On Economic Issues, the Populist Right and Left Share a Lot of Common Ground
That's bad news for Americans.

The political landscape is often portrayed as deeply polarized. The two sides, it is said, can't agree on anything. Even worse, if one side supports a position, that's reason enough for the other to oppose it. While this picture is largely true for cultural issues, the rise of populism on the right is making some of the two parties' economic policies remarkably similar. That's bad news for Americans.
In a new piece for The Unpopulist, Rachel Kleinfeld reminds us that until recently it was relatively straightforward to categorize economic and political systems. Economically, they ranged from left-wing to right-wing, while politically, they varied from authoritarian to democratic. Most American businesses could easily stake out their position. They generally favored right-leaning economic policies—relatively free markets—which included business-friendly regulations and management-centric approaches.
American businesses didn't have to worry much about where the country fell on the authoritarian versus democratic spectrum. While cronyism was always a problem, democratic values remained front and center. That was good for businesses since, as Kleinfeld notes, they have tended to prosper "most under classically liberal democratic systems that upheld the rule of law and inalienable rights—including property rights."
The recent emergence of right-wing populism has disrupted this traditional classification. Kleinfeld writes that today, "even supposedly right-wing populists exploit distrust, pessimism, and anger to make the case that government should wield a heavy—and often retaliatory—hand in markets." She is right. Let's examine a few examples where a shift on the right means they now share traditionally left-wing positions on these issues.
Both the populist right and left are protectionist when it comes to trade. While the right advocates for protectionism to support national security, preserve manufacturing, and maintain national sovereignty, the left supports tariffs and other trade restraints to protect workers' rights, prevent exploitation in developing countries, and reduce environmental impact. Both sides, if for different reasons, favor trade barriers and are skeptical of free-trade agreements. The best evidence is that President Joe Biden has retained most of former President Donald Trump's tariffs.
Similarly, under the misguided excuse of strengthening our economy, both sides now practice an industrial policy that dispenses massive subsidies, tax credits, and other government-granted corporate privileges. For instance, the Biden administration's $52 billion in federal tax breaks and subsidies through the CHIPS Act to prop up the semiconductor industry, including reports of $40 billion—77 percent of the funds—benefiting giant companies like Intel, GlobalFoundries, Samsung, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp., was passed in a bipartisan way.
Utterly inconsistently, both sides also express serious distrust in mega-corporations. The New Right often views large corporations as part of a "global elite" disconnected from the average citizen and influencing government policies for its own benefit. Meanwhile, the left criticizes these entities for their alleged role in increasing income inequality, opposing workers' rights and degrading the environment.
As a result, despite throwing money at big businesses with one hand, both sides are bogging down corporations—especially the ones that successfully earn a lot of customers—with the other hand, stacking up regulations, or even threatening to break them up with antitrust cases.
Both the New Right and the left reject talks of fiscal discipline. No side wants to reform entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security even though these programs are becoming insolvent. Both groups support expensive, often excessive, and politically popular redistribution to families, including rich ones, in the form of paid leave programs, child care subsidies, or expanded child tax credits.
Another area where the populist right is becoming indistinguishable from the left is support for unions. Traditionally, the right has viewed unions skeptically as helping some workers only by harming others. The New Right, influenced by a focus on the working class, has recently embraced unions as a means of furthering workers' rights and raising wages.
This shift bodes poorly for the economy, as populism has a track record of producing results opposite what their proponents promise. As Kleinfeld put it, "When economists Manuel Funke, Moritz Schularick, and Christoph Trebesch studied populist leaders from 1900 to 2020, they found that…after 15 years, a country led by a populist would have a GDP 10% lower than one governed by a non-populist leader" and unfortunately, "modern populists often bask in electoral support."
While many Americans and commentators are distracted by the apparent political polarization, a significant realignment of sorts is happening among populists. If it solidifies its power, it will be bad news for America's economy, as well as for our liberties.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Populists say, "We CAN get ahead by pussy-grabbing those OTHERS over THERE, and they will NEVER even THINK of pussy-grabbing us right back!"
Shit has never worked, and never will... How many more generations of humans will it take, for us to get this shit straight? I, for one, have NO idea!
I get paid more than $120 to $130 every hour for working on the web. I found out about this activity 3 months prior and subsequent to joining this I have earned nh1 effectively $15k from this without having internet working abilities Copy underneath site to..
Check It—>>> http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
Altruism justifies the initiation of deadly force no matter how flimsy the pretext. Soviet Socialist looters sprang from the competition among opiate vendors with China using the USA as useful prohibitionist idiots starting 1905. Dry Christian Russian Nationalism wrecked the Russian economy as of 1914. German pharma hired Christian National Socialists after Bert Hoover used the League of Nations and drug clauses in the Treaty of Versailles to cripple Germany in 1931. German pharma needed armed belligerent xenophobia and tribal collectivism sprinkled with Bible quotes to meet force with reprisals. WW2 resulted, again for altruistic reasons just like WW1.
the Populist Party or simply the Populists, was a left-wing[2] agrarian populist[3] political party in the United States in the late 19th century. Wikipedia.
21st Century BS propaganda. Where the [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] run around calling everyone else EXACTLY what they are. A RINO is just a fake Republican with Democrat ideology. That’s not a ‘New’ thing.
And FYI. The USA is NOT a Democracy. You’re painting some BS narrative the there is Authoritarian or Democracy. The USA is founded with an ‘Authoritarian’ Constitution (if that’s what you want to call it) that LIMITS (by the people’s Authority) Tyrannical Democracy. How the F is the USA suppose to survive with dumb*sses who can’t even figure out what the USA is about anymore.
The marxist public schools have been indoctrinating students with the belief that America is a democracy for decades. I’m not surprised that the author of this tripe believes it.
The USA is NOT a Democracy.
Hey, you two clowns - DON'T VOTE THEN.
Shortly before he died on April 17, 1790, Benjamin Franklin wrote an essay, "Rules for Ruining a Republic."
Take a read buddy.
https://thefulcrum.us/congress/how-to-ruin-a-republic
In case no one is familiar with it: Franklin actually does refer to our republic as a democracy, and resident loser once again shows why he spends so much time on this forum rather than engaging the real world.
If you read it he talks about the dangers of democracy as the founding fathers were more educated than you are and familiar with history such as the Greeks and Roman’s. It is a satirical outline of the arguments we see today dumdum.
I can give you dozens of examples if you're interested in educating yourself.
Lol just read it folks edit: bitch doesn't know what a democratic republic is
Apparently you don't know what the USA is.
it's just a bunch of smooth brained populist MAGAs who think that we're not a Democratic Republic / Representative Democracy. Trump has used that for the lube for when he really slides it in on them while jack booted thugs hold their head down with said jackboots.
So what's that Supreme Law for if it's just a Democratic Republic / Representative Democracy.. What you fools are doing is pretending there is no Supreme Law and [WE] majority-mob rules.
We vote for politicians who will HONOR their oath of office, who will elect HONORABLE justices instead of voting for treasonous Al-Capone and Hitler wanna-Be's (lawless). How do you think Hitler got power you dumb*ss? Germany had elections too.
Idiot.
My point is that by voting we are in a democracy. We are also a republic.
Anyone who says the USA is not a democracy is an idiot. We can be both at once.
Your point was you failed 5th grade civics with your first post?
Pluggo would like to return to the fifth grade.
Try a Constitutional Union of Constitutional Republican States. The very definition of the USA doesn't contain the word "democracy" in it anywhere and just because it utilizes SPECIFICALLY specified voting systems doesn't mean it's by any means a "democracy".
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
Choor. Rooshia, Cuba and China are democratic republics with materialist altruist starvation and death camps. These States are republican prohibitionist democracies with girl-bullying Christian altruist torture Gitmos and death prisons for "lower" races. In both variants, power is the time derivative or rate at which the monopoly on initiation of force can turn dissenters into cadavers. Altruism powers either gang or both factions.
The US is a representative democratic republic - like, say, France or Germany. One may argue about how effectively it is democratic - that is, the extent to which the representatives truly represent the citizenry rather than donors and lobby groups, but as a matter of the general structure, that is what it is.
One does find clowns arguing that the US is a republic, not a democracy, or that the US cannot be a democracy as the word isn't mentioned in the Constitution, but that's either for propaganda purposes or mere ignorance.
I already recommended full calorie shrike to read the words of Franklin, take a read too. May help.
It doesn't matter what Franklin said, what matters is what the US is.
And there's a difference between a direct democracy, which is what the FFs feared, and an indirect or representative democracy, which is what the Constitution established - contrary the moronic blather of people like TJJ2000.
The reason that some of you are so fucking ignorant about this is because you don't get the distinction between sovereignty and legislative/executive functions. A republic is antithetical to a monarchy or an empire. A democracy is antithetical to a dictatorship. But nooooo, you lot have somehow fallen for the idiocy that a democracy and a republic are antithetical, when any country where sovereignty is vested in the people and the people vote for legislatures and executive is a standard indirect democracy and a republic. This is a matter of definition, not opinion.
What is a matter of definition you BS’er is the USA was based on a US Constitution that said more than just whatever the [WE] majority people want they get via Democracy or Representative Democracy.
Course if you Democrat propagandists weren’t so in love with [WE] [Na]tional So[zi]alists mob ‘rules’ ideology you wouldn't have to keep lying about it to yourselves and your group-think 'mob' crowd.
Well said! These people know that the vast majority of Americans are not well educated in the Constitution, government, civics, economics, finance, and history, so they feed the B.S. narrative about 'right wing', and 'left wing' propaganda, when they are actually people who have no respect for the Constitution because it limits their tyranny! This is why they are attacking our children to brainwash them into changing the constitution when they become adults. They blame the constitution, as Obama wanted to 'transform America,' for their own bad behaviors. They know shit about American history, think they know more than the founders, yet can't name a better representative democracy, if they don't fu*k it up, anywhere! Just look at how they protect illegals, who by definition, break the law, then tell us they have a 'constitutional right' to be here! On what page of the Constitution? And the 'birthright citizenship,' where is that written? I am so sick of a-holes running our country into the ground, then tell us that it's for the best.
They did a study of countries led by "populist" and "non-populist" "leaders"? Wow, I'm sure that was very objective and sciency.
How dare the author say "both sides" once, let alone four times in one article!
Besides that, someone needs to tell the author that economic liberty is leftist. Don't like trade wars, economic protectionism and industrial policy? You're a leftist. That includes all of the so-called conservatives who left the Republican Party when Trump and his populists took over. They're all leftists.
You argue so well against your battalions of strawmen.
How is it a strawman when Trump supporters defended his trade wars, economic protectionism, and industrial policy by attacking the critics and calling them leftists?
What Trade Wars, Economic Protectionism, and Industrial Policy?
Not only is your 'list' a pathetic re-naming ONE-SINGLE issue you have over and over again it's blatant exaggeration. Import Tax =/= Trade Wars to anyone but a partisan shill who still can't overcome his hypocrisy and call Biden a P.O.S. for the same thing.
Import Tax =/= Trade Wars
Using import taxes to jack up the prices of imported goods to protect domestic industry is the very definition of a trade war.
So Democrats have been in a Trade-War with domestic manufacturing every-time they propose more taxes or complain about Trumps domestic Tax-Cuts?
Seems you've got a lot of explaining to do.
I've got nothing to explain because I don't understand your argument, let alone support whatever it is you claim I support.
He got a fire sale on strawmen and needs to unload his supply.
As you say that the guy who claimed I was arguing against strawmen called me "left-leaning" for opposing trade wars and says economics is propaganda. So it looks like that strawman is made of flesh and blood.
I am consistently called a leftist here despite my opposition to government ownership of the means of production in general and to centralised planning, and my support for generally free markets and my bias against tariffs, because nowadays for populist right-wingers, right and left are apparently determined by support for Trump, not on economics grounds.
...because nowadays for populist right-wingers, right and left are apparently determined by support for Trump, not on economics grounds.
You're with Trump or you're a leftist. That's it.
Yet you defend Soros and the politicians he bought who don't actually push what you claim, but pushed advantaged markets.
Can you even give an example of "generally free markets"? My guess is you refer to something like TPP. Hint, not a generally free market, just an organized set of tariffs and regulations.
I defend Soros often enough on grounds that attacks on him are frequently covers for anti-Semitism. But I defend capitalism ahead of my defence of Soros – though of course he is a capitalist.
A generally free market is one with light regulation. It’s hard to find such a thing anywhere. But the market for shoes seems reasonably free. I’m not aware of too many barriers to trade internally or externally.
My guess is
wrong, as usual.
International trade treaties may well make the markets they cover freer – because not all regulation makes a market less free, but it is not what I had in mind.
Brother that’s just the fascist mental gymnastics of the MAGAs who claim to be libertarian, but are really just white supremacist shitbrds that like to claim they’re “independent thinkers”. When you spot one, just mute him, otherwise the comment section is an even bigger shtshow
lol You, "...and here's my race-card play and censorship instincts."
And you wonder why people support Trump. Reading the comments here just proves those who hate Trump are racists and fascists who absolutely love to self-project onto everyone else.
Way to miss the point of the article. No, not everybody who opposes trade wars, economic protectionism and industrial policy is a leftist. Yes, that's what the populist-right labeled them - and they are wrong.
You're better than this. Argue with what the article actually said, not your strawmen of it. And despite your chosen username, get over the sarcasm schtick. You're not good at it enough to overcome Poe's Law.
I was being sarcastic. Sorry but I didn’t tag it.
While Trump was president this author was routinely called a leftist by the commentariate because she, from an economic point of view, had lots of criticism for Trump’s policies.
The commentariate HATED her. Blood in their eyes hatred.
Now she’s saying the same things about Biden’s policies and…. crickets.
Reminds me of the Iraq war protestors who evaporated when Obama replaced Bush. Had nothing to do with policy and everything to do with the man. Except in that case it was lefttards protesting Bush, and in this case righttards protecting Trump.
Nobody on the Left has ever opposed trade wars, economic protectionism, or industrial policy setting.
Those are literally core policies.
Exactly. And for many libertarians that was why they allied with Republicans. So they left when the GOP decided to jettison economic liberty in favor of Trump populism.
Right.... De-Regulation and Tax-Cuts is soooo 'jettison' economic liberty. /s Your partisan whore is showing again.
Didn't outweigh the trade wars, economic protectionism and industrial policy, especially when combined with how many trillions of dollars in new debt? You're defending it. You should know.
The trillion in debt was all crafted by Democrats in the House and Trump was a dumb*ss for supporting it.
How do you figure it didn't outweigh implementing an import tax? Do you think taxing imports equally with domestic is worse than domestic economic liberty? Why yes; Yes that is exactly what you've been saying all along isn't it..... That making importers pay Tax is far worse than Domestic economic liberty.
Do you think taxing imports equally with domestic is worse than domestic economic liberty?
I don't see what one has to do with another. And I'm not a fan of demanding government enact taxes in the name of fairness.
Oh I know. You want importers to get a free-ride while domestic is punished with taxes as I've said all along.
Again I don't know what you mean. Tariffs are an additional tax that is ultimately passed onto the consumer. When import taxes are a tiny part of the overall governmental budget, then they are a tool not a source of revenue. It looks like you're making a fairness argument, and that doesn't convince me because I lack empathy.
Thanks to your free-ride for foreign production the domestic manufacturing tax revenue isn't enough to matter either. So you just as well be lobbying for ZERO taxes for domestic trade.
Shoot-first prohibitionism is ORDERED liberty. See Bert "new race" Hoover, and Harry "orders is orders" Anslinger, Ike, Nixon, Wallace, Reagan, Bush & Sunuva. Don't forget the Televangelist saliva-soaked MAGAt.
I'm still waiting for principled Trump supporters to praise Biden for continuing and expanding upon the economic policies they defended with accusations of being leftist.
Playing 'ignorant' to it isn't waiting. (as yesterdays comments did that).
I'm still 'waiting' for you to call Biden a P.O.S. dictator for the same thing.
You're nothing but a partisan whore.
Biden's economic policies, like Trump's, suck dirty camel balls.
How's that?
Why yes.... YES they do indeed... Not because Biden feels the need to balance the taxing system that killed domestic production for foreign ... but because he and his [Na]tional So[zi]alist Soldiers are the *VERY REASON* there has to be so much taxing to begin with that it has literally crippled the USA.
killed domestic production for foreign
Say what? The US is a manufacturing powerhouse. What has declined is employment in manufacturing due to advances in worker productivity.
Well heck. If that’s True why does everything need to be imported and why are you making such a big deal out of it? Just go buy domestically. Surely you'd save a bundle in shipping costs.
Dude, go learn some basic economics. Please. Like comparative advantage for starters.
Here's a great book on the subject, courtesy of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE):
https://fee.org/media/42451/economics-in-one-lesson-pdf.pdf
Your BS propaganda doesn't change the question or the reality of it.
You're but practicing Group-think 101.
Propaganda? Alright. Stay willfully ignorant. You're hopeless.
I will pridefully stay willfully ignorant of BS propaganda that defies realities and ignores concern-able questions with a bunch of ... why yes, yes indeed; propaganda by it's very definition.
Didn't know economics was propaganda, but ok. Whatever you say.
Now let's see you praise Biden for continuing Trump's populist economic policies that are antithetical to economic liberty. That or condemn Trump. But praising Trump while condemning Biden for doing the same thing is quite unprincipled, and exactly what I expect from Trump's Deranged Supporters.
Biden was correct to tax importers to the same rate as domestic even if his treasonous clan is the very reason it had so much weight to begin with. Now if he'd stop spending like a Democrat.
He has a fools ignorant view of what free trade is. He doesn't realize that other countries are not acting as free trade partners. What sarc actually argues for is advantaged trade. A system put in place by multi national corps to their advantages. Every "free-trade" agreement has been a set of trade offs of what is regulated and what is not. Yet he will support those agreements through ignorance despite them just be a listed set of tariffs and conditions instead of isolated examples.
It is just strange.
That he does. I think all left-leaner's are purposely out to destroy the USA. There's a thread a while back where they were insisting foreigners are just better than US citizens.
I'm a left-leaner for offering you a book on economics and supporting economic liberty?
I guess being a right-leaner means willful ignorance of economics and opposition to economic liberty.
I have no problem with you supporting DOMESTIC economic liberty… And you’ll start doing that when? Lets hear all the 'praise' for Trumps Tax-Cuts!!!!
You're not making any sense at all.
No, liar. What I argue for is free trade. Unilateral free trade is still free trade. All that's required is your own government not punishing you for buying imports. That's it. Doesn't require a trade agreement, doesn't require reciprocation, doesn't require anything from anyone else. All it requires is your own government not fucking you because you want to buy stuff from people that politicians don't like.
All that’s required is your own government not punishing you for buying DOMESTIC. That’s it. Doesn’t require a trade agreement, doesn’t require reciprocation, doesn’t require anything from anyone else. All it requires is your own government not fucking you because you want to buy stuff from people that politicians don’t like.
You will find Democrats are the party of government medal-ling and are the very foundation for why imports don't get a free-ride in the USA contrary to their domestic production.
That makes no fucking sense at all.
I know... It takes an actual brain instead of group-think to process it.
If economics is group-think and group-think is bad, then all education is bad.
lmao... Sounds to me like you are equating the word 'economics' = group-think propaganda. Next up will be calling group-think propaganda = 'facts' ... because that's what leftards do...
I gave you a link to a book promoted by small-l libertarians from an organization that promotes principles of individual liberty, and you dismissed it as propaganda while bragging about your ignorance.
All I can conclude is that you oppose all learning.
This is fee.org's pitch for money:
"Your gift allows FEE to engage and educate students around the U.S. and world with the principles of individual liberty and economic freedom."
Are you so convinced that I'm a leftist that you consider anything I suggest to promote that ideology, or can you actually look at what I suggest and realize the people who call me that are stupid and/or lying?
What does your precious book say about a De-Regulation committee, exiting the Paris Accord dictates, Cutting Taxes, De-funding the EPA?
Read it, apply the principles therein, and answer your own damn question.
It's not long, there aren't any numbers, and it goes quick. Few hours to read. I know it's asking a lot. Try the first ten pages. Then get back to me on it being leftist propaganda.
He starts by discussing a couple economic fallacies. He then shows the harm caused by government policies that employ those fallacies.
Should be right up your alley.
Being a classical liberal, he approaches everything from the point of view of the consumer.
People who prefer economics from the point of view of the worker or the producer don’t like that very much. They’re also the ones demanding special favors to protect them from competition. Consumers don’t need laws to protect them from other consumers. Do they?
“They’re also the ones demanding special favors to protect them from competition.”
Ya know like a free-tax-ride in contrast to domestic not getting a free-ride? You’re literally lobbying for exactly what you proclaim to resist. While you run around ditching on Trump who has done far more for domestic economic liberty than anyone else in the last century.
Once again you've lost me. Please look at that book.
'left' and 'right' and 'populist' and 'not populist' no longer have meaning, as they no longer have agreed upon definitions.
Any given political action either promotes individual freedoms, or it promotes government control.
That's it.
All we need is cute terms we can agree on to label those thoughts.
"Populist" only ever had a very broad meaning: identification with reg'lar folks, opposition to elites as rulers. Of course, once you gain power and connections, you become part of the elite, so populists are perpetually those who are left out of power.
"Left" and "right" are protean, because the original "right" practically hasn't existed for a long time. Who wants to cede power to a hereditary elite?
Classifications be damned! It could not matter less what fabricated excuse protectionists choose to support their policies, or where they might fall on some theoretical spectrum axis. The only thing that matters is what actual effects result in the real world from their interventions, especially including which special interest benefits and who is harmed by the tariffs and subsidies. Such analysis may be useful for theoreticians in order to inform the honest decisions of official policy makers, but we can count the number of such honest officials on the fingers of one foot these days.
I'm still confused as to why populism is an automatic bad word here. Is it because Libertarians have lacked influence that they want to complain? The other option is rule by the elites, and how is that working? You just had an article about the end of neo liberalism.
As long as basic rights are protected, why does it matter if the population at large disagrees with the direction of the elite institutions? The elite institutions are advocating for war, while the populace does not want it. In this instance populism has better judgement than the elites.
This casual dismissal of "regular folks" and their ideas and opinions is a terrible look for a Libertarian magazine.
Economic ignorance is popular, therefore economics is bad.
Those inculcated in places where elite institutions rule may by default to support those elite institutions doing so. Don’t want to pull the rugy from underneath you, just saying.
Much like communists, the writers here believe that their ideas are superior, so all others will be rejected.
It goes back to the Maddox and Lillie paper over 40 years ago promoted by Cato, analyzing the historic development of political tendencies over US history. They couldn't find a mass American movement or tendency corresponding to European authoritarians, so they called the relatively authoritarian quadrant of Americans "populist" based on a little analysis of the historically named populists. Cato's promotion of this was popular enough in the libertarian movement to get people to label the authoritarian quadrant of some Nolan charts as "populist", partly because when administering the World's Smallest Political Quiz or similar questionnaires to a crowd, labeling someone a "populist" didn't sound as harsh as calling them an "authoritarian". So "populist" became synonymous with "authoritarian" or "totalitarian" to many in the libertarian movement.
I think that finally started to slowly change about 30 years ago, and by now I don't think most libertarian activists and thinkers make that identification. However, I think it's also true as JessAz writes that self-identifying libertarians would like to flatter themselves by looking at their lack of influence as evidence that were an elite and hence opposed to populists. But looked at objectively, libertarians have much more influence than they think, and the world is much freer as a result. They look at how farr we are from radical liberty, and forget that radicals/extremists of all stripes are discontented about the fact that society is so far from their extreme. Over the long run, society avoids all extremes, including that of liberty. Even totalitarian regimes have allowed far more freedom than people think about; when you consider all the choices open to people at all times every waking minute, it becomes clear that even a Pol Pot hasn't even the desire to dictate most of them.
I just tend to think that any natural libertarian should see the current structure of government (top down, federal to state to local) and advocate for a bottom up type of government (local, then state, then federal) as a preferred system of government as it puts power closer to the people, which would be described as a populist/federalist type of structure. This would allow individuals to choose various options for what their freedom tolerance/preference is.
By discounting populism they are essentially discounting individuals which is just a strange look at governance.
I always go back to the idea of states being Laboratories of Democracy, and states will choose which options/actions percolate up as the best options. But that is not what the elite/federal/global viewpoint is for the elites, they believe in the managed view from above instead of the evolutionary theory of laboratories. It is advocating for Intelligent Design of a culture instead of evolutionary culture.
Just bugs me how they automatically degrade populism as it discounts the individual in preference for self identified elites (not to be confused with actual elites).
Populism is not a policy, it's an attitude. And the attitude is hostility to "them", grievance for real or imagined wrongs, and ultimately a willingness to resort to violence in support of that attitude. It is not about subsidiarity. It works on an appeal to people's worst instincts.
Your point about states being labs is a good one, though, and should be taken more account of. However the trap is to extend this attitude to rights, allowing states to experiment at the expense of the individual rights of its citizens. A state should not - and indeed, does not - have the right, say, to impose new obscenity laws as an experiment to see whether this reduces sex crimes amongst its citizens.
Populism is not a policy, it’s an attitude... It works on an appeal to people’s worst instincts.
Yes. And it appeals to direct democracy, which is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Great if you're a wolf.
Oh. So words mean what your narrative means and have no real value aside from attacking what you dont like or support. Got it.
i.e., "I can't argue against SRG so I'm just going to post some drivel I prepared earlier."
Whatever you call them, populist or authoritarian, the Nolan chart provides a great summary showing that at some point the hardcore anti-libertarian corner of the map has more in common with extreme "progressive" or "conservative" views than it does with an open-minded, individualist outlook.
For consideration.
https://theobjectivestandard.com/2017/04/the-muddy-waters-of-the-nolan-chart/
Yeah, well, an Objectivist sees it as muddying the waters because they think they already have clarity about how the world works, so they don't even try to describe it in terms of how people think, but only in terms of how they "should" think. Not very useful.
Still, even the Nolan chart is limited by deciding in advance what axes to classify along, instead of using cluster analysis to determine the actual ways in which people group and align, as the ongoing typology studies of the American electorate have been doing over the same time.
The Ron Paul/Dave Smith version of libertarianism that is so in vogue now is IMO overly obsessed with violations of liberty that originate from the state. But guess what, violations of liberty can occur from the mob as well.
A great example of this is border security. It's the populists who overwhelmingly support more restrictive policies for the border, and it's the state which holds back the worst excesses of the mob's demands that "more be done" against the illegal immigrant INVASION. They do this in part by insisting on (some) due process rights for migrants, insisting that the proper protocols for asylum applications be followed, etc. But if it was purely up to the mob, the migrants' liberty would be absolutely shredded. Along with much liberty of citizens as well. In this case, it's the POPULISTS who are a threat to all of our liberty and it is the state which is tempering the worst desires of the populist mob.
A genuine commitment to liberty requires understanding and resisting ALL of the illegitimate threats to our liberty, not just the ones that come from the state.
So, let me get this correct, Jeffy, you believe in open, unsecured borders for a nation state? How is documenting people and controlling who comes through those borders, anti-libertarian? How is it a threat to freedom and liberty? If you don't have any sort of controls on your borders, you don't have libertarianism, Jeffy, you have anarchism. The rules and laws just go out the window and anything goes.
How is documenting people and controlling who comes through those borders, anti-libertarian?
I think the question answers itself.
Libertarian =/= Anarchy.
As I understand it, the purist libertarian position is pure “open borders”, zero state control on the flow of people or property across borders. This is because it promotes maximum freedom of association and maximum economic liberty. I don’t know anyone who is a pure “open borders” person. A lot of us, however, make a reasonable compromise that flow of people or property across borders should be subject to very minimal state restrictions to serve a well-founded utilitarian purpose. Such as, people or property associated with highly contagious diseases, or people or property associated with known international crime, should be subject to limitations by the state. But other than that, people shouldn’t need permission slips from the state in order to come and go as they please.
No, the purist libertarian position is no public property. If you want to venture onto my property, you have to have my permission.
That is the Rothbardian view. But even within that view, the "open borders" position can be accommodated, that is the Walter Block view. In this view (IIRC), as long as a migrant has the permission of at least one property owner within the country to be present on that piece of land, that migrant is then entitled to all of the same benefits associated with travel that the property owner has.
My personal view is that public property can exist within a libertarian framework, as long as the proper legal owner of that property should be regarded as the state and not "the people", and that for the state to be considered a just government, the state must hold that property in trust for the purposes of furthering and protecting the liberty of all. So if there are to be public roads, the state must maintain the public roads in a manner that facilitates liberty, in this case, freedom of travel and freedom of association; and not in a manner that restricts liberty, such as, for example, declaring that there shall be no guns transported on public roads as a backdoor attempt at gun control.
I think even the purest libertarian accepts the restriction that immigrants should be peaceful.
Well yes, but nonpeaceful migration is problematic from a libertarian perspective, not because of the migration, but because it is nonpeaceful.
Note the usual lefties here never discuss costs and welfare.
That's Fiona's position, not the purist position, nor even the typical position. Oddly, open borders is more a globalist's position.
How could the purist position not be one that maximizes individual liberty?
Do individuals possess the liberty of freedom of association? Yes or no? The answer is yes.
So, for the purist libertarian, shouldn't the state maximally recognize and protect this freedom of association, even between citizens and non-citizens?
But again this is very radical and not commonplace. The more commonplace "open borders" position is that there should be maximal freedom of association between citizens and non-citizens, subject to some well-founded utilitarian restrictions such as the transmission of disease or international crime.
Also a marxist position as a means to disrupt.
https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/International_Sociology/Book:_International_Relations_Theory_(McGlinchey_Walters_and_Scheinpflug)/05:_Marxism/5.02:_Marxism,_Migrants_and_Borders
And..
https://www.marxist.com/video-why-marxists-must-fight-for-open-borders.htm
Hence Jeff's religious devotion to it while ignoring negative externalities.
You're an idiot.
That some Marxists might support open borders does not mean that every open borders advocate is a Marxist.
And if your position is that open borders is bad because Marxists might benefit, then let me point you to many proposed right-wing policies which would benefit some unsavory characters...
If you don’t have any sort of controls on your borders, you don’t have libertarianism, Jeffy, you have anarchism.
But that’s not true. For example, there are no (or very minimal) controls for migration between New York and Florida. And yet I don’t observe that either state has devolved into a state of anarchy.
That's because neither New York nor Florida are sovereign outside the United States. Being as they are part of the United States and subject to the Constitution, they cannot control migration. That's specifically Congress's duty. You do understand the concept of a federal state, do you not?
You're right! You have correctly identified (to an extent) why neither New York nor California can control migration of citizens across its borders. So why aren't they anarchic hellholes?
Geeze, you're obtuse. You do realize that states are sub-national entities, not national entities. Parts of the larger federal state. New York, California, and Florida all rely on the federal government, the federal Congress for their border, not on their own. Have you never even bothered to read the Constitution?
You wrote:
If you don’t have any sort of controls on your borders, you don’t have libertarianism, Jeffy, you have anarchism.
There are minimal controls on migration between New York and Florida. Neither one of these states may be fairly considered to be in a state of anarchism. Therefore, I have proved your claim false. QED.
If there are no controls on migration across borders, the result is not necessarily anarchism, the result is.... liberty. But many statists would view liberty as a type of anarchism, because it means individuals are permitted to do what they want without permission from the state. That sounds like you here.
Hey, sealion, you still don't get the difference between national and sub-national borders. I dare you to try to walk the same way between the US and Canada that you would between Georgia and Florida or between Alberta and Saskatchewan. See who comes by and arrests you, dip.
Oh I recognize the difference. You did not in your initial claim. Perhaps you should take your own advice.
The other option is rule by the elites, and how is that working?
Elites and/or extremes.
It's the standard "accuse your enemies of that which you yourself are guilty" (BOAF SIDES!) deflection. Jan. 6th, despite having far fewer people, being nowhere near as widespread, lasting nowhere near as long, and doing far less damage was a "just as evil-bad, torch-and-pitchfork-weilding populist uprising" as the mostly-peaceful Summer of Love where the masses across the country just expressed their displeasure with the government in an excessively jubilant fashion.
False dichotomy! There is at least one other alternative: rule by NO ONE! Free people do not need rulers, they rule themselves. The only possible purpose of government in that sense is to set in place a system of minimal rules necessary to protect the unalienable rights of each individual, and punish violators of those rules as quickly and fairly as possible. Populism is the opposite of that, implying that the whim of the majority of the moment should govern everyone.
It is a false dichotomy (as I pointed out with extremism) but your correction is incorrect as well. "ism" is the doctrine, theory, or ethos or ends if you will, "cracy" is the rule or, again if you will, the means. Common people ruling themselves is populism, with or without a democracy or majority rules.
I was responding to this: "The other option is rule by the elites" as if it were the only alternative to "populism." I disagree that "populism" means "people ruling themselves." Historically speaking the label has usually been used to describe mass political movements to use government to impose one group's preference on the nation. For example, "free silver" and so on.
Somewhat on-topic: Here's a case where both "regular folk" riff-raff and political elite riff-raff unite to stifle Individual Rights and Limited Government:
Jelly Roll calls for stronger legislation against fentanyl crisis in powerful congressional testimony
By Alli Rosenbloom, CNN
https://www.wyff4.com/article/jelly-roll-calls-for-stronger-legislation-against-fentanyl-crisis/46363350
Don't you just love how this Jelly Roll person is effectively saying: "Stop me before I deal again"? And would trust a face like that?
🙂
😉
The real hero in this story will be the unnamed, unknown Biochemist who dares to make drugs that only kill pain and not people. This person will be the real benefactor of the people!
But if ever known, this innovator would face a two-cornered contest between rabble with pitchforks and torches and Jackbooted DEA and FDA Thugs, both sanctioned and approved by pandering Congresscritters and their Deep State Alphabet Soup Agency heads!
TL;DR before commenting, but from the initial paragraphs I can tell the problem is the usual: What/who does the author of the referenced work, or our reporter, count as "populist"? Seriously, when all that rightly makes someone a populist is affiliation with average people rather than elites, why wouldn't you expect to find all economic and political tendencies among populists? If someone didn't find one at a given time and place, that just meant they weren't looking.
The author is an economist, and economists tend to have a low opinion of populism because it usually results in incorporating economic fallacies into government policy.
This is very good
The New Right, influenced by a focus on the working class, has recently embraced unions as a means of furthering workers' rights and raising wages.
How dare you break free of your corporate slave masters!
Go fuck off back to France.
Is an assertion with 0 evidence
"The New Right, influenced by a focus on the working class, has recently embraced unions as a means of furthering workers' rights and raising wages."
WTF are you talking about? Citation(s) please. What Republicans are "pro-union"? Last I checked, all current "right to work" states are led by Republican leaders.
'Right to work' isn't 'pro-union'? Is it only pro-union when unions have no competition?
Trump met with a Union leader, so now any time a Union has a meeting it is an alt right meeting.
I have no clue who the fuck she's referencing here. Seems like an assertion to force false equivalence. I swear, even if Reason writers aren't just extremely biased against the right then they are completely ignorant of it.
HEY SULLUM! SULLUM! JACOB!
Them wallz r clozin’ in on Trump, right?
I mean, that totally aboveboard and deserved prosecution of Trump in Georgia for his totally real crimes is totally unbiased and honest.
Its not like the judge didn’t appoint her lover as the Special Prosecutor or anything. No sireee, nothing untoward happening here. Totally not a transparent ploy to get he name in the papers in the bid for more power and prestige.
Wallz
r
clozin’
in
The problem is the political loss of middle. While most people today are centrist existing either center right or center left, much of the political class are at the extremes of their party. This works out well for them personally but does little for our country. The politician are now celebrities, bring in money with personal appeal, but do little in work. Problems, including the debt, are never solved by solely by one side but rather by compromise. It appears likely our Congress will not even be able to pass a budget and we will see more CRs at least past the 2024 election. An in that election the most extreme on both sides will glide to reelection, paying no price for where they have taken our country.
Newsflash buddy, you're not in the middle.
Only because your world has no middle. It consists only of Trump supporters and leftists.
Remember yesterday when I told you there wasn't a single democrat on the site you wouldn't rush in to defend or white knight for? LOL.
Now tell us again how you are the one true libertarian because you took an online test.
No I don't. I tend to not read most of your comments. And I'm not a "true" libertarian. Starting to not like the word. I'd describe myself more as a classical liberal.
Classic Liberal a great term, used by comedian Bill Maher. You should be proud. I don't let others like JAZ define me. I am in the middle and the fact that some cannot see that does not bother me nor mean it is not true.
Maher must not have read the wiki page before saying that.
As far as middle goes, if I promoted abortions into the fifth trimester, and wanted discount sales on shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, I'd be right in the political middle.
Middle means nothing.
People too dumb to understand their own biases are rarely in the middle nor understand what the middle is.
Malcolm was in the middle.
“no middle. It consists only of Trump supporters and leftists.”
Or without the Partisan-Hack ad-lib … USA Patriots who believe in the US Constitution and treasonous [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] who think their mob democracy can build a "New Deal" empire.
>While this picture is largely true for cultural issues, the rise of populism on the right is making some of the two parties' economic policies remarkably similar. That's bad news for Americans.
Why are right-wing positions 'populist' but left-wing ones - the ones that demand goodies being handed out by the government - are not?
Would seem that the real divide here is defined as 'do the elites support those demands' - ie, welfare is supported by 'the elite' (as a means of control) so its 'not populist' but immigration control is?
>While cronyism was always a problem, democratic values remained front and center. That was good for businesses since, as Kleinfeld notes, they have tended to prosper "most under classically liberal democratic systems that upheld the rule of law and inalienable rights—including property rights."
The fuck?
Cryonysim *is* a Democratic value. Property rights are not. The whole history of the Democratic party - from the days of 'the party of slavery' to the modern 'we pretend we're not still the part of slavery' - has been state control of private industry.
Regulation and control are not the same thing. We have plenty of examples historically of the horrors of unregulated capitalism same as we do for the horrors of communism.
Regulation is control. If you don't control something, you're not regulating it.
And the Democrats have always pushed for *total control* of industry.
Ie, fascism.
We have plenty of examples historically of the horrors of unregulated capitalism
Say what? You don't get to throw out that premise without backing it up!
+10000000000... That comment deserves lots of 'praise' 🙂
Cronyism is very much bipartisan. Have you read about how the tariff scheme actually works? They work in two ways:
1. Corporation suffering from international competition goes to government and says "hey, we need tariffs on my competitors because, umm, national security." Government grants tariffs, in exchange for "favors".
2. Government decides to impose tariffs that a corporation DOESN'T want. Corporation applies for a waiver from the tariffs. Government grants the waiver, in exchange for "favors".
Here is an example of the former, with Whirlpool suddenly demanding tariffs on competitor washing machines in 2017 even after enjoying robust growth in years prior, and then just in time for the 2020 election, touting how much the tariff policies supposedly helped to create jobs in politically important states.
https://www.heritage.org/trade/commentary/why-trumps-washing-machine-tariffs-are-cronyism
Why do you think the corporations that got waivers didn't want the tariffs?
Well in those cases, they tend to be tariffs on raw materials like steel and aluminum, which drive up their operating costs and aren't directly related to stopping competition.
They're directly related to competition with others who rely on raw materials.
Well yes, but in this case, having a waiver would give them a competitive advantage - those with the waiver would get the cheaper raw materials.
Right. So promote the tariff and acquire the waiver at the same time, and viola competition has a new expense that you don’t. Grease the right wheels to be sure no waivers for the competition, and your advantage is secured for now.
Well, that is too cynical for me. But I see what you are saying.
How is that any different than, say, demanding regulations that require using stuff you already use, or require training your employees already have?
You've read Dune. Plans within plans within plans.
And if you're going to say 'small d' democratic values - those have always been 'government should do something' values. The country is full of Karens and it takes effort to refrain from interferring.
Its why the government is limited to specifically authorized things it can do - to overrule the 'democratic' tendency to try to control everything.
+10000000 Well Said.
If we were to go back to the time when immigration was largely open, with the immigrant signing his ‘X’ on a ledger at Ellis Island, and then went off to seek his fortune with the success or failure landing squarely on his or her shoulders, then this discussion of open-ended immigration could in fact, be more consistent with libertarianism. The problem is, once Jacob Riis took a few photographs and people said, “hang on” and decided that we didn’t want to be a country where 14 immigrants were jammed in a consumption-riddled single-room apartment in a tenement building with no running water or proper toilet facilities. A few dozen cholera outbreaks later and “we” decided that we were going to have some minimum standards, some public health, some welfare and some rules surrounding the conditions under which you could rent an apartment, slam the throttle forward to 2024, and open-borders doesn’t just not make sense, it’s literally pathological. That’s why Milton Friedman’s argument (which I’ve NEVER heard or seen Reason EVER address once) comes into full view: Once you have a comprehensive welfare system, the idea of open-ended immigration becomes… um, decidedly thorny.
Even then, it wasn't exactly wide open. The first immigration law was passed in 1875, the Page Act, prohibiting the immigration of Chinese women. Seven years later came the Chinese Exclusion Act. Then, in 1894, US immigration restrictions were extended to Canadian ports. In 1917, literacy requirements were added with the National Origins Formula in 1921. All of this was done during and before the Ellis Island time period (1892-1954). You'd have to go back to at least 1875 to find a period without any immigration restrictions whatsoever.
Both sides, all the way down. Per Reason's retardation about The Jones Act, the Tariff of 1789 levied duties of $0.50/t on foreign vessels, $0.06/t on American-owned ones.
Note: Being called the Tariff 1789 means the law was drafted, sponsored by James Madison and passed into law by George Washington before the 1) The Naturalization Act of 1790 and 2) The Bill Of Rights was completely drafted.
You want benefits Americans get in America? You've got to be Naturalized first.
I often bring that up with people. If you want open borders then we have to cut ALL access to government support for said immigrants. Only citizens enjoy the perks of government (we do live in society). That will turn democrats into a frenzy, frothy mess of preaching and hair pulling over how unfair that is. My other option for them is controlled immigration, with all illegal immediately deported back to their home country, which also makes them white fisted with anger. they don't seem to want a reasonable policy.
Curious to gather thoughts on whether GDP is still a good indicator of economic health? It seems like the more new wealth that’s concentrated in a fewer number of people, the less GDP will be useful to determine Americans’ perception of the economy.
Since GDP includes wasted money on government. No; It's a very crappy indicator almost contradictory indicator. As bad as pretending more socialism will fix the Crony Socialist problem.
The ugly fact that Reason staffers seem to have trouble coming to terms with is that the rise of right-wing populism was enabled by the rank hypocrisy of the liberal consensus. Making a big fuss about the injustice perpetrated by your local barber for demanding occupational licensure while turning a blind eye to the cronyism and abuse leveled by the technocratic-managerial class – through monetary manipulation, lockdowns, grants of immunity to Big Tech, bailouts, private-public collusion, etc. – has convinced wide swaths of the population that the claims to liberalism and democratic values were a deliberate act of intellectual fraud and not just a series of accidents and shortcomings. And conservative politicians and intellectuals seize on the resulting discontent. Blaming them for taking advantage of the public’s disgust at the technocratic-managerial Establishment’s wholesale perversion of liberalism is like blaming the laws of physics for the car wreck you got in while driving drunk.
I think it is entirely fair to blame politicians for acting like demagogic assholes in exploiting public fear for their own narrow purposes.
That is what happened with Trump with regards to border security. The Republican base it seems was always upset not just with illegal immigration, but with immigration broadly. And previous Republicans, like W. Bush, would deal with this by trying to deal with the problem strictly as a law and order measure, and try to avoid the racial stereotyping. "We have nothing against brown people, they just have to follow the rules!" Then Trump comes along and blows it all up. He is not afraid to say what the public REALLY thinks: yeah they do have a problem with brown people, they are shithole people who are invaders and poisoning the blood of America. That is not what a responsible human being does who is in a leadership position. But that is what Trump does because he doesn't give a shit about being responsible or tactful.
You're missing the obvious. The liberal consensus was a wholesale intellectual fraud and not just a series of accidents and shortcomings. The act of "demagogic assholes exploiting public fear for their own narrow purposes" is merely telling the truth, or at least something much more proximate to the truth than the self-serving claims of "liberalism" and "democratic values". When faced with just a modest taste of the consequences of consequences of unrestricted immigration they so long demanded of others, your enlightened, self-proclaimed "sanctuary cities" all of a sudden discovered a crisis. What? It was all just an opportunity for social posturing as long as someone else had to deal with it?
Do you think it is "the truth" that illegal immigrants come from "shithole countries" or that they are "poisoning the blood of the nation"? No, those are inflammatory opinions inspired by bigoted and xenophobic popular sentiment. Trump deliberately inflames this popular sentiment when he does this because he uses it as his vehicle to power.
Do you think it is “the truth” that illegal immigrants come from “shithole countries”
It's a more colorful turn of phrase than I'd use, but yeah. That's why they want to get the hell out of there and come here. If their native countries were functional and successful, I suspect most of them would be more than happy to stay put and remain with their friends and family in a culture they know where they speak the native language.
The fact that you can't acknowledge this rather simple and obvious fact shows just how utterly dishonest the the narrative of the Establishment you're championing is. The general populace was more then able to see precisely that before Donald Trump entered the picture. So, he didn't inflame anything. He just voiced a truth that is unpopular with the Establishment.
Has it occurred to you that many migrants may choose to come here, not because their countries are "shitholes", but because there are simply more economic opportunities for them here than there are in any other country in this hemisphere? A nation may be the model Jeffersonian Republic that you would demand, but their citizens still may want to migrate here because there's just a lot more money and opportunity here.
Furthermore, one reason why many migrants come here to fully immigrate, is because the government has made getting work permits very difficult. Why not permit migrants to come and work here temporarily, then travel freely between here and their native countries? But that is difficult if not impossible now, so if these people want better economic opportunities, they HAVE to uproot themselves and try to permanently migrate here.
He just voiced a truth that is unpopular with the Establishment.
No - he took the actual truth of the matter, which is that many countries in this hemisphere are not well run, and turned it into an ugly inflammatory appeal to bigotry. That you see the bigoted version as "the truth" says a lot.
Do you think it is “the truth” that illegal immigrants come from “shithole countries” or that they are “poisoning the blood of the nation”?
'the truth' of immigration is they're passing through multiple safe third countries who are happily and eagerly shepherding them through to our southern border, and then my non-populist technocratic elites completely threw out the "enrichment" argument and whizzed past step 1 and 2, and are now proudly at step 3, saying that we need an open-ended, taxpayer funded welfare system to house and feed them in perpetuity and at any rate that they cross the border that we aggressively refuse to secure.
Immigrants are not "poisoning the blood" of our nation, our own domestic politicians are by using immigrants as pawns in a wedge issue to expand their power to subjugate the citizens of this nation to their 'demographics is destiny' project.
‘the truth’ of immigration is they’re passing through multiple safe third countries
Whether these countries are "safe" for purposes of asylum law is a matter of dispute.
who are happily and eagerly shepherding them through to our southern border,
Even if true - it's their sovereign right to do so, I suppose.
and then my non-populist technocratic elites completely threw out the “enrichment” argument and whizzed past step 1 and 2, and are now proudly at step 3, saying that we need an open-ended, taxpayer funded welfare system to house and feed them in perpetuity and at any rate that they cross the border that we aggressively refuse to secure.
The question of freedom of association and the question of welfare benefits for migrants, are two different questions.
And if "the truth" is that the people support violating the rights of illegal immigrants, then the people are wrong and it is up to the state to protect the rights of immigrants.
It was all just an opportunity for social posturing as long as someone else had to deal with it?
OF COURSE IT WAS. They were never serious about how to deal with immigration either. THEY were playing to their own base acting as populists in their own way.
What violations of their rights? There is no innate right to take up residency in a foreign country. And even less so a right to demand accommodation in that foreign country.
There is no innate right to take up residency in a foreign country.
I agree with you that you correctly describe the status quo. But from a libertarian perspective - why *shouldn't* there be? If a foreigner legally enters into a contract to buy a house in this country, why shouldn't that foreigner have the right to occupy that house?
And note that both you and I are referring to *residents*, not citizens. I will agree that there is not, nor should there be, a right to automatic citizenship.
My only issue with your comment is you forgot to drop the microphone.
Yeah, the ambiguity of "convinced wide swaths of the population that the claims to liberalism and democratic values were a deliberate act of intellectual fraud and not just a series of accidents and shortcomings" is pitch perfect. Did it convince them that the ideas of liberalism and democracy were a fraud or that the people claiming to adhere to them were doing so fraudulently?... Yes.
If shadowbanning The Great Barrington Declaration is *l*iberal *d*emocracy, even if The Great Barrington Declaration is wrong, I don't want to be a *l*iberal *d*emocrat.
you're leaving out big oil, big banks, etc. why are you doing that? It's corporate cronies that control the government, politicians bought and paid, it's hardly just "the technocrats". your type has their feelers out to blame only science and tech because you're hung up on Fauci or some shit. Very very dumb yet disingenous.
I’m still confused as to why populism is an automatic bad word here.
Why is populism a bad word? Here is two ways where populism is injurious to liberty:
1. If by populism you mean "mob rule", well, then that is obviously bad for a lot of reasons. Furthermore, "mob rule" is the very definition of literal communism. Demonstrating once again the horseshoe theory of politics: the far right populists have much more in common with the far left communists than with the middle.
2. But if by populism you only mean "promoting the ordinary people over the elites", this also tends to be bad because, quite frankly, the "ordinary people" often have an ignorant and limited view of the entirety of a particular problem. Take for instance international migration. The modern populist view tend to be xenophobic, keep the migrants out in order to preserve what "the people" in their communities want. They often justify their position because, as taxpayers and voters, they think they are entitled to dictate to such a degree how their power and public resources are spent. This is a very narrow and ignorant view, however, because it justifies all manner of violations of liberty just as long as that is what "the people" demand. A more rational and broad-minded view is the one provided by the elites, who are the ones who tend to point out that the migrants are often fleeing from desperate situations, they are the ones who perform studies which tend to show that migrants aren't this hellspawn invasion like the populists like to claim, that they actually provide benefits to their communities, they are the ones who have a broader view of liberty and will point out that public resources are to be used to further liberty broadly, and not merely as an extension of the popular will.
This is from Federalist 55, where James Madison is writing about the Constitution's requirements for the size of the House. He is arguing that the Constitution's prescription is "just right": not too small, otherwise it's just an oligarchy, but not too large either, otherwise it's just another type of unruly mob:
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/james-madison-federalist-no-55-1788
He is right: in assemblies of large magnitude, "groupthink" takes over and reason is lost. Now extend that to the public at large and you see the problem.
the “ordinary people” often have an ignorant and limited view of the entirety of a particular problem.
As opposed to elites, who have a self-serving, indifferent, and often outright dishonest view of a problem. I'll note that when the elites were given just a very mild taste of the immigration you cite as evidence of the general populace's "ignorance and limited view", all of a sudden they went from viewing it as an "opportunity to show our compassion and dignity" to a crisis.
No, those are other populists who play to their own base. I'm referring to the people who, as I said above, actually study the issue of immigration academically, rigorously, thoroughly and morally, and not just pander to their own mob.
I’m referring to the people who, as I said above, actually study the issue of immigration academically, rigorously, thoroughly and morally, and not just pander to their own mob.
And are still insulated from the consequences of the policies they advocate. People who " study the issue of immigration academically, rigorously, thoroughly and morally (whatever that means" are just as (or maybe more) prone to all of the vices you ascribe to the mob as the mobs themselves.
And are still insulated from the consequences of the policies they advocate.
Maybe - so what? Why does that matter?
Jeff is proselytizing for rule by the elite and intelligent design. No matter how often their predictions turn out harmful.
Again you are an idiot.
I am advocating for liberty. Sometimes the elite is correct in their pursuit of liberty, sometimes they are not. It is my view that the mob is more often wrong than right in their conception of liberty.
He really should change his name to "chemjeff globalist collectivist".
Exclusion is still morally equal to inclusion, as far as the NAP goes. Therefore, migrants don't possess an intrinsic right to move to an occupied area.
Why is populism a bad word? Here is two ways where populism is injurious to liberty:
Injurious to whose liberty?
Everyone's liberty.
For every regulation that is put forth to restrict the liberty of migrants, that regulation is enforced via state violence that is paid for by taxes from citizens.
Furthermore, some regulations go even further with their intrusions of liberty against citizens, for example, the regulations that require employers to hire only legal residents. Not only must the employers pay taxes to support this scheme, but they must also endure invasive inspection by the state in their employment practices to prove that they are in compliance.
Oh you are referring to populism generally.
Because if we mean "populism" to mean "promoting the views of the common person rather than the views of the elites", then we will get a view of liberty that is most consistent with the "common person", which tends to be narrow and parochial. So they would be less likely to recognize the liberty for genuinely legitimate actions that stray from their conception of mainstream.
The open borders globalist shouldn't be writing articles on the economy.
Typical MAGA thinking patterns "I don't agree with you, so you must be silenced"
Why the US Constitution granted the Union Government Import Tax and Regulation of commerce with foreign nations.
China has a Communist Party CCP that has no Supreme Law ensuring Individual Liberty or Justice for all. In order to maintain a Fair-Trade with a Non-Free Nation both nations have to have the same Civil Rights.
The USA shouldn't have any desire to 'match' a competitive standard of Human Slavery. Take for example if the CCP whipped slaves to produce X-gadget. The USA would need slaves also to pay that debt to 'compete'? It's like trying to compete with an armed-robber financially ... unless you're in the same 'career' you can't do it and by principle of civil liberties you shouldn't try.
It makes complete sense for a National Government to not only be funded by international markets but to have control over international markets to "ensure Individual Liberty and Justice" for all of it's citizens despite what other national governments are doing to their citizens.
Or maybe just some level of acceptance that if you live in the USA the US Constitution is the law of the land and was founded the way it was for many reasons. And if you don't like that; maybe it's time to go join the CCP.
Not sure what the word “populism” is. When the government subsidizes consumption or economic growth with bullshit jobs programs and subsidizes everything based on income , you’re going to run out of people to pay for the subsidies at the margins. Why work hard when I get the same exact lifestyle being a cashier part time, I’ll just go below the subsidy threshold and someone else, somewhere else, can subsidize me. Now give me that brand new two bedroom apartment, healthcare, daycare and cash assistance!
Populism is basically anti cronyism, whether the “populists” actually spot the real cryonyism or not. MAGA populism blames everything on a mythical deep state puppeted by an “illuminati” of puppeteers behind the scenes who eat babies underneath pizza parlors, rather than the real problem: an overly powerful government controlled by a menagerie of billionaires who pull and tug it in the direction of their own best interests. All politicians from both parties are bought and paid for and pursue those interests of their various billionaire owners and masters. Trump sort of runs parallel to that and an independent, insane, messianic figure to about 25-30% of the US population (MAGA populists, per the article), and is currently befuddling the political elite while they try to figure out how to control him and his criminal tendencies. He is running his own grift trying to win again and flush it all down the drain for his own despotic rise.
Or maybe he's just one of the few who is tired of the treasonous [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] growing in the USA. Hint, hint --- A De-Regulation Committee.
You don’t understand the first thing about your political opponents. It’s embarrassing
Actually, both the left and right have the same reason for promoting protectionism: whoring for votes.
In our prostitocracy, we have converged on a treacherous form of market exchange, trading votes for at least promises of material benefits. These can be shaded with certain ideological biases but the strategy is the same.
I'd say there is a difference between UN-Constitutional whoring for votes and whoring for votes within Constitutional Limits.
I don't know why there are so many articles trying so damn hard to claim the populist left and right are the same. They aren't.
A gov't under the populist left would be very very different than one under the populist right. Don't get me wrong, both would suck, but they would suck in very different ways.
The populist right has indeed abandoned fiscal responsibility. But nowhere to the extent of the populist left. And yes, the populist right certainly wants gov't to pick and choose economic winners more than ever before, there is no doubting that. Trump was particularly bad at this. But the populist left is searching for much more gov't control over the economy - healthcare, transportation, energy, etc etc.
A war with China over Taiwan will be way more expensive than the Chips Act . Something as important to our defense and economy shouldn’t be so vulnerable.
Ackshully, "we" were duped into baiting Japan over non-addictive coca grown in Formosa/Taiwan. Japan quit the League of Nations drug treaties less than 2 years after Hoover used the 1931 Moratorium on Brains to disguise helping competing drug and narcotic producers hamstring Germany--the country that first purified mescaline. That was mid-July 1931. Hitler took office two months before FDR and Japan bailed the same month FDR was inaugurated to clean up after Hoover's party wrecked all economies.
Under coercive communist altruism, Man Exploits Man with deadly force. Under coercive Christian prohibitionist altruism the reverse is true.