Skip to main content

christie and paul political cartoon

Via politicalcartoons.com with permission

All last week, it's been Chris Christie versus Rand Paul for all the marbles in 2016. But this public feud is really a surrogate for another argument within and between the GOP: How can Republicans get more of the working class white (WCW) vote? 1992 Perot voters fall in this category (though Perot voters were certainly not all white) and have been assiduously sought by Republicans ever since 1992.

One way to court Perot voters as well as WCW voters is the approach dubbed "Libertarian populism." I'll make the case, however, that there's more that divides than unites in that approach, which is a big reason why Christie and Paul are feuding.

Let me give you a brief reading list to bring you up to speed. As one of its advocates, let's start with Tim Carney:

What is Libertarian Populism?

After multi-millionaire financier Mitt Romney badly lost the presidential election while writing off the 47 percent of the population that pays only Social Security tax, Medicare tax, sales tax, probably state income tax, and maybe property tax, a few of us on the right started saying more loudly what we’ve been saying for years: Conservatives need to turn to the working class as the swing population that can deliver elections.

Offer populist policies that mesh with free-market principles, and don’t be afraid to admit that the game is rigged in favor of the wealthy and the well-connected.

Now, Carney, like many others, points to Sean Trende. In looking at WCW voters, Trende was reviewing one of the theoretical paths to future GOP victory, not suggesting that this was the only path or the path that must be followed in lieu of reaching out to non-whites. It's not even his preferred path—he favors a Gang of Eight style compromise (despite how others might characterize his work). But Trende also was one the earliest analysts to discuss Perot voters in the context of 2012 and 2016, something we'll circle back to.

While Carney puts Libertarian populism in the best possible light, others are not so kind. See some examples below the fold.

Mike Konczal:

The specifics of a libertarian populist agenda are often lacking, but advocates sometimes point to to things like Rand Paul’s budget plan. This is a plan that calls for flat taxes, cutting discretionary spending through a balanced budget and removing the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate to promote low inflation and high employment.

This brings to mind Eugene Mirman’s joke about bears, where he notes that the common notion that you should play dead if you see a bear “is a rumor that bears spread.” Similarly, the idea that reducing the tax burden on the rich while calling for tighter money and deregulation counts as “populism” sure seems like a rumor spread by the 1 percent.

As Ross Douthat notes, this is an approach that deserves to lose given the economic realities facing the working class. From the voter’s perspective, one immediate problem is that libertarian populism looks less like a genuinely new agenda and more like a fresh marketing spin on the GOP’s current platform favoring “job creators.”

Paul Krugman:
And while many nonwhite Americans depend on these safety-net programs, so do many less-well-off whites—the very voters Libertarian populism is supposed to reach.

Specifically, more than 60 percent of those benefiting from unemployment insurance are white. Slightly less than half of food stamp beneficiaries are white, but in swing states the proportion is much higher. For example, in Ohio, 65 percent of households receiving food stamps are white. Nationally, 42 percent of Medicaid recipients are non-Hispanic whites, but, in Ohio, the number is 61 percent.

So when Republicans engineer sharp cuts in unemployment benefits, block the expansion of Medicaid and seek deep cuts in food stamp funding — all of which they have, in fact, done — they may be disproportionately hurting Those People; but they are also inflicting a lot of harm on the struggling Northern white families they are supposedly going to mobilize.

Which brings us back to why libertarian populism is, as I said, bunk. You could, I suppose, argue that destroying the safety net is a libertarian act — maybe freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose. But populist it isn’t.

Jonathan Chait:
In the face of this, a populist Republican faces two options. One is to attempt to meld the populist impulse with economic libertarianism, by devising an agenda that shrinks government exclusively in ways that do not increase inequality. You can see this in Carney’s heroic efforts to craft an agenda out of such items as abolishing the Export-Import Bank, eliminating the ethanol mandate, and reducing the payroll tax. I don’t mean to ridicule — there are real things to do here. But you could eliminate every business subsidy in Washington, and you’d still have in place a massive income gulf and a wealthy elite able to pass its advantages on to the next generation (through proximity to jobs, social connections, acculturation, spending money on education) that have nothing to do with government. The egalitarian laissez-faire economy is a fantasy.

Some Republican populists don’t shrink from this reality. By their way of thinking, market outcomes are inherently just. “Unfairness” is something the government creates by definition. This is what writers like Domenech ("the cause of limited government as a means not only to safeguarding liberty, but to unwinding webs of privilege and rent-seeking") or Levin (“Capitalism is fundamentally democratic”) are getting at. But this is not a new idea at all, merely a new label for an old conservative tradition of attacking welfare queens or New Deal goldbrickers.

Josh Barro:
But what is perhaps most amazing about libertarian populists is how they believe their own rhetoric. To them, the federal government is an entity that taxes the poor to enrich the connected and powerful. Therefore, any effort to shrink the federal government is putting the people ahead of the powerful.

And there are lots of federal programs that are about enriching the elite. But excluding the Department of Defense, the really expensive programs are either mostly about providing benefits to the poor (Medicaid, SNAP, SSI, disability insurance) or the middle class (Social Security old-age pensions, Medicare)....

But if you think devolving programs like Social Security is a good idea, you're never going to sell your economic agenda to the center of America's middle class.

This libertarian populism probably won't work for the GOP. Hey, we're a party of the working class, let's kick some people off food stamps
@UnstableIsotope
The Economist gives us another insight, too often ignored:
Yet I don't think this gets to the core of the problem with libertarian populism. I see two problems. First, right-wing populism in America has always amounted to white identity politics, which is why the only notable libertarian-leaning politicians to generate real excitement among conservative voters have risen to prominence through alliances with racist and nativist movements. Ron Paul's racist newsletters were not incidental to his later success, and it comes as little surprise that a man styling himself a "Southern Avenger" numbers among Rand Paul's top aides. This is what actually-existing right-wing libertarian populism looks like, and that's what it needs to look like if it is to remain popular, or right-wing. Second, political parties are coalitions of interests, and the Republican Party is the party of the rich, as well as the ideological champion of big business. A principled anti-corporatist, pro-working-class agenda stands as much chance in the GOP as a principled anti-public-sector-union stance in the Democratic Party. It simply makes no sense.

There's a reason we see Republicans resort again and again to a fusion of racially-tinged American-nationalist Christian identity politics, empty libertarian rhetoric (an integral part of traditional white American identity), and the policy interests of high-tax-bracket voters. That's what works!

This last comment gets to the heart of the matter. Populism is an anti-corporate, anti government (anti-"big", if you will) movement. To the extent that it's anti-corporate it can align with the left (see Occupy Wall Street) but to the extent it's anti-government it can align with the right (see tea party, and remember the Sarah Palin comments about "real America" in regard to white identity politics). [For more punditry and reading lists, see Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: Republicans try libertarian populism on for size].

Libertarians, meanwhile, are free traders and tend toward isolationism on foreign policy. Populists tend towards protectionism and economic nationalism. Perot voters? Their issues were economic nationalism (including decreasing reliance on imports and reducing immigration, and less foreign commitments), term limits (remember those?) and balanced budgets (even if it meant raising taxes, anathema to the current Republican party).

It's important to remember that Perot voters are not libertarians. In this Karen Tumulty piece, she references this interesting statistic:

In the 1992 election, for example, a Cato Institute analysis found that the 13 percent or so of voters who were libertarian-minded — those who told pollsters they wanted smaller government but tolerant social policies — split almost evenly among Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush, Democrat Bill Clinton and third-party candidate Ross Perot.
Two thirds of the libertarian vote went against Perot. Remembering that, it is perhaps not surprising, then, to see Paul and Christie at odds.

For that reason, we can again look at Christie versus Paul and imagine Paul as the libertarian champion. His path is a bit of a tough one since he'll have to be acceptable to social conservatives who are more puritan than libertarian. And he'll have to win over the establishment Republicans who (see his feud with John McCain) support a bigger military and a more muscular foreign policy than the isolationist Paul. But the trends are in Paul's favor:

Since 2010, there has been a 21-point jump in the percentage of Republican voters who say their greater concern is the impact of anti-terrorism policies on civil liberties (from 25% to 46%).
Does that make Christie a populist champion? Well, he could be. He certainly purports to represent the common man in his speech pattern (and plain speaking is part of populist appeal.) He might champion balanced budgets through reduced spending and a willingness to raise taxes (populists don't find taxes on the rich anathema). But would he champion the protectionist tendencies of Perot voters via economic nationalism? That's not so clear. And while his (relatively)  moderate views on social issues might play well with libertarians, he, too, might run into issues with social conservatives (think how Christie will play in Iowa and South Carolina primaries). I think Christie has to do everything Rudy Giuliani didn't do: establish that he is electable, win New Hampshire and Florida and make the case he can win in November.

The libertarian side of the equation will find discomfort within a party of evangelicals and protectionists. It's hard to imagine, for example, the Reform party, Perot's third party vehicle, under the aegis of Pat Buchanan and still trying to fit it into the rubric of libertarian populism. Populist, yes (in its more dangerous form, more akin to George Wallace than Perot) but libertarian, no. If you want a modern populist in its dangerous form, think Ted Cruz.

Where would the Perot voter go in 2016? Here's one hint: Ross Perot endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012. Did you know that?

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has won an endorsement that, at one time, was among the most coveted in all of American politics.

H. Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire who launched a political movement and a created his own demographic (Perot voters) in his two unsuccessful bids for the White House, has thrown his support to Romney.

It didn't make Romney a winner. But Romney wasn't exactly everyone's definition of a populist, either. What this tells us is that the Perot voter isn't going to be strictly ideologically driven, and like most voters, isn't necessarily going to be logically consistent. It's up for grabs, and whoever the winner of the demographic is, they'll have to make the most convincing case that smaller government helps ordinary people (see our reading list above to see that it's no easy task, in general because it's simply not true.)
positive/negative ratings for Republican politicians amongst GOP registered voters
Within the Republican Party who's winning? Hard to say for certain. For now, Christie's fav/unfav (+17) is worse than Rand Paul's (+36) among Republican registered voters (Pew) and NSA issues make Paul a hot topic. But among establishment Republicans, Christie represents continuity with the Bush era (Bush himself was a past beneficiary of Perot voters) and he certainly has access to money that Paul will have trouble matching.

Still, neither Christie nor Paul hits all the buttons and checks off all the boxes in the GOP the way Paul Ryan does. And even a Jeb Bush comes closer to acceptance on both sides of the argument without ticking off too many factions.

So, while it's too early to know how this pans out, this particular battle bears watching. What it says about the current Republican party has major implications for 2016 and beyond.

Meanwhile, if Hillary is the nominee, it may be that many of those Perot voters are still up for grabs for her as well. Don't forget their original intent:

In most states, the second choices of Perot voters only reinforced the actual outcome. For example, California, New York, Illinois and Oregon went to Clinton by large margins, and Perot voters in those states strongly preferred Clinton to Bush.
Bottom line: Perot voters since 1992 have trended Republican, but it's way to early too assume anything other than that they have a Republican lean these days which is not unbreakable, and a lot to sort out regarding which candidate fits their economic nationalism (and potential nativism) best. At the same time, both Christie and Paul lay claim on working class whites, but for different reasons, and still might have to battle Hillary for them. The gender gap polling of Perot voters in 2016, if it ever gets done, will be most interesting.

So why libertarian populism to get to the Perot voter? 2. It might work, and 1. They have nothing else. Or the other way around.

For more on Perot voters, especially in how they benefited George W. Bush, see It's Perot Stupid! The Legacy of the 1992 Perot Movement in the Major-Party System, 1992-2000.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Rand Paul could have made a good case for (18+ / 0-)

    peace against Christie. Instead he had to go all "Gimmie Gimmie".

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness

    by CTMET on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 05:17:25 AM PDT

  •  As a Perot voter and volunteer on his 92 campaign, (19+ / 0-)

    I wish that I didn't have to run out just now.
    I'll try to get back here when I return.

    A quick thought --

    The Perot vote is more nuanced than most folks acknwoledge, and certainly more so than the clown wing of the current Republican party.

    Just a couple of thoughts:"

    1. Perot proposed an additional 50 cent per gallon federal gasoline tax when gas was in the neighborhood of $1.00 per gallon.

    2. Perot famously described NAFTA as creating a giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the country when Al Gore was steadfastly defending it.

    You can be conservative.
    You can be responsible.
    You can believe the environment matters.
    You can believe people should be paid for what they do, not simply thrown scraps.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 05:17:42 AM PDT

    •  I don't put them down (29+ / 0-)

      and thanks for reading!

      But Perot voters at core were economic nationalists and did not fear taxes. In fact, taxes were [gasp] a powerful tool to balance the budget.

      Almost the opposite of libertarians. Certainly the opposite of the current GOP.

      I don't write this as a critique of what was wrong with Perot voters, I simple pose the question where will they go now?

      I don't believe they are a great fit for the GOP.

      You're a very good example.

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 05:28:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perot voters and Libertarians have a certain (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CroneWit, Greg Dworkin, Matt Z, MHB

        crossover -- not really opposites, but possibly incompatible.

        The big problem with self-identified libertarians -- and a place where they most definitely are opposites of Perot voters and just about any rational person -- is that they tend to be rigidly dogmatic.  I lump them in with self-identified communists for that reason: utopian idealists with different ideas of utopia, but more or less useless when it comes to the problems of real society with real issues and real diversity.

        Hmmm. As I think about it, progressives come awfully close to that description, except that there seems to be a greater range of people who identify themselves as progressive.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:03:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  came across this Balz article (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CroneWit, koNko, happymisanthropy, Matt Z

      you might find it interesting.

      Don't be too quick to mistake tea party for Perot movement (2010)

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:03:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Perot was on the side of the plutocrats (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eps62, TomP, Van Buren

      because, like Romney, he is one. It is really that simple.

      Perot's criticized both Social Security and Medicare and wanted to reduce spending on them. In fact, reducing spending and cutting the deficit was really the core of his platform. Kind of like Ryan in that way, although Ryan is proposing to do it with smoke and mirrors.

      •  big difference was that (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eps62, TomP, dinotrac, Matt Z

        Perot would be happy to raise taxes to reduce the deficit, particularly on the wealthy. He was especially interested in taxes that went toward education.

        "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

        by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:53:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That right, dinotrac. Working class whites are (0+ / 0-)

      mostly lost to the Dem Party, now.

      Especially a Clinton--after NAFTA.

      Much of my professional life was spent advocating for those who were "left behind" due to NAFTA.  Part of my job was to help them pick up the pieces of their lives after their (decent) jobs left.

      It was not a pretty picture, and is one of the main reasons that so many working classes Americans, especially males, left the Dem Party.

      No, the Party has splintered into special interest groups for several decades now.

      And now that the Dem Party is leading the charge to throw Seniors under the bus with the President's proposed cuts to Medicare and Social Security (included in his 2014 budget), Dems are increasingly writing off the senior vote.

      The Dems best hope is to nominate a Hispanic candidate, such as Antonio Villaraigosa, former mayor of LA.

      They will depend heavily on minorities and the youth vote, many of whom would not turn out for Secretary Clinton (IMO).

      But I believe that the Dem Party Presidential field will be greatly influenced by whether the roll out of the ACA is a great success or a disaster.

      Time will tell. ;-)

      Mollie

      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


      hiddennplainsight

      by musiccitymollie on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:23:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absurd to claim that minorities and youth (5+ / 0-)

        will not turn out for Clinton.  In addition, many working class whites voted for Bill in 1996 after NAFTA.  Hillary is not black.  That will obtain some votes from this cohert.  If some working class white men won 't vote for her, she 'll make it up with working class white women.  Even the white, blue color working class is big and varied.  To reduce all their votes to NAFTA is simplistic, especially because Rs favor trade agreements also.  

        Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

        by TomP on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:38:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As they say, "To each their own." My opinion is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dinotrac

          profession based--not anecdotal.  ;-)

          Let's not forget, that the Dem Party emphasis for many years now has not been on the working classes.  The catchall phrase for Dem Party Presidential candidates since Gore ran has been "middle class."

          I blog at union websites from time to time.

          There is a great deal of upset (and anger) among some of the union rank-and-file, now that they realize that their so-called "Cadillac" health insurance plans (which they negotiated as part of their wages) was negotiated away by their union leaders (I believe starting in 2017), with Senate Dems leading the charge on this.

          (I've posted the newspaper piece regarding this several times, here.)

          And I believe that this could be a factor in the 2016 election--regardless of who the Democratic Party candidate is.

          Obviously, the Dem Party will garner some of this vote.  I never meant to indicate that they wouldn't.

          In our university town (15,000 students), we have seen a growth in both the libertarian and the liberal college movements.

          Frankly, more and more youth today appear to believe that our traditional "legacy" parties are broken.

          Mollie

          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          hiddennplainsight

          by musiccitymollie on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 09:01:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Those cadillac plans (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Stude Dude

            have become a major liability for the people who have them.  I'm painfully aware of that, since my parents (Dad was a steel worker) are on one.  When the ACA penaly on cadilac plans went into play, the insurance premiums for my parents doubled, and they can't say 'Affordable Care Act' without a great deal of sarcasm, as we have to skip out on vacation this year simply because of the abrupt $2,400/year increase in their insurance.  I tell them they need to get on a slightly worse plan, like mine which is good but not in the 'cadillac' tier, because that penalty is a cruel kick in the nuts to people who work or worked dangerous jobs (mining, cokeworks) at a reduced wage to get the extra good health plan someone in a dangerous job needs.

            I expect it will all work out in the end, but I think the time scale in which it actually works out for the people it affects (I'd guess 6-10 years) is far too long a time period for people who have already retired to depend on.

            The point is, if the union leaders bargained away those plans for better wages, they should be thanked.  For all the great things the ACA does, it has made those plans an anchor around the neck of working and lower-middle class people.

            Currently reading: Path To A Better World: A Plan for Prosperity, Opportunity, and Economic Justice by James Aldus

            by Aramis Wyler on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 09:59:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again, unionized public employees get hit too (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musiccitymollie

              most had these "Cadillac"plans that in NJ they already have seen what some writers call "draconian" and "cruel"cuts  in services and increases in premiums even before the ACA. Some are looking at 2000 dollar deductibles on top of premiums that aren't much less for family coverage.

            •  You just made my point, Aramis W--thank you. (0+ / 0-)

              Aramis Says:

              The point is, if the union leaders bargained away those plans for better wages, they should be thanked.  

              I say:

              Union leaders did NOT bargain with Dem Senators for better wages?  How on earth is that even a possibility?

              Aramis says:

              For all the great things the ACA does, it has made those plans an anchor around the neck of working and lower-middle class people.

              I say:

              And because Democratic Senators wanted to implement a tax surcharge on "Cadillac Plans," in order to help pay for the ACA--many former and present union workers and their families WILL LIKELY BE PRICED OUT OF THEIR EXISTING EXCELLENT HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS!  Sorry, "caps" for emphasis--not to yell at you.  ;-)

              And, that is also why I said that once the ACA is implemented, the Democratic Party may find that it will be more difficult to garner some of the working class (especially union) votes.

              I'm sorry if my sentence "syntax" was so sloppy that you thought that union leaders negotiated some great wage package IN EXCHANGE FOR passing the Cadillac Tax.

              Didn't mean that.

              Dues to the "terms" of the ACA (regarding the Cadillac Plans), some of those union plans may be too expensive for unions members to afford them.

              And yes, some of those union members will likely be "forced into" much less substantial health care plans, which no one should want for themselves, or anyone else, IMHO.

              What I was trying to say was that at some point in time, your Dad's wages were probably negotiated "down" or exchange for, those very excellent health benefits that he can barely afford now.

              I didn't mean to imply that US Senators and the union leaders were negotiating wages for your Dad (or any union worker).

              I wish the best for your Mom and Dad . . .

              Mollie

              "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


              hiddennplainsight

              by musiccitymollie on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 10:42:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Wow -- I wish my insurance would double like that (0+ / 0-)

              A little snarky, and not to suggest that you parents should be happy at the increase -- after all, that benefit was negotiated in good faith over the bargaining table as part of an overall compensation package, but...

              Those increased premiums are still only  a third of our premium for a very high deductible almost better than nothing plan.

              Which is a big part of a problem:

              Not cadillac plans,
              people who can't get decent health coverage, or, better still, affordable health services.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 02:00:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Democrats perplex me lately. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musiccitymollie, Matt Z

        I've always thought of them as the party that actually cared about working Americans.

        But --

        Not so much lately.
        Sure, they make noise in that direction, but...
        Do crap.

        Not all Democrats, and, so far as I can tell, not most of the rank and file, but --- D or R, the Washington clans seem to be a steaming pile of Screw You to those who merely work for a living and do all of the things that make communities -- and countries -- work.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:41:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dems have been no friend to public workers (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musiccitymollie, betterdemsonly, MHB

        either, from Arne Duncan to Rahm E, to Chris Christie, the patsy of the South Jersey Dem machine....oh wait Christie is a Republican.

        •  Heard on a XM radio program, The Press Pool, (0+ / 0-)

          that Christie has a higher approval rating among Democrats, than among Republicans.

          If this is accurate, go figure.

          Mollie

          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          hiddennplainsight

          by musiccitymollie on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 11:07:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  where? not in NJ (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            musiccitymollie

            approval in NJ is  89-6 R and 48-41 D

            Christie (Pew) is nationally 47 fav/30 unfav, don't know what he is with Dems.

            "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

            by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 11:27:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  way too high for a complete fuck up (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musiccitymollie

              both as a governor and as  human being.

            •  Greg, since "The Press Pool" doesn't have audio (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Greg Dworkin

              podcasts, I can't post the show where the host (Julie Mason) read this poll.

              A quick "DuckDuckGo" search brought up several results showing that Christie has higher "favorables" among Dems than Repubs (it may mean nationally).

              In some areas, Christie's policies are not that different from many corporatist Dems.  Especially on education--he loves this Administration and Arne Duncan.  A couple of years ago, he was on YouTube video praising Duncan and the Obama Admin ed policies.

              And he famously got along with the President during Sandy or some national disaster (not that I'm criticizing that, BTW).  

              So, I don't know, since I'm not from NJ.

              Just know what Mason said, on her show.  I truthfully don't recall the "name" of the poll she was citing.  Just happened to have her show on while I was paying bills online.  ;-)

              Here's a couple of excerpts and links that came up when I did a "search."  Again, which of these polls Mason was referring to, I truly don't know.

              Gallup: Christie More Favorable Among Dems Than GOP Voters

              WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – A new poll finds that Wisconsin representative and 2012 vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan is the most popular politician among Republicans.

              In a Gallup poll of recent GOP newsmakers being listed as 2016 presidential possibilities, Paul Ryan was given a 69 percent favorable rating among right-leaning U.S. adults. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was also rated favorably, while Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was actually given a higher net favorable rating among Democrats than among Republicans.

              But the GOP politicians’ favorable ratings are not echoed by Democrats or the U.S. population as a whole.

              and,

              Poll: Christie Approval Higher With Democrats Than Republicans

              Chris Christie's popularity is growing, but Democrats view the New Jersey governor more favorably than do members of his own Republican party.

              According to a new nationwide Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 43 percent of Democrats said they view Christie positively, compared with just 40 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of independents.

              and, this one where his rating is slightly higher for Repubs, but VERY high among Democrats, as well.

              Rutgers poll: Christie approval ratings remain high

              By PolitickerNJ Staff | June 12th, 2013 - 12:05am

              NEW BRUNSWICK – Gov. Chris Christie maintains high job performance ratings, according to a new Rutgers-Eagleton Poll released Wednesday.

              On the one hand, Christie has a 70 percent approval rating of his job performance, and breakdowns are strong in various political leanings: Republicans (87 percent), Democrats (85 percent), and independents (88 percent).

              I don't agree with everything Mason says, but she appears to be pretty accurate in her reporting.

              She conducts interviews with top newsprint reporters from NYT, WaPo, Reuters, The Hill, Politico, etc., etc.

              Mollie

              "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


              hiddennplainsight

              by musiccitymollie on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 01:02:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  His proposals were mainly structural. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stude Dude, Matt Z, schumann
      Perot made a splash by bringing a focus to fiscal issues such as the federal deficit and national debt; government reform issues such as term limits, campaign finance reform, and lobbying reform; and issues on trade.
      The Reform Party platform includes the following:[2]

          Maintaining a balanced budget, ensured by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment and changing budgeting practices, and paying down the federal debt
          Campaign finance reform, including strict limits on campaign contributions and the outlawing of the Political action committee
          Enforcement of existing immigration laws and opposition to illegal immigration
          Opposition to free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement and Central America Free Trade Agreement, and a call for withdrawal from the World Trade Organization
          Term limits on U.S. Representatives and Senators
          Direct election of the United States President by popular vote
          Federal elections held on weekends

      A noticeable absence from the Reform Party platform has been social issues, including abortion and gay rights. Reform Party representatives had long stated beliefs that their party could bring together people from both sides of these issues, which they consider divisive, to address what they considered to be more vital concerns as expressed in their platform. The idea was to form a large coalition of moderates; that intention was overridden in 2001 by the Buchanan takeover which rewrote the RPUSA Constitution to specifically include platform planks opposed to any form of abortion. The Buchananists, in turn, were overridden by the 2002 Convention which specifically reverted the Constitution to its 1996 version and the party's original stated goals.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      I didn't consider him conservative at all. I voted for him and I'm pretty far from a conservative, though I'd have trouble with the immigration stuff today.

  •  Let's get something straight, Mr. Carney. (22+ / 0-)

    There is no "maybe" in whether people pay property taxes unless they are evading those taxes.  People who rent property - houses or apartments or warehouse space or whatever - pay property taxes.  They may pay those taxes to landlords instead of paying them directly to the state, but they pay them nonetheless.  Property taxes are rolled into the rent landlords charge their renters, and a portion of that rent is then sent on to the state, city or county appraiser's office.  There is no "maybe" about that.

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

    by SueDe on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 05:17:45 AM PDT

    •  I would love to see a breakdown (0+ / 0-)

      of the average rent payment, and what percentage goes to property taxes, property upkeep, and the like, and what percentage is pure profit for the property owner.

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 09:55:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Libertarians are ANARCHISTS... (14+ / 0-)

      ....who want police protection from their SLAVES.

      "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

      by leftykook on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 05:31:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is an accurate description (11+ / 0-)

        Not the first time I've heard it, but it pretty much sums up libertarianism in one short sentence.

        The core of libertarianism is not unfettered personal liberty free of the tyranny of big government, but personal liberty as long as your personal liberties do not intrude on my property.  It may seem minor, but it's a huge distinction that most faux libertarians (including tea party types) don't begin to understand.

        Modern day faux libertarianism is rooted completely in fear of "the other".

        UID: 14791 Join Date: 7/7/2004 Status: Lifetime member Mojo: nearly infinite Any questions?

        by Richard Cranium on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:35:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've absolutely robbed it from someone... (8+ / 0-)

          ....just can't remember who deserves the credit.

          I've pretty much adopted it in place of the more common "Libertarians are are Republicans who want to smoke pot" meme which I find to be soft-edged and serves to candy-coat the vicious and selfish impulses these people advocate as policy.

          "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

          by leftykook on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:42:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The word "property" is the core of libertarian... (6+ / 0-)

            philosophy.

            Not freedom.  Not personal liberty.

            Property.

            To a true libertarian, property is more than just that which you own or hold title to, but anything you control.

            UID: 14791 Join Date: 7/7/2004 Status: Lifetime member Mojo: nearly infinite Any questions?

            by Richard Cranium on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:35:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  and yet we constitutionally can have our property (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Odysseus

              taken away at any time by the government whenever it sees fit. As long as they pay what they think is fair for it, and I'm not even sure about that last part....

            •  Real anarchists (anarcho-socialist) (0+ / 0-)

              prefer to call the self styled right wing "Libertarians" (a term originally used by left wing anarchists well over over a hundred years ago) propertarians. Real anarchists who are the original libertarians (a much misunderstood philosophy) believe that private property (used as the means of production) is founded on the baseless authority of the wealthy class (dating back to monarchs, lords, and feudalism), and used to enslave the working class (anyone who works for a boss), by the act of stealing the surplus profit produced by workers.

              Thus, propertarians really don't care if most people are slaves to the ruling class, and thus they don't really support liberty.

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 12:01:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Libertarians are whatever they want to be (11+ / 0-)

        It is such a nebulous term and no one can define exactly what a libertarian even is. It ranges from the nutjobs in the Ayn Rand camp, to anti-tax types like the Kochs, to militia types, to college kids who just want to smoke pot legally.

        Just another day in Oceania.

        by drshatterhand on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:38:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Libertarian ideas are rooted in a delusion of the (7+ / 0-)

          the self-made individual totally independent from society

        •  You are certainly correct...but... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CroneWit, TomP, Joe B, True North

          ...they DO agree on a variety issues that are based in selfishness and unconcern for the well-being of others.  (No doubt they'd screech back in defensive spasm that their critics are evil Statists intent on enslaving Americans in their  Gulag-state-like I said, a bunch of anarchists)

          "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

          by leftykook on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:48:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CroneWit, otto, followyourbliss, TomP, eps62

          If they ever won an election by mistake, they could never in a million years come up with a governing agenda that wouldn't fracture the libertarian coalition beyond broken.

          You will not be punished for your anger. You will be punished by your anger.

          by mstep on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:51:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Still (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP

          That's a bunch of uniformly horrible people.

          •  I disagree (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joe B, True North

            I have some friends that aren't "horrible" who claim to be libertarians, but only because they've grocery shopped a few libertarian ideas off the wide aisles of crazy, like legalizing drugs or superficially they like the idea of a flat tax because they're not sophisticated enough to understand the idea of a progressive vs regressive tax scheme.
            The term libertarian is so protean. It's whatever you want it to mean. Therein lies the danger. You have college students loving a turd like Ron Paul because they want to smoke pot legally, yet they would be repelled by his anti choice, antigay ideas if they actually did any research on him.

            Just another day in Oceania.

            by drshatterhand on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:24:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you could arguably add (0+ / 0-)

              anti-libertarian to anti choice, antigay.

              "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

              by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:28:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Actually there is a history of the term (0+ / 0-)

              It goes back to France in the mid 1800s to mean anarchism (which generally is a non-authoritarian form of socialism).

              These early anarchists also used the term "libertarian" and these terms predate the nonsensical American versions by more than a hundred years.

              The original usage of these terms is still used today by anarchists, as well as in Europe by the general populations, and elsewhere. It is Americans who have confused the meanings of these terms, since Americans are largely ignorant of what anarchism really is.

              And when one tries to correct the American usage, they stubbornly cling to their misconceptions. They simply don't know the history.

              See my other comments in this thread.

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 12:25:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  That's a misuse of the term anarchy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leftykook

        Anarchism means without rulers, or the absence of authority.

        In true anarchism, which is completely anticapitalist, people organize effectively around principles of egalitarianism and direct democracy, with community assemblies which have a system of giving each person an equal voice. The community uses methods of self-management. It is not chaos, but rather highly organized to serve the needs of the community. But there are no individuals given authority that cannot be immediately revoked by the general assemblies. Delegates are sent to federations of communities, and the delegates are mandated to enact the decisions and goals of the general assemblies. Delegates are recallable if they try to aggregate power to themselves. It is free socialism.

        This is an example of the original meaning and application of the term anarchist. And thus, the right wing self-styled adoption of the terms "libertarian" and so-called "anarcho-capitalism" are viewed as completely illogical misunderstandings of these terms. The right wing never understood libertarianism and anarchism, and their attempt to usurp these terms, and the resulting misunderstanding of them which has rippled through the US (but not Europe, which still uses these terms as they have always been used in the original meaning) have muddled the waters and confused people.

        I agree, though, that right wing so-called "Libertarians" could care less about real freedom, since they still support private ownership of the means of production and the resulting wage slavery. And they do want authority to exist to support the ruling class domination of property.

        So I agree with you, I just don't like to call them anarchists.

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 12:17:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I could see how such usage demeans... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ZhenRen

          ....honest anarchists who aren't deranged greed-heads.

          As an aside, I do not understand how any group larger than about 150 people can be reasonably directed or managed without some sort of defining structure that settles the inevitable disagreements.  I don't see how a collectivist group with decentralized management could effectively produce something like a Boeing 747 with it's millions of parts and thousands of components that all need to fit together, and all of which need precise and repeatable characteristics.

          "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

          by leftykook on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 06:28:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Anarchist Spain had collectivized as many (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            leftykook

            as 8 million people during the Spanish Civil War.

            And these anarchist collectives built airplane engines to supply the war efforts throughout Spain. The industrial pats of Spain were the regions most concentrated with anarchist membership in the union (the CNT).

            To explain how  this works would take a lot of writing. Small participatory communities form federations with each other, on local, regional and national levels. Delegates are sent to form the federations. The delegates are mandated and recallable. The federations form agreements. In capitalist republics we would call the agreements "laws" but in anarchist society they are far more mutable and are made by the people, not bureaucrats. It is a horizontal society, and bottom up in structure, rather than vertical and top down.

            This is unfamiliar to people but it works.

            The products of a company like Boeing would certainly be possible in anarchist society. All these same engineers and technicians would still exist, and would still design and do research, and create tools and products. The difference is they would work together in team work, delegate authority that is subject to the worker-managed factory, and otherwise carry on as usual. The CEOs of companies like Boeing don't do the engineering and design, that is supplied by the rank and file. These workers would meet, make plans, design products, and manufacture them, just as before, but with a more egalitarian workplace. They might conceivably do even better, since the profit motive would be absent and thus safer, better designs would result.

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 06:49:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly right. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aaraujo

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:39:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not totally. Our university campus (Mid Atlantic (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eps62, True North, aaraujo

      state regional state college--15,000 enrollees) was swamped with Ron Paul stickers the past two Presidential election cycles, especially in 2012.

      And the College Dems here have lost a relatively substantial number of members to the fledgling organization "College Liberals."

      I could be wrong, but it appears that both legacy parties are losing popularity among some college age youth, and that the two more ideologically pure subgroups (libertarians and liberals) are gaining some ground.

      I suppose that it could be a passing fancy, due to economic conditions.  

      We'll see. ;-)

      Mollie

      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


      hiddennplainsight

      by musiccitymollie on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:42:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You must have met my oldest son (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      True North, aaraujo

      He drives me nuts when we discuss politics.

      Society is merely organized injustice. Clarence Darrow

      by Van Buren on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:59:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The most humorous definition I've ever seen (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aaraujo

      is that "libertarianism is anarchism with crappier music."

  •  My current view is that Rand Paul equals (18+ / 0-)

    John Birch Society.  There is nothing benign about that.  Koch brothers as well.  The new names might be libertarian, tea party or patriot group but the views line up perfectly.  American fascism is not any better.

  •  Doesn't Matter, It's All About Getting the Brown (12+ / 0-)

    people and college professors out of our wallets.

    That's conservative populism.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 05:25:02 AM PDT

  •  Gotta love this from Carney: (13+ / 0-)
    "...don’t be afraid to admit that the game is rigged in favor of the wealthy and the well-connected."
    Yes, Repiglicans, 'fess up. Especially when you are the ones doing the rigging. Not gonna hold my breath. I'll turn bluer.

    "He went to Harvard, not Hogwarts." ~Wanda Sykes

    Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.

    by OleHippieChick on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 05:26:50 AM PDT

    •  hence... (6+ / 0-)
      “The president claims his economic agenda is for the middle class. But it’s actually for the well-connected,” Paul Ryan, the GOP’s 2012 vice presidential nominee, wrote this week in USA Today, rejecting Obama’s latest proposal for a corporate tax cut. “There’s no doubt that it works well for them. But for the rest of us, it’s not working at all.”...
      from yesterday's APR, a Dana Milbank column

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 05:34:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll take what Lyin Ryan says with a grain, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CroneWit, koNko, eps62

        especially when that ass Millbank reiterates it.

        "He went to Harvard, not Hogwarts." ~Wanda Sykes

        Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.

        by OleHippieChick on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:05:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ryan is correct about this (6+ / 0-)
        “The president claims his economic agenda is for the middle class. But it’s actually for the well-connected”
           Of course, HIS party's economic agenda is even WORSE. And Ryan himself is one of the sleaziest, most amoral political figures in American history.

           But as long as the Democrats continue pushing a neoliberal corporatist economic agenda, they're going to keep leaving themselves open to these kinds of attacks. And heaven help us if enough voters buy into these attacks to put these Ayn Rand fascists into power.

             

        "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

        by Buzzer on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:18:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ...one of the sleaziest, most amoral.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eps62, Matt Z

          THAT'S  Ryan, alright.  That photo op he did in the soup kitchen, washing already clean pots?  OMG!  I was absolutely floored at the utter ... I don't even have a word...

        •  What Ryan meant to say (0+ / 0-)
          Today, in a speech in Chattanooga, Tenn, President Obama said he's interested in tax reform for corporations -- but not for families or small businesses the top 1%. Once again, the president is playing favorites.. ”
          The president claims his economic agenda is for the middle class. But it's actually for the well-connected. There's no doubt that it works well for them us. Today, we have record poverty and high unemployment. For too many families, the American Dream is out of reach [applause]. But it has not gone far enough!
  •  The WCW is up for grabs... (19+ / 0-)

      ...only because the Dems have abandoned them.

      Of all the ways the DLC crowd has sabotaged the Democratic Party, this has been the most egregious.

       We are ALL labor -- whether we're burger-flippers or pro athletes or nurse practitioners or software engineers. When the Democratic leadership finally understands that and crafts messaging and policy to that end, it will be an electoral steamroller.

      Until then, the Republicans will be all too happy to pick off a good portion of the working class with their divide-and-conquer rhetoric, deeply steeped in racism.

       Maybe that's the plan. Because if the Dems win too much, they'll be expected to, you know, actually deliver.  And as we saw in 2009-2010, that makes the Dem leadership extremely uncomfortable.

       

    "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

    by Buzzer on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 05:29:06 AM PDT

    •  lot of truth in that n/t (8+ / 0-)

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 05:32:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm trying to write a diary (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CroneWit, Dallasdoc

        About the Farm Movement. I'm scratching my head over why the Dems wandered away from labor during the '80s instead of doing something intuitive like solidify that relationship when we were getting into the era of worker concessions and executive bonues.

        I'm also wondering the Dems didn't cosy up to family agriculture during the big GOP "keep the grain export the farmers" back-stabbing.

        "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

        by Stude Dude on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:38:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  campaign funds, no doubt (4+ / 0-)

          Third Way thinking was compete with the GOP over Wall Street campaign dollars. Think Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd.

          "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:41:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  One big caveat, though, is that many WCWs (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pamelabrown, True North

          spew anti-union, anti-labor nonsense like they're CEOs.  One take away I remember from the Wisconsin governor recall election was that 30-33% of union households voted for Walker, and some fire and police unions ENDORSED him.

          Some commentators suggested that Barrett wasn't a great friend to labor, so union voters weren't hugely motivated to support him.  I get that, but that doesn't explain the tens of thousands of union members and their immediate family members who were proactive in voting FOR Walker and AGAINST themselves.

          From observing the WCWs that make up most of my family (especially my 50 yo BIL) it seems as if they are compensating for their economic and social insecurities by buying into an aggressive, I'm-so-self-reliant machismo, that is really a form of cognitive dissonance.  My BIL went out after work and stood in line for 40 minutes to vote for Romney, a guy who, if he took over my BIL's company, would lay him off and close his plant.  BIL's reasoning:  People want a handout, and Romney and the republicans would do away with that.

          •  other people want a handout (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Egalitare, eps62, True North, Stude Dude

            me, I earned my social security, and get your hands off Medicare.

            "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

            by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:53:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Ihave had people on this site who work for NJ (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Stude Dude, blugrlnrdst

            state gov't say they were not paying enough for health insurance and deserved the pen/ben changes wrought by the christiecrats, because they were frankly too stupid to understand that as public employees they were already paying 100% of their premiums because it had come off the top of their salary before they even started working. ( David Cay Johnston does an excellent job of explaining this )

    •  WCW has been up for grabs b/c 64 Civil Rights Act (9+ / 0-)

      don't count out the reason that poor whites vote GOP is because of color

    •  One thing to consider (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      People often attach themselves to groups for a stated reason, but really the reasons are otherwise.  

      It's convenient for many white racists to claim that they are voting Republican for a secondary reason.

      Streichholzschächtelchen

      by otto on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:30:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with you there (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Buzzer, eps62, betterdemsonly

      ... although the racial appeal should not be forgotten, as aaraujo points out below.

      I'm having trouble with this argument from the diary:

      Populism is an anti-corporate, anti government (anti-"big", if you will) movement.
      I'm trying to think of a populist movement that was against both of those things.  Maybe the original populists back in the 1880's, but since the farm population has shrunk so badly and farm subsidies are such an important part of rural life that's not coming back.

      I see populist movements more recently as either anti-corporate OR anti-government.  Either New Deal or Reaganite, IOW.  Republicans clearly want to revive Reaganite populism, but it's not really germane to the problems we have nowadays.  They keep trying to apply the same remedy to an illness they misdiagnosed in the first place and which their remedy has turned into something worse and different.

      Anti-corporate, pro-labor populism, OTOH, is a much better fit for today's political and economic realities.  Teddy Roosevelt and FDR showed that big government, or at least regulatory government, is a necessary part of a left populism that works.  And history has shown that it does work.  

      In order to be consistent populists with an useful agenda, Republicans would have to become New Deal Democrats.  I'm not waiting for that to happen.  They're much more comfortable with spouting self-contradictory bullshit than weaning themselves off the corporate teat.

      We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

      by Dallasdoc on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:46:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's hard to be anti big (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc

        anti-gov or anti corporate dominates at one time or another which is why populists are at times pulled to the D side and at times (most recently) pulled to the R side.

        But one can argue, for example, that OWS didn't love the current govt. approach while clearly disliking the 1% corporate approach.

        Still, it's never equal and one or the other predominates.

        "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

        by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:56:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  in order to be consistent populists (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc

        thet can nominate Ted Cruz. That's the dark side of populism.

        "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

        by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:57:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That the DLC drove out working class whites... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Egalitare, Stude Dude

      ...is a myth.

      As another commenter notes, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one major factor in motivating working class whites in the South to jump ship and go over to the Republicans.  And I'll note that the phenomenom of "Reagan Democrats" came well before the DLC was created.

      So perhaps a different frame is in order, which is to note that the DLC policies have done nothing to get those working class white voters to return to the Democratic party.

      So think of the DLC not as the cause, but rather as a failed solution that doesn't want to admit it is a failure.

      Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

      by TexasTom on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:28:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But do note (0+ / 0-)

        that by and large we are talking about working class whites in the South...

        as opposed to the Midwest/Big Ten states.

        As for the Reagan Democrats (the perfect profile of a Reagan Democrat would be in Macomb County in Michigan, my home state) that has to do with a lot of other factors mostly related to the economy

  •  just for fun (5+ / 0-)
    Predicting the GOP civil war. In 2006. http://t.co/...
    @DemFromCT

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

    by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 05:32:51 AM PDT

  •  Excellent article (6+ / 0-)

    I like the idea of the Republicans nominating the person who ticks off the fewest people. I can think of many Democrats and Republicans who've gone down in flames as that sort of nominee.

    The GOP jobs plan is to manufacture outrage.

    by Doug in SF on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 05:38:43 AM PDT

  •  In my non-scientific study (12+ / 0-)

    the nouveau libertarians are Republicans who do not want to be associated with the party any longer - Sarah Palin started the stupid in 2008, followed by the 2012 stage lineup of Perry and Bachman and Gingrich and Cain. It's embarrassing so they found someone else to identify with & in 2016 will probably stand with Rand. They still get to oppose "big government" and hate on the Democrats but are less associated with the religious right and complete crazies like Ted Cruz. Plus, guns.

    Organizing is what you do before you do something, so that when you do it, it is not all mixed up. A. A. Milne

    by hulibow on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 05:40:16 AM PDT

    •  Sarah Palin would be a libertarian (11+ / 0-)

      populist. If she could pronounce it.

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 05:52:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Never happen, too many syllables. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CroneWit

        Right Palm: "Lib- er"
        Left Palm: "tar-an"

        She's need another hand to write: "Pop-list"

        400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

        by koNko on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:45:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not sure she would be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Greg Dworkin

        Remember that one of the ways that she was popular in Alaska as governor was that she raised the fees that were assessed on the oil companies and used that money to enlarge the payment that every qualifying resident of Alaska gets from the state government each year.

        That's certainly populist, but I wouldn't call it libertarian.  And it's certainly not something that got talked about much since she left the governorship, as it's not a concept that would play well with Republicans in the lower 48.

        Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

        by TexasTom on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:30:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  to be a libertarian populist (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          True North

          is to compromise one or the other. That vignette doesn't disqualify her. She's for smaller government and free market solutions while throwing ordinary people who aren't her under the bus -  and playing to the dark side of populism.

          Another way to put it: if you want to be a purist, there aren't ANY libertarian populists.

          "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:35:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Libertarian populists must be loony... (7+ / 0-)

    if they think a flat tax will shrink the gap between the top and bottom income deciles. Even with our, ostensibly, progressive income tax the wealthiest 400, on average, consistently pay a lower percentage of their incomes in total taxes than a person making less than $30K.
    "According to calculations by [Sen.] Whitehouse’s office -- which match our own [Politifact] -- when you include Social Security and Medicare taxes, the effective tax rate for the wealthiest 400 Americans would have been 16.72 percent in 2007; the tax rate for a worker earning $29,000 a year would have been 16.79 percent."
    http://www.politifact.com/...
    To eliminate the current meager progressivity of income taxes would only worsen inequality. And methinks these faux populists know this only too well. Despite their rhetoric they are acting as beards for the 1%-ers who control the Republican party.

  •  Neoliberals should be afraid of it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude, CroneWit, eps62

    people are getting fed up with the status quo.

    Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

    by The Dead Man on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:08:06 AM PDT

  •  Libertarian Populism (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, CroneWit, Dallasdoc

    Policy wise...Oxymoron and up there among The famous Bush Orwellian inspired,Leave no Child Behind, Healthy Forest And Clean Air Acts names. It's all in the branding...

    That said apparently the GOP is trying to appeal to the, "You can fool some of the people all of the time" part of the population.

    Yeah, WCW in addition to the things Krugman points to, they also value education and you know, decent paying stable jobs with benefits.

    Government of, for, and by the wealthy corporate political ruling class elites. We are the 99%-OWS.

    by emal on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:13:41 AM PDT

    •  populism does include a tradition (1986 article) (7+ / 0-)
      NOT SO LONG ago, intellectuals seemed to be the most picked-on weaklings in the school yard of American politics. When George Wallace ran for president in 1972, he blamed "pointy-headed intellectuals" for everything from rising crime and changing sexual mores to busing and the stalemate in Vietnam. Vice President Spiro Agnew had exploited the same theme in 1970 when he attacked the country's "effete corps of impudent snobs," those "nattering nabobs of negativism" who opposed the Nixon administration. Two decades earlier the vocabulary was different but the mood was similar. In the fall of 1952 the epithet "egghead" was coined, apparently by columnist Stewart Alsop, and enjoyed wide circulation. Republicans gleefully used it to deride Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson and the writers and professors who supported him.
      http://www.newrepublic.com/...

      just to show how the pendulum swings.

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:19:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  more... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CroneWit, emal, MHB
      Elvin T. Lim, an associate professor of government at Wesleyan University and author of The Anti-Intellectual Presidency (Oxford University Press, 2008), says Republican candidates often use comments like Mr. Santorum's to separate themselves from the pack and build trust with their base.

      "It's a last-ditch effort to make sure the base comes out for him," he says. "It's not surprising that we see that the most strident forms of anti-intellectualism in these closing days of the primary."

      Here's a sampling of what candidates past and present have said about those highfalutin innalekshuls.

      http://chronicle.com/...
      An intellectual is "a man who takes more words than are necessary
      to tell more than he knows."
      —Dwight D. Eisenhower

      "They are more concerned with the trivia and the superficial
      than they are with the things that have really built America."
      —Lyndon B. Johnson

      "Pointy-head college professors
      who can't even park a bicycle straight ... "
      —George Wallace

      Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau
      was "a pompous egghead."
      —Richard M. Nixon

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:22:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  LIBSTICK on a PIG = Libertarian Populism (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude, CroneWit, ukit

    Few following and believing in the Libertarian Party understand that it is the wet dream of two powerful groups:

    The Theocrats & The Billionaires

    And Libertarian Populism?  A phrase fresh out of the Department of Disinformation.  A clever one because the country needs a true populist candidate.

    These charts show how Prince Rand, just like his dad King of the Revolution, Ron, is just a water boy for The Theocrats & The Billionaires.

    Double click to enlarge and play with an interactive version of this RAND Paul map:

    RAND PAUL

    Rand Paul, David Koch Connection- Donors Trust

    Note Donors Trust and State Policy Network (Both Koch baced)

    And in this Muckety Map we can see where Koch and Ralph Reed Connect

    David Koch, Ralph Reed, & Christian Coalition

    And in this Mucket Map we can see where Ralph Reed and Clarence Thomas (Ginny Thomas) connect as well as the NRA and more $Billionaires.

    Ralph Reed & SCOTUS Clarence Thomas Connection

    Click here for interactive version of this last map.  Rebecca Donatelli is a Libertarian kingpin.

    http://www.muckety.com/...

    IN SHORT, the same John Birch Society types, the dominionist theocrats, and The Billionaires are

    THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY and are providing the Libertarian rhetoric called

    Libertarian Populism

    WILL AMERICANS EVER BE FOOLED BY NICE WORDS AGAIN?

    Dig and report.  Use Muckety, sourcewatch, opensecrets, as well as your own intuition and REPORT.

    We can't afford to be hoodwinked in 2016

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:29:41 AM PDT

  •  socialism (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CroneWit, eps62, happymisanthropy

    The right has made "socialism" a dirty word--but, in reality, capitalism deserves that description.  Our present system rewards back room deals, back stabbing, and inequality.  When we had a true graduated tax structure, the results were curtailed by redistribution.  Back in the 1960s, we also seemed on our way to a regulated system with workers owning a part of the company through pension stock purchases.  
    Today--we hear of death taxes and government strangulation--of makers and takers--of off shored money.  Without strong unions, the only way to force more equality is by restraining capitalism--a system that rewards selfishness.  Republicans will never do that--libertarians act as if we are a country of 3 million, not 300 million.  Many Republicans want to go back to nullification and Jim Crow.  People will not always vote against their self interest--even if it satisfies their bigotry.

    Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. John Kenneth Galbraith .

    by melvynny on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:39:02 AM PDT

  •  I think you have one things very right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CroneWit, eps62

    The GOP knows it has to become populist to win and won't get there with Black, Hispanic or Asian voters, so the only choice is to try to attract more of the white working class and get them out to vote while trying to suppress minorities and elderly voters.

    Not looking good for them.

    400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

    by koNko on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:39:32 AM PDT

  •  Libertarian Populism (4+ / 0-)

    "Libertarian Populism" is not libertarian.

    With any luck, it will not be popular, either.

    Let's see:

    Libertarians stand for no legal restrictions on abortion.

    Libertarians stand for ending the war on drugs.

    Libertarians stand for ending religious restrictions on who you may marry

    Libertarians stand for ending corporate welfare

    Libertarians stand for ending our current batch of foreign wars...That's the opposite of libertarian warmonger (which is kind of like liberal fascist) Chris Christie

    Libertarians stand for ending the National Surveillance State.

    Libertarian populism stands for none of these core libertarian issues.  Libertarian populism is a Republican bald-faced lie from Republican two-faced duplicitous liars--but I repeat myself.

    Restore the Fourth! Save America!

    by phillies on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:41:39 AM PDT

    •  The original libertarians were communists (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      True North, happymisanthropy, MHB

      who wanted a classless society without a central government. They wanted to completely abolish hierarchy and privilege and create a society of federated workers' communes. Some of them also promoted (at the time) radical social ideas like feminism, LGBT rights, and free love, back in the 1800s.

      It's not until the 1970s after a long ideological evolution that you get "right-wing libertarianism", which shares some of the original libertarian views (freedom of association, anti-militarism) but rejects the idea of an equal society. Instead, freedom is now seen as unrestricted power for capitalist business elites.

      Fast forward a few decades and you have Rand Paul/ Tea Party libertarianism. Now, "libertarianism" is not only pro-capitalist and pro-elite, but now also embraces social conservatism and other traditional right-wing views.

  •  Tea Party distancing from GOP? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    True North, betterdemsonly

    I hope this isn't too far off-topic, but the Guardian reports that Tea Party people seem to be distancing themselves from the GOP.  Since the Tea Party is a "potent mix of anger and populism", and have already replaced many 'standard-brand' Republicans, this further shift will play into any developing 'populist politics', imo.

    http://www.theguardian.com/...

    But as many tea party stars seek re-election next year and Rubio considers a 2016 presidential run, conservative activists are finding themselves at a crossroads. Many of their standard-bearers have embraced more moderate positions on bedrock issues such as immigration and health care, broadening their appeal in swing states but dampening grass-roots passion.

    [...]

    The tea party is a loosely knit web of activists, and some are hoping to rekindle the fire with 2014 primary challenges to wayward Republicans. But many more say they plan to sit out high-profile races in some important swing states next year, a move that GOP leaders fear could imperil the re-election prospects of former tea party luminaries, including the governors of Florida and Ohio.

    [...]

    . . . [In 2010] The tea party wave stunned Democrats and many moderate Republicans, sweeping the GOP into control of the House and changing the balance of power in many statehouses.

    But not long after some tea party stars took office, political analysts said, they were forced to adapt to a changing landscape, particularly in states Obama won in 2012, and to the realities of governing.

    The tea party also fell out of favor with many people. At its height after the 2010 elections, a CBS News poll found that 31 percent of those surveyed considered themselves tea party supporters. A May survey found just 24 percent identified with the movement.

    [...]

     . . . The movement's top strategists acknowledge the tea party is quieter today, by design. It has matured, they said, from a protest movement to a political movement. Large-scale rallies have given way to strategic letter-writing and phone-banking campaigns to push or oppose legislative agendas in Washington and state capitals. . . .

    The Republican establishment, however, is concerned about 2014. Party leaders worry about the GOP's most passionate advocates walking away, particularly those supporters angered by the Senate's immigration bill.  . . .

    Three things jump out at me here:  (1) Some TPers plan to sit out 2014 -- ie, not vote; (2) TPers plan to continue primarying GOPers from the right; and (3) There's been a big drop in the percentage of voters who self-identify as TPers (31% to 24%).

    These three factors suggest to me that in 2014 and 2016 the Dems will be facing a divided Right Wing that is less mobilized to vote.  This looks like a good thing to me.

    Now -- where are our Democratic populists?  I'd say we need a few.

  •  Well Perot Voters May Not Have Been ALL White But (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CroneWit, a2nite, True North

    according to the linked data:
      1 - Perot won 19% of the electorate
      2 - Whites constituted 87% of the electorate in 1992
      3 - 21% of Whites voted for Perot
      4 - 21% of 87% = 18.3% of electorate voting for Perot
      5 - 19% - 18.3% = 0.7%

    Therefore, less than 1% of Perot voters were non-White.

    So, yes, not ALL Perot voters were White, but...

    I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party.

    by OnlyWords on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:48:41 AM PDT

    •  another estimate here (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CroneWit, True North
      They look alike. Tea party activists, like Perot voters, are overwhelmingly white. According to a recent Washington Post poll, 87 percent of those who said they strongly support the tea party movement are white. In 1992, 94 percent of Perot voters were white.
      This is from a very goos article by Dan Balz I didn't see until just now, looking at the difference between tea party and Perot voters.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:59:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, bad math (0+ / 0-)

      One percent of voters were non-White and voted for Perot, but 0.7/19 (3.7%) of Perot voters were non-White, according to your statistics.

      20, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
      politicohen.com
      Love the class war, hate identity politics and purism
      UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.4.12, -4.92

      by jncca on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 05:56:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Voter Non-Participation Is A Sleeper Element (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CroneWit, True North

    Every once in awhile a Ross Perot or a Jesse Ventura will be able to capture that sleeper element outside of the two party system. Libertarian populism is just libertarian with a word added on.  It will never get more of a share of the vote than Ron Paul has been able to muster over the years. Angus King might represent a little bit of that sleeper element wheere people engage them because they perceive them from being outside the 2 party system that independent voters and the independents who are casual voters do not want to identify with. But Ventura, Perot and King are not libertarian populists.

  •  ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CroneWit
    came across this great @danbalz piece from 2010: http://t.co/... Wish I had seen it before I wrote mine: http://t.co/...
    @DemFromCT

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

    by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:07:51 AM PDT

  •  Economic know-nothingness (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CroneWit, a2nite

    Libertarian populism depends on liars and know-nothing people as subscribers. Luckily for the liars, there are more than enough know-nothings to go around. And a lot of them already think the Democrats are cultural elitists, so it's not a stretch to convince some of these people that Democrats are economic elitists too.

    It's not like any of them are ever going to crack open an economics textbook, so all they have is a he-said/she-said kind of economics, no empirical evidence required or wanted.

    You will not be punished for your anger. You will be punished by your anger.

    by mstep on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:08:09 AM PDT

  •  I think the GOP primary is going to have 3 fields. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CroneWit, True North

    Christie will represent the Neocons.  Paul will represent the Isolationists and Jeb or Rubio will represent the semi-moderate, almost mainstream.  As much as the GOP has lurched to the right, the nominee usually comes from that last category (Romney defeating Santorum, McCain holding off Huckabee).

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

    by Spider Stumbled on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:09:30 AM PDT

    •  if jeb runs he is well positioned (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Egalitare, a2nite, True North

      same with Ryan.

      I'm sour on Rubio. All hat, no cattle. And he has really ticked off his activist base on immigration.

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:27:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure about Rubio. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Greg Dworkin

        He and Jeb are the best candidates for them, because they would probably carry Florida and might even make it a non-battleground.

        Rubio could be playing a long game.  If Hillary win, and gets re-elected, Rubio can run in 2024 at the age of 53.

        But even in 2016 he may be well-positioned.  Immigration will hurt him in the primaries but it looks like he might be able to say "Yeah, I was open to a deal but it didn't happen.  No harm done."  And then, if he is the nominee, he can turn to the general and say "Look, I tried to make a deal, but it didn't work out."  

        "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

        by Spider Stumbled on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:59:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Huckabee is a genuine (conservative) populist (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CroneWit

    One of Huckabee's best lines in 2008 was his nickname "Club for Greed" for the Club for Growth. The moneyed wing of the GOP fears him for his populism.

    He's a big draw for WCW voters, and he could have potentially defeated Obama in 2008 had he been the GOP nominee that year.

  •  I've always been suspicious of libertarians (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude, Bush Bites

    They have often been Republicans, because it's the best way to adhere to Republican policies while not actually being a Republican.  

    I now have to listen to a whole new breed.  

    Flat tax-

    Let's say you and I both start off with money.  I have 100 bucks, and you have 1 million bucks.  We earn that much each year.  Each of us get taxed at 10%.  

    How is it possible to imagine a scenario like this without recognizing that the poorer person is not only going to have to continue making what they are making, but they will also have a deficit to make up.  

    I don't think this really applies in a one to one comparison, but in the aggregate, that seems to be the general idea.  You can't really increase a middle class if the people who might be in the middle class have to constantly make up for that deficit.  There's no catching up to be done in a flat tax world.

    Streichholzschächtelchen

    by otto on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:24:33 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for Carney and the referenced piece (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Greg Dworkin

    by Conn Carroll.

    Nice to know there are others who see the world in a way that is almost shockingly similar to my own view.

    I might have quibbles with some of their prescriptions -- I'm not sure if we need to break up big banks so much as cut them completely out of the consumer market, and I havern't convinced myself that free market health care is possible without some major legal transformations -- overall, the things they suggest are the kinds of things I believe in.

    It's wrong, however, to call what they describe libertarian populism.  I am convinced that libertarianism -- at least the kind acknowledged by people who call themselves libertarians -- is incapable of stretching enough to be that pragmatic and effective.

    Let's just call those proposals what they really are: genuinely conservative, and not the faux-conservative actual Tory Rush Limbagh brand.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:44:26 AM PDT

    •  'tis not me that came up with the label (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dinotrac

      it's Carney and Domenech, afaik. I don't think libertarianism is capable of populism. Too much defense of property at the expense of other people.

      But you also get at something else. Like or hate it, it's the same old same old, with a different label.

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:00:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Same old same old is fine. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Greg Dworkin

        Democrats have been running with the same old same old for at least 80 years now, and you guys seem quite happy with it.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:38:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  indeed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stude Dude, dinotrac

          I'm a big FDR fan, with a soft spot for RFK ;-)

          Point is, I guess, that you can't expect Perot voters to love the GOP because you stick a different shade of lipstick on the pig. What's in the box matters, not what's on the box.

          Yeah, i get it. Some Perot voters are natural bacon lovers. Can't argue with that. ;-)

          Difference between parties, as referenced in the main piece? Dems accept that sometimes you have to redistribute wealth to the have nots (arguing how to do it as fairly as possible is time well spent). GOP simply does not accept that it is ever necessary.

          "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:46:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Libertarians are the real TAKERS... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, True North, Matt Z

    They don't want to pay taxes (let someone else). Then they assert their Freedom and Liberty to do what they want and take what they want.

    I don't even have to write any more except that the 1%ers are driving the same spirit for their minions, the Libertarians, Bagghers, Thumpers and Neo-Confederate Isolationists who don't want to be part of the Nation.

    The real TAKERS are the combined GOP/TPer party people.

    Ugh. --UB.

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

    by unclebucky on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:54:01 AM PDT

  •  Let's Talk About Their Solutions for the Problems (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    Oh. Yeah. There aren't any, are there?

    The first thing people need to take care of themselves is a reliable and sufficient income. People get "government handouts" because they qualify for them. So, if you want to reduce the number of people the government is funding, then all you have to do is make sure they have their own reliable and sufficient private income.

    So, would these people prefer a much higher minimum wage? Are they in favor of an international minimum wage and tariffs? Do they favor EFCA? Are they prepared to bring all states up to a standard that enforces union contracts?

    Or, healthcare. How do we get universal, affordable healthcare in the US? Other countries can do it, why can't we? Well, we can't because we try to make individuals fend for themselves. We tell them they should go out on the private market and get healthcare from giant, unaccountable corporations.

    The solution is a publicly-funded healthcare system where the federal government pays all essential healthcare costs out of a progressive tax. What's their solution? They don't have one. They cant' solve this problem. In large part, they don't even see it as a problem.

    Do they actually have a solution to any problem? No, what they propose is cutting government spending and offloading the costs on the taxpayers. They don't have solutions to problems.

    And, without a solution to the problem, what's their appeal to working people?

  •  The key is to fool the base (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    by waving shiny objects in their face (abortion! gays! Benghazi!) while behind their backs slash their social safety net. At the same time, you make them feel guilty for needing that safety net -- "if you're a good enough Christian of course you wouldn't need all this help, so we're taking this away in order to make you a better Christian." And they buy into the crap.

    There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

    by Cali Scribe on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 09:42:50 AM PDT

  •  Perot's message was economic protectionism. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude

    And balancing the budget.

    Not sure how people view that as Libertarianism.

  •  Thanks Greg nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Greg Dworkin

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 10:12:28 AM PDT

  •  They really need another Jack Kemp. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    He proposed reforms to make the markets work better on behalf of working class people, or at least he thought he was doing that.

    Obamacare is basically based in that type of thinking, which sometimes leads me to believe Obama triangulated the Repubs into being scorched earth Libertarians.

    The Paul Ryan's of the world just want to cut regs, cut taxes, and hope for the best.

  •  I voted for Perot (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, Greg Dworkin

    in a grade school mock election. He was the cool independent.

    Chechnya: Russia's North Carolina.

    by NE2 on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 12:21:02 PM PDT

  •  I truly fear too many (0+ / 0-)

    democrats (center ones) lauding Christie as a moderate.

    Christie is anti union; anti public education; anti Obamacare; and overall, I see him as an obnoxious bully.

    This rhetoric of Christie representing the "common man" of the NJ persuasion seems really off to me.  I have friends and relatives who live in NJ.   They are neither rude to others, nor prone to obnoxiously bully in public anyone, let alone their constituents.

    I really get riled when I hear the  MSNBC gang giving public praise to Christie for doing what any one person with common sense would/should do: represent his constituents need for federal dollars after a disaster.   I get even more riled when left wing bloggers seem to claim Christie is reasonable.  He's not reasonable to anyone who believes in unions, in public education, in health care.  JMO

    “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” Louis D. Brandeis

    by Jjc2006 on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 09:27:34 AM PDT

    •  while I agree (0+ / 0-)

      see today's q poll on front page.

      http://www.quinnipiac.edu/...

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 12:51:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I had seen that already (0+ / 0-)

        and I am as sad as I am perplexed.   Did the centrist dems learn nothing from their support of Reagan.  The Reagan dems were/are a big part of the reason we lost so much ground on unions, so much support for public education.

        If progressives/liberals and dems do not wake up, we may as well give the keys to the kingdom to the plutocrats and oligarchs.

        Chris Christie is an anti union, anti public education, pro Wallk Street, jerk.  

        “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” Louis D. Brandeis

        by Jjc2006 on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 02:04:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site