Sentences to ponder from the Dirtbag Left

On a recent episode of the popular podcast Chapo Trap House, co-host Will Menaker used a memorable metaphor in addressing calls for unity on the left. “Republicans in control of politics, that’s the problem,” he began. “However, to the pragmatists out there and the people who don’t like purity in politics, yes, let’s come together. But get this through your fucking head: You must bend the knee to us. Not the other way around. You have been proven as failures, and your entire worldview has been discredited. You bend the knee to us and then let’s fucking work together to defeat these things, not with fucking means testing or market-based solutions but with a powerful social democratic message.”

That is reported by Jeet Heer at The New Republic.


Always to good to hear from raging, impotent whiners whose tribe lost the Historic 2016 US Presidential Election.

And yet they remain so forceful-sounding! So impressive!

Thanks for the laugh, Ty.

Get 'em!

Not to be nit picky, but the Democrats lost the election but won the voting, by oh 2-3 million for President and some 20% more votes for Congress. We can debate all sorts of reasons for this beyond the obvious gerrymandering, but just to suggest things may not be quite as dire for the Democrats that they need to adopt the coarseness and alternative facts of the opposition.

So what, they lost so the strategy of getting lots of votes in California is not working.

For what it's worth, the head of the President's election investigation went on tv today to say "we will never know" who won the popular or electoral vote.

Painful, and where does it leave us?

"“we will never know” who won the popular or electoral vote."

I'd say that was Fake News, but in reality the site doesn't make that claim. So it's more like a Fake Comment.

From the link:

"During an interview with MSNBC's Katy Tur, Kobach was asked if he believes that Clinton won the popular vote.

"We may never know the answer to that," he said. "We will probably never know the answer to that question. Because even if you can prove that a certain number of votes were cast by ineligible voters, for example, you wouldn't know how they voted.""

I'm sorry, what was fake? Trump's claims about millions of illegal votes? Kobach's reduction of evidence to "we will never know?"

Or the concession that if you are going to play evidence free "never know," it cuts two ways?

"I’m sorry, what was fake? "

You're comment was fake.

"“we will never know” who won the popular or electoral vote."

You inserted and italicized the word electoral. Kobach never mentioned the word electoral. Indeed the word isn't even in the entire article.

Huh, ok. I will leave everyone to see the logical connection.

Katy Tur: "So are the votes for Donald Trump that led him to win the election in doubt as well?"

Kobach: "Absolutely."

Ah, sorry. Wrong link for "absolutely"

"Huh, ok. I will leave everyone to see the logical connection."

There is no direct connection and you were just caught in a rather transparent lie.

"votes for Donald Trump that led him to win the election"

Equals, after just a tiny bit of math

"Electoral votes"

Thus this is no longer just Donald's complaints about the popular vote. Kobach implicitly puts the electoral tally, and the election result in question.

You don't like that, complain to Trump/Kobach.

This should have been a short note that Kobach takes Trump's popular vote asshattery and makes it more ridiculous.

But let's play some games that "the votes for Donald Trump that led him to win the election" do not add up to electoral votes on the way to "win the election."

Asshattery all the way down.

As Charlie Brown though perhaps not Charlie Sheen would say, "good grief!"

We KNOW who won the electoral vote, Nathan, you daft pillock!

I shouldn't care, because it does improve the shield of anonymity, but you guys are pretty funny.

Anyone left of Bill Buckley is a "Nathan."

Heck, in this day and age Bill probably is a Nathan.

As regards your claim, who is "we" who "KNOW?"

The President's hand picked investigator does not.

Katy Tur: “So are the votes for Donald Trump that led him to win the election in doubt as well?”

Kobach: “Absolutely.”

We also know who won the popular vote, scumbags like Kobach notwithstanding.

The Republican House candidates won 1.4 million votes than the Democratic House candidates. I believe your figure comes from counting votes in Senate races as well, which is iffy because it's going to be dependent on which states are holding a Senate race in a particular year. Most notably, the California Senate race was between two Democrats with no Republican candidate on the ballot, and there was no Senate race in Texas.

It depends on your lack of standards. More people voted for a slate of electors other than the Democrat slate so nobody can claim a majority. Under a ranked-choice system, we can only speculate but I would think they would get fewer first choice votes. Perhaps, much, much fewer. Trump also won the election under the rules given. Had it been a first-past-the-post election he would have campaigned in cities and probably won that as well; Sen. Clinton certainly would have found a way to lose.

The electorate is also fairly arbitrary. I don't think the legacy parties would have done as well with those below 18 although history shows they could do well enough in a shooting war if their commander looks OK. Trump is popular among Russians, they have an interest in the outcome as they may be victims of America's foreign policy, and they pay more taxes via import duties than an inner-city Democrat does.

That's like saying a football team didn't lose the game because they gained more yards than the other team despite losing the score 28 to 7. It's a nice stat to bring up, i.e. how could a team who gained so many more yards than the other (or votes) end up losing so big in what matters? You sound petulant and whiny not picky.

I suspect those whiners think it wasn't their tribe that lost the general, but the other tribe (HRC/neolibs) that lost the general after stealing the primary.


I had no candidate in the general election--except, of course, by default: I wanted the Clintons out of politics. What I got with Trump's election is as much as such an election _could_ have offered--Clinton's ( and the Clintons') defeat. Of course, I wasn't really expecting the DLC-Obama-Clintonistas to actually learn anything from the loss. That's expecting too much.

this tribe did not have a candidate in the 2016 election...

Bernie Sanders

So let me get this straight. Having just lost against a human cheeto, establishment Democrat types are going to mock the faction their side deliberately sabotaged as 'impotent whiner losers'? Uh, excuse me, but again, you just lost against the tiny fingered vulgarian. So you really don't get to use 'loser' as an insult. What's the worst case had you allowed Sanders to run? That he would have lost worse? He wouldn't have, by the way, since many of the people who voted for Trump would have voted for Sanders if they'd been given the chance. In the absence of the genuine economic populist many voters opted to take a gamble on the asshole economic populist. But to entertain such realities liberals would have to accept that the election was a de facto referendum on them and their garbage, harmful policies.

And what's more, having lost against their preferred, 'pied piper' opponent (what an amazing campaign Hillary ran. They couldn't even get the fairy tale correct. They clearly meant Goldilocks opponent; a pied piper who got people to vote for him is in fact what Trump turned out to be), and losing not one but four consecutive runoff races on the same empty technocratic platform (on top of years are state level losses that have left the party weaker than it's been in the better part of a century), establishment Dems think they have any business being left in charge of the 'resistance' against Trump. Hah!

"Oh, please do tell us how to fight the Nazis, Monsieur Gamelin, since you're clearly so good at it."

Also, no, comparisons to the infighting between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks are not valid. In that case it was a fight between different flavors of the left. The current ongoing battle for control of the Democratic Party is one between an establishment that are essentially Republicans with better PR, and actual progressives. It's a fight of the center-right vs the left.

LOL, ask the right wingers around here if ANY of the Dems (Obama, Pelosi, Shumer, etc.) are "center-right". Remember Obama was a Kenyan socialist.

The right wingers around here consider anything to the left of Francisco Franco to be "commie bastards"


It's arrogant and rude. What's to ponder? (The source is also a no-account).

Art Deco, thy name is hypocrisy

Art can at least back up some of his claims.

Sure, but irrelevant. Do you know what hypocrisy means?

No, I don't. Prior needs to link to the appropriate Wiki site, lol.

I think the thing to ponder is the self-righteousness and where it leads to from here. See Jonathan Haidt's excellent article on why classifying speech as violence is wrong.

Anti-fa and BLM have proven that they are willing to engage in violence as part of the political process. It's getting hot out there!

There are always dingbats who insist that, once you surrender control to them, they will lead you to great victory.

They are first a danger to themselves, then a danger to the people who would follow. Everyone else can generally ignore them.

Trump actually achieved a victory, which proves how morally bankrupted America has become. Its people does not believe in its leaders anymore. Trump and Clinton were/are hated, despised, mocked and feared. Americans came to see their leaders as enemies.

We might have to invade and crush Brazil again like in 1891 to cheer ourselves up.

Brazil was not invaded in 1891. It is a lie. Brazil has never been defeated.

Stop lying, Thiago.

It is not a lie, it is a widely known fact. Brazil has never been defeat at war. Brazil is bigger than the Roman Empire at its height, has one of the biggest economies in the world, including the biggest meat producer company in the world and the best aircraftmaker company in the world.Brazil's is widely respected around the world.

More lies. Do all Brazilians lie as much as you?

Brazilians are honest, there are no Crooked Clinton Lyin' Teds and Dishonest Donalds in Brazil. Our moral values are strong. Meanwhile, bitter partisanship and hopelessness fuel the greatest moral crisis in America's history. A drug epidemic is destroying America's social fabric and lowering life expectancy. Meanwhile, Brazilians, with our sense of purpose, are enacring the boldest reforms since the Glasnost/Perestroika.

LOL no.

Yes, while Mr. Trump is widely despised, President Temer has been considered the world's most intellectually accomplished leader in the world and hisnreforms are the boldest since Gorbachev's. Meanwhile, America remains grindlocked.

LOL nao.

"Brazilians are honest, there are no Crooked Clinton Lyin’ Teds and Dishonest Donalds in Brazil. Our moral values are strong. "

And back in the real world:

"JULY 12, 2017
RIO DE JANEIRO — The former president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, was found guilty of corruption and money laundering on Wednesday and sentenced to nearly 10 years in prison, a stunning setback for a politician who has wielded enormous influence across Latin America for decades."

Come on TR. If you are going to pretend to be an actual Brazilian, you need to at least read the international news regarding Brazil.


It is different, JWatts! His alleged "crimes" were only found after he left the office. In Brazil, crime is punished, a good chunck of Brazil's GPD and Congress is behing bars because, in Brazil, we believe the law is for everyone. The judge's sentence says "no matter how high a man ranks, the law ranks higher". Meanwhile, none of the Americans I mentioned was or ever will be punished. I am proud of how much we care about justice, not only about how rich someone is.

But you said Brazilian moral values are strong. You said there were no Dishonest Donalds or Crooked Clintons. How can a good chunk of Brazilian politicians be behind bars if that's the case? Are they from Dayton Ohio like you are?

Evidently, Brazil is no Utopia or the Heaven, but there is not the systematic chearing that there is in America. In Brazil, the Federal Police chief doesn't choose presidents or let guilty people go with a slap on the wrists. A compromissed president would never be elected and Clinton would never be a candidate. Brazilian values are so strong that a former president has been sentenced and another president has been impeached. And president Temer is under invesrigation to make sure he did nothing wrong. The few who commited crimes are being investigated and punished. I can believe it could ever happen in America. There, when money talks, people listen. "Now, certainly, simple honesty is not too much to demand of men in government. We find it in most. Republicans demand it from everyone. They demand it from everyone no matter how exalted or protected his position might be. The growing menace in our country tonight, to personal" - Goldwater
Brazilians still demand honest from all. As the title of a famous Brazilian movie says, "the law is for everyone". Americans, unfortunately, can not say it anymore.

"Anti-fa and BLM have proven that they are willing to engage in violence as part of the political process. It’s getting hot out there!"

I've been worried since the election about this idea of a "Fort Sumter" moment on the horizon from this side of the political spectrum. That they may just be foolish enough to do something really heinous or try a false-flag at one of these riots/protests that ends up motivating a proportionally lethal response.

These people are playing with fire. I firmly believe they haven't thought (largely because they can't think...) about some of the end results of their provocations on themselves and their platform and that a lot of people on both sides could end up seriously hurt or dead.

There are likely 400 million firearms under govt. and private possession in the US, with the vast majority being owned by people that are absolutely not their friends.

They aren't talking about the "right" or "conservatives" bending their knee, idiot. This speech was purely addressed to the Clintonites within the Democratic party. It has nothing to do with people on the right.

Right now it's Bolsheviks vs. Menshiviks or Nazis vs. Brownshirts, but after the internal conflict is over, who's next?


Cute. But it's really more like Goldwater Republicans vs Rockefeller Republicans, or McGovern Dems vs Humphrey/Muskie Dems.

But really instead of making snarky comparisons to Nazis and Commies, you could just say the fact that it's Sanders Dems vs Clinton Dems. Who's next? Next will be whichever Rep runs against their nominee in 2020.

Yes. I know who it was addressed to. No, you're wrong that it has "nothing to do" with people on the right. It will absolutely matter once the doubleplusungood wrongthink people that need to bend their knees are purged and we're dealing with new bosses...same as the old bosses.

Talking of Haidt, can we talk about changes in offense without talking about the rise of victim morality and the fall of a culture of dignity?:

The culture on display on many college and university campuses, by way of contrast, is “characterized by concern with status and sensitivity to slight combined with a heavy reliance on third parties. People are intolerant of insults, even if unintentional, and react by bringing them to the attention of authorities or to the public at large. Domination is the main form of deviance, and victimization a way of attracting sympathy, so rather than emphasize either their strength or inner worth, the aggrieved emphasize their oppression and social marginalization.”

Of course, this culture, where individuals "win" victimhood through "intersectional" layering of their subaltern oppression and aggressive, rude claims of victimisation, is *deeply* repellent. Hypocritical and self serving cowardice tends to lose sympathy in the end. So it's not a stable new culture.

By the time it does, though, that whole culture of dignity is gone, so its back to honor and dominance ("deviant" behavior under the victim morality, unless cloaked under the guise of victimisation).

Good analysis. Tyler, with his ridiculous hypersensitivity to slights against the transgendered, combined with his nonchalance towards campus violence against the right, has done his own small bit to contribute to this culture.

And yet, how little this mattered to him, the extinction of freedom of thought on campus! He has done his part, but petty academic status-seeking has always been much more important to him than that ultimate goal.

Sounds like they're just taking a page from Trump to me.

Not that that works on the left.

We mustn't be rude, now! It's respectable to run detrimental, anti-human policies, both foreign and domestic, for decades, but be civil about it! Being rude is clearly the worst possible crime. Why, he used potty language! Ah! Ah! I feel faint!

Also, he isn't a Very Important Person. Does he have Twitter account with a blue check next to his name? No? Then he doesn't matter. Away with this peon! Do not further afflict me with his words!

None of these poor children were alive in 1972...

Good luck!


It's clear that these people are silly, and mostly clear that their politics are destructive. But it's also pretty clear that 2017 isn't 1972, and that the problems animating the country aren't the same ones as were rampant 45 years ago. Nobody would have guessed that Donald Trump (Donald Trump!) could capture the national mood, any more than we might have guessed that an avowed socialist who honeymooned in the USSR could almost capture the Democratic nomination. It's completely possible that everyone's crazy Jewish uncle would have been stomped by Trump, just as it's possible that he might have done the stomping. I truly don't know.

But I'm really not confident that George McGovern is the historical analog here. These feel like uncharted political waters. Who knows what influence a "dirtbag left" movement might have, and when you say "Good luck!" I take that to mean less for the next cycle's election possibilities, and more a message to the country. Good luck indeed - I feel like we're going to need it!

Good points, but it's not just their politics that are destructive. The whole country is more politically stupid and polarized than it's been since maybe the 1920s, if not the 1850s. It started in 1994 and it's just gotten worse and worse. I hope Trump represents the final step before the fever breaks but it's not looking good. There are some hypotheses out there that massive technological changes beget political insanity, and the timing seems right (mechanization in the 19th century, electrification and the auto in the 1920s, automation/AI now). We may have to deal with this for a couple more decades. Ugh.

"It started in 1994 and it’s just gotten worse and worse."

It didn't start in 1994. It was clearly in full swing in the 1980's with the sometimes hysterical reaction from the Left regarding the Reagan Presidency.

Not really, JWatts. You can cherry pick hysterical reactions all the way back (vs Nixon, vs FDR, etc). 1994 is the beginning of when both sides started treating the other as the enemy and not as Americans who just felt differently about some things. And not just some wackos, the base of each party cannot even fathom the other side.

For example, in the 1980s you mention, can you imagine a Democratic speaker of the house and a Republican president today working together and even liking each other as well as Reagan and Tip O'Neill did? Would either of their voter bases allow it?

But when Reagan called the Democratic Party in 1964, the Party of Marx, Lenin and Stalin, it was business as usual...

But when Reagan called the Democratic Party in 1964, the Party of Marx, Lenin and Stalin, it was business as usual…

When and where did he do that?

Awful politicians would be less of a problem if government didn't increasingly infiltrate private life.

And the 'political insanity' probably derives from an entire generation living in unprecedented comfort and security, even as they remain hard-wired to real danger.

So the wrong position on Medicaid makes you evil and dangerous. Extremism doesn't have consequences.

"1994 is the beginning of when both sides started treating the other as the enemy "

"“I’ve known personally every president since Jack Kennedy and I can honestly say that Ronald Reagan was the worst. " - Tip O'Neill

As I said, 1964. Or look for his famous "The Speech" endorsing Goldwater.

God damn it Thiago Ribeiro/Thomas Taylor, I was enjoying teasing your Brazilian ass. OK, the game is over, you are not Brazilian. I suspected but wasn't sure. Why the hell do you keep up that character? You could be so much funnier like JAMRC and all his trolling characters. You just repeat the same illogical stuff over and over. Oh well, I can finally stop teasing you, it's no fun now that we know for sure you are faking it.

I am making a reference to something I said. I was the first here ro point that Reagan accused the Democrats of being Communists in the times politics were supposed to be "nice". Do you even read this blog?!

Then, I linked to the speech itself. Now, the first Google hit was the isolated quote, it was enough to answer Deco.

Just stop, Thomas. Whenever you break character your typing goes from mistake-riddled and awkwardly phrased to normal American English. Just stop, it's over.
It is sad that I have to do your thinking for you.

I commit typing mistakes because my hands are too big for this tiny keyboard. Koreans are much smaller than Brazilians and it shows on their products.

Not as sad as you pretending to be some insane Brazilian for years on end. Even JAMRC gets tired of some of his characters (bring back the Commodore!)

I am Brazilian, I quoted Reagan before it was cool and I am right: he called the Democrats communists as anyone with even a passing knowledge of the 1964 election knows.

The first time I caught you posting as Thiago when you meant to post as Thomas Taylor I wasn't sure about it. But 2 times is confirmation. It's over. Get your usual useless last word in, I'm officially done with this, I've won, you're exposed. This will probably be a relief to the hosts and most of the other posters.

Our hosts have access ro user data, they must know, if they even try to verify, that I am in Brazil. As dor you, it is a shame tou can't stand being proved wrong. I proved I mentioned Reagan's attack on the Democrats before anyone else.

As I recall, there was suspicion of Nixon but the full on sneering and hate flowered around Reagan.

The right soon had their own version of overwrought seething when they couldn't fathom the electorate falling for a smooth talking, philandering southern lawyer (Bill Clinton). While I admire Clinton's slick political nous (except for Monica), the disarmingly affable Reagan was my guy if only because he'd read Hayek.

Fair enough, but the point remains: as soon as 1964, Reagan was saying the Democratic Party was Communist since at least 1936. It was when, we are told, politics was nice and everyone loved everyone else.

Well, place your bets. Maybe everything is different now.

The fact that Trump won is evidence in favor of the view that anything can happen, but I'm still not seeing this.

Bernie would not have won. sorry. No socialist will be elected POTUS in my lifetime, not Bernie, and not anybody put forth by the dirtbags next time around, 2024, etc.

I'm not really interested in arguing the point, I'm just telling you my opinion man.

'No socialist will be elected POTUS in my lifetime'

Here I was, betting on no secular Jew being elected POTUS in my lifetime.

Of course, for some people, those two terms are considered identical.

It's a reasonable wager Sanders would have defeated Trump. In the hypothetical match-ups, he polled better than did HRC contra all four Republican candidates and ran about 12 points ahead of Trump.

Sanders loss to HRC was largely attributable to his poor performance among Southern blacks (3-1 losses), who appear to be motivated by BillyJeff nostalgia.

Art Deco does make sensible comments from time to time.

I always appreciate your opinion, Brian! Rather than argue the point, I would offer my opinion that it seems very possible - scarily possible, even - that a leftist every bit as strident as Donald Trump could get elected. It probably won't be an old Jewish guy from Vermont who self-identifies as socialist. It'll be someone different, and perhaps as unlikely as Trump was before 2015.

And look - I get that some of the people hanging out here think Trump is the centrist, and that a few others here think that Obama was. Many of us recognize that the country's Overton Window has become a massive Overton Sliding Glass Door, and it's not helping us sleep at night.

@Art Deco: a fair point but remember the polls only showed that more voters likely would have voted for Sanders than Trump. As Hillary proved, getting more votes doesn't necessarily win you the presidency. It all depends on which states that voted Trump would have instead voted Sanders.

@JAMRC: we all do, even prior and mulp!

@msgkings - Except Sanders did well in the primaries in the states that Hillary ended up losing, and he tended to win the open primaries (which would probably be a better representation of a general election) whereas Hillary got out a head in the south (meaningless for a Democrat in the general) and was basically just good at winning the closed primaries amongst hardcore party loyalists. Not to say anyone can know if Sanders would have won but we know Hillary lost in a humiliating fashion and I would not dismissing the possibility of a Sanders win so easily.
The Democratic Party as currently constituted is in huge trouble, Mr. Menaker is much more correct than he is wrong with his statement.

And Alberta would never elect an NDP government.

Trump and Sanders had very similar leanings. What would have been interesting is how his campaign would have looked.

Hillary wasn't going to win after the first Comey press conference.

One might make the argument that these guys are somewhat of an analogue to the rise of the talk-radio scene in the 1990s. One could find many an outrageous sounding quote from Rush Limbaugh but Rush and Co. had a huge impact on the Republican party, and maybe these guys will have a similar affect on the Democrats. You are totally right to say these are uncharted waters - unfortunately most people's political views crystallise in their youth so for many it will always be 1972 and for others (especially the Democratic establishment) it is always 1985. Keep in the mind in the early 1970s the era of stagnant and declining real-wages for working class Americans was just starting and the generation of the 1970s was not destine to be the first to be worse-off than their parents. Its not the same world now.

Interesting comparison to talk radio. I don't agree 100%, for the following reason:

Conservatives flocked to talk radio because they were slowly erased from the church of ideas and communication. Academia was first, then print journalism, followed by television, followed by....

Conservatives left and started their own thing, talk radio and Fox News, both of which became batshit insane due to niche market demand effects.

So, for the analogy to work socialists/hard left would have to be shut out from the citadel of ideas/idea distribution channels.

Is that true? They seem to own the humanities department of every major university. Read Crooked Timber, it's not as if these people do not have an outlet. They're tenured profs, for intersectional victimhood god's sake. Corey Robin doesn't have a voice in this ecosystem? Give me a break. Their chief complaint is purity. Which, is not directly analogous to conservatives. Conservatives are a joke, they're not conserving anything. So when repubs get all red faced and angry about "rinos" it's not the same, because conservatives literally are unable/unwilling to stop the liberal policy agenda. Liberals are winning, these people's complaint is that they're not winning as fast as they would like.

Chtulu swims left.

"So when repubs get all red faced and angry about “rinos” it’s not the same, because conservatives literally are unable/unwilling to stop the liberal policy agenda."

It depends on how you define "conservative." If abolishing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are conservative ideas then, yes, conservatives are losing in the policy realm and will for the foreseeable future because these are deeply unpopular ideas that would harm a large number of middle class and working class people if they were enacted. On the other hand, people with more moderate versions of what "conservative" means can point to many policy victories.

Plenty of people foresaw that there would be a shift towards populism. You could have seen it too, but that would require you to leave your little circle-jerk thought-bubble where everyone ignored the virtual disintegration of many parts of the country. And in fact continue to ignore it, or when they deign to notice it it's only to gleefully mock the suffering and gloat that they deserve to die if they voted for Trump.

"You must bend the knee to us" "...your entire worldview has been discredited" "You bend....then let's work together..."

Status. Always status. Status Uber Alles. Even if it destroys your message and your party. Totally and completely tone-deaf and unself-conscious.

To quote Glenn Reynolds, "You don't like Trump? Cause this is how you get more Trump"


I'm starting to wonder if people who are genetically influenced to become leftists are also obsessed with status because of genetics?

Would like a study on this.

Again, I thought it was the deplorables anger at their status in the eyes of the elites that got Trump elected? Status games are for everyone, not just "leftists".

No, it was their jobs and stagnant incomes

Oh. So when they still don't have jobs and still have stagnant incomes in 3 years and 4 months, who will they vote for?

If that happens I guess we'll find out.

Yeah, 'if'. Check back here then.

What significant changes do you think will happen to boost their wages in the meantime?

There are a bunch of things that have piled up over the past 20 years to drive down their wages, and stopping those things from getting worse is certainly a good idea, but reversing those trends ranges, depending on the cause, from tedious to impossible. (Technological change won't be undone ever. Illegal immigrants cramming down wages won't be undone quickly. I don't know if you think PPACA has caused anything serious, but it looks unlikely to change either. Loosening environmental laws on coal will help the coal companies, but it won't push wages for the coal miner any time soon, and will probably push things more for the people who can fix the coal mining robots.)

I'm a big fan of a wage subsidy, which could have a big impact quickly, but I don't see any politician trying to make this happen any time soon.

"What significant changes do you think will happen to boost their wages in the meantime?"

Well there's the obvious answer of cutting illegal immigration and thus cutting the supply of low skilled labor, which should act to push up wages for low skilled labor.

From Politifact:

"Is illegal immigration the lowest in 17 years, as Trump said?

Trump has used different timeframes to make a case that fewer people are attempting to cross into the United States illegally.

He’s looked at year-over-year March border apprehension data to say there’s been a 64 percent decline; compared February 2017 numbers to the election month, November 2016 to say it’s gone down 61 percent; and said there was a 40 percent decline from January, the month he was inaugurated, to February."

@JWatts: illegal immigrants from the southern border have almost no effect on wages in the states that carried Trump to victory: Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania.

Cutting regs, eliminating licensing requirements, allowing more drilling, reducing zoning restrictions and ngdp targeting can all help with wages

@Meets: none of that is going to happen, maybe a few regulations will get cut. Trump voters will be in the exact same place in 3+ years and you know this.

While I am fine with enforcing our immigration laws, and I think it will push up wages, I don't see the effect being either swift or significant. It's still good to do, but anyone pinning their hopes on this needs a few other miracles to happen as well.

Who is this? Never heard of him.

Children of privilege playing at commie. Who ever heard of such a thing?

A "Social Justice Warrior". The aggressive, dumb people on the Left who have discredited themselves over the past few years, well before the vulgarity and aggression of the late '10s "Alt-Right", and made internet comments enough of a toxic place that the late '10s "Alt-Right" could happen.

Cowen's trying to buy into some rebrand as the "Dirtbag Left" for some utterly inexplicable reasons.

Does cowen have a "handler" or something? Seriously.

I feel like he is just chumming the water for the comments section every so often

Probably true. But it's fun.


It's all fun until someone loses an ELECTION!

I thought he already ran this same quote about bending a knee to the "dirtbag left" a week or two ago.

Tyler hates, above all else, naughty language. I think he's very butthurt over these guys.

I bet there's meds for this.

If this kind of post continues it may be signs of a serious problem.

Of course, Menaker is merely copying what has proven so effective for Republicans, namely the dominance politics as practiced in the Republican Party (especially as practiced by Trump). Indeed, today Trump threatened little Senator Heller, who has opposed Trumpcare: “He wants to remain a senator, doesn’t he?” As for "bend the knee", it's a recurring line from Game of Thrones. Jeet Heer, the author of the article linked by Cowen, opposes dominance politics.

The New Republic is picking outliers because the main stream--the NYT and WAPO--compare favorably to Breitbart and Fox News. You need something to run against, even though you never heard of Dirtbag Left.


Literally one of the most listened to podcasts ever. Tyler is posting about them in hopes of attracting a fraction of their traffic.

"Why can't we all just get along?" Rodney King

Because it's not (and never was) about reform or making people's lives better. It's about control, more of your money, and absolute power.

The mendacity and ignorance: it hurts!

The world is a better place because this remark was given a wider audience?

I found it immensely amusing, at least. But then, I'm easily amused at American political ignorance.


I have a hard time imagining you being amused.

There is an argument to be made that the left has been too much the nice ones. Obama, in particular, comes to mind.

But what exactly has failed? It appears, for example, Obamacare is remarkably agile at remaining. A Democratic majority that comes to power after Trump's reign of error would likely find trying to repeal it in place of a single payer style system would lead to a similar backlash that Republicans faced? Has the Clinton/Obama side of the left really lost and the Bernie side won? Hillary got 3+M more votes for President. All that is keeping Trump from a 2nd term is simply matching her performance and maybe 10,000 Trump voters stay home because they got nothing from their man to make it worth another yes vote or 10,000 more go to the polls against Trump in the right states.

She lost to Donald Trump. You set a pretty low bar, she completely failed and the Democratic party as constituted fails at every level of politics.

She lost to Trump that is true, however the bar is the same as it ever was, get a majority of electoral votes. Aside from winning by scoring an electoral tie and winning the Presidency via the House, Trump won in just about the least impressive way a person can win the Presidency.

Now the question is what is more likely, that Trump's 6 months so far indicates he is on a path to improving his performance next time or degrading it? If my football team loses the Superbowl by a field goal....I might not consider massive trades versus if they are shut out without a single point.

I believe Clinton's popularity has actually fallen since the election. If they re-ran it now I have NO doubt, to be honest, that Clinton would lose the popular vote. She's just awful, they all are.

You're right about Clinton, and that was indeed the most awful presidential choice ever offered in American history and it's not even close.

Boonton's point is, all they gotta do is run someone not awful. If Trump runs again (I doubt he does) the Dems will smoke him.

You're JUST thinking about the Presidency - the Democrats are a disaster on all levels.

Nah. They will retake the White House probably in 2020 (for sure if Trump runs), they have 48 Senators, and they have a very good shot to retake the House in 2018. These things cycle.

No, they're fucked. They're toast in the states which have been nicely gerrymandered, they might be able to take the House for a cycle but that's it. I highly doubt they make any progress in 2018.

Well we're all just pixels bloviating here so who knows, but how can they make no progress in 2018 but still take the House for a cycle?

To be clear I do not believe they will take the House in 2018. If they somehow do it will just be for a cycle, as it stands now they are completely hopeless. But yes, we are all just blowhards who have no clue.

Control of the state legislatures and governors' mansions matters, especially during gerrymandering years like 2020. It doesn't look like Democrats are going to be able to take back many states, so again it will be Republicans doing the gerrymandering, which likely means another decade of Republican control of the House of Representatives. So yes, in electoral terms the Democratic party has been failing to win the elections that matter most in terms of future electoral success.

You cannot separate "dominance politics" from leftism. Left wing political ideology is fundamentally about the dominance of the collective over the choices of individuals. The distinction drawn by Jeet Heer in the article is largely one of tone rather than substance - he has no problem supporting coercive government policies that restrict individual choice, he just thinks his politicians should talk nicely about it.

Left wing political ideology is fundamentally about the dominance of the collective over the choices of individuals.

No, it's about the dominance of licensed and certified cadres over everyone else - lawyers, academics, and mental heath and social work tradesmen, in about that order.

What's up with the lefties and their slinging of f-bombs all over the place these days? Used to be that overuse of that word was mostly found in trailer parks, housing projects, 7th graders, and Full Metal Jacket.

Who knows, but 'fricking' was always pretty stupid as a substitute.

I think it gives people like Tyler a sad.

Ask the President:

>What’s up with the lefties and their slinging of f-bombs all over the place these days?

I know. It started around November 9, 2016. It's a complete mystery!

Yeah! Take that shitlibs!

Sounds like a crude expression of Tea Party politics, and Trump. Are we supposed to be offended by the politics or the vulgarity? I suppose it's just the choice of words.

Actually, the real offense comes from someone who clearly has no idea what social democrats believe, at least when it comes to the oldest social democratic party on the planet, the SPD.

Sounds like a crude expression of Tea Party politics,

Only in your addled head.

The Tea Party was very well-behaved and hewed to basic principles of individual liberty and fiscal responsibility. They protested peacefully, picked up their garbage and went home.

That they elected the 2010 GOP majority and were then completely ignored is probably what led to the much uglier manifestation in Trump.

'but with a powerful social democratic message'

Hilarious - the SPD will not be bending any knees to this guy. For that matter, neither will the Greens nor Die Linke, both of them who are actually political opponents of a powerful social democratic message, because such does not go far enough.

Oh wait, this was an American specific farce, wasn't it?

As we say innBrazil, the Left only joins at jail.

Delusions of grandeur...

Anyone who makes a "kneel before me" metaphor probably shouldn't be trusted with a shred of political power.

So out goes the alt right then (God Emperor Trump indeed)

Then we gonna creep to Marginal Revolution
On a Street Knowledge mission As I steps in the temple
Spot him, got him, as I pulls out my strap
Got my chrome to the side of his White Sox hat
You trying to check my homey, you better check yourself
Cause when you diss Deco you diss yourself

I have only tried two "Chapos," but they bored me and I quit. Conversations with Tyler are much better (being pragmatic, means tested, market-based?).

So maybe I am not the most informed listener, but this sounds very unproductive, from standpoint of publisher and consumer.

But get this through your fucking head: You must bend the knee to us. Not the other way around. You have been proven as failures, and your entire worldview has been discredited. You bend the knee to us and then let’s fucking work together to defeat these things, not with fucking means testing or market-based solutions but with a powerful social democratic message

That whole collapse of communism thing still rankles, I guess. Whose worldview has been discredited?

I believe you are not American, but the SPD continues to do acceptably well in Germany, which comes quite close to be being a social democracy. The social democrats opposed the communists, by the way, the same way they opposed the Nazis. And in both cases, suffered the same punishment for their opposition.

That this Prof. Cowen described member of the dirtbag left is seemingly unaware of this is anything but surprising . That people still conflate social democracy and communism is also unsurprising, at least in North America.

A lot of people on the left, social democrats included, remained quite sympathetic to the Soviet Union , right through the cold war and right up until it's collapse.
The opposed the communists the way Republicans oppose the alt-right. With a lot of discomfort and weasel words.

You can tell how annoyed the left was when communism collapsed by how they reacted to the book 'The End of History' by Fukuyama. How dare capitalism claim to be the endpoint of the historical dialectic? that one really stung.

prior_test3 was specifically referring to the German SPD, which definitely did oppose communism -- partly because they knew exactly who they were dealing with. They were quite open to anti-totalitarian partners on the right -- hard to come by during Weimar, a little better after the War.

Is Jeet Heer a member of the German SPD?

They were quite open to anti-totalitarian partners on the right — hard to come by during Weimar, a little better after the War.

Not hard to come by at all. The only 'totalitarian' party on the right was the Nazi Party, which was, prior to 1930, good for about 3% of the vote. There were all manner of rickety coalition ministries over the period between 1919 to 1930, nearly all including the Social Democratic Party and a varying tableau of Catholic and secular bourgeois parties. Excluded were the Communist Party, the Nazi Party, and the National People's Party (derived from the pre-war Conservative parties and monarchist).

He specifically said communism. He didn't say social democracy.

The problem is that a goodly percentage of the left wouldn't be satisfied with, as Bernie Sanders said, "getting to [the condition of being a social democracy like] Denmark."

This is why they supported The USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, Maoist China etc. The call even in Paris in 68 wasn't "let's go Nordic". So screw the far left, let their nefarious plans never succeed.

Agreed the loony left needs to stay far from power. But it's not a "goodly percentage" of the left. Come on, man.

Fair enough.

Let's ask a question: if we were to 'go nordic' would the bulk of the American left be content and become pro-status quo? Effectively becoming moderate conservatives? Or would most of them still want to go even further left?

Look at the Nordic countries; do they not usually have major leftist parties that make up around half the population that still want to push their countries further left?

Politics is generally directional, rather than oriented toward a fixed point. Most leftists don't have a number in mind for what the tax rate should be, just higher. I expect that, even if they woke up tomorrow in Scandinavia, the majority of American progressives would decide they still wanted more,

What exactly is "a goodly percentage"? Seems like a pretty small percentage to me. Considering that the majority of democrats didn't even vote for Sanders, I'm not really sure how worried we should be about actual communists in our ranks.

Tyler should balance quotes from the "Dirtbag Left" with quotes from Christian Dominionists. Then everyone can argue about which is more alarming in a fair and balanced way.

A more apt analogy is these guys are the talk-radio of the left, so if Tyler threw up some Rush Limbaugh gems it would show a bit more integrity on his part.

Why? R.J. Rushdoony has been dead for about 17 years and never had much of a following. You'd be hard put to find anything penned by them in the major organs of the evangelical press.

" the Republican base’s desire for a tough, masculine leader who unapologetically humiliates and punishes his enemies (RINOs, liberals, feminists, immigrants, foreigners, and so on). Displays of dominance are also assertions of hierarchy, and thus go hand in hand with the right-wing goal of defending privileged groups."

He sounds unsmart. Or maybe this is just the part where he signals his credentials as part of the in-group.

Can you flesh out why you think he's wrong? It sounds like an accurate description of right-wing politics to me, with the exception of a small libertarian fringe.

It just sounds like gobbledy-gook that his readers will nod too

How is he at all right? The only 'privileged' people defended by right wing politics are 'the rich', I.e. Those who benefit from private property rights; and the 'libertarian fringe' are the biggest advocates of economic freedom on the right.

Maybe you could argue the right privileges Christians, but that's just religious majoritarianism. The right doesn't support racist or sexist laws; that's a leftist myth. Rather, the right, like libertarians, opposes 'reverse' discrimination. Not the same thing.

I love it. The KKKrazy Glue Coalition is in full on, circular-firing-squad mode as the Bolsheviks vie for top billing along with everybody else in the lunatic fringe.

The Left is in for a long 8 years. Maybe 12 or 16 after Don Jr. or Ivanka throw their hats in the ring. Or we decide to elect uber zillionaire Mark Zuckerberg and he divides the place up among publicly-traded companies. Not bad for the Left--they'll still have gay marriage and abortion, but they'll have to leave and try to recreate Venezuela elsewhere.

By 2024, we'll probably stop bothering with elections.

This is all exactly correct and not the least bit unhinged or stupid.

So flip the scenario and have the Left win thanks to those dense urban centers in CA, NY, IL and VA. I'm sure the Left is all sobered up and prudent by then. Not bitter, no vendettas, the deplorables will just take whatever gets dished out, right?

By the time this is over, Trump's a moderate.

If you say so. Case not proven.

Right now, I can't even tell who I hate more, the left or the alt-right.
They are both revolting manifestations of the worst instincts humanity has to offer.

Identity politics vs. racial tribalism. National socialism vs. international socialism. The vulgar vs. the sanctimonious. Naked hubris vs. naked ignorance. It's all gross.

Tribalism means different polities have to compete for human and financial capital as opposed to unaccountable supra-national organizations presiding over a global market. Your hysterical screeching about "revolting manifestations of the worst instincts humanity has to offer" is ahistorical and shallow.

Your hysterical screeching about Muslims and thugs and outbreeding is no picnic either, A-G

Tribalism means people acquire human and financial capital via numerical dominance and tribal allegiance instead of via individual merit. It means your success or failure is determined by what tribe you belong to instead of your actual skills and productivity.

Because of course no actual capitalist would ever rely on market dominance and patronage networks to grow his share. Are you an academic or non-profit employee?

I hate the far left more. They were wrong about the Soviets and Mao and Castro. (And right about the Nazis.) They certainly have in their midst some fellow travelers who are quasi Islamist.

At least the (nationalist) right despised Hitler.

Shocking, you hate the left more. But she's talking about the current far left, the humorless campus SJW idiots, Stalin and Mao and the Nazis etc are not relevant here.

"But she’s talking about the current far left, the humorless campus SJW idiots"

Which is not what Chapo Trap House is.

Men like Jeer Heer are just as bad. I grew up with them in Canada, where the government's deliberately tries to instill a warped sense of Canadian patriotism defined by opposition to everything America, capitalism included.
Being against single-payer healthcare in Canada, means you are anti-Canadian, not patriotic, and should move to the US, you traitor.
The kind of juvenile anti-Americanism which the schools deliberately breed eventually evolves into a retarded belief in the inherent moral superiority of socialist systems of every kind, communist or whatever.
I remember getting lesson in 1989 comparing how life was in the USSR to America, where things like homelessness were balanced against repression of free speech and gulags in a wierd sort of moral equivalence, and this was mere months before the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Then they would go on about how if there was a nuclear war all the fallout would hit Canada, because the Americans were so mean as to target their missles over Canadian airspace (the shortest path to the USSR being over the north pole).

Go back to Canada we don't want you Cancucks here.

As opposed to privatizing everything in sight and subjecting all aspects of society to the market, that's totally the height of enlightened morality. And when the ungrateful plebs revolt (don't they know disenfranchising them and setting fire to the social contract are good things?), you lament their stupidity and evilness, and vilify them for not voting the way they should.

You mean privatizing things like air traffic control and public transportation, that are already privatized in most of the 'socially conscious' European countries?

And indeed how dare anyone put individual rights and responsibilities ahead of some vague, abstract 'social contract' that no one actually agreed to. How dare less than half of the population refuse to submit totally to the will of more than half of the population.

Actually I was thinking more schools (Sweden tried charter schools as well. It was a disaster) and Social Security ( Nice of you to mention public transport, though. The UK did privatize their trains, and the result was a failure. Also funny you mention submission, since neoliberalism would have us all submit to the 'invisible hand'. When both major political parties fundamentally believe in the same economic policies, democracy is effectively dead. The choice is no longer between public or private; it's between how quickly you get screwed: fast or really fast.

@everybody above: This comment was addressed to moderate liberals, not conservatives. And “bending the knee” is not about “who's in charge” or some sort of dominance politics, it's about what message liberals/Democrats are sending. Menaker's view, essentially, is that moderate-left politics a la Obama or *especially* Bill and Hillary, has utterly failed. In contrast, the immense support behind Bernie in the US and Corbyn in the UK suggests that a more principle-based, less pragmatic approach would significantly increase turnout, esp. among the young. You can argue with this if you want, I'm not sure it's really right—but it's not the dominance politics Jeet Heer and friends want it to be.

Please run somebody like a Sanders or Corbyn in 2020. I'm begging you to do it. I'm confident everyone will agree their taxes are way too low and the government doesn't administer enough transfer payents.

Many if not most of the voters Sanders will court aren't exactly the big taxpayers he's going after. And they are indeed the ones that want more government goodies.

Do you mean to suggest that you want Democrats to pick up a significant number of seats in the legislature like Corbyn's party just did in the most recent British election?

Do you believe any Americans other than college students and other net tax consumers believe in Corbyn's kooky bolshevism?

You may be right for now, but trust me on this, barring some sort of drastic shift in opinion, Sanders/Corbyn is where we're heading. I was inclined to your opinion on this pre-Trump, it's obvious plenty of people don't like the Sanders/Corbyn approach and the socialist label has been so toxic until recently in the US.

But Corbyn might as well have won an election that seemed like a sure thing for the Tories—and here in America, I don't think there can be any real doubt that Bernie would have won. Every poll said so, and he had the same working-class appeal as Trump, the same sincerity, and he would have had a massive liberal base behind him.

I'm not necessarily celebrating this, I actually have massive qualms about the massive government services, increased taxation approach. (I read Marginal Revolution and enjoy it, can you possibly be surprised by this?) But I think it's a mistake to assume this is impossible. Times have changed.

The USA has always been a centrist country. Throughout the 20th century, while Europe flirted with real socialism, it never got off the ground here. Clinton said he governed further to the right than he would have preferred, because you have to govern the actual people of the country that elects you. I'm sure Obama would say the same thing.

That's as far left as you're gonna get in this country.

I was wrong about Trump, but his victory had almost nothing to do with ideology. The man has no ideology. The Chapo ideology will never take root in this country in a serious way.

Ah yes, the "welp, there's nothing we can do, the left just can't get votes" excuse. Despite the fact that the strongest the Democratic Party ever was was precisely when it ran on a hard-left platform. And despite the fact that the New Democrats have spent a generation largely scraping by with their election wins (when they aren't outright losing). And despite the fact that an independent Senator from a minor state was able to run a competitive campaign on a left-wing platform (and on a large number of small donations. Funny how this particular fact has been entirely flushed down the memory hole. Why, it's almost like our politicians like being on the big donor teat), only being stopped when the 'pragmatists' went out of their way to sabotage him. And despite the fact that the New Deal programs (what's left of them; thanks liberals!) have overwhelming public support, including among Republicans. And despite the fact that a new proposal in the spirit of the New Deal, Medicare for All, also has majority public support (and is being fought tooth and nail every step of the way by the 'pragmatists').

There may indeed be truth to the claim that outright, unapologetic European-style socialism isn't viable in America (though I suspect to assume that is to do a grave disservice to the people of this country. But thinly veiled loathing and unveiled sneering at the great unwashed is something I've come to expect from liberals), but this claim that it's impossible to run even slightly left-of-center in America is absurd in the extreme. Someone like Sanders isn't even radical in any real sense (go ask an actual socialist: Sanders isn't a socialist, no matter what he calls himself). He's a Truman Democrat (or even an Eisenhower Republican). His ideas were bog-standard, mainstream politics 50 years ago. He's only 'radical' because Clinton's New Democrats have pushed the landscape so far to the right that what was once the center is now the 'extreme' left, and the real, progressive left anathema to 'Serious People' (but very clearly not to the real people) and never let out into the light of day . This has also, by the way, caused the Republicans to shift ever further right. There are now no moderate Republicans who can be reasoned with (and I mean actual bargaining, not the Obama school of 'pragmatic compromise' which opens with giving the Republicans 90% of what they want and then negotiating any remaining remotely leftist ideas further away). The moderates have either become Democrats (like Elizabeth Warren) or abandoned mainstream politics altogether.

But do go on, keep insisting it's impossible to run on left ideas. All the while your 'centrist' (really center-right) platform continues to lose and lose and lose. You've lost the House, you've lost the Senate, you've lost the Presidency, you've lost a majority of State Houses and Governorships. You're on the very cusp of being reduced to a regional party. Keep going like this and you'll simply drive yourself to extinction, no doubt insisting you're just being pragmatic as your party collapses around you and you sink into utter irrelevance.

523 words! I hope it was cathartic.

I'm not a Democrat, but I do appreciate the fact that it's not obvious what the Democrats' next move is or if there even is a good move.

If you insist, by all means, walk the path of 1972 again.

Oh, it's worse than 1972. Back then the Democrats more or less refused to support the progressive candidate. This cycle they actively sabotaged him. But obviously it's the progressive at fault, not the scum who backstabbed him, and then for all their efforts lost with their preferred candidate. Keep telling yourself the solution is to march ever further to the right.

I doubt Sandwrs would've won; most of the moderates that Hillary won over would've gone for Trump.

Liz Warren pretty badly would've won as she wouldn't have scared off as many sane people as Bernie but has a lot of the same appeal as him.

*probably not pretty badly

I must say it's amazing to watch Dems insist they just need to keep going after 'moderates' when they're now up to five consecutive election losses running on that platform. The most recent of which the candidate managed to get fewer votes than the previous Democrat who ran in that district, while spending twenty-three million dollars, while the previous guy spent zero. Though I suppose after recently shoving nearly a billion and a half down the gaping maw of nothingness that was the Clinton campaign, that seems like chump change.

"And “bending the knee” is not about “who’s in charge” or some sort of dominance politics, it’s about what message liberals/Democrats are sending."

There's no way that “bending the knee” is about messaging. It's absolutely an expression of opinion about which portion of the Democratic party should be dominant.

With respect, JWatts, I listen to this show, and it is about messaging. Like I said, Chapo's view is that social democratic messaging works and compromise, centrist politics doesn't. “Dominant”—in the sense of the leading face of the party... but that means something. It's not just which dude we say is in charge, it's the way we approach and frame issues. Is the right message to voters “We like balancing the budget as long as we guarantee health insurance somehow”? Or is the right approach “Government should take care of us and ensure strong social services through increased taxation”? That's not just a dominance politics approach.

The Clinton types shouldn't even be in the Democrat Party. Piss off and go found your own big business friendly, tough on crime, enemy of the poor, friend to gays, centrist party. Or just become moderate Republicans, which is what you actually are. Leave the ostensible party of workers to represent the workers. During the recently ended dark ages of the Blairites in the UK, there was a joke about how Labour should change its spelling to the American Labor, because Blair had taken the 'u' out of Labour. The people don't like you, or your ideas, and are either voting against you or simply not bothering to show up to vote at all. You've lost public legitimacy; people have finally come to see just how much you don't represent them or their interests.

Who can figure out the meaning of "Covfefe"??? Enjoy

It's not just a Game of Thrones throw away line? Pop culture shorthand?

Wikipedia dates the advent of "the Dirtbag Left" appellation to four pop journalism pieces all seeming to've appeared 27 May 2017.

If our media say it's so, it must be so. (--but could this just be some remnant of OWS refugees six years along? The level of articulation looks comparable, and the "DL" platform looks not much more compelling than that of the earlier iteration.)

You keep changing the story, minho amigo. We went from no Crooked Hillarys to many politicians in jail. Where are their Brazilian values? How did they end up in jail? Where are the Brazilian values of the many murderers and kidnappers in Brazil?

This childish game can end once you realize that neither the US nor Brazil is perfect, and that's fine. Or you can keep going and we can keep playing with you.

Oops, subthread deleted. This one is for you, Thiago.

They did end up in jail because crime is not tolerated in Brazil, never will be. They are a tiny minority. Brazilians have not allow themselves to become corrupt the way Americans have become.

Give it up, Thomas. You are contradicting yourself with every post now, this character has jumped the shark. Either just be yourself or create a more interesting character. Maybe a Thai, or Congolese this time? If you really want to throw us, pretend to be "Red" Chinese or Indian now.

I vote for Imperial Japanese.

That also works.

Brazil defeated Imperial Japanese rebels in 1946. They are losers, always will be. Anyway tell me when Clinton or Trump spend a single day at jail.

This is what American politics become:

You should know, Thomas. I'm still mad at you for not being Brazilian.

It is sad you have to dismiss out of hand those who prove your country is ruined.

the Chapo team makes more than 30,000 dollars a month.

I make more all by myself but don't feel particularly smart.

That's just of patreon. I have no idea how much more they make from advertising sales. Their live shows and merchandising will likely add a similar amount. they seem to have it figured out.

Do click through to the original article...

"Such mimicry carries risks. For the political right, dominance politics is a perfect marriage of style and content. If you believe in maintaining traditional gender norms, in celebrating two-fisted capitalism and a muscular foreign policy, then a boorish, domineering figure like Trump is the ideal leader. His verbal bullying isn’t a fault, but a virtue; rather than weakening his standing with Republicans, it’s a key tool for keeping the party in line. “Dominance symbolism is pervasive in GOP politics,” Marshall wrote. “It’s not new with Trump at all. Most successful Republican politicians speak this language. And yet somehow for most it is nonetheless a second language. Not Trump. It’s his native language. I still believe it’s rooted in the mix of the hyper-aggressive New York real estate world, his decades of immersion in the city’s febrile tabloid culture and just being, at the most basic level, a bully. Wherever it comes from, he seems to intuitively get that for this constituency and at this moment just demonstrating that he gets his way, always, is all that really matters.”

Can a style so naturally suited to the right really work for the left?"

The author concludes that it won't really work for the left. Of course, only time will tell.

Humans are hierarchical animals. The problem for the Left is they reject hierarchy but the inescapable fact is that the only successful human organizations are hierarchical. We're not pandas.

Leftist are concerned with good intentions. Rightist want good results.

"I will build a great wall -- and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me --and I'll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words."

Really? Because what I see is actual progressives standing up and demanding concrete material benefits like Medicare for All. While liberals split their time between sabotaging the slightest movement towards such policies, smearing anyone who wants such policies, and telling other liberals that the problem is the only problem is a need for better propaganda to net suburban Republican voters. And then they whine when those uppity progressives use uncouth language. Blocking civilized healthcare and turning foreign brown people into giblets is okay, but swearing! Oh my stars! Naughty language is just unacceptable!

"Stop cussing and act like an adult! Sit down and be silent while your betters roger you even more!"

Out: rap metaphors about slapping and calling people bitches
In: Game of Thrones references

While the subject is the "Dirtbag Left", let me add a personal anecdote. I received a death threat in the comment section from a left-winger on a blog site run by a left-winger. When I contacted the site administrator their response didn't seem too interested or concerned about the death threat. Lots of dirtbags on the left (and right).

Step one on the journey to realizing the Left is insane.

Sigh. There are loonies and assholes on both sides, son. Loony right wingers do the same damn thing.

I don't know what Tyler did it in a prior life to deserve his commentariat. It does not seem to me that he is anything other than generous and pretty intelligent. The comments here as a whole are nothing more than axe grinding. Sad.

Blame Tyler for reading Chateau Heartiste and Sailer. Looking forward to your cutting arguments.

I don’t know what Tyler did it in a prior life to deserve his commentariat.

Employing an intern to moderate the site who adds his own sock-puppet comments, most of them quite rude and vulgar.

And to that intern:

The bigger the cap, the bigger the peelin',
Who gives a fuck about a punk-ass villain?
You're gettin' fucked real quick,
And TC's dick, is smellin' like Tabarock's shit

At least he seems to keep it in dignified neglect; I can't remember the last time he's ever referred to it, if ever.

...To most Cowen readers, it's a weird curiosity; something to perhaps hate-read once every few months.

I suppose I represent the odious middle, but I see my views as being vindicated, not discredited. In any case, I largely stand by the positions I've posted over the last nine years on this blog. As Steely Dan says...All those dayglow freaks who used to paint the face
They've joined the human race
Some things will never change

+1 for Kid Charlemagne

I'm confident that deplorables will gain handsomely from greater military recruitment, fossil fuel growth fillip from removing Paris, laffer and keynes effects of tax cuts

Conor sen and Kevin erdmann say finance regs r retarding housing market. Homevuilding and police, road building budgets tied to home values, pipeline go_aheads

He claimed to be fiscal and monetary dove, surely this matters in markets

Lower legal immigration would help wages too, to the extent legal immigrants do bucolic, simple jobs like cherry_picking, lawnmowing and not just hi caliber research into techs that elon gates and hawking find dangerous or aq khans find to be amusing souvenirs

What appears to be most important in all this is whether Chapo is sexist, whether saying "bend to the knee" is too harsh, and which side is to be accorded the most status.

Hi Marginal Revolution Team,

My name is Anuj Agarwal. I'm Founder of Feedspot.

I would like to personally congratulate you as your blog Marginal Revolution has been selected by our panelist as one of the Top 100 Political Science Blogs on the web.

I personally give you a high-five and want to thank you for your contribution to this world. This is the most comprehensive list of Top 100 Political Science Blogs on the internet and I’m honored to have you as part of this!

Also, you have the honor of displaying the badge on your blog.


Comments for this post are closed