an ideological witch hunt, don't it, Artie?
Now, about those names.
Conan the Grammarian at February 23, 2020 8:07 AM
"I think what a lot of Democrats don't like is associations that are voluntary - they can't stand the idea of other people going around doing things their own way."
Bingo! Leftists are fond of saying that government is just a word for things we do together. Well, then corporation is just a word for things we do together voluntarily.
"He talks about a national min wage--though our legal system doesn't allow the fed gov to do this except for gov contractors."
You better tell that to the feds, because we've had one for decades.
"Bernie has been in government for a very long time and has never asserted any privilege to just do as he pleases."
He's promised show trials of oil executives for past actions that were fully legal at the time. That's pretty much the same thing.
If I may interrupt the Conan/Artemis cage match, the Nordic countries have socialism lite, where the socialist part of their economy only functions because it has the capitalist side as a host on which to be a parasite.
Also, they DO effectively have a minimum wage - their generous safety net functions as a competitor to productive industry in the labor market, creating a de facto minimum wage that is sufficiently more lucrative than the safety net to lure people into the work force.
bw1 at February 27, 2020 5:33 PM
Leave a comment