What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Savonarola]

Well this discussion went different than I thought it would.

When I first saw the article I was surprised that CNN ran it.  Their editorial board is usually all bent out of shape about privilege, white people, economic inequality and the poisonous effect of money on politics.  Here's a story about a very privileged white billionaire heiress who had leaders of both state and federal government at her extraordinarily lavish wedding and CNN reports it with breathless rapture.  (Yes, it's the Style section; but still.)

Here I'm surprised this isn't red meat for a socialist like Josq.  The Getty family is old money (by Califonia standards) and obviously has close ties to the political establishment.  I'm not a socialist and I think publicizing such an extravagant wedding is in poor taste in a country with low social mobility, enormous economic inequality and a population that's suffering the economic shocks of Covid (to say nothing of the personal).  During the Great Depression the wealthy adopted more austere styles (hence Style Moderne); this level of ostentation (at this economic moment) seems to come straight out of the Gilded Age. 

[crazy canuck]

Ok, if simply expressing that they are not appropriate is not enough, then Jacob should definitely not post again.

Don't be absurd Grumbles.   

[Josquius]

I took it that barrister was joking.
If you actually do think there was anti semitism in what I said though then yeah, the anti semitism is with you. I neither know nor care how many of these people are Jewish anymore than I know or care how many of them enjoy fishing.

And yeah. Of course. I think spending any amount of money on weddings is dumb let alone this one. I have disdain for the media reporting on this stuff.
But getting worked up about this kind of visible vulgarity of flashy billionaires and Hollywood (boo hiss boo) often does more harm than good for building awareness of, and the desire to tackle, inequality. Its how the populist right subverts and perverts class awareness.

[Berkut]

But getting worked up about this kind of visible vulgarity of flashy billionaires and Hollywood (boo hiss boo) often does more harm than good for building awareness of, and the desire to tackle, inequality. Its how the populist right subverts and perverts class awareness.

I wonder if this is why the left sucks at this stuff.

Maybe the "right" (meaning effective in the modern populist, anger and outrage driven culture wars) is that the left should get really, really, REALLY fucking worked up about this.

Exaggerate it. Build some nice lies around it. Just make some shit up, like the bride kicked a small child on her way to her car, and the groom was probably known for beating up child laborers or some such nonsense.

[Josquius]

It is a problem. By nature the populists are selling simple answers to complex problems, always an easier thing to do than actually trying to figure out the solution to the problem.
In this case of ranting about billionaires and the over the top focus on Hollywood I guess the problem is that they put such a personal face on it (which yes. Simple psychology. It appeals to people.)
The way the trumpies would view it the problem is that THESE PEOPLE have so much money to spend on these nice things.
It's not the system that is the problem. It's not how they actually make their money day to day that is morally dubious (though there was definitely some secret corrupt one off deal somewhere which earned them 1 million dollars!) . Rather it's that it's THEM. Why don't I have all these same nice things?

They attack the elites based on jealousy and a sense of missing out. Justice would be knocking them down a peg even if it meant nobody is better off. Given half a chance though the trumpy would definitely be doing the same.
The left wing view is that the system whereby anyone can have so much money to blow on a wedding whilst others are starving is rotten.

It's basically the left vs right world view boiled down to the core. A holistic view of society vs the power of individuals.
A disproportionate focus on Hollywood works well for a world view based on individuals.

[The Minsky Moment]

The problem with defining billionaires as THE ENEMY is they have nothing in common other than an arbitrarily cutoff minimum net worth.  They don't stand for anything  and don't mean anything.

"Hollywood elite" may be less precisely defined as a formal matter but it MEANS something.  You can close your eyes and visualize it, close your ears and hear it.  It stands is for those people who define themselves with a pride the appears to border on smugness as part of the "arts" or "creative industries" that are very eager to declare their thoughts on political matters, declarations that express hostility (or are perceived to express hostility) for guns and religion and a certain definition of exclusionary patriotism. You can argue about the fairness of the characterization or the way it is used, but we all know what is being talked about.

What makes populism effective and powerful is when you have an alignment of group of people with a positive identity, an identifiable foe to define themselves against, and a policy or set of policies as a rallying cry.  For Jackson it was farmers and pioneers against money men and the policy was the Bank; for Lincoln and the Republicans free workers against aristocratic planters and the policies were curbing the slave power and internal improvement; Bryan revised Jacksonian populism against the Gold Standard; for FDR  it was the working people against the combination of Old and New Money, and the policy New Deal and labor rights.  Trumpism is the old Jackson-Bryan alignment again - rural and godly real (white) men against the effeminate atheists in the cities, and the policies are gun rights, free exercise and "sovereignty"

The Left is flailing about for its populist combination - the war against the billionaires doesn't cut it.  No one buys the 99% - everyone knows that 99% doesn't have jack in common other than being in the same country and having less than 500K in annual income.  It's a brand of populism only a actuary or life insurance salesman could love. Maybe there just isn't a populist formula that works for the left at this moment in history.  It's not necessarily a bad thing.  Populism is exciting.  Everyone knows about Bryan's cross of gold speech; no one has the slightest clue nor cares what speech McKinley gave.  But Bryan lost both elections . . .

[grumbler]

Well this discussion went different than I thought it would.

When I first saw the article I was surprised that CNN ran it.  Their editorial board is usually all bent out of shape about privilege, white people, economic inequality and the poisonous effect of money on politics.  Here's a story about a very privileged white billionaire heiress who had leaders of both state and federal government at her extraordinarily lavish wedding and CNN reports it with breathless rapture.  (Yes, it's the Style section; but still.)

Here I'm surprised this isn't red meat for a socialist like Josq.  The Getty family is old money (by Califonia standards) and obviously has close ties to the political establishment.  I'm not a socialist and I think publicizing such an extravagant wedding is in poor taste in a country with low social mobility, enormous economic inequality and a population that's suffering the economic shocks of Covid (to say nothing of the personal).  During the Great Depression the wealthy adopted more austere styles (hence Style Moderne); this level of ostentation (at this economic moment) seems to come straight out of the Gilded Age.

I don't disagree with what you've written, but question whether the CNN report was done because the Gettys wanted it, or CNN wanted it; in other words, if "publicizing such an extravagant wedding is in poor taste," whose poor taste is it:  the Gettys, or CNN?

Though I'd argue that the active participation of California's political elite is in poor taste no matter who pushed the CNN coverage.  Political leaders should be more circumspect in their public appearances with their owners.

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68SGehy0J3I

Jimmy Kimmel shows folks on the street clips of made by Lauren Boebert herself and asks them if they think SNL went beyond good taste in their parody.

The punch line is given away at the beginning but it's still alway fun to laugh at ridiculous Trumpeciles.

[Berkut]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68SGehy0J3I

Jimmy Kimmel shows folks on the street clips of made by Lauren Boebert herself and asks them if they think SNL went beyond good taste in their parody.

The punch line is given away at the beginning but it's still alway fun to laugh at ridiculous Trumpeciles.

The funny thing is the non-Trumpeciles. The black girl starts off saying "Hey, they are public figures! They have to expect that!" then sees the video and changes to "Well...she has family who might see that! It's kind of embarassing, not really nice...that definitely went too far....". That was pretty amusing when they told her it wasn't a skit.

She was actually trying to defend her in a very reasonable, measured way.

[Sheilbh]

The Left is flailing about for its populist combination - the war against the billionaires doesn't cut it.  No one buys the 99% - everyone knows that 99% doesn't have jack in common other than being in the same country and having less than 500K in annual income.  It's a brand of populism only a actuary or life insurance salesman could love. Maybe there just isn't a populist formula that works for the left at this moment in history.  It's not necessarily a bad thing.  Populism is exciting.  Everyone knows about Bryan's cross of gold speech; no one has the slightest clue nor cares what speech McKinley gave.  But Bryan lost both elections . . .

The starting point of populism (and technocracy) is that normal democratic politics has failed/is failing - the normal politicians are getting in the way of solving our problems.

It is really difficult to have a form of populism if your entire project is restoring normality (Biden) or competence (Starmer). For bilionaires to be a populist "target" you need to link it to why the current system is failing. If your criticism is actually that we need to restore the system to the way it used to be, or that you just need to do it better, then it doesn't work and you just want to raise taxes on billionaires which is fine but it's not going to get you far.

[Razgovory]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68SGehy0J3I

Jimmy Kimmel shows folks on the street clips of made by Lauren Boebert herself and asks them if they think SNL went beyond good taste in their parody.

The punch line is given away at the beginning but it's still alway fun to laugh at ridiculous Trumpeciles.

The funny thing is the non-Trumpeciles. The black girl starts off saying "Hey, they are public figures! They have to expect that!" then sees the video and changes to "Well...she has family who might see that! It's kind of embarassing, not really nice...that definitely went too far....". That was pretty amusing when they told her it wasn't a skit.

She was actually trying to defend her in a very reasonable, measured way.

I would have thought they were a sketch...

[The Larch]

So apparently Biden has nominated for some financial position an academic and expert on financial regulation that was born in Kazahstan and emigrated to the US in 1991 fresh out of university. During her Senate hearing she has been grilled by some doofus Republican senator about her belonging to the Communist youth organisations of the era and basically implying that she's still a commie. 

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1461369421889519618

[Habbaku]

Kennedy isn't a doofus, but is, in fact, very intelligent. He's playing up his Senator Aw-Shucks routine purely for the voters back home who want to see him as tough on comma-nists.

Just once, I want to see someone call them on this kind of bullshit. Confirmation hearings are pure political theater anyway, so I'm not seeing the downside.

[Admiral Yi]

I feel the same way about Congressional hearings.  If I were ever called I would say for the record that I have contempt for this process.  State sanctioned bullying is all it is.

[Admiral Yi]

I mean inquiry hearings, not confirmation hearings.

But I guess the same applies.