Stop sneering:
QuoteWhat Democrats Can Learn from Santorum About Populism
Rick Santorum—and Bruce Springsteen—could teach Democrats a few things about channeling populist rage
By Clive Crook
America has a lot to be angry about. Wall Street's reckless incompetence has slammed the economy, wiped out the home-equity savings of much of the middle class, and thrown millions of people out of work. The bankers haven't been punished—in some cases they've had their subsidies enhanced, and they're doing better than the rest. If now isn't the moment for a good, stiff dose of populist politics, when would be?
Populism is needed once in a while to stir politics to action. Democracy's not democracy without demos. Suspicion of the ruling elite and occasional reprisals against it go with the franchise. You can of course have too much as well as too little; populism can express bigotry as well as demand justice. But rule out populism in all its forms, and you're denying democracy its animating drive.
President Barack Obama reaches for populist notes—the stress on inequality, the Buffett rule, and all that—but channeling rage is a stretch for a man of his temperament. Democrats in general struggle with populism. Mitt Romney can't do it either. Absence of passion and conviction has become his signature characteristic. It's fallen to Rick Santorum, a much weirder politician than either Obama or Romney, to show how it's done.
Santorum's detractors cite his unusual opinions on the politics of gender and "artificial birth control" to paint him as extreme. But the source of Santorum's appeal is his skill at waging class warfare, Republican-style. His grandfather was a coal miner, he explains: "Those hands dug freedom for me." He wants to revive real jobs—blue-collar jobs—with zero corporate taxes on manufacturing. He's a Pennsylvania guy who's OK with declaring trade war on China. Romney, by contrast, is a plutocrat, a money guy. He's with Wall Street, not Detroit.
Santorum combines this proletarian stance—unusual in a hard-right conservative—with more familiar elements of GOP populism: patriotism, reverence for family, hard work and self-reliance, hostility to big government, and proud religiosity (to a fault, in his case). If not for the extremism on sexual politics, it would be a potent blend even beyond the Republican Party's social-conservative core. It's enough, given his rival's defects as a politician, to give Santorum a shot at the nomination.
The big puzzle, though, is that American liberals find it much harder than conservatives to be populist, even at a time like this. You'd think a country limping away from the Great Recession would be eager for a rush of liberal anti-elitism. Surely the American Left was best placed to take advantage of anger at Wall Street. Yet the main populist surge has come from the Right, in the form of the Tea Party and its new sweater-vested hero.
President Obama's sounding off about Wall Street and inequality, and his call for higher taxes on the rich, get the Democrats only so far. An approach to taxes that Democrats advocate all the time is hard to sell as an urgent response to this particular crisis. It fails to target Wall Street malfeasance directly. Populism wants punishment. Injustice gets America's juices flowing. Mere inequality, less so.
The Occupy movement, meanwhile, has tried to channel the righteous anger of Middle America, but it has no program. It's too narrowly based to be populist, and too clueless to know where it's heading. There are Tea Party candidates on ballots. There are no Occupy candidates. Scruffy, disorderly, and unserious, it can't speak for the 99 percent. ("Mic check ..." Oh, please.)
Democrats have another weakness. A muscular liberal-populist response to the Great Recession would have to take on banking and finance much more aggressively. But Democratic politicians are equally complicit in the collusion between Wall Street and Washington. The Obama administration is populated by once and future investment bankers. And the President's reelection depends on raising super-PAC money from some of the same fat cats it should be punishing.
Liberal populism does exist, though, and it's an instructive thing to examine. Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia has been one of its rare exponents in Congress. In 2009 he proposed a one-time surtax on bonuses paid to executives in financial institutions helped by the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The measure never even reached the Senate floor. "Voting in favor of a windfall profits tax, however narrowly defined, incurs the wrath of key political donors," Webb wrote in the Washington Post. "But voting against it would increase the anger of working people who know they are not being fairly treated. And so, after a bit of political hand-wringing, the issue disappeared from view."
Vested interests are one clue to Democratic discomfort with populism. Here's another. Webb's attention to the anger of working people has led him over the years to speak up for the class he thinks the American Left has ignored—poor and middle-income whites. Liberals' "prevailing attitude has been to ridicule whites who have the audacity to complain about their reduced status and to sneer at every aspect of the 'redneck' way of life," Webb wrote in an article, "In Defense of Joe Six-Pack," for the Wall Street Journal in 1995. It's the kind of comment that makes many Democrats wonder if Webb is in the wrong party.
A view closer to mainstream liberal thinking is that of the New York Times's Paul Krugman, the leading progressive commentator, who titled a recent column "Moochers Against Welfare." The column delighted in the finding that red states benefit more from fiscal transfers than blue states. This is excellent grist for metropolitan condescension, proof that conservative voters are not just government dependents but too stupid to see it.
When prosperous liberals vote their values, not their interests, that's enlightened. When poor conservatives do it, it's dumb. What's perhaps most offensive is the empathy this pathology sometimes elicits, infamously expressed by candidate Obama in 2008. "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." It's a shame they're that way, but we understand.
There's one person in public life who does manage to articulate an authentically progressive populism—and makes a killing doing it. Bruce Springsteen has a new album coming out. He tells Rolling Stone it's the first time he's written about guys who wear ties. Wrecking Ball is a "scathing indictment of Wall Street greed and corruption." If the Boss can do it, what's stopping Democratic politicians? Why haven't they cornered the market in scathing?
Liberals might take a second to notice what Springsteen has in common with Santorum and other conservative populists. There's no sneering at Joe Six-Pack in the Springsteen canon. He's very much a six-pack kind of guy. There's no condescension, no questioning that America is special, that it stands for something in the world. This is an idea that much of the country holds dear—and one that a lot of progressives roll their eyes at. His song Long Walk Home, about how the country has lost its way, includes the lines:
My father said "Son, we're lucky in this town,
It's a beautiful place to be born.
It just wraps its arms around you,
Nobody crowds you and nobody goes it alone.
You know that flag flying over the courthouse
Means certain things are set in stone,
Who we are, what we'll do and what we won't."
Of course, not many black Americans and not many women long for the lives their parents led. Not many who've been down a mine or shackled to the mindless drudgery of a production line see those as the only jobs worth having. Santorum, spokesman for the working stiff, is a lawyer and career politician making close to a million a year. Springsteen mocks his own "pirate's treasure" and working-class pretensions. "It's a sad funny ending to find yourself pretending, a rich man in a poor man's shirt," he sang in 1992's Better Days.
Still, Springsteen's message resonates because of its simplicity: America is a beautiful place to be born. Conservative populists are nostalgic for the same place, and a lot of this flag-waving country is with them.
Crook is a columnist for Bloomberg View.
On a separate note everything I've read about him makes me a big fan of Jim Webb. He seems a very strong politician.
I'm not sneering...I'm choking on my own vomit. :x
Besides, I don't really understand this in the context of a president's whose successful campaign was steeped in populism.
Springsteen sucks. He has one good song. Fuck him.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 27, 2012, 08:45:00 PM
Springsteen sucks. He has one good song. Fuck him.
That bit annoyed me. I like Springsteen, but Crook raises him in a fair few of his articles. It's one of those tics like Iain Martin bringing up the Rolling Stones <_<
QuoteBesides, I don't really understand this in the context of a president's whose successful campaign was steeped in populism.
Obama's campaign was college educated and minorities. Clinton was the populist, of the two. In the general it was McCain-Palin.
Sheilbh, Al Gore tried the economic populism angle in 2000, but nobody was listening.
As far as everybody was concerned, Al's message was simply misinterpreted as "we've had it really good and we're not going to take it anymore!"
The author also forgot the part about how so much of this Republican populism is rooted in the fact there's a nigger in their White Haus. That has a tremendous amount to do with it, whether the tards here believe that or not.
I'm against all forms of populism, they inevetably lead to facism, socialism or plain old stupidity. More Pericles less Alcibiades.
Meh, you know what, fuck old racist white people, we don't need them. Demographics are going to kill the GOP for at least a generation.
Edit: From what I can tell, the authors point is that the Democratic Party should take a page from the GOP playbook, start acting holier than thou, and embrace hating niggers, fags, spics, and people with college degrees. Um, no thanks?
Quote from: Habbaku on February 27, 2012, 10:12:51 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 27, 2012, 10:12:15 PM
facism
:bleeding:
Unlike all the populists using that word today I know what it means. Historically populism has been a fundamental component in all cases where facism has come into existence except where it happened by pure military coup. Note I'm not saying populism leads to facism (and socialism and idiocy) I'm saying one of the directions populism can take is facism.
It's spelled "fascism", you dumb Islander. :P
Quote from: Fireblade on February 27, 2012, 10:17:08 PM
It's spelled "fascism", you dumb Islander. :P
:blush:
I need to reinstall the spell check add on.... Note, I did check the spelling of Alcibiades and Pericles.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2012, 09:23:46 PM
Sheilbh, Al Gore tried the economic populism angle in 2000, but nobody was listening.
As far as everybody was concerned, Al's message was simply misinterpreted as "we've had it really good and we're not going to take it anymore!"
I'd never suggest anyone listen to Bob Shrum. That way lies middling poll numbers and inevitable defeat :(
But I think it is very odd that we've had a massive economic crisis in large part increased by international bankers raking in enormous subsidised bonuses experimenting with exotic financial transactions. Despite this the left hasn't managed to turn that anger into any kind of success anywhere. In Europe, so far, we've seen more success on the populist far-right and in the US it's been the Tea Party and the Republicans. Why have the left failed?
Obama's been successful and I like him, but he can't do this stuff temperamentally. But I agree with Crook that suspicion and anger and the occasional reprisal against the ruling elites are healthy and necessary parts of a democracy.
I think he's right that the lingering contempt many Democrats seem to hold voters in is part of it and the fact that a lot of them work or will work in Wall Street is another. A lot of Democrats remind me of Gordon Brown. They may be great at talking about neo-endogenous growth but they always seem patronising and likely, out of ear shot, to moan about the 'bigoted' voters.
Where, except possibly for Jim Webb, Elizabeth Warren and maybe Barney Frank (at best), is the robust liberal-populist anger at the banks?
Edit: As Crook says in his Atlantic site the main thing is 'not looking down on people whose votes you might like'. Seems worth a try to me.
Quote from: Viking on February 27, 2012, 10:12:15 PM
I'm against all forms of populism, they inevetably lead to facism, socialism or plain old stupidity. More Pericles less Alcibiades.
Pericles was a populist. Alcibiades wasn't :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2012, 10:32:52 PMin the US it's been the Tea Party and the Republicans.
The TP is a spent force. The party's over.
So what are you looking for, Huey Long? He doesn't exist. The reason the GOP is more populist is because the GOP has to rely less on large donors. Pure and simple. Door to door doesn't win elections now. Money does.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2012, 10:34:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 27, 2012, 10:12:15 PM
I'm against all forms of populism, they inevetably lead to facism, socialism or plain old stupidity. More Pericles less Alcibiades.
Pericles was a populist. Alcibiades wasn't :mellow:
We seem to have differing understandings of the meaning of the word populist.
Quote from: Viking on February 27, 2012, 11:16:42 PM
We seem to have differing understandings of the meaning of the word populist.
That's not uncommon.
Quote from: Viking on February 27, 2012, 11:16:42 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2012, 10:34:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 27, 2012, 10:12:15 PM
I'm against all forms of populism, they inevetably lead to facism, socialism or plain old stupidity. More Pericles less Alcibiades.
Pericles was a populist. Alcibiades wasn't :mellow:
We seem to have differing understandings of the meaning of the word populist.
Clearly. Your understanding changes from post to post.
QuoteI'm against all forms of populism, they inevetably lead to facism, socialism or plain old stupidity. More Pericles less Alcibiades.
Then
QuoteNote I'm not saying populism leads to facism (and socialism and idiocy) I'm saying one of the directions populism can take is facism.
I'm assuming the word "inevetably" Is suppose to mean "inevitably"
Quote from: Fireblade on February 27, 2012, 10:17:08 PM
It's spelled "fascism", you dumb Islander. :P
"Farism" :)
Quote from: Fireblade on February 27, 2012, 10:13:50 PM
Meh, you know what, fuck old racist white people, we don't need them. Demographics are going to kill the GOP for at least a generation.
Edit: From what I can tell, the authors point is that the Democratic Party should take a page from the GOP playbook, start acting holier than thou, and embrace hating niggers, fags, spics, and people with college degrees. Um, no thanks?
I think so yes. Plus do more demos because it's rad.
I think Fireblade actually has the point. Santorum's deal is not that he wants to lynch bankers, he is celebrating the working man. Big difference.
If you wish to embrace populism to any degree, you just don't understand the dangers of it.
The people who can only be mobilized by it should not be mobilized at all because they are dumb fucks who should have nothing to do in a poll booth to begin with.
Quote from: citizen k on February 27, 2012, 11:23:55 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 27, 2012, 11:16:42 PM
We seem to have differing understandings of the meaning of the word populist.
That's not uncommon.
I think that's one of the words that still doesn't have an agreed upon meaning on this board.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2012, 03:13:58 AM
I think Fireblade actually has the point. Santorum's deal is not that he wants to lynch bankers, he is celebrating the working man. Big difference.
He's certainly not celebrating the working woman.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2012, 03:13:58 AM
I think Fireblade actually has the point. Santorum's deal is not that he wants to lynch bankers, he is celebrating the working man. Big difference.
Well I got that from the article, not FB:
QuoteEdit: From what I can tell, the authors point is that the Democratic Party should take a page from the GOP playbook, start acting holier than thou, and embrace hating niggers, fags, spics, and people with college degrees. Um, no thanks?
Populism, in the article, is suspicion of elites and the occasional burst to turn against them. A part of why populist anger's been best expressed by wanting to lynch a government employee, not a banker is because of lefty condescension (expressed by FB) and the righty celebration. I think it helps win 'swing populists' and the white working class who are still left-wing I imagine would be in greater voice if the left's elites didn't look down on them.
QuoteWe seem to have differing understandings of the meaning of the word populist.
One was a politician who used his oratory and special relationship with the people to strengthen their sway over power, expel his enemies, support a hawkish foreign policy and fund large-scale public works policies. The other was a highly educated aristocrat who, with the support of a foreign power, conspired to overthrow democracy and install a narrow oligarchy.
QuoteSo what are you looking for, Huey Long?
FDR would do :P
Sheilbh, re: populism-- the political vortex over here is resistant to lashing out against Wall Street, rich folk, etc., as a form of populism because, unlike I suspect over in Europe, there's been 200+ years of celebrating the 1% here. They're the American Dream. They're the capitalists. It's the government that needs to be feared and controlled, not them.
Even though the 1% does more damage to our society than the bottom 10% ever could, that's not our political heritage.
A single black mother with 5 kids is perceived to be much more dangerous to society than Mr. Brooks Brothers MBA on Wall Street. Welfare moms, librul professors and unions, they're tangible threats. Johnny Six-Pack sees them every day. Mr. Brothers? Not a chance. So which threat is more tangible?
Was watching an interview with Michael Douglas about Wall Street; said it totally irked him when people for years would approach him admiringly, telling him that Gordon Gekko was their hero. That's why he did the PSA for the FBI on securities fraud recently.
Also, Americans lash out against intellectual elites because of our rich history of anti-intellectualism. That hasn't changed going on two centuries now.
But how did this change happen? Because I'm not sure you're right that the government's always been the focus of populist anger, for example Bryan and both Roosevelts were populists who were about using the government.
Race is clearly a part of it but I don't think it's all of it. I think the Kennedy Administration and its guardians are as much to blame.
Fair point on anti-intellectualism which I think is a clever deflecting defence against anti-elitism.
But populism isn't about the intricate details of the difference between private oligarchs and rulers of the state (I suspect reality is the alliance of these two, I know for certain it is in eastern europe).
It is about stirring hate against those who have more / are different than you.
Also, I would speculate that leftist populism is so low-key there because it was The Enemy for 50 years.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 07:35:07 AM
But how did this change happen? Because I'm not sure you're right that the government's always been the focus of populist anger, for example Bryan and both Roosevelts were populists who were about using the government.
Since the Depression. Hell, the GOP is STILL trying to roll back FDR. Civil Rights and 1964 merely cemented it.
Bryan was as much an evangelical as he was an economic populist, btw.
QuoteRace is clearly a part of it but I don't think it's all of it. I think the Kennedy Administration and its guardians are as much to blame.
How so? Race and economic inequality went hand-in-hand, and you couldn't address one without the other.
QuoteFair point on anti-intellectualism which I think is a clever deflecting defence against anti-elitism.
Intellectuals are perceived as the elites here. Rich pipple aren't; hence our celebration of the Self-Made Man.
Hell, I'm glad Nixon, Ford and Rockefeller are dead. Because today's GOP would kill them if they saw it.
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2012, 07:37:54 AM
But populism isn't about the intricate details of the difference between private oligarchs and rulers of the state (I suspect reality is the alliance of these two, I know for certain it is in eastern europe).
It is about stirring hate against those who have more / are different than you.
I think to an extent you're projecting. Populism at its heart is anti-elitism, but you're right there's normally a suspicion that they're kind-of all in it together. But the problem I have with your view is where you fit Maggie and Reagan for example? I think they were populists but were about a lot more than stirring hate, because it's a style of politics rather than an ideology.
QuoteAlso, I would speculate that leftist populism is so low-key there because it was The Enemy for 50 years.
Possibly a large part of it.
The wing of the party the despised Rockefeller has seemed to won out. I mean, the John Birch Society cosponsored CPAC. The biggest annual hoe-down of Conservatives. And the JBS thought that Eisenhower was a communist agent. If I recall Rockefeller figured big in their bizarre conspiracy theories.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 07:47:06 AM
But the problem I have with your view is where you fit Maggie and Reagan for example? I think they were populists but were about a lot more than stirring hate, because it's a style of politics rather than an ideology.
I'm not a student of UK conservatism, but Maggie and Reagan were the natural result of positive nationalism. I understand the '70s were a bit depressing for Brits.
Reagan was the tonic for a decade of post-Vietnam lethargy, perceived Carter failings on energy policy, inflation, and 444 days of the most powerful nation on earth taking it in the nuts from a bunch of unshaven dune coon students. He was, in a term, refreshing. And made it fun to be an American again.
And Maggie's digits went through the roof when she fought The Last Colonial War over some barren rocks in the South Atlantic, didn't they?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 07:47:06 AM
I think to an extent you're projecting. Populism at its heart is anti-elitism, but you're right there's normally a suspicion that they're kind-of all in it together. But the problem I have with your view is where you fit Maggie and Reagan for example? I think they were populists but were about a lot more than stirring hate, because it's a style of politics rather than an ideology.
Well I guess we are back to the topic of defining populism.
And I don't think I have a clear one.
But in my book, real "populism" is about catering to the current short-term and basic "interests" and impulses of the people, for the short term goal of gaining or keeping power.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 07:45:13 AM
Since the Depression. Hell, the GOP is STILL trying to roll back FDR. Civil Rights and 1964 merely cemented it.
Bryan was as much an evangelical as he was an economic populist, btw.
I don't think the two are, should be, necessarily opposed.
Why can't the Democrats shift that back? Especially in the aftermath of an economic crisis.
QuoteHow so? Race and economic inequality went hand-in-hand, and you couldn't address one without the other.
I agree entirely. But I think Johnson did a mean line in populist politics too.
But after Kennedy was killed I think there was an elite myth built up around his White House. The whole Camelot story - with footage of them in black tie at a White House art event organised by Jackie. The people who historically defined and defended the Kennedy Administration were guys like Schlesinger. And the Democrats saw him as the lost great hope, he became a greater President having died than he was alive. I think the Democrat idea of what a President should be shifted with Kennedy, for the worst.
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2012, 07:54:24 AM
But in my book, real "populism" is about catering to the current short-term and basic "interests" and impulses of the people, for the short term goal of gaining or keeping power.
That's just because you're an Eastern European.
You need a new book.
Here's the dictionary. it's good at defining words.
Quote
a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized : a member of a United States political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2
: a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/populist
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 07:57:56 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2012, 07:54:24 AM
But in my book, real "populism" is about catering to the current short-term and basic "interests" and impulses of the people, for the short term goal of gaining or keeping power.
That's just because you're an Eastern European.
Dude. You have the Tea Party. Even our populists are of more quality than that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 07:52:29 AM
I'm not a student of UK conservatism, but Maggie and Reagan were the natural result of positive nationalism. I understand the '70s were a bit depressing for Brits.
Reagan was the tonic for a decade of post-Vietnam lethargy, perceived Carter failings on energy policy, inflation, and 444 days of the most powerful nation on earth taking it in the nuts from a bunch of unshaven dune coon students. He was, in a term, refreshing. And made it fun to be an American again.
And Maggie's digits went through the roof when she fought The Last Colonial War over some barren rocks in the South Atlantic, didn't they?
I think a lot of that's the same with Maggie. But there's also that she was fighting for Middle England against the unaccountable, out-of-touch trades union leadership (her elite to tilt against), academics and 'special interest groups'.
But I think the populist streak was best summed up in Norman Tebbit who responded to the Brixton riots like this 'I grew up in the '30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking 'til he found it.' And moaned about relativism, 'thus was sown the wind; and we are now reaping the whirlwind.' But it's also there in her social conservatism and reaction against nasty bad art.
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2012, 08:04:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 07:57:56 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2012, 07:54:24 AM
But in my book, real "populism" is about catering to the current short-term and basic "interests" and impulses of the people, for the short term goal of gaining or keeping power.
That's just because you're an Eastern European.
Dude. You have the Tea Party. Even our populists are of more quality than that.
The Tea Party is a minority within a minority, which isn't really "populist" in a sense.
Your definition of populism is crafted more for dictatorship, which is probably what you're used to seeing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 08:06:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2012, 08:04:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 07:57:56 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2012, 07:54:24 AM
But in my book, real "populism" is about catering to the current short-term and basic "interests" and impulses of the people, for the short term goal of gaining or keeping power.
That's just because you're an Eastern European.
Dude. You have the Tea Party. Even our populists are of more quality than that.
The Tea Party is a minority within a minority, which isn't really "populist" in a sense.
Your definition of populism is crafted more for dictatorship, which is probably what you're used to seeing.
How is the Tea Party not populist? Minority sure, but how they are not populist, even by the dictionary standard Raz "Smartass" Gorovy posted?
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2012, 08:08:14 AM
How is the Tea Party not populist? Minority sure, but how they are not populist, even by the dictionary standard Raz "Smartass" Gorovy posted?
If populism is claiming what the "Common People" represent, then everything's populist, isn't it? My cat is populist, because the Common Cat wants soft food.
Go ahead, keep corkscrewing down into diminishing returns.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 08:12:18 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2012, 08:08:14 AM
How is the Tea Party not populist? Minority sure, but how they are not populist, even by the dictionary standard Raz "Smartass" Gorovy posted?
If populism is claiming what the "Common People" represent, then everything's populist, isn't it? My cat is populist, because the Common Cat wants soft food.
Go ahead, keep corkscrewing down into diminishing returns.
Actually, I did not want to make that point, weary of yet another "your opinion is based on Eastern Europe" reply (which is kinda funny btw - we are discussing the dangeres of populism, and my opinion is set aside because I hail from a region destroyed by rampant populism, ie. I know where it can lead if spiralled out of control).
But if you are so certain about the Tea Party not being populist, then fine, I concede the issue.
Was Communism really all that populist by the 40s?
The communism we know was never really populist at all. The main thrust came from the upper middle class and educated elites in places where that was an extremely small portion of the population.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 07:11:04 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2012, 03:13:58 AM
I think Fireblade actually has the point. Santorum's deal is not that he wants to lynch bankers, he is celebrating the working man. Big difference.
Well I got that from the article, not FB:
I was trying to point out that you and Crook are both missing the point of Santorum's populist appeal.
Another point that you and Crook seem to be missing is that Obama has been playing the anti Wall Street card for all it's worth, it just hasn't been generating the desired results. (Although I think it will be part of Obama's play book come the general election.)
The Michael Moore wing of the Democrats thinks bankers should be in prison. For what? Lending money to people who didn't pay it back? That's not a crime. For "causing a recession?" That's not a crime either. Moorites like the spin the narrative that Wall Street hasn't gotten what they deserve because they are bed with Congress, but they forget about things like the rule of law.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2012, 02:22:18 PM
Moorites like the spin the narrative that Wall Street hasn't gotten what they deserve because they are bed with Congress, but they forget about things like the rule of law.
Well they are in bed with Congress but that is not their fault. All their competitors are in bed in Congress if they are not well...
Sometimes I wonder if our public discourse on jobs is missing a big elephant in the room. Perhaps no matter what happens we just do not need that many workers for alot of industries anymore. Automation means that we can build more widgets with alot less peeps so all these promises that cutting taxes or some other political solution will lead to huge job creation rings might ring a little false. Perhaps these jobs are not coming back, we don't need them. The consequences of that, how to create well paying jobs for average Joes and Janes in the future, is a difficult problem that I suspect thoughtful people are already discussing. I am not even sure there is a political solution to that problem.
But I realize this is about political strategies not solutions to the actual problems.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2012, 02:22:18 PM
Another point that you and Crook seem to be missing is that Obama has been playing the anti Wall Street card for all it's worth, it just hasn't been generating the desired results. (Although I think it will be part of Obama's play book come the general election.)
Well both of us think Obama can't be a populist due to his temperament. I'd say the results would be like Al Gore's attempt. Or Mitt Romney trying. No-one would believe it and it would just be awkward and embarrassing for everyone.
QuoteThe Michael Moore wing of the Democrats thinks bankers should be in prison. For what? Lending money to people who didn't pay it back? That's not a crime. For "causing a recession?" That's not a crime either. Moorites like the spin the narrative that Wall Street hasn't gotten what they deserve because they are bed with Congress, but they forget about things like the rule of law.
Crook's not a Moore-ite though, neither am I :P
He's a deficit hawk centrist Brit writing for the FT who disagrees with the Democrats on tax and finds Obama's tone too left-wing. Normally I agree with him, but sometimes I find him a bit too righty for my tastes.
I think vested interests within the White House and Congress are a big problem in dealing with the banks and financial services.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 28, 2012, 12:24:54 PM
The communism we know was never really populist at all. The main thrust came from the upper middle class and educated elites in places where that was an extremely small portion of the population.
Yeah. Even genuinely popular Communist Parties never went in for populism. I mean the French leadership was unbelievably uncharismatic apparatchiks. The PCI leaders (until Berlinguer :wub:) were similarly uncharismatic. Togliatti toed the Soviet line and then threw in a veneer of Gramsci for the intellectuals.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 02:41:33 PM
Well both of us think Obama can't be a populist due to his temperament. I'd say the results would be like Al Gore's attempt. Or Mitt Romney trying. No-one would believe it and it would just be awkward and embarrassing for everyone.
You're jumbling the various versions of populist again. Obama is totally unconvincing as a Santorum style celebrate the common man type of populist--he bowls 48 and sips bourbon like it's cognac. But he is very convincing as a basher of the rich/Wall Street.
Quote
Crook's not a Moore-ite though, neither am I :P
I understand that, and that's why neither you nor Crook can get past the desire to "do something" about Wall Street and get to specific policies. But you are enough of a Moorite that you're not willing to confront that contradiction. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2012, 02:22:18 PM
The Michael Moore wing of the Democrats thinks bankers should be in prison. For what? Lending money to people who didn't pay it back? That's not a crime. For "causing a recession?" That's not a crime either. Moorites like the spin the narrative that Wall Street hasn't gotten what they deserve because they are bed with Congress, but they forget about things like the rule of law.
:lol:
You think Yi believes his own shit, or is he just having a laugh?
I live in a Province which has been dominated by populist politicians and parties since its creation. Both left wing party and the centre right coalition created to stop it are populist. It makes for interesting politics and generally bad socially by both of them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2012, 03:10:21 PM
You're jumbling the various versions of populist again. Obama is totally unconvincing as a Santorum style celebrate the common man type of populist--he bowls 48 and sips bourbon like it's cognac. But he is very convincing as a basher of the rich/Wall Street.
You can bash the rich or celebrate the common man without being populist. As I've said before tone matters, it's a style of politics not a series of policy prescriptions.
QuoteI understand that, and that's why neither you nor Crook can get past the desire to "do something" about Wall Street and get to specific policies. But you are enough of a Moorite that you're not willing to confront that contradiction. ;)
What contradiction? I support Webb's policy. I'd support a permanent financial transactions tax and a bonus surtax. I'm in favour of all of the Vickers recommendations (though I don't think they go far enough). It's not necessarily all about prosecution.
Yeah, I agree with Sheilbh. Populism is more style then policy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 03:31:06 PM
What contradiction? I support Webb's policy. I'd support a permanent financial transactions tax and a bonus surtax. I'm in favour of all of the Vickers recommendations (though I don't think they go far enough). It's not necessarily all about prosecution.
Maybe that's the problem; if it were all about prosecution, perhaps there'd be more accountability.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 28, 2012, 03:22:16 PM
I live in a Province which has been dominated by populist politicians and parties since its creation. Both left wing party and the centre right coalition created to stop it are populist. It makes for interesting politics and generally bad socially by both of them.
I live in a province that has been ruled by a single party since 1971 (and before that with an ideologically very similar party since 1935). What this means in effect is very technocratic government. I tend to feel we could use a dose more populism here.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 03:43:38 PM
Maybe that's the problem; if it were all about prosecution, perhaps there'd be more accountability.
Over here there's some talk of making executives personally liable in more situations than is currently the case. Again that's something I'd support. But Yi's right you can't do that retroactively.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 03:48:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2012, 03:43:38 PM
Maybe that's the problem; if it were all about prosecution, perhaps there'd be more accountability.
Over here there's some talk of making executives personally liable in more situations than is currently the case. Again that's something I'd support. But Yi's right you can't do that retroactively.
Also you need to think of the unintended consequences. Most CEOs and senior executives are in full cyb mode - and have been for at least the last couple years. I havent seen so much buck passing, lack of direction and unwillingness to make a decision since well... ever.
Things just stop getting done. One can imagine what further populist type legislation might do.
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2012, 03:44:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 28, 2012, 03:22:16 PM
I live in a Province which has been dominated by populist politicians and parties since its creation. Both left wing party and the centre right coalition created to stop it are populist. It makes for interesting politics and generally bad socially by both of them.
I live in a province that has been ruled by a single party since 1971 (and before that with an ideologically very similar party since 1935). What this means in effect is very technocratic government. I tend to feel we could use a dose more populism here.
Meh, I would take boring and well governed over populist swings in government everytime.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 03:31:06 PM
You can bash the rich or celebrate the common man without being populist. As I've said before tone matters, it's a style of politics not a series of policy prescriptions.
So far Obama's bashing of the rich and Santorum's celebration of the common man have been all about tone and not much to do with policy.
QuoteWhat contradiction? I support Webb's policy. I'd support a permanent financial transactions tax and a bonus surtax. I'm in favour of all of the Vickers recommendations (though I don't think they go far enough). It's not necessarily all about prosecution.
As Seedy's post points out, measures like this don't appease the populist rage that you want Democrats to harness.
Also not sure how you impose a surtax on officers of banks that for the most part have already paid back their TARP loans.
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2012, 03:44:59 PM
I live in a province that has been ruled by a single party since 1971 (and before that with an ideologically very similar party since 1935). What this means in effect is very technocratic government. I tend to feel we could use a dose more populism here.
I live in a State ruled by a single party since 1990 (and before that with an ideologically very similar party since 1846) and our government is almost completely populist. It is not all it is cracked up to be.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2012, 04:14:55 PM
So far Obama's bashing of the rich and Santorum's celebration of the common man have been all about tone and not much to do with policy.
And he is saying Obama's bashing of the rich lacks the populist tone.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 28, 2012, 04:12:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2012, 03:44:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 28, 2012, 03:22:16 PM
I live in a Province which has been dominated by populist politicians and parties since its creation. Both left wing party and the centre right coalition created to stop it are populist. It makes for interesting politics and generally bad socially by both of them.
I live in a province that has been ruled by a single party since 1971 (and before that with an ideologically very similar party since 1935). What this means in effect is very technocratic government. I tend to feel we could use a dose more populism here.
Meh, I would take boring and well governed over populist swings in government everytime.
The thing is I'm not all that sure how well governed it is.
As a total aside, back in Alberta of 2012 I feel ideologically more akin to the Wild Rose Alliance party, the new up-and-comers who are trying to do to the PCs what the PCs did to Social Credit - out-flank them on the right.
But as a public servant, Wild Rose is promising slashes to government spending, including the public service. The PCs are not.
:hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2012, 04:14:55 PM
So far Obama's bashing of the rich and Santorum's celebration of the common man have been all about tone and not much to do with policy.
With Santorum you're right, he is a populist. But if Romney were to say the same, even if it was fully meant, it wouldn't work.
Similarly Obama's 'bashing of the rich' is pretty insipid - go read some FDR if you want to see how to do it - and clearly tied to his argument on taxes. Again there's little passion, drama or rage - which is right because it wouldn't suit Obama.
QuoteAlso not sure how you impose a surtax on officers of banks that for the most part have already paid back their TARP loans.
Well that bill was proposed in 2009. Right now I support a permanent surtax on bonuses above a certain level.
QuoteAlso you need to think of the unintended consequences. Most CEOs and senior executives are in full cyb mode - and have been for at least the last couple years. I havent seen so much buck passing, lack of direction and unwillingness to make a decision since well... ever.
Things just stop getting done. One can imagine what further populist type legislation might do.
Of course. My understanding is that a lot of proposed reforms to UK corporate crime legislation is to bring us in line with international norms. I believe we've had a pretty lax attitude for a long time. For example I believe the 1906 law on bribery didn't criminalise bribing foreign officials and that was the case until 2010.
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2012, 04:33:30 PMThe thing is I'm not all that sure how well governed it is.
Personally I think you occasionally need a populist revolt against the elite. Otherwise I think you'll end up with probably quite corrupt and corporatist public life rather than a well managed technocratic regime.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 28, 2012, 04:12:28 PM
Meh, I would take boring and well governed over populist swings in government everytime.
Me too.
Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2012, 02:30:49 PM
Sometimes I wonder if our public discourse on jobs is missing a big elephant in the room. Perhaps no matter what happens we just do not need that many workers for alot of industries anymore. Automation means that we can build more widgets with alot less peeps so all these promises that cutting taxes or some other political solution will lead to huge job creation rings might ring a little false. Perhaps these jobs are not coming back, we don't need them. The consequences of that, how to create well paying jobs for average Joes and Janes in the future, is a difficult problem that I suspect thoughtful people are already discussing. I am not even sure there is a political solution to that problem.
But I realize this is about political strategies not solutions to the actual problems.
Yeah, I think you are right on this. The weight of the issue is certainly bigger than the public discussion time it gets (which is just about zero as far as I can tell). Together with globalism and the cheap workforce of the third world, it gets all the more pronounced.
And the only clear-cut solution for it would be to await Chinese and Indian masses entering the European standard of living. Which we supposedly cannot really support at present technologies until killing off the ecosystem, so there you go.
The pressure of this all should create the solution (cold fusion, hopefully, for starters) as it always has in history, but that inevitable ride toward progress was rather bumpy, and who to say that our generation will not end up being remembered as the first of an era of collapse?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 04:37:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2012, 04:33:30 PMThe thing is I'm not all that sure how well governed it is.
Personally I think you occasionally need a populist revolt against the elite. Otherwise I think you'll end up with probably quite corrupt and corporatist public life rather than a well managed technocratic regime.
I'm not sure there's much destinction between the two.
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2012, 04:38:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 28, 2012, 04:12:28 PM
Meh, I would take boring and well governed over populist swings in government everytime.
Me too.
Yet that would be the end of politics. There are no objective definitions of "well-governed" and the ideal of management is precisely to keep any sort of popular input out of a mechanistic approach to populations, money and regulations. I find that scarier.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 28, 2012, 05:10:03 PM
Yet that would be the end of politics. There are no objective definitions of "well-governed" and the ideal of management is precisely to keep any sort of popular input out of a mechanistic approach to populations, money and regulations. I find that scarier.
Well don't worry. In spite of the agreement between CC and I on this particular subject, we're quite far away from being well governed :lol:
That said, I think you're being a bit unfair. A preference for boring, efficient and rational governance in contrast to swings between populist extremes doesn't preclude popular input; nor does it imply that everybody has to agree the correct application and direction of boring and efficient governance.
Just because we think that getting shit done with a minimum of fuss is preferable, doesn't mean we agree on what shit needs to get done.
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2012, 03:44:59 PM
I live in a province that has been ruled by a single party since 1971 (and before that with an ideologically very similar party since 1935). What this means in effect is very technocratic government. I tend to feel we could use a dose more populism here.
Wasn't Klein about as populist as they get?
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2012, 04:45:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2012, 02:30:49 PM
Sometimes I wonder if our public discourse on jobs is missing a big elephant in the room. Perhaps no matter what happens we just do not need that many workers for alot of industries anymore. Automation means that we can build more widgets with alot less peeps so all these promises that cutting taxes or some other political solution will lead to huge job creation rings might ring a little false. Perhaps these jobs are not coming back, we don't need them. The consequences of that, how to create well paying jobs for average Joes and Janes in the future, is a difficult problem that I suspect thoughtful people are already discussing. I am not even sure there is a political solution to that problem.
But I realize this is about political strategies not solutions to the actual problems.
Yeah, I think you are right on this. The weight of the issue is certainly bigger than the public discussion time it gets (which is just about zero as far as I can tell). Together with globalism and the cheap workforce of the third world, it gets all the more pronounced.
And the only clear-cut solution for it would be to await Chinese and Indian masses entering the European standard of living. Which we supposedly cannot really support at present technologies until killing off the ecosystem, so there you go.
The pressure of this all should create the solution (cold fusion, hopefully, for starters) as it always has in history, but that inevitable ride toward progress was rather bumpy, and who to say that our generation will not end up being remembered as the first of an era of collapse?
I think there is a fundamental mistake in the story of manufacturing jobs being outsourced to other countries.
And that is that it may not really even have happened much at all.
Has the number of manufacturing jobs in the US decreased drastically over the last 60 years? Of course.
Has the amount of manufacturng going on in the US also decreased drastically over the last 60 years?
Uhh, well, no - actually it has not. Actual manufacturing output in the US has grown in fact over that time, and teh US share of the global manufacturing pie has been steady at around 20% - first in the world.
The real story is that the decline in employment in the manufacturing sector in the US is mostly driven by productivity increases - and giving manufacturing companies tax breaks will surely make their executives happy, but it won't cause them to hire people to work in a less efficient manner.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 04:35:32 PM
With Santorum you're right, he is a populist. But if Romney were to say the same, even if it was fully meant, it wouldn't work.
Similarly Obama's 'bashing of the rich' is pretty insipid - go read some FDR if you want to see how to do it - and clearly tied to his argument on taxes. Again there's little passion, drama or rage - which is right because it wouldn't suit Obama.
Please. He has just as much passion, drama, and rage as Santorum. Which is not that much. The difference between the two (apart from the type of populist message they're peddling) is that Santorum's message is getting traction with a subset of the population when he wasn't supposed to, and Obama's message is not getting traction when he was supposed to.
QuoteWell that bill was proposed in 2009. Right now I support a permanent surtax on bonuses above a certain level.
And I repeat: do you think a policy of this sort would harness populist rage in the way you would like?
Where is this Obama Rage?
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2012, 07:54:24 AM
But in my book, real "populism" is about catering to the current short-term and basic "interests" and impulses of the people, for the short term goal of gaining or keeping power.
FWIW, I think that this is a good, short definition for what populism generally means in the real world, vague dictionary definitions that describe pretty much every modern political party notwithstanding.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2012, 09:38:17 PM
Please. He has just as much passion, drama, and rage as Santorum. Which is not that much. The difference between the two (apart from the type of populist message they're peddling) is that Santorum's message is getting traction with a subset of the population when he wasn't supposed to, and Obama's message is not getting traction when he was supposed to.
Have you any examples? I watched Osawatomie, which I think is Obama's strongest inequality statement. I've also watched Santorum's snob spiel (and others). I'd argue they are very different in tone and style.
QuoteAnd I repeat: do you think a policy of this sort would harness populist rage in the way you would like?
No. But, again, populism is a style and a manner of politics. You harness populist rage to deliver policies not the other way round. You wanted specific ideas and I gave a few that's all.
Quote from: Maximus on February 28, 2012, 07:31:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 28, 2012, 03:44:59 PM
I live in a province that has been ruled by a single party since 1971 (and before that with an ideologically very similar party since 1935). What this means in effect is very technocratic government. I tend to feel we could use a dose more populism here.
Wasn't Klein about as populist as they get?
Initially, yes.
But between later Klein, Strom, and now Redford, this government doesn't have a populist bone in its body.
Quote from: grumbler on February 28, 2012, 09:55:34 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2012, 07:54:24 AM
But in my book, real "populism" is about catering to the current short-term and basic "interests" and impulses of the people, for the short term goal of gaining or keeping power.
FWIW, I think that this is a good, short definition for what populism generally means in the real world, vague dictionary definitions that describe pretty much every modern political party notwithstanding.
Well, now we know it's wrong.
Springsteen/Weinberg 2016.
Stelmach and Redford are essentially non-entities with no real mandate though. Stelmach in particular was just buffeted around by the internal politics of the PC Party like a paper boat in a hurricane.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 28, 2012, 05:10:03 PM
Yet that would be the end of politics.
And what a shame that would be.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 29, 2012, 12:06:55 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 28, 2012, 05:10:03 PM
Yet that would be the end of politics.
And what a shame that would be.
How the fuck did I confuse Strom - the last SoCred premier, with Stelmach?
I can only admit that I was away for awhile... :blush:
Quote from: Barrister on February 29, 2012, 12:08:17 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 29, 2012, 12:06:55 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 28, 2012, 05:10:03 PM
Yet that would be the end of politics.
And what a shame that would be.
How the fuck did I confuse Strom - the last SoCred premier, with Stelmach?
I can only admit that I was away for awhile... :blush:
I knew you were off your meds when you criticised stable government... :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 29, 2012, 12:11:06 AM
I knew you were off your meds when you criticised stable government... :D
You forget that my political philosophy crystallized in 1992 or thereabouts with Preston Manning and the Reform Party. :wub:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 28, 2012, 02:48:50 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 28, 2012, 12:24:54 PM
The communism we know was never really populist at all. The main thrust came from the upper middle class and educated elites in places where that was an extremely small portion of the population.
Yeah. Even genuinely popular Communist Parties never went in for populism. I mean the French leadership was unbelievably uncharismatic apparatchiks. The PCI leaders (until Berlinguer :wub:) were similarly uncharismatic. Togliatti toed the Soviet line and then threw in a veneer of Gramsci for the intellectuals.
Georges Marchais is spinning in his grave :frog:!
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 29, 2012, 12:44:42 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 29, 2012, 12:06:55 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 28, 2012, 05:10:03 PM
Yet that would be the end of politics.
And what a shame that would be.
:huh:
I would not cry over the end of politics as we currently know it - a largely disengaged electorate who's politicians have to pander to the sound bite in a 24 hour news cycle where ironically no in depth time is spent on anything. Neither would I cry over the end of populist politics, particularly here in BC, where we swing from one extreme to the other.
But more than that our politics are quite different. If I am right you wish to see fairly quick fundamental change in our system and particularly your Province (Country) while I am a Conservative (in the political theory sense) in that I am suspicious of polticians who have the quick fix.
Alberta is an excellent case study of the kind of government I would prefer to the craziness in BC's system. It has been said by many observers that each successful leader in Alberta has to re-invent the party to address the current needs of the province and to address the concerns of the electorate. Under that system of government you dont get what we get in BC with rookie cabinet ministers and senior beaurocrats (brought in by those rookie ministers) screwing everything up for a couple years to make their ideological point - which happens on both the right and left here. Rather you get good stable government that is remains flexible by having a new leader from time to time rather than the leader holding on to power to long and requiring the electorate to boot them out.
The Americans have this sort of system institutionalized so they dont have to rely on the good judgment of a party leader to know when it is time to go. That is, imo, one of the great strengths of their system of government.
Sounds like you're ready for the Chinese model minus the corruption. :P
Quote from: Jacob on February 29, 2012, 10:39:00 AM
Sounds like you're ready for the Chinese model minus the corruption. :P
You are forgetting about the part where Albertans have free elections and do allow other parties to run. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 29, 2012, 10:24:23 AM
But more than that our politics are quite different. If I am right you wish to see fairly quick fundamental change in our system and particularly your Province (Country) while I am a Conservative (in the political theory sense) in that I am suspicious of polticians who have the quick fix.
You are right that this might boil down to our fundamental political outlook, though I would say it has nothing to do with the horizon of my political agenda (which is not especially short-term) and everything to do with keeping popular input within. Having a managerial-type of government seems to me to be the best way to negate any sort of citizen input in favour of misleading false "pragmatism". In other words, people who can envision to do good under any system see no need to spend energy on actual politics. I believe in my political values, but I am wary of seeing them enshrined in a managerial system which would never be questioned, and for which the questions would be denied legitimacy. It leads to the worse aspects of bureaucratization (the means become the ends). People who can envision no change under any nominally "democratic" system leads to voter apathy and low participation scores. I don't see this as being especially desireable, unless you are a kind of 19th century / Hansmeister exploitative bourgeois or their mouthpiece who believes the common good is better served by keeping the unwashed masses out (though I know this is a common Languish trope).
Question: Do you elect Judges in Canada? There are many places where judges are elected in the US. What about law enforcement? Do you elect Sheriffs?
Quote from: Jacob on February 29, 2012, 10:39:00 AM
Sounds like you're ready for the Chinese model minus the corruption. :P
Quite :lol:
I agree with Oex. I'd add that another problem is that you're basically saying that people who disagree with the managerial, pragmatic style of government are beyond what's acceptable. Because government is run in a consensual, managerial way if you're disagreeing with that then you're clearly some sort of extremist who should be avoided or should just shut up and let the adults get on with governing. I think it's precisely this sort of thinking and cosy, consensual politics that's affected European politics since the war and is to blame for the relative success and rise of the populist far right and far left.
Yes, that is what I meant by saying questioning that model would be denied legitimacy. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on February 29, 2012, 10:50:18 AM
Question: Do you elect Judges in Canada? There are many places where judges are elected in the US. What about law enforcement? Do you elect Sheriffs?
I think only Americans elect judges and Sheriffs and the like.
We're moving to elected Police Commissioners here but, from what I understand, they won't have the final say and their role is very much to reflect citizen's concerns in general strategy (ie. we should focus more on bobbies on the beat) and not on operations. The hope was lots of independents would run and win, but by the looks of it a few retired police officers are running and, aside from that, it's party figures. But it's quite controversial because the independence of the police from politics is a strong principle in our police system.
I think overall I support the move though :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 10:55:55 AM
I think only Americans elect judges and Sheriffs and the like.
How many states actually do that though?
I know we do it but that is mostly a reflection of our wild wild west history.
Well I think that might be productive area to look into on this debate. Areas that elect judges, sheriffs, prosecuting attorney's etc compared to those that don't. At least in areas that are otherwise fairly comparable. Such as different US states and the US and Canada.
Apparently the Japanese and the Swiss also have an elected element in their judiciary. I wouldn't trust anything the Swiss do <_<
Languish Lawyers would be welcome here. I don't pretend to understand law that well, but I imagine some American lawyers have worked with both the elected and unelected variety at some point, or at least have a vibe in the profession.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 29, 2012, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 29, 2012, 10:24:23 AM
But more than that our politics are quite different. If I am right you wish to see fairly quick fundamental change in our system and particularly your Province (Country) while I am a Conservative (in the political theory sense) in that I am suspicious of polticians who have the quick fix.
You are right that this might boil down to our fundamental political outlook, though I would say it has nothing to do with the horizon of my political agenda (which is not especially short-term) and everything to do with keeping popular input within. Having a managerial-type of government seems to me to be the best way to negate any sort of citizen input in favour of misleading false "pragmatism". In other words, people who can envision to do good under any system see no need to spend energy on actual politics. I believe in my political values, but I am wary of seeing them enshrined in a managerial system which would never be questioned, and for which the questions would be denied legitimacy. It leads to the worse aspects of bureaucratization (the means become the ends). People who can envision no change under any nominally "democratic" system leads to voter apathy and low participation scores. I don't see this as being especially desireable, unless you are a kind of 19th century / Hansmeister exploitative bourgeois or their mouthpiece who believes the common good is better served by keeping the unwashed masses out (though I know this is a common Languish trope).
Why does good stable government require any particular enshrinement of political values? Why does it require a "managerial system". Why does it require peopel who "can envision no change". All of that is contrary to what I posted. The fact that you see a system which does not have radical changes in the way you describe underlies the difference in our politics.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 10:53:18 AM
Quote from: Jacob on February 29, 2012, 10:39:00 AM
Sounds like you're ready for the Chinese model minus the corruption. :P
Quite :lol:
I agree with Oex. I'd add that another problem is that you're basically saying that people who disagree with the managerial, pragmatic style of government are beyond what's acceptable. Because government is run in a consensual, managerial way if you're disagreeing with that then you're clearly some sort of extremist who should be avoided or should just shut up and let the adults get on with governing. I think it's precisely this sort of thinking and cosy, consensual politics that's affected European politics since the war and is to blame for the relative success and rise of the populist far right and far left.
Your politics are similiar to Oex so I am not particularly surprised you are ignoring the parts of my post that are insonsistent with this.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 29, 2012, 11:49:46 AM
Your politics are similiar to Oex so I am not particularly surprised you are ignoring the parts of my post that are insonsistent with this.
Which parts are inconsistent and I'll think about them.
Quote from: Valmy on February 29, 2012, 10:58:36 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 10:55:55 AM
I think only Americans elect judges and Sheriffs and the like.
How many states actually do that though?
I know we do it but that is mostly a reflection of our wild wild west history.
I'm fairly sure it's pretty universal in the US. I've never lived anywhere that didn't elect the Sheriff and at least some of the judges.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 29, 2012, 12:21:36 PM
I'm fairly sure it's pretty universal in the US. I've never lived anywhere that didn't elect the Sheriff and at least some of the judges.
According to Google 39 states have some elected judiciary. Not sure about the Sheriff.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 29, 2012, 11:47:11 AM
Why does good stable government require any particular enshrinement of political values? Why does it require a "managerial system". Why does it require peopel who "can envision no change". All of that is contrary to what I posted. The fact that you see a system which does not have radical changes in the way you describe underlies the difference in our politics.
Well, then you need to describe more fully what your ideal political regime would be. For now, you simply made the apology of a single-party system with little political life aside from elections, and which is only modified from within according to the perceived outside preferences of its members.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 29, 2012, 11:04:17 AM
Languish Lawyers would be welcome here. I don't pretend to understand law that well, but I imagine some American lawyers have worked with both the elected and unelected variety at some point, or at least have a vibe in the profession.
I am familiar only with NY which is not particularly typical. There is a big jumble of courts in NY State - city courts, county courts, housing courts, etc. - and there are different rules for selection that govern them; some appointed, some elected. But for the principal trial level courts of general jurisdiction (confusingly called the "Supreme" Courts) - judges are elected to 14 year terms in regular partisan elections, except that they must first be nominated by party conventions. What this effectively means is that state political party leaders pick the judges. The Governor then appoints intermedaite appeals court judges from that group. New York's highest court, the "Court of Appeal" is separately appointed by the governor with consent of the State Senate, again for 14 year terms.
In theory this process should mean that the "Supreme" Court judges tend to be partisan hacks, and there was a time at least in legend when that was so. The entire process was challenged as unconstitutional a few years ago, and although the SCOTUS unanimously upheld the system, 4 justices wrote separately to criticize it quite severely. The reality, however, is that most of the state court judges I have been before have been very professional and impartial. The party nominating committees these days do a pretty good job putting forward qualified candidates and don't use Supreme Court nominations to fill patronage positions. I should point up that virtually all my practice in NY State has been before commercial division judges in Manhattan, who may or may not be representative of the state judiciary generally. But focusing on that group, as a group they are on par with the federal judiciary, albeit without the same level of resources for managing case loads.
Well, thank you for your input.
Quote from: Valmy on February 29, 2012, 10:58:36 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 29, 2012, 10:55:55 AM
I think only Americans elect judges and Sheriffs and the like.
How many states actually do that though?
I know we do it but that is mostly a reflection of our wild wild west history.
Well Alaska is so lawless we don't even have Sheriffs!
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 29, 2012, 01:16:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 29, 2012, 11:47:11 AM
Why does good stable government require any particular enshrinement of political values? Why does it require a "managerial system". Why does it require peopel who "can envision no change". All of that is contrary to what I posted. The fact that you see a system which does not have radical changes in the way you describe underlies the difference in our politics.
Well, then you need to describe more fully what your ideal political regime would be. For now, you simply made the apology of a single-party system with little political life aside from elections, and which is only modified from within according to the perceived outside preferences of its members.
You know Alberta is not a single party state. Our UK friend may not know the political history of Alberta and so can be excused for making that mistake. But you?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2012, 12:41:20 PM
You know Alberta is not a single party state.
:yeahright:
Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2012, 02:59:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2012, 12:41:20 PM
You know Alberta is not a single party state.
:yeahright:
Didnt you just recently post about supporting the opposition party...
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2012, 03:05:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2012, 02:59:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2012, 12:41:20 PM
You know Alberta is not a single party state.
:yeahright:
Didnt you just recently post about supporting the opposition party...
So is Russian not a single party state? How about South Africa? Singapore?
And I didn't say I supported the opposition. I said I was considering it. :secret:
Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2012, 03:16:25 PM
So is Russian not a single party state? How about South Africa? Singapore?
Really? You think the political process in Alberta is the same as Russia?
I warned you living in Edmonton could have harmful long term effects.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2012, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2012, 03:16:25 PM
So is Russian not a single party state? How about South Africa? Singapore?
Really? You think the political process in Alberta is the same as Russia?
I warned you living in Edmonton could have harmful long term effects.
You should go back and see that I listed three examples, not just one.
The existence of legal opposition parties does not mean there is a functioning multi-party democracy.
Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2012, 03:24:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2012, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2012, 03:16:25 PM
So is Russian not a single party state? How about South Africa? Singapore?
Really? You think the political process in Alberta is the same as Russia?
I warned you living in Edmonton could have harmful long term effects.
You should go back and see that I listed three examples, not just one.
The existence of legal opposition parties does not mean there is a functioning multi-party democracy.
Sorry, you lost credibility with your first example. Your other two dont lend much credibility either.
You are right, the mere existence of other parties doesnt matter. What you are missing is little details like, oh the Rule of Law and the strength of democratic instutions in the countries you listed.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 29, 2012, 10:50:18 AM
Question: Do you elect Judges in Canada? There are many places where judges are elected in the US. What about law enforcement? Do you elect Sheriffs?
No. That would be utterly insane.
Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2012, 03:16:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2012, 03:05:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2012, 02:59:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2012, 12:41:20 PM
You know Alberta is not a single party state.
:yeahright:
Didnt you just recently post about supporting the opposition party...
So is Russian not a single party state? How about South Africa? Singapore?
And I didn't say I supported the opposition. I said I was considering it. :secret:
The best equivalent is Japan during the LDP dynasty years. Sure, the other parties exist, but why would anybody vote for them? Unless you're just a malcontent, your political home is probably in the Progressive Conservatives. A party that can support Ted Morton and Alison Redford is truly broad. People join the PCs not for ideological reasons, but because they want to take part in the governing of the province.
Alberta and Norway are interesting examples of how completly different politics of government and society can look good - in a relatively small jurisdiction whose economy is kept boyant with Oil money. :D
Anyway, all democratic regimes have to deal with the opposing benefits of stability and public input into change. Both are goods in their own way that can easily become bads - for example, while more engagement in the political process is a great thing, the political life of California has not been improved by government-by-referendum, even though this process arguably injects much-needed direct democratic participation.
Quote from: Malthus on March 02, 2012, 12:20:53 PM
Alberta and Norway are interesting examples of how completly different politics of government and society can look good - in a relatively small jurisdiction whose economy is kept boyant with Oil money. :D
Anyway, all democratic regimes have to deal with the opposing benefits of stability and public input into change. Both are goods in their own way that can easily become bads - for example, while more engagement in the political process is a great thing, the political life of California has not been improved by government-by-referendum, even though this process arguably injects much-needed direct democratic participation.
I can't stand direct democracy (Switzerland, again) <_<
I do find democratic dominant party states quite interesting though. Sweden and Norway are the good examples, then you've got the negative ones like Ireland or Japan. I'm not sure where Alberta lies on the spectrum. There's a French sociologist who argues that this is all down to traditional family structure. I wasn't sold on it and don't have his book any more so I can't quite remember the details but it was a very interesting read.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2012, 01:23:41 PM
There's a French sociologist who argues that this is all down to traditional family structure. I wasn't sold on it and don't have his book any more so I can't quite remember the details but it was a very interesting read.
I think it all comes down to the question of whether the political tent can be made big enough and most importantly whether that big tent can be maintained over time. The factors which make the tent maintainable will undoubtedly vary across electoral jurisdictions.
Here in BC the populist coaltion on the right usually is able to maintain a tent just big enough to keep the left out of government. But every once in a while there is a stumble and the left comes in. The the coalition realizes it needs to rebuild its tent. Rinse Repeat over the decades.
Sheilbh, was that the guy who was arguing that different societies can be understood by looking at individual, family and state? And the argument was something like that in the North European model (Scandinavian and parts of Germany) society was organized such that the state guaranteed that individuals could function independently of their families. While in the US it's all about keeping the state out of anything to do with the family or individuals, and in other places yet it's all about the state being used to keep the individual properly in in line within the family structure? ... or something like that?
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2012, 02:13:36 PM
Sheilbh, was that the guy who was arguing that different societies can be understood by looking at individual, family and state? And the argument was something like that in the North European model (Scandinavian and parts of Germany) society was organized such that the state guaranteed that individuals could function independently of their families. While in the US it's all about keeping the state out of anything to do with the family or individuals, and in other places yet it's all about the state being used to keep the individual properly in in line within the family structure? ... or something like that?
No. That was a paper put forward by the Scandinavian governments. It drew a lot on an essay I've not read, but really want to, called 'Pippi Longstocking and the moral logic of the Swedish welfare state'. Pippi's the ultimate individual living her own life. She's a rebellious kid living without a family, but with monkey called George. Apparently the French translation, for example, tones down her anti-authoritarian streak a lot :lol:
[Edit: That's right though. The Nordic governments said there was a triangle of state-family-individual. US policy and society was all about the family-individual axis; the Scandinavians emphasised the individual-state axis; the Germans were based on state-family.]
The families determining political structure was by a French sociologist, Emmanuel Todd, drawing on other research. I think a big part of it was to do with family structure and particularly traditional inheritance rules shaping future political culture. I can't remember the argument, but this paper seems to build on it:
http://www.coleurop.be/content/studyprogrammes/eco/publications/beer/beer10.pdf
Which I'll have a read on to refresh my memory because it was a really interesting idea.
[Edit: One other point I remember Todd making was how it'll be interesting to see how his ideas bear out in other parts of the world, like Africa, but especially the Islamic world which historically has quite different family structure I think.]
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2012, 02:24:44 PM
No. That was a paper put forward by the Scandinavian governments. It drew a lot on an essay I've not read, but really want to, called 'Pippi Longstocking and the moral logic of the Swedish welfare state'. Pippi's the ultimate individual living her own life. She's a rebellious kid living without a family, but with monkey called George. Apparently the French translation, for example, tones down her anti-authoritarian streak a lot :lol:
I grew up on Pippi Longstocking (which might explain a lot :P - she's known in French as Fifi Brindacier) and it didn't seem toned down to me. :D All the vilains in the show were figures of authority, and the neighboring kids were being reined in by their conformist parents. (The monkey was actually called Mr. Neilson / M. Dupont).
QuoteThe families determining political structure was by a French sociologist, Emmanuel Todd, drawing on other research. I think a big part of it was to do with family structure and particularly traditional inheritance rules shaping future political culture. I can't remember the argument, but this paper seems to build on it:
The problem with Todd is that he infuses a lot of rigidity to his model (which is usually a problem with French sociologists ;) ) by ascribing causal logic to what was initially descriptive. That being said, the idea that redistributive structures within societies (which in many cases depend upon patronage, itself dependant upon kinship) is not terribly new. What most Western societies have succeeded in doing is to mask, for a long time, such redistributive patterns under all sorts of processes, and in turn allowing such processes to be eventually (but only so very recently) decoupled from their origins. The research of political scientist Sawicki is on that regard really interesting.
I'm not sure I'd want to base my understanding of society on Pippi Longstocking, whether her monkey was named George, Mr. Neilson, or M. Dupont. :P
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 02, 2012, 02:56:12 PM
I grew up on Pippi Longstocking (which might explain a lot :P
Certainly explains that cock in your mouth.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2012, 03:19:43 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 02, 2012, 02:56:12 PM
I grew up on Pippi Longstocking (which might explain a lot :P
Certainly explains that cock in your mouth.
I guess you've looked everywhere else for it, so you assume Oex has it?
Seedy's stylist was a huge Pippi Longstocking fan.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 02, 2012, 03:44:14 PM
Seedy's stylist was a huge Pippi Longstocking fan.
What do you mean "was"?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2012, 03:50:47 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 02, 2012, 03:44:14 PM
Seedy's stylist was a huge Pippi Longstocking fan.
What do you mean "was"?
Well... the stylist may be a fan, but seedy doesn't have the hair for it anymore.
I gotta admit, I'm interested in knowing what version of Pippi Longstocking Seedy was reading - I can't really remember Pippi that well, but I do not recall any explicitly x-rated features in them ... :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2012, 03:52:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2012, 03:50:47 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 02, 2012, 03:44:14 PM
Seedy's stylist was a huge Pippi Longstocking fan.
What do you mean "was"?
Well... the stylist may be a fan, but seedy doesn't have the hair for it anymore.
I didnt think he was going for the haircut.
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2012, 03:52:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 02, 2012, 03:50:47 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 02, 2012, 03:44:14 PM
Seedy's stylist was a huge Pippi Longstocking fan.
What do you mean "was"?
Well... the stylist may be a fan, but seedy doesn't have the hair for it anymore.
My hair is chock full of heady body and bounce goodness.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2012, 04:01:08 PMMy hair is chock full of heady body and bounce goodness.
Like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lises.net%2Fblogg%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2Fpippi1.jpg&hash=9343b111884a683cd7f97e3b31b6e21e55bccdb0)
Touche.
And fuck you. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2012, 03:19:43 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 02, 2012, 02:56:12 PM
I grew up on Pippi Longstocking (which might explain a lot :P
Certainly explains that cock in your mouth.
:lol:
Seriously, you should read the books to your nieces rather than letting them be submitted to the nausea-inducing über-vapid-girly pink crap that now seem to dominate the market. :P
Quote from: Malthus on March 02, 2012, 03:18:53 PM
I'm not sure I'd want to base my understanding of society on Pippi Longstocking, whether her monkey was named George, Mr. Neilson, or M. Dupont. :P
Don't worry. I am much more sophisticated now: I've read Tintin to understand foreign affairs, and Astérix for a grounding in history.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 02, 2012, 06:54:21 PM
Don't worry. I am much more sophisticated now: I've read Tintin to understand foreign affairs, and Astérix for a grounding in history.
You shouldn't be afraid to delve into specialized sources as well.
I recommend Lucky Luke to understand America and Gaston La Gaffe for a comprehensive understanding of modern office workers. If you want to gain insight into women's issues, you can't go much wrong with the works of Milo Manara.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 02, 2012, 06:52:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2012, 03:19:43 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 02, 2012, 02:56:12 PM
I grew up on Pippi Longstocking (which might explain a lot :P
Certainly explains that cock in your mouth.
:lol:
Seriously, you should read the books to your nieces rather than letting them be submitted to the nausea-inducing über-vapid-girly pink crap that now seem to dominate the market. :P
Oexy, Languish is beginning to rub off on you isn't it. :D
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 02, 2012, 02:56:12 PM
I grew up on Pippi Longstocking (which might explain a lot :P - she's known in French as Fifi Brindacier) and it didn't seem toned down to me. :D All the vilains in the show were figures of authority, and the neighboring kids were being reined in by their conformist parents. (The monkey was actually called Mr. Neilson / M. Dupont).
I'll take your word on it. It's just something the Economist mentioned in passing on the subject. The paper's actually called 'Pippi Longstocking: The Autonomous Child and the Moral Logic of the Swedish Welfare State' and sees her as a Nordic archetype. And I got my cartoon monkeys mixed up :(
QuoteThe problem with Todd is that he infuses a lot of rigidity to his model (which is usually a problem with French sociologists ;) ) by ascribing causal logic to what was initially descriptive. That being said, the idea that redistributive structures within societies (which in many cases depend upon patronage, itself dependant upon kinship) is not terribly new. What most Western societies have succeeded in doing is to mask, for a long time, such redistributive patterns under all sorts of processes, and in turn allowing such processes to be eventually (but only so very recently) decoupled from their origins. The research of political scientist Sawicki is on that regard really interesting.
I took a lot of what he said with a pinch of salt. He was projecting that Russia would become the dominant democratic power in the 21st century based on a small rise in child mortality rates in the late 90s :lol:
But his ideas were interesting and quite thought provoking, which is enough.
QuoteSeriously, you should read the books to your nieces rather than letting them be submitted to the nausea-inducing über-vapid-girly pink crap that now seem to dominate the market.
This is true. I've got my nieces some books that are for girls but aspire to something more than becoming a princess and wearing pink.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 02, 2012, 06:52:47 PM
Seriously, you should read the books to your nieces rather than letting them be submitted to the nausea-inducing über-vapid-girly pink crap that now seem to dominate the market. :P
Thing is, at least that pink pap allows children to be children for a while; I realize Eurotype concepts towards children requires them to be exposed to the harsh brutality of the absurdism of life at an early age, which is they're forced to read
The Diary of Anne Frank and
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by the time they're 7. I'd rather not crush their little spirits til they're at least 11.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2012, 07:15:57 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 02, 2012, 06:52:47 PM
Seriously, you should read the books to your nieces rather than letting them be submitted to the nausea-inducing über-vapid-girly pink crap that now seem to dominate the market. :P
Thing is, at least that pink pap allows children to be children for a while; I realize Eurotype concepts towards children requires them to be exposed to the harsh brutality of the absurdism of life at an early age, which is they're forced to read The Diary of Anne Frank and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by the time they're 7. I'd rather not crush their little spirits til they're at least 11.
You are obviously not familiar with Pippi Longstocking at all, then.
To be serious for a moment here - you should check out some of the classic Scandinavian children's literature out there. It's really quite good.
My recommendations would
Ronia the Robber's Daughter by Astrid Lindgren, as well as
Pippi Longstocking (both available on Amazon). The various
Moomin books by Tove Jansson are also really good. I think you'd sympathize with Moomin pappa a fair bit; he's an aspiring writer, you see.
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2012, 07:30:16 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2012, 07:15:57 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 02, 2012, 06:52:47 PM
Seriously, you should read the books to your nieces rather than letting them be submitted to the nausea-inducing über-vapid-girly pink crap that now seem to dominate the market. :P
Thing is, at least that pink pap allows children to be children for a while; I realize Eurotype concepts towards children requires them to be exposed to the harsh brutality of the absurdism of life at an early age, which is they're forced to read The Diary of Anne Frank and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by the time they're 7. I'd rather not crush their little spirits til they're at least 11.
You are obviously not familiar with Pippi Longstocking at all, then.
How many Jews did she kill?
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2012, 07:30:16 PMThe various Moomin books by Tove Jansson are also really good. I think you'd sympathize with Moomin pappa a fair bit; he's an aspiring writer, you see.
I loved the Moomins. I always thought they were Polish though :mellow:
They are Finnish.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2012, 07:15:57 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 02, 2012, 06:52:47 PM
Seriously, you should read the books to your nieces rather than letting them be submitted to the nausea-inducing über-vapid-girly pink crap that now seem to dominate the market. :P
Thing is, at least that pink pap allows children to be children for a while; I realize Eurotype concepts towards children requires them to be exposed to the harsh brutality of the absurdism of life at an early age, which is they're forced to read The Diary of Anne Frank and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by the time they're 7. I'd rather not crush their little spirits til they're at least 11.
Hell, when I bought a lot of children's books on Ebay (500 books for 5 dollars! +20 shipping. :P), I tossed out the HEATHER HAS TWO MOMMIES type shit. I deal with that bridge when I have to.
or damn Bambi. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO BAMBI'S MOM.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 02, 2012, 07:36:03 PM
They are Finnish.
Swedo-Finnish, for those who keep track of such things. I.e. the original language is Swedish.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 02, 2012, 07:41:31 PM
or damn Bambi. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO BAMBI'S MOM.
Man...is in the forest. LEAVING FUCKING BEER CANS
Bambi's mom is in heaven of course.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 02, 2012, 07:43:56 PM
Bambi's mom is in heaven of course.
Bullshit. She's in someone's freezer.
edit: probably 11B's.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 02, 2012, 07:36:03 PM
They are Finnish.
In a strange way that makes a lot of sense...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2012, 07:44:51 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 02, 2012, 07:43:56 PM
Bambi's mom is in heaven of course.
Bullshit. She's in someone's freezer.
edit: probably 11B's.
Actually I saw about three deer in my backyard today. I really need to clear the brush from back there. It's not like I live in the countryside.