I wrote that Trump is an imperfect populist. A great many populists have flirted with and embraced demagoguery.
I did note your modifier but that word pair doesn't make much sense to me. Does it increase our understanding to suggest Hitler was an imperfect populist? Certainly, populists (by definition) make an appeal to the power differential between the masses and the small minority who have somehow managed to accrete wealth and influence but that doesn't mean all those who spout populist sentiments are sincere in speech. Trump isn't an imperfect populist. He's a con artist with no record of giving a crap about anyone he deals with. His record is one of deceits and fraud.
Quote:
AOC is a populist demagogue and so is Bernie Sanders
That's a case you'd have a tough time making but you would have to at least try.
Paragraph 3 I'll set aside as I agree with nothing you've written in it and I don't want to take the time.
Quote:
Who are you trying to kid with the implication that you admire William F Buckley?
Actually, I do. Here and elsewhere over a couple of decades I have written about Buckley and linked various videos from Firing Line and elsewhere pointing to what he has done that was admirable. As a young man, I watched dozens of Firing Line episodes with no attitude of snark. Just one example, the evening when Woody Allen, hosting his own special, invited Buckley. As I've written before, both men demonstrate how bright, knowledgeable, sophisticated and witty they both are. And perhaps more importantly, I'll point out how they demonstrate here a respect and affinity for each other's minds. It is impossible, I think, to come away without respect for both men.
Now, if I could go back in time and strangle the fellow, I might consider it. He's done serious damage to American democracy. But that doesn't mean he is therefore unworthy of any species of admiration. Eisenhower and the Dulles boys did evil in Guatemala in the early 50s. I still admire Eisenhower. If Buckley was writing now, I certainly would be critical and mainly that. As I have been with Brooks.
Re your list...
A bit of a surprise to see Bartlett on your list. He's the single individual there I like (though Kearns I don't know).
With your comment on Scalia, you add two other SC justices and apparently deem them outside of "the establishment". Yet each are deeply imbedded in the GOP establishment, each via the Federalist Society and each as guests at multiple Koch brothers yearly strategy meetings.
PS... I recall very clearly one Firing Line show I watched with my mother. At the end, Buckley took questions from the audience, one of which was, "Why do you have to use such big words?" Buckley tried to explain that there are ideas and concepts which are not simple and which require a broader and deeper vocabulary than normal conversation demands.
Edit: I would also note that throughout their adult lifetimes, Buckley and J K Galbraith (very definitely a liberal) remained close friends. That speaks very well of both.
What I wrote above on populist appeals isn't as coherent or thoughtful as it ought to be. I will try to work something up that's better later on today.
For **** sake. Here's the head and subhead on the front page at the WP this morning.
Quote:
Warren earned nearly $2 million consulting for corporations and financial firms, records show
The documents, abruptly released by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), in some cases deviated from her presidential campaign positioning as a crusader against corporate interests.
It isn't until you get further into the reporting do you learn that the period of time involved here is more than three decades. That is, about $60,000 per year.
These attempts to denigrate the character/integrity/leftist bona fides of Warren and Sanders for income/wealth drive me around the bend. And it is particularly egregious where women are attacked in this manner as if their income ought not to exceed that of a secretarial school graduate.
'Two things stand out pretty clearly in many of those charts: Warren’s drop and Buttigieg’s increase. Among “very liberal” respondents, both Biden and Buttigieg appear to have gained at Warren’s expense. Her support among moderates, once respectable, collapsed entirely. It’s worth noting that the shift against Warren came after significant focus on her approach to Medicare-for-all — which Quinnipiac suggests has relatively low support among Democratic moderates.'
@TulsiGabbard
Follow Follow @TulsiGabbard
More
Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not “America First.”
0 Replies
hightor
2
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2019 06:51 am
@Brand X,
Quote:
It’s worth noting that the shift against Warren came after significant focus on her approach to Medicare-for-all — which Quinnipiac suggests has relatively low support among Democratic moderates.'
When it's unveiled, are moderate Democratic voters expected to back the Sanders Medicare for All plan with a higher degree of enthusiasm?
For most, they just realize it is a pipe dream that can not possibly occur in the current political climate. Moderates by definition is realists and don't go for pipe dreams, preferring real solutions.
0 Replies
snood
1
Reply
Mon 9 Dec, 2019 09:28 am
@blatham,
Mostly just Buttigieg’s campaign. You’re right, it’s BS.
Perhaps it is BS, if it from the Buttigieg campaign, haven't been paying too much close attention, so I haven't heard those demands from Buttigieg. I do know Warren has been questioning Buttigieg time at McKinsey and demanding Buttigieg account for it. Buttigieg has responded that he is under a non-disclosure agreement. I do know Buttigieg has asked McKinsey to release him from it.
Dana Bash hosts Rep. Joe Neguse, Jen Psaki, David Urban, and Linda Chavez to discuss whether Democratic primary voters care about questions like what Pete Buttigieg did during his time at consulting firm McKinsey or who Sen. Elizabeth Warren represented during her time as a corporate lawyer.
In any case, that doesn't make sense. Why would lowering Trump's polling results lead to greater Dem voter enthusiasm and turnout? Precisely the opposite effect would be far more likely.
This is really interesting. We’re about to get a much deeper education about the political machine in this country.
There is NO WAY Buttigieg gets legitimate black support. Kamala couldn’t get it because of how she mistreated and used black families to dog whistle the racist New Democrats that she’d continue to uphold racist policies.
The same is true of Pete, so I am fascinated by what the New Democrat Centrists are going to do about the black vote. We’ve always thought that democrats can’t win without black voters... Something is afoot.
Biden and Bernie are splitting black voters, although the media won’t tell you that; Bernie owns young voters, he’s creating new voters, he has massed other so-called minority voters like Muslims, Hispanics.
Hillary fans had split between Kamala and Warren, so logic would lead us to assume that when Kamala tanked, pantsuit voters would migrate to Warren.
Difficult to read, a segment of the voters is certainly mobile moving from candidate to candidate as character and policies are revealed/perceived. Polls have been showing Warren was the second choice of Biden voters, but now Bernie is. Kamala dropping out apparently didn't move any needles much.
'When we last looked in October, Warren was the leading second-choice pick among Biden supporters, running counter to the conventional wisdom that Biden and Warren supporters might be firmly at odds with one another because of ideological differences. But looking at the latest Morning Consult data, there has been a shift: Sanders is now the leading alternative for Biden voters, although that might have less to do with ideology and more with Warren’s recent drop in the polls. Sanders, on the other hand, has remained formidable despite his health scare earlier in the fall. Overall, Biden was the first choice pick for 29 percent of respondents, Sanders for 20 percent, Warren for 15 percent, Buttigieg for 9 percent and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for 5 percent.'
