2017: Whither Democrats?

Politics and religion
3767

Funny thing is that now that i’ve got a little more information on the Paris Commune (in 1871) you can see where Communism Went Wrong.

Many of those guys idolized Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety from the French Revolution, and they increasingly saw rooting out what we’d call “fifth columnists” as being more important than fighting external threats. So they were running around persecuting each other for transgressions even as the French Army was beating down the doors to get them.

Lenin et al took the Paris Commune as their guide book of what went wrong and what to do next time, and took rooting out “fifth columnists” into continental scale purges. And to exact this party purity policy required no waffling or squabbling democracy of socialist and adjacent parties but a dictatorship.

If instead they worked together to stop that external threat and not hitting each other in the head for insufficient enthusiasm for the revolution maybe Communism wouldn’t have turned out the way it did. (Not to mention, as an aside, a big impetus for the Commune was a nationalistic desire to get back at the Germans).

3768

I see you also listen to Mike Duncan’s podcast (that was this weeks show)

As for communism? Well there is one interesting case of it being implemented in reality. Or at least in name.

I don’t know much about their party platform, bis a vis the Marxist definition of the term, but they actually are the dominant party in Kerala.

It was weird to see banners everywhere for the Communist party. And posters clearly took design inspiration from Leninist propaganda.

3769

And saying “I’m a Communist” is almost certain meant provocatively, as opposed to truly representing a belief system. Saying that you support some forms of redistribution and relatively strong social programs but don’t support the Communism of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot isn’t playing No True Scotsman. It is avoiding the reductio ad absurdum of comparing every impingement on the free market to the worst possible excesses of command economies. I don’t support Communism, because I don’t think the principle of “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need” is a realistic governing philosophy. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a nice idea - the golden rule isn’t enough to run a country either, but it’s still a good way to frame your thoughts about appropriate behavior.

3770

One way to gauge this whole issue is to look at the numbers to get a sense of perspective:

In a communism or full blown socialist state, the government taxes and spends almost 100% of the GDP, with the exception of the black market usually.

In the developed world, looking at all government spending combined (local, regional, national) the range of % of GDP taxed and spent by the government is from about 30% on the very lowest end (Switzerland was at 33% last year) to about 60% on the highest end (Denmark was 55% last year). The all-time post-WWII highest I saw in a quick google was Denmark in 1993 at 60%.

So 30% to 60% is the range. That’s what we in the developed countries are arguing about. There is no healthy functioning developed country under 30% and there are also none over 60%. Nobody here that I know of, except Armando, wants us to go to 100% or even close to 100%.

My own back of the envelope calculation is that we need to go from our current screwed deficit budget of 30% GDP collected as taxes but 35% of GDP spent, to a somewhere between 40% to 45% taxed and spent, to include a substantial increase in government services including government funded health care, and significant investment in insfrastructure and education, partially offset by a modest reduction in defense spending, along with a strict tightening of tax provisions to reduce loopholes and gamesmanship.

Everyone here probably has a slightly different calculation, but I bet most of them, when converted into actual taxing and spending would be somewhere in that range of 30% to 60%.

Nationally, I’m not sure what number the GOP leadership would think is good. It can’t be zero b/c they want us to spend a lot on defense, police and corrections, but it’s probably not much more than that, I guess. 10% of GDP tops, maybe, with no safety net at all, no public education, no public infrastructure, no public health care, no regulation at all. That’s certainly what their rhetoric sounds like they want in the long run. That would put us outside the bounds of civilized developed countries and in line with a lot of failing or failed states.

By contrast, with exception of our lovable God Emperor, no one here wants to go to 90% or 100% of government control of GDP.

For me, that puts things in perspective.

3771

Any Fox News Host…

If Stalin were in America he would be a democrat.

3772

Till Trump praises Stalin, then it’s: “Remember, he was our ally in WWII. And haven’t we all done bad things?”

3773

Putting a few people in cages is not such a bad thing.

3774

My response to that guy: “yeah, how about NO, fuckface. Nice try.”

3775

To be fair, there haven’t been all that many (or any, really) non-murderous societies of any kind ever. Every society has some group to subjugate and murder.

3776

Yeah but, y’know, degrees.

3777

I went to a community meeting (read: town hall) with Senator Gary Peters here in west Michigan today. (Just before the rally for asylum seekers.) Those interested can read about it at the link, but I wanted to stop in here to say that divisions in the party were on full display. Lots of contention over the Medicare-for-all proposal, which Peters has not yet backed (he says he prefers focusing on saving the ACA). Lots of shouting and unhappy folks, who kept bringing it back up at every opportunity regardless of the current topic. I can’t say I was surprised, but still a bit disappointed…I’d kinda hoped some lessons on the subject of unity might have been learned after 2016.

3778

People are tired of going bankrupt or dying because they get sick and can’t afford it. I can hardly blame them for getting fed up.

3779

Why should there be unity over an issue people disagree on? Especially in the run up to an election.

In any case, couldn’t an argument be made that this is not an either/or choice? Can you not be both for extending Medicare for all, but also keeping private insurance for people who want that option?

3780

Oh man, I seriously doubt anyone is going to propose getting rid of all private health insurance. Anyone reasonable I mean.

3781

Oh, I actually agree with the single payer folks. I’d happily see all private medical insurance disappear tomorrow. I was commenting more on the tone than the substance. You make your opinion known, then you move on to the next issue. These people couldn’t let it go.

3782

I agree generally, but there is a time to get un-civil about it, and I’m not sure exactly when that is. Probably not then, and I’m agreeing with your position. But then again, I’m glad that your representative has a good idea now about how his constituents feel about it.

3783

I think you want to be sufficiently uncivil to drive home the point – this is the single biggest issue for some voters. But you don’t want to blockade discussion of the other issues, some of which will be the single most important for other people.

In the end, I think Trump will unify most Dems/ Progressives, even if things get nasty in the primaries. I’m sure we’ll see ‘both parties are the same’ or ‘Stein 2020’ posts on social media, but most of those will originate many time zones away from the US.

3784

Along that line, how do people feel about the growing “abolish ICE” call from the Left?

On the one hand, it’s a clear, big message. It creates a clear differentiation and crystallizes the issue of family separation.

On the other hand, it is perhaps too much. It gives ammo to opponents to say that Dems are for open borders and care more about immigrants than US citizens.

Would a more tempered message akin to “repeal and replace” be smarter? Or is it a call to action that will mobilize people?

Discuss!

3785

If they get too complicated with a message, they lose people and are called elitist. If they keep it too simple then suddenly it’s too much, too broad. Trump spits out a ridiculous thing and all is golden. It’s an impossible position for the Democrats to be in.

Having said that, there is clearly something rotten within ICE based on how they are engaging with people they are entrusted to enforce and regulate, the way they engage with the public, and how these deeply flawed programs could ever reach the kinds of fruition were seeing. It needs to go, but there has to be something in it’s place or ready to replace it first.

3786

I put it in the same category as “civility”. Its a net positive for Democrats. The only thing that matters this year is energizing your side to vote. Abolish ICE will do that for a small segment of the Democratic base, it will have zero impact on Republicans (they are going to go and vote fascist anyway).

Also having extremely unpopular views even in your platform has never hurt Republicans. Democrats worry far too much “what will moderates think?” As we have seen in 2016 moderates dont matter.