Viva la revolución

[HopAlongBunny]

New York Democratic primary just delivered a surprise
New York's 14th punted the 10-term incumbent to appoint a 28 year-old running on a solidly progressive platform:

https://www.wonkette.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez

Health-care for all, tuition free college; she has all that and more. Any further left and you'd have to declare a revolution (at least in America)
Does this signal Trump's "red wave" or something else?

[rory_20_uk]

Has she priced / got a plan for implementing any of these initiatives? Doing any of these things would be tough. Doing them all either makes her a Polymath or a Populist.

If she was in Texas / Wyoming / Alabama I'd say major change is coming. In New York this might just galvanise any that were wavering on Trump and his cut outs to see that they are the bastion to prevent Communism in the USA.

[Husar]

Has she priced / got a plan for implementing any of these initiatives? Doing any of these things would be tough. Doing them all either makes her a Polymath or a Populist.

Pfff, this is always said by those waging class warfare on the poor. Take the Basic Income for example. A professor in Germany recently said that a mere 0.3% or 0.4% tax on financial transactions would make billionaires pay enough to grant every German a Basic Income of around 1500€. And it would be so low that barely any financial transactions would stop happening.

The US have the highest GDP in the world and only a few people who actually profit from that. They just have to distribute the spoils of their economy more evenly rather than continue to let a select few take most of it and then buy themselves the politics to get even more.

[rory_20_uk]

I didn't say it wasn't possible. Has she outlined a plan to do so? I take that this means "no".

Every time such a plan is voiced I always hear it'll be paid for by "closing tax loopholes"... and everything will magically work. Given that a progressive country such as Germany hasn't done this and pilots in the nordics "failed" (whatever that means) and Switzerland voted against it, the concept has hardly won hearts and minds. So in an extremely individualistic, small state country do you really think this will work?

The USA has a massive and increasing deficit. So to do this would require a VAST structural change to the very fabric of the USA since there's no "spare" money, it'd all have to be expropriated. And a majority of voters would have to utterly change their outlook on life.

But yeah. It's a fraction of GDP so dead easy...

[Montmorency]

Has she priced / got a plan for implementing any of these initiatives? Doing any of these things would be tough. Doing them all either makes her a Polymath or a Populist.

If she was in Texas / Wyoming / Alabama I'd say major change is coming. In New York this might just galvanise any that were wavering on Trump and his cut outs to see that they are the bastion to prevent Communism in the USA.

I didn't say it wasn't possible. Has she outlined a plan to do so? I take that this means "no".

Every time such a plan is voiced I always hear it'll be paid for by "closing tax loopholes"... and everything will magically work. Given that a progressive country such as Germany hasn't done this and pilots in the nordics "failed" (whatever that means) and Switzerland voted against it, the concept has hardly won hearts and minds. So in an extremely individualistic, small state country do you really think this will work?

The USA has a massive and increasing deficit. So to do this would require a VAST structural change to the very fabric of the USA since there's no "spare" money, it'd all have to be expropriated. And a majority of voters would have to utterly change their outlook on life.

But yeah. It's a fraction of GDP so dead easy...

None of these policies are viable in the legislature at the moment, so it would be perverse to ask her to come up with plans for the biggest reforms in American history all on her own.

As these ideas reach critical mass in the Democratic Party through rhetoric and representation, they can employ their internal resources, as well as the government's through legislation, to develop them concretely.

The hard part isn't paying for it, the hard part is the enormously complex legislation it would require, and the very hardest part is as you say. accepting as a general commitment by society and state a new social contract on the basis of such floors and minimum standards. Once you have the commitment, it's just a matter of time.


I haven't heard that any experiments in the Nordics failed, but I do recall hearing that Nordic welfare states have historically sustained themselves not by (merely) taxing the rich, but the broad base of the middle class - heavily. But hat's part of their contract, or was in the 20th c: more taxes for more services.

[Husar]

I didn't say it wasn't possible. Has she outlined a plan to do so? I take that this means "no".

Every time such a plan is voiced I always hear it'll be paid for by "closing tax loopholes"... and everything will magically work. Given that a progressive country such as Germany hasn't done this and pilots in the nordics "failed" (whatever that means) and Switzerland voted against it, the concept has hardly won hearts and minds. So in an extremely individualistic, small state country do you really think this will work?

The USA has a massive and increasing deficit. So to do this would require a VAST structural change to the very fabric of the USA since there's no "spare" money, it'd all have to be expropriated. And a majority of voters would have to utterly change their outlook on life.

But yeah. It's a fraction of GDP so dead easy...

I'm sorry for misinterpreting how you meant what you said.
But as Monty says, these changes need time, the first step is to get enough politicians elected who are actually willing to implement them. Getting them elected (and potentially re-elected) gives them the legitimization to enact the necessary changes over time.
Plus, if the alternative is waiting until enormous public unrest or even some kind of civil war enforces similar changes, I'd rather go with working towards changes through legislation now.

[rory_20_uk]

Quite understandable - it was a typical comment for those who wish for no change and so hardly surprising you took it that way.

Politicians who have large promises and fail to deliver on any of them tend not to last long. Better to have smaller, specific targets that are achievable that give confidence to re-elect for more changes - have one's vision then smaller SMART steps to get there. My concern is whenever her term ends if she's nothing but a list of somewhat technical excuses why nothing on the list has been accomplished her tenure might be limited.

As things stand she is even against the Democrat Party Aristocracy so they'll either adopt her or destroy her.

[Montmorency]

New York Democratic primary just delivered a surprise
New York's 14th punted the 10-term incumbent to appoint a 28 year-old running on a solidly progressive platform:

https://www.wonkette.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez

Health-care for all, tuition free college; she has all that and more. Any further left and you'd have to declare a revolution (at least in America)
Does this signal Trump's "red wave" or something else?

Already posted in the Trump thread.

As long as we're doing thread crossovers, a few thoughts on the tactic of Democratic court packing to counteract Republican procedural extremism:

I don't support it. At least, not yet. Don't jump the gun. It should remain available for a more opportune moment; expending this card now significantly depreciates its future utility, and that's not optimal in a time when the long-term has to be considered and is also so opaque. One of the best arguments against a hasty packing maneuver is that, even if Democrats got the spine to do it, Republicans are naturally better at escalation than Democrats. So, if the Democrats packed the courts, the Republicans would match them and, say, repeal civil service laws, purge the government and declare a one-party state.

Instead, what a Democratic admin should do is aggressively push non-partisan judicial reforms, the ones that work on the assumption that the opposition party is a legitimate organization. 'But isn't that wrong and naive?', you'd protest. The key thing is that it is a clear improvement on the current system, it weakens the radical momentum of the Republicans somewhat, and doesn't just toss away a major trump card up our sleeve - one that, recall, enables the Republicans to escalate all the way to toppling the republic.

For example, the Supreme Court should be term-limited, and members replaced according to defined intervals (so, regardless of who holds office or Congress). Expand the SCOTUS, double it even - but not for the purpose of packing. Do it so that each seat is devalued, and do it in such a way that the numbers are increased in staggered fashion over a few years, not all at once (i.e. packing).

I'm sure there are similar things to be done with the circuit and district courts, but I don't have specific proposals here.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

New York Democratic primary just delivered a surprise
New York's 14th punted the 10-term incumbent to appoint a 28 year-old running on a solidly progressive platform:

https://www.wonkette.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez

Health-care for all, tuition free college; she has all that and more. Any further left and you'd have to declare a revolution (at least in America)
Does this signal Trump's "red wave" or something else?

It's a symptom of the increasing polarization of politics in the USA. Trumps deplorables love him for being combative and finally taking on the "enemy." Those who are in the opposite camp are encouraged to be even more ardently big-government and left wing.

You also forgot her plank on getting rid of ICE, and thus implicitly condoning free and unrestricted immigration.

[Montmorency]

It's a symptom of the increasing polarization of politics in the USA. Trumps deplorables love him for being combative and finally taking on the "enemy." Those who are in the opposite camp are encouraged to be even more ardently big-government and left wing.

You also forgot her plank on getting rid of ICE, and thus implicitly condoning free and unrestricted immigration.

Did we have free and unrestricted immigration before Bush 43?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Did we have free and unrestricted immigration before Bush 43?

Before Bush 43, Yes. Actually before U.S. Grant. Immigration wasn't really restricted until the 1880 when the SCOTUS declared it a federal responsibility. There have been at least some restrictions in place ever since.

[Montmorency]

Before Bush 43, Yes. Actually before U.S. Grant. Immigration wasn't really restricted until the 1880 when the SCOTUS declared it a federal responsibility. There have been at least some restrictions in place ever since.

It is correct that all borders were basically open before about a century ago, unless one was unlucky enough to run into some armed men at an outpost or patrol, and those armed men decided they wanted to with someone that day. (Funny too, as noted in the Trump thread, that our President's grandfather was in effect deported from Germany to New York for illegal emigration/draft dodging.)

But I was saying, ICE did not exist before 9/11 and DHS and all that. Do you really see it as a positive development in government?

Here's a good summary of the situation with ICE and our larger bureaucratic/militarized/carceral immigration system:

I don't want to be one of those decency crusaders who says, ”[Blank] issue allows for wide range of acceptable opinion.” Mostly because I think that's a dodge for people who lack moral clarity. Open borders are the best solution for our world. If we can't do that, then we can embrace a tolerant, sensible system which provides a clear path to citizenship, and gives rights and protections to undocumented workers. It's hard to see how anyone could disagree with this.

But. But I understand there are people who don't feel as I do. People who are still outraged about kid jail, but feel qualms about immigrants. Who knows why you feel the way you do?

Maybe you think borders are healthy. Maybe you think citizenship needs to be the result of doing a set number of Herculean labors. Maybe you believe that citizens should have to pay your way in. Perhaps you just feel strange about having a club anyone can join.
Anxieties about order and norms. Understandable. I get it. But what is not forgivable, what is beyond the pale, is this kind of solution.

And here's the problem: most political problems are set up to have pre-designed answers. Deficit hawks have little interest in raising taxes or cutting military spending. “Deficit” is a problem invented to take care of a specific problem: the welfare state. The hawks were only ever concerned about cutting social spending.

Most everyone hates crime. But the kind of crime we hate, and the way we hate it, is telling. “Crime” in American culture indicates the actions of poor people of color, never suburban drug users, or white-collar criminals, or white men with guns. “Crime” is only focused on one kind of crime. “Crime” only gets solved in one way: more cops, more prisons, more laws. That's why “tough on crime” is always code for “arrest more Black people” and “illegal immigrants” is code for “Hispanics.”

That's why immigrant-bashers who are offended by kid jail seem suspect to me. The problem they are concerned about … is a problem designed with this solution in mind. This brutal, deliberate, dehumanizing process we live with. ICE, the Border Patrol, all of the mechanisms of terror and harm our system designs … those are the logical outcome of being “tough” on “illegal immigration.” This is what that means.

[Fragony]

Be carefull what you wish for, the quality of everything will take a nosedive

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is correct that all borders were basically open before about a century ago, unless one was unlucky enough to run into some armed men at an outpost or patrol, and those armed men decided they wanted to with someone that day. (Funny too, as noted in the Trump thread, that our President's grandfather was in effect deported from Germany to New York for illegal emigration/draft dodging.)

But I was saying, ICE did not exist before 9/11 and DHS and all that. Do you really see it as a positive development in government?

Not sure as to how positive it is. The old INS was not quite getting the job done either though.

But we do need some form of restraint on the flow of immigrants to the USA. The number of people we could absorb culturally is lower than the number we could absorb economically. Both numbers are, in all likelihood, lower than the number of people who want to come here.


Is ICE the best setup for the tasks of controlling the border, allowing for controlled immigration to enhance our population, and trying to prevent and reverse illegal immigration? Maybe not. But those tasks need to be addressed.