- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

The Ocasio-Cortez Daisy Cutter

Holy cow, this is big news! [1]:

Representative Joseph Crowley of New York, once seen as a possible successor to Nancy Pelosi as Democratic leader of the House, suffered a shocking primary defeat on Tuesday, the most significant loss for a Democratic incumbent in more than a decade, and one that will reverberate across the party and the country.

Mr. Crowley was defeated by a 28-year-old political newcomer, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a former organizer for Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign, who had declared it was time for generational, racial and ideological change.

The last time Mr. Crowley, 56, even had a primary challenger, in 2004, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was not old enough to vote.

change_me

Mr. Crowley, the No. 4 Democrat in the House, had drastically outspent his lesser-known rival to no avail, as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign was lifted by an aggressive social media presence and fueled by attention from national progressives hoping to flex their muscle in a race against a potential future speaker.

Ocasio-Cortez is a member of Democratic Socialists for America.

As Chris Cillizza of CNN points out [2], this result has nothing to do with whether or not the Dems are going to retake the House in the fall. This House seat is solidly in Democratic hands. It has everything to do with the future of the Democratic Party. Excerpt:

Donald Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican Party in 2016 — and the establishment’s acquiescence to him in 2017 and 2018 — put a massive spotlight on the divide between the GOP party leadership and the Republican base.

Meanwhile, overlooked amid the Trump furor, Democrats have been in the early stages of a civil war of their own — between pragmatic establishment types and liberals infuriated with the Trump presidency.

That Crowley, the heir apparent to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, of California, could lose a primary to a 28-year-old, politically unknown and woefully underfunded Democratic Socialist speaks volumes about where the energy in the party is right now.

All you need to do is watch the two-minute bio video Ocasio-Cortez put out [3] to understand a) where the party is right now and b) how terrifying that should be to the party establishment.

Yes indeed. Watch the video. It’s powerful. If I were a Democrat, it would be hard to resist.

This morning, in light of the Ocasio-Cortez upset, Megan McArdle re-upped her November 11, 2016, Trump upset Facebook post. Here’s what she said then, and repeats this morning:

My husband and I long ago planned a vacation for immediately after the election. We’re both exhausted; we had a zillion frequent flyer miles. So we decided to go to Asia for 12 days, and do no work.

Well, two things happened, one expected, and one not. The first was that I have horrible jet lag. My circadian rhythms make Prussian drill instructors look like devil-may care slouches; I knew from earlier experience that despite Ambien-induced attempts to reset my body clock, I would wake up in the middle of the night and not be able to get back to sleep.

The other thing I didn’t expect: Trump won the election.

I’ve been going back and forth on this all year. At times I have been convinced he couldn’t win; at other times, I’ve been shouting at smug liberals “Guys, pay attention! This could happen!” But by the time of the election, I assumed I was looking at a Clinton presidency. Journalists should know better than to “write the lede on the way to the ballpark”, but … well, yeah, okay, I shouldn’t have written the lede on the way to the ballpark.

This means that instead of taking off for vacation amidst the boring and long-awaited coronation of Clinton, I left the US with columns unwritten, columns now burning a hole in my psychological pocket. I may, from time to time, post some of those thoughts here. This isn’t work. It’s … it’s a hobby! That’s the ticket, I’m engaging in a creative craft!

So here’s my first thought, in a purely non-work, amateur capacity: Democrats are about to experience the madness that has beset the Republican Party over the last eight years.

Back when I was first blogging as Jane Galt, lo those many years ago, I coined “Jane’s First Law of Politics”: “The devotees of the Party that holds the presidency are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the Party that doesn’t hold the White House are insane.” I have never had cause to revisit this observation.

So when liberals spent years trying to diagnose the unique psychological disease that seemed to have beset the Republican Party–Acute Chronic Racism, or perhaps Psychosomatic Obstructionitis–I have always suspected that the fervent devotion to pointless and often counterproductive obstruction was less a Republican disease than a symptom of a larger structural problem in our politics. As people have geographically sorted themselves into partisan enclaves, partisanship has risen dramatically; the culture war has taken the kind of fierce battles that rocked the country during the civil rights era to all 50 states, rather than concentrating them on a handful of states and cities; and perhaps most importantly, a century of “good government” initiatives, from primary elections to campaign finance reform to anti-earmark legislation, have gutted the parties as a source of political discipline and political deal-making. These weak parties were unable to mount any kind of coherent response to the social media revolution, which allowed candidates and activists to do an end-run around the party professionals who would have stopped them in an earlier era.

The result is a fundamentally broken politics. But that politics is not broken because of something that “Republican elites” did. Liberals have been very fond of arguing that those elites somehow encouraged the growth of these destabilizing influences by not shutting down … well, name your candidate: right-wing talk radio, the tea party, obstructionist forces in Congress, Donald Trump. Liberals are about to find out what those Republicans have long known: they had no power to shut them down. All the tools they might have used had been taken away decades ago, mostly by progressives.

For exactly the same structural forces are at work on the left. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Those forces have been masked by Democratic possession of the presidency, which is a unifying force far out of proportion to its actual usefulness. As long as your party holds the White House, you feel like you have a shot at getting things done, and you are willing to cut a great deal of slack to your leadership. Prepare to see Republicans get a lot quieter and more cooperative, and the obstreperous forces on the left to get angrier and more intransigent.

In 2012, in the wake of their presidential loss, Republicans looked at what had happened and concluded that building a coalition that could take the presidency was best done by moderating on immigration in order to try to sweep socially conservative Latinos into the fold. This made a portion of the party base explode. In the wake of this election loss, in which a mainstream candidate tossed the presidency to the candidate with the highest unfavorables we’ve ever seen in a presidential election, professional Democrats are going to want to do a similar analysis. That analysis is almost certainly going to come up with an answer that’s intolerable to large portions of their base: that they need to back off the identity politics and embrace a more old-fashioned national greatness campaign mixed with pocketbook issues.

The activist groups in the base who are most heavily invested in identity politics will (correctly) read this as a decline in their power and status. They will be incandescent. And they will put exactly the same sort of pressure on their politicians that the Tea Party put on Republicans. They will want to see their politicians blocking Trump even if it hurts the party overall, even if it means sacrificing bits of their legislative agenda that they could get done. They will demand costly symbolic acts that function as a repudiation of Trump, and a show of fealty to party interest groups. They will care more about those things than any substantive legislative achievement. I’m not saying they won’t care about legislative achievement, but I suspect that it will be symbolism first, achievement later. Because that’s where our politics is in 2016, on both sides of the aisle. Centrist, process-oriented Democrats will now discover the joys that their counterparts on the right have known for years: of screaming fruitlessly that this sort of thing is hurting the alleged policy goals of the people demanding it, and being told for their troubles, that they’re just DINO sellouts.

I don’t know how we fix this. I don’t know if it can be fixed. But a healthy first step is for center-left folks to stop pointing and laughing at the Republican Party, and issuing faux-solemn, joyously incredulous diagnoses of “the problem with the Republican Party”. The Republican Party doesn’t have a problem. American politics has a problem. And everyone in America is going to have to figure out how to fix it.

Let me also refer you once again to Tucker Carlson’s great January 2016 Politico essay titled “Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar, And Right: And, My Dear Fellow Republicans, He’s All Your Fault.” [4]

It is time for a liberal to write “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Young, Radical, and Right: And, My Dear Fellow Democrats, She’s All Your Fault.”

I mean that not in the sense that Ocasio-Cortez’s policy prescriptions are correct. I mean it in the sense that liberal voters are sick of the Democratic Party establishment, in the same way that Tucker Carlson’s diagnosis of conservative disgust with the GOP establishment fueled Trump.

The problem is that in a nation as polarized as ours, avatars of the extremes can’t get things done. If the Democrats take the House this fall, Washington will be well and truly in a World War I trench-warfare situation, with both sides grinding on, neither one strong enough to push the other back, but both filled with fight.

I admire what Ocasio-Cortez has managed to do here. But as a conservative, I don’t gloat at Nancy Pelosi’s problems. This is only going to make things more divisive and more heated.

145 Comments (Open | Close)

145 Comments To "The Ocasio-Cortez Daisy Cutter"

#1 Comment By Matt in VA On June 27, 2018 @ 8:37 pm

Expect Senators Gillibrand, Harris, and Booker to push Bernie hard during the 2020 primary on the things that he probably personally doesn’t care about or opposes, but that his young leftist base does care about, like immigration.

Those particular folks vs. Bernie will be like Kasich vs. Trump.

#2 Comment By Janwaar Bibi On June 27, 2018 @ 10:32 pm

What did she campaign on?

A universal job guarantee. Free education and trade school. Paid family and sick leave. Housing as a human right. Single payer healthcare. Immigration Justice.
All of which can be summed up accurately and succinctly as: Free stuff for everybody–except the chumps whose taxes will pay for it.

That’s not the worst of it. If universal health care, free education and other socialist horrors come to pass, consider all the great things in contemporary America we will no be able to afford.

1) We may not be able to afford to attack country after country in the Middle East at the behest of our Israeli and Saudi masters.

2) We may not be able to spend $1 trillion each year on “defense” so we will no longer outspend the next ten or so countries in the world combined in military spending.

3) We may no longer be able to send billions of dollars each year to Israel, an affluent country richer than many European countries, so Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer and the Israeli lobby can continue to payoff politicians of the uniparty.

4) We may no longer be able to afford military bases in more than a hundred countries all over the world, including war zones like Germany, Italy and the UK.

5) We may no longer be able to pick up the tab when Goldman-Sachs and other too-big-to-fail Wall Street firms practice casino capitalism (sorry, I meant the glorious free market, invisible hand, etc. in which profits are privatized and losses are handed to the taxpayers).

In short, there is a real danger that we may end up like Sweden, and that really would be a shame because what makes America great is that a third of the people have no access to regular health care, large numbers of people spend their lives sniffing glue or killing themselves off with opioids, the life expectancy of white people is collapsing like in post-Soviet Russia, and the gig economy forces people to do three or four part-time jobs just to stay alive.

As Noah123 and LouisM correctly point out, this is what is in store for us if we are foolish enough to elect n*ggers, sp*cs, Ch*nks, and H*ndus instead of electing highly evolved, superior white people like George W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Ray Moore and Sarah Palin, whose highly evolved intellect, superior knowledge of history, and masterful command of the English language leaves colored wretches like me speechless.

#3 Comment By Ellimist000 On June 27, 2018 @ 10:40 pm

“Prepare to see Republicans get a lot quieter and more cooperative, and the obstreperous forces on the left to get angrier and more intransigent.”

Well, one of those is true…

“I admire what Ocasio-Cortez has managed to do here. But as a conservative, I don’t gloat at Nancy Pelosi’s problems. This is only going to make things more divisive and more heated.”

Maybe, but it’s not necessarily because of Ocasio-Cortez. It’s not like anti-Trumpisim is the only reason people like Bernie. Sure, she wants to abolish ICE, but she also wants to do a lot of things Candidate Trump claimed he would do. Though admittedly, Trump has made it hard for any Democrat to work with him now. And that was before the Kennedy resignation.

#4 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 27, 2018 @ 10:44 pm

The Right wants WWI, the Left wants IWW

Now you’re talking!

and socialism, which will deplete the wealth which is supposed to pay for the Free Stuff Ocasio-Cortez wants to give people?

That tired old Margaret Thatcher straw man.

Socialism is about how to distribute the surplus generated by economic activity. The extremes are, give everyone a raise, and leave shareholders with nothing, or “any man who pays any more for labor than the least he can get it for, is robbing his shareholders.” The latter is a far greater hazard today. Witness when an airline raised wages, and every stock analyst across the country was foaming at the mouth that labor should get more money when shareholders should come first.

Turning major business enterprises over to some government department to run has been a proven disaster everywhere it has been tried. But nobody ever walked away from a million dollars just because they would “only” get to keep and spend half of it. We already live in an era where businesses are being PAID to hire people. The problem with moribund capitalism is that the government will eventually run out of little people’s money to subsidize plutocrats.

A few decades ago, the wealthy paid substantially higher taxes to fund, e.g., education. As taxes came down in the 1980s, some wealthy men and their sycophants in politics came up with the public-spirited idea that wealthy people should make substantial DONATIONS to education, and receive handsome tax breaks for doing so! Nah, just tax the idle rich and put the money back into education, where it used to be in the first place.

I have an idea that a slow, careful effort to make capital available based on merit rather than being in the right place at the right time and gobbling up a bunch of promising new ventures would be a step in the right direction. As for the national debt, it has taken decades to accumulate, and will take quite as long to pay off. If we can begin to move to a modest surplus in the annual budget, we’ll be fine. And yes, taxing the wealthiest is a good way to do that.

#5 Comment By Tancred On June 27, 2018 @ 10:54 pm

People hate “the Establishment” and with good reason but the truth is politics is much more open, democratic and transparent than it was in the mid-20th century when party bosses and smoke-filled rooms were more powerful. Yet trust in our public institutions has collapsed. People were happier with politics when it was left to party hacks and machines.

I am skeptical about the significance of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez given that she won in a deep blue district. If she won in Oklahoma or Indiana I might take notice. I could counter her story by saying that more moderate Democrats like Dan Lipinski and Joe Manchin defeated their liberal primary opponents, Lipinski doing so in the face of many local Democrats supporting his challenger and pro-choice groups spending a lot of money to defeat him.

I don’t think the country as a whole is as polarized as people think. Ideologues are heavily polarized and these people are heavily overrepresented in politics these days. The old system tended to weed these people out and produced the more moderate politics of the mid-20th century. Now the system selects for them. Primary voters, for example, tend to be more ideologically extreme than the electorate as a whole, so you cannot read too much from primaries.

#6 Comment By cka2nd On June 27, 2018 @ 10:57 pm

I signed up to comment on Fox News just to respond to the comments on one of their articles on this race, and after reading only three comments back here at TAC, I can breathe again. Ah, intelligence and knowledge.

#7 Comment By Noah172 On June 27, 2018 @ 11:00 pm

Matt in VA wrote:

Those particular folks vs. Bernie will be like Kasich vs. Trump

I don’t get this analogy. Kasich was a long-time officeholder who was out of touch with the primary electorate on policy and style. Senators Gillibrand, Harris, and Booker don’t differ sharply from Sanders policy-wise (not like Trump v. Kasich, Rubio, Jeb), Harris and Booker don’t have long Washington tenures, and all three have a demographic hook (woman, woman of color, man of color*) which, as we can see, is important in Democratic primaries. Bernie can be easily demonized as an Almost Dead White Male. (Go ahead. Say it can’t happen.)

Bernie has big vulnerabilities. He benefited greatly in 2016 from being the only viable Not-Hillary, and thus much of his vote was anti-Hillary rather than pro-Bernie. He had no competitors for the hard left vote. He did poorly with blacks and Hispanics and big city-dwellers even then, and won’t do any better against candidates with more appeal to those demos than Hillary.

With the caveat that predictions are hard, especially about the future, I say Harris is the likeliest 2020 nominee.

#8 Comment By cka2nd On June 27, 2018 @ 11:04 pm

Matt in VA says: “Those particular folks vs. Bernie will be like Kasich vs. Trump.”

Like the entire GOP presidential field in 2016 vs. Trump. I’m no fan of Bernie’s, but if there’s a scrum among warmed over Clintonites like Gillibrand, Harris and Booker (Run, Andy Cuomo, Run!), Sanders could sweep them all aside. And I don’t think Elizabeth Warren has kept her populist economic bona fides particularly well shined, even if she could be drafted to run for President (I get a Jack Kemp-vibe – no fire in the belly for the White House – from her).

#9 Comment By Ellimist000 On June 27, 2018 @ 11:10 pm

Arthur Sido,

“Everyone seems to miss the secondary message here. Beyond a young socialist winning, it is clear that there is no longer a place for white men in the Democratic party.”

That is beyond hysterical. And Rod, you know better than to agree with that. White men are far, far more disproportionately represented in our politics in BOTH parties. And likely will remain so, for no other reason than many small middle (and not-so-middle) districts are so predominantly white. It’s NEW YORK, it’s the BRONX, she’s PUERTO RICAN, get a grip. You would be better off asking why so many white men run things where they do. Or why there is virtually no place for a black man in the Republican Party despite Blacks, even Republican blacks, being concentrated in Red states. Whites in the Democratic party are going to simply have to learn to SHARE (and God willing, the Republican PArty one day).

Lord, deliver me from these conservatives so obsessed with race while they say the same about everyone else! The notion that Ocasio-Cortez is some knid of sign that the Democrats shuns all white men, or that she one becasue she was a minority woman is beyond insulting and borderline insane. Did Trump win because he wears a dead tabby cat on his head? Was it because of his protected status as a “I-can’t-compose-a-rational-sentence-ian”?

Tell me, if what you say is true, who do you think Ocasio-Cortez would support for the president, Bernie Sanders or Corey Booker? You can learn the answer by reading her platform instead of her face and genitalia.

#EndOfRant

#10 Comment By Ellimist000 On June 27, 2018 @ 11:12 pm

“Bernie can be easily demonized as an Almost Dead White Male. (Go ahead. Say it can’t happen.)”

Sure Noah172, it certainly did happen in 2016. Was it the young, “angry”, leftist base? Nope!

#11 Comment By cka2nd On June 27, 2018 @ 11:14 pm

Jonah R. says: “I just read her bio on her campaign site. Even though she was born and raised in the Bronx, she somehow ended up going to public schools in Yorktown (90% white, 40 minutes away, median family income $154,984)”

So, what, people in the slums aren’t supposed to try to better themselves or the lives of their children? When I was growing up in East Harlem in the 70’s, hundreds of kids, including me and most of my siblings, were bused to schools on the Upper East Side because so many of those kids were being sent to private school. You think charter schools and vouchers were the original ideas involving school choice?

Anna filled in some of the gaps in Ocasio-Cortez’s biography for you, including the death of her father, the resultant economic strain on the family and the jobs she took to help out.

#12 Comment By cka2nd On June 27, 2018 @ 11:18 pm

Michelle says: “In our district, the establishment Democrat, a Harvard-educated lawyer who promised to work across the aisle, beat out the progressive working-class truck driver who favored Medicare for all by a huge margin.”

If your district is like many others, the “establishment Democrat” probably got loads of money from the DNC and national Democratic party donors, while the trucker got squat. The DNC has been hard at work stacking the deck and recruiting establishment types, as usual.

#13 Comment By Ellimist000 On June 27, 2018 @ 11:26 pm

“and socialism, which will deplete the wealth which is supposed to pay for the Free Stuff Ocasio-Cortez wants to give people?”

Aside from what Siarlys said, let’s apply logic on what you have said. “Deplete wealth”. Deplete wealth where? And what is wealth? “Wealth, noun, an abundance of valuable possessions or money.”

So wealth = stuff. And (you claim that) socialists want to deplete wealth to give “stuff” to “the people”. So “depleting wealth” IS paying for stuff for “the people”. After which the wealth is with “the people”. Claiming that “depleting wealth” will prevent “paying for stuff” is therefore nonsense. So what was your point? Is “depleting” wealth so that “people have it bad? Which people are you talking about? Why should “wealth” not be with “people” and be somewhere else? How did it get where it is? Am I trolling you? 😉

#14 Comment By Just Another Bystander On June 27, 2018 @ 11:35 pm

“Arthur Sido says:
June 27, 2018 at 11:56 am
Everyone seems to miss the secondary message here. Beyond a young socialist winning, it is clear that there is no longer a place for white men in the Democratic party. One by one they will disappear until only properly intersectional candidates remain. For the foreseeable future all politics will be identity politics.

[NFR: I think you’re right about that, but if I were a liberal in that district, fat old white me might well have voted for her too. Crowley is a poster child for being out of touch with the district. — RD]”

So one incumbent who happens to be a white guy loses and that means “there is no longer a place for white men in the Democratic Party?” That’s all it takes? The second white men don’t get to win every nomination and have every seat at the table, you want to complain that there is “no place” for you? Do you need to be reminded that the Democratic Party was, for decades, quite LITERALLY a place that was ONLY for white men?

This is the sort of nonsense that I can’t tolerate. The second white people – or particularly white men – aren’t the center of attention all the time in all fields, it means “we’re losing our country” and America isn’t “great.”

The Democratic Party is a place for everyone. That means people who look like you will not have the right of first refusal to any and every seat you want. You have to do what your kindergarten teacher should have taught you to do – share. If you want a party that’s just for white people, you’re welcome to go over to the Republicans.

#15 Comment By Matt in VA On June 27, 2018 @ 11:44 pm

<Noah172 said: I don’t get this analogy. Kasich was a long-time officeholder who was out of touch with the primary electorate on policy and style. Senators Gillibrand, Harris, and Booker don’t differ sharply from Sanders policy-wise (not like Trump v. Kasich, Rubio, Jeb), Harris and Booker don’t have long Washington tenures, and all three have a demographic hook (woman, woman of color, man of color*) which, as we can see, is important in Democratic primaries. Bernie can be easily demonized as an Almost Dead White Male. (Go ahead. Say it can’t happen.)

Kasich may not have been the right example, but I was trying to the find the equivalent of Very Establishment Politician, which Booker, Gillibrand, and perhaps to a lesser extent Harris are.

My point is that Bernie Sanders viscerally connects with an awful lot of people in a way that run of the mill politicians like Booker and Gillibrand do not. He connects with people on an emotional level — just like Trump connects (or clashes) with people on an emotional level. Mr. Dreher often points out that we live in an emotivist society.

Other commenters are correctly pointing out that you are wrong about how easily he (in particular) can be demonized as an old white male. The very people who did this in 2016 were the Clintonites who have been revealed to all as incredibly foolish incompetents who blew an election and lost to someone who polls always say the majority of Americans disapprove of. Whereas the young energetic DSA-types who are the energy and the future of the Democratic Party can say that they were *right* that Clinton was a mistake. Yes, I *agree* that the Democrats are likely on a path that will mean pushing out most white men (though I think Jews and gays will not be–the Dems cannot afford that). But that does not mean that Bernie cannot win. The fact that he is not perceived as threatening (on a racial/cultural level) by most white people is a huge asset to him.

cka2nd says: I’m no fan of Bernie’s, but if there’s a scrum among warmed over Clintonites like Gillibrand, Harris and Booker (Run, Andy Cuomo, Run!), Sanders could sweep them all aside. And I don’t think Elizabeth Warren has kept her populist economic bona fides particularly well shined,

Yeah, I agree with this 100%. Elizabeth Warren behaved in a way in 2015-2016 that made her seem like a carbon copy of Hillary Clinton. Everything — the way her press releases and tweets read, every choice she made — seemed like it had been put together by exactly the same PR shop as Clinton’s. Ooops! I honestly think she’s destroyed her chances for a run at the Presidency. I do not believe Democrats will go for somebody who reminds them at all of Clinton.

#16 Comment By Noah172 On June 27, 2018 @ 11:46 pm

Ellimist000 wrote:

Whites in the Democratic party are going to simply have to learn to SHARE

How do candidates SHARE a political office for which they are competing? One person gets it, the others don’t. Ocasio-Cortez just won, so Crowley doesn’t get to be Congressman anymore. No sharing. More women and POC winning D primaries means fewer white men. #Math

Sure Noah172, it certainly did happen in 2016. Was it the young, “angry”, leftist base? Nope!

Like I wrote, Bernie did not do so great with blacks, Hispanics, and the big cities — versus Hillary, with all her problems, and no other competitor for the anti-establishment or hard-left vote. He did also lose the overall female vote to Hillary by a significant margin (maybe not the under-30 women, but overall), and every exit poll showed a significant gender gap in his support.

#17 Comment By Brendan from Oz On June 27, 2018 @ 11:49 pm

Ah, yes, Australia’s great (and thankfully unknown) gifts to world economics and politics: corporate dominance of Labor/Left Parties and Too-Big-Too-Fail Banks.

When the USA and UK had Reagan and Thatcher, we had Hawke, who pacified the unionism of the time with the Prices and Income Accords. Both Clinton and Blair sent their experts Down Under to see how Labor could work with Big Business and win elections (and then become corrupt, but that wasn’t apparent at the time).

Economic crisis hits – we declare our banks Too Big To Fail and bailed them out – and worked, so everyone else jumped on that. Our Labor Party, now fully corporatized, was in power at the time.

Nevertheless, our universal health care is fabulous and supported by everybody across all lines of politics – only American Conservatives in all the world are ideologically opposed. Everyone who has it knows it works better than that. I have American friends who moved here for sufficient time so that when they aging and need care, they’ll move to Australia.

But these days Labor is wholly Woke and focused on Social Justice while wage stagnation compounds and our silly Conservative parties try to adopt American attitudes utterly alien to Australia, who has its own traditions on the Conservative side that are thoroughly overlooked.

Political parties the world over are having to redefine themselves to accommodate corporate dominance. Resistance is futile, but maybe admirable.

#18 Comment By Sisera On June 28, 2018 @ 12:27 am

@Janwaar
Agreed. There tends to be a lot of scoffing when lefties say ‘it’ll pay for itself’ with reference to free education- but for God’s sake can anyone really deny that literally

*training a workforce to be more productive*

will in the end be more costly than
*wars counter to the American interest, which actually raised the price of American oil imports*?

A lot of AnCap types have denied that the government essentially ‘invests’ in things and that its decisions can have a positive or negative ROI. They simply believe that the government spends and burns money. Maybe it does often, but it doesn’t have to be that way. This is presumably due to brainwashing, yet they say those who reject that notion are brainwashed…

#19 Comment By Noah172 On June 28, 2018 @ 12:52 am

Matt in VA wrote:

My point is that Bernie Sanders viscerally connects with an awful lot of people in a way that run of the mill politicians like Booker and Gillibrand do not

Sounds like Eugene McCarthy in 1968. Was the only Democrat with the guts to challenge Johnson. Had the whole antiwar, activist left vote to himself. Did well in primaries. The party “rigged” the nomination against him.

So when McCarthy ran again in 1972, he stormed to victory, right? Wrong. McGovern was the new hotness for the hippies. The establishmentarians, Humphrey and Muskie, were less controversial and hated than Johnson four years earlier (Muskie clobbered McCarthy in Illinois, which McCarthy had won in ’68). McCarthy Round 2 was a dud.

I repeat: Sanders has big vulnerabilities — women, POC, big cities, no Hillary in 2020, competition for the hard left — which commenters here aren’t considering. His winning the nomination is not impossible, but healthy skepticism that he can win is well warranted.

#20 Comment By Noah172 On June 28, 2018 @ 8:37 am

Siarlys and Ellimist000 wrote:

Here’s what your comments responding to my “socialism” comment miss:

You ignored the immigration half of what I wrote. You can have open borders. You can have a generous welfare state with general prosperity. You cannot, in the long run, have both. Ocasio-Cortez thinks you can. She’s wrong.

The two of you also ignore uncomfortable political reality. Bernie’s Vermont tried and failed to enact single-payer health care. The plan flopped because of the tax increases and disruption to existing arrangements it would have caused. Bernie’s Vermont, in backlash to the single-payer scheme, elected a Republican Governor who looks set to cruise to reelection in this difficult year for Republicans.

Then look at la-di-da California. Also tried and failed to enact single-payer, this time without even a pretense of figuring out how to pay for it. The Democrats pushed through a gas tax increase — not the level of taxation that would be required for “free” health care, college, day care, and the rest — and what was the response from the public? In California’s recent primary election, a Democratic State Senator got recalled and replaced by a Republican because of the gas tax, and the Democrats lost their two-thirds majority. (State Senate districts in California are big, BTW — a million people.) This was liberal California.

tl;dr Immigration, immigration, immigration. Also, people, even liberal and leftist people, don’t want to pay for all this “free” stuff that sounds good on paper. Deal with it.

#21 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 28, 2018 @ 10:36 am

ou ignored the immigration half of what I wrote. You can have open borders. You can have a generous welfare state with general prosperity. You cannot, in the long run, have both. Ocasio-Cortez thinks you can. She’s wrong.

Certainly I did Noah. You tried to run from a control-the-borders position to a socialism-doesn’t-work position. One does not follow from the other. For the sake of clarity, I addressed the point more important to me, and based on a weaker connection in your comment.

Now, you want me to address immigration? I’m a pragmatist. Ideally, every nation would provide peace and prosperity and fulfillment to all its peoples, and they would all happily remain at home where they are comfortable and have a lot in common with their neighbors, etc.

In the real world, there are discontinuities and there are figurative high and low pressure zones. When Japan was in the doldrums, some Japanese moved to Brazil. When Brazil was in a depression, some of the grandchildren of the Japanese immigrants tried to move back to booming Japan. But, they were used to Latin music and humor, they really didn’t fit in, and when the Japanese economic went into a tailspin, a lot of them went back to Brazil.

I’m not particularly opposed to tight controls at the border. I’m pragmatic about the fact that when millions of people have settled down and made a life for themselves and their children have grown up here, they are indeed here to stay. Like I said, Israelis aren’t going back to Europe, Hispanics and Somalis aren’t going back south or east.

When there is massive poverty in one country, and massive prosperity in another, there will be a natural pressure to move from one to the other. It can be restrained, resisted, pushed back, but not absolutely canceled. The long term solution is to equalize prosperity, which preferably means lifting one population up, not bringing the other down. As Hector has pointed out, its a lot cheaper to help someone in their own country than to bring them to a different and wealthier country.

Then, as you and many of us have pointed out, there is the desire of large-scale businesses to make use of immigrant labor. I’ve done some published reference articles on migrant labor. I know that it began in the southwest, mostly for agricultural purposes, and gradually expanded to other areas, also for agricultural purposes. Naturally, individual workers who saw better jobs in surrounding areas sought to jump to those better jobs. Which meant newer migrants were needed in agriculture…

Then there was the use of Mexican and Somali laborers to break the meatpackers union. And of course, there are the manipulative ways employers use immigration laws to threaten their underpaid employees with deportation, or actually call the enforcement squads on any who continue agitating, often depriving the deported workers of their last paycheck or two.

So, a comprehensive solution would include, reasonably strong patrols at the border, fraternal internationalist economic development aid to the countries people are most motivated to leave*, ruthless criminal penalties for employers of undocumented labor, including a civil penalty forfeiting three times the wages earned to the employees being deported (which might help them get re-established when they get home), and a reasonable humanitarian acceptance that people who grew up here are by and large an asset and should have a legal right to remain.

(*I use stilted socialist rhetoric concerning economic aid, because the sort of aid the U.S. provides now simply props up elites and increases motivation to flee north).

#22 Comment By Ken T On June 28, 2018 @ 11:53 am

Ken Zaretzke:
Trump can poleax the Dems by demanding that Congress reinstate Glass-Steagall. From a political-strategy perspective, it’s a no-brainier. The Kochs will hate it. Goldman Sachs will hate it. The Democrats will be divided EVEN MORE by it.

And the Republicans will immediately begin impeachment proceedings against him. While proclaiming at the top of their lungs how they have fully and unconditionally supported the Mueller investigation right from the beginning. Yada yada yada. And at least half of the commenters here will strongly deny that there has been any change of position. After all, we have always been at war with Eastasia, right?

#23 Comment By Noah172 On June 28, 2018 @ 2:31 pm

Siarlys wrote:

You tried to run from a control-the-borders position to a socialism-doesn’t-work position. One does not follow from the other

The generous welfare states of Europe (not full socialism, but then again I’m not so sure you are as much a “control the means of production” guy as you let on) are creaking under the strain of non-white and Muslim immigration. Millions of people with Middle Eastern work ethics, Middle Eastern violent propensities, and Middle Eastern inbred genes don’t make for good generators of tax revenue.

#24 Comment By Noah172 On June 28, 2018 @ 2:32 pm

Got a response to my points about Vermont, California, and political reality, Siarlys?

#25 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 28, 2018 @ 2:45 pm

Believe it or not Noah, I don’t have an addiction to providing a tit for tat to every word you post in cyberspace. Those were small potatoes, and I decided to let them lie. You demurred that I had ignored half your argument, and I endeavored to answer that concern.

#26 Comment By Jim the First On June 28, 2018 @ 5:53 pm

So, a comprehensive solution would include, reasonably strong patrols at the border, fraternal internationalist economic development aid to the countries people are most motivated to leave*, ruthless criminal penalties for employers of undocumented labor, including a civil penalty forfeiting three times the wages earned to the employees being deported (which might help them get re-established when they get home), and a reasonable humanitarian acceptance that people who grew up here are by and large an asset and should have a legal right to remain.

As long as “reasonably strong patrols” means “strong enforcement” of the border with the emphasis on whatever works within reason, I’m on board.

But I’m curious how you practically achieve the bolded part. That’s not trolling, just a realization that most places with crippling poverty that people want to flee are places with corrupt infrastructures in which it’s nearly impossible – absent an act of war – to make sure that the aid goes toward true economic development rather than just lining the pockets of the corrupt ruling elite.

#27 Comment By anon On June 28, 2018 @ 7:11 pm

“…it is clear that there is no longer a place for white men in the Democratic party.”

ROFLMAO!

This epitomizes what is meant by “white privilege.”

How so? The content of a person’s character and the diligence with which he represents his constituents is irrelevant to this point.

#28 Comment By Hibernian On June 28, 2018 @ 7:48 pm

@ Tyro: I grew up in an Upper Midwestern community and I can vouch for the fact that generally German-Americans are the biggest rugged individualists around.

#29 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 28, 2018 @ 11:47 pm

most places with crippling poverty that people want to flee are places with corrupt infrastructures in which it’s nearly impossible – absent an act of war – to make sure that the aid goes toward true economic development rather than just lining the pockets of the corrupt ruling elite.

True. And most U.S. foreign aid goes to such regimes, and that is one reason it is so ineffectual. I was trying to make a very general beginning at saying, that doesn’t help much, although it may be useful to “our SOB.” We would need regimes that were cooperative with our new policy. If Bernie Sanders had been elected in 1980, if the U.S. had been actively aiding the Sandinistas and the FMLN, if that example had inspired regime change in Honduras and Guatemala… there would be a lot less people pressing to get into the United States. And MS-13 would never have been conceived. Its the product of Salvadorean refugees spending twenty years in Los Angeles.

#30 Comment By Ellimist000 On June 29, 2018 @ 1:11 am

Noah172,

“You ignored the immigration half of what I wrote. You can have open borders. You can have a generous welfare state with general prosperity. You cannot, in the long run, have both. Ocasio-Cortez thinks you can. She’s wrong.”

No. One. Wants. Open. Borders.

Please, Noah, if you are so content to punch strawmen, would you kindly go do so in the fictitious nation in which they reside?

Incidentally, you probably could have a robust welfare state, if you funded it by a universal VAT tax. Incidentally, this was a Republican idea before they LOST THEIR GOD-GIVEN MINDS. That right there is an example of the lion share of our problems.

As to your other statements, get through your head, stuff’s not free. Here’s one liberal who would happily pay, especially if it means paying what the Europeans do for healthcare. There are a hundred ways that our crony capitalist society and its GOP and Democrat enforcers hamper such projects in the states. Heck, the GOP just designed a tax bill to cripple these very states that tax for the common good (you know, the *res publica* that Republicans seem to like not so much). This kind of sabotage is the only reason why the post office is in any trouble. On and on it goes.

And it goes on no matter what is happening with immigration. Do you know, Noah, that immigration is the lowest it has been in decades and yet wages have FALLEN after you take inflation into account? The only real “good” that limiting immigration does is keep America white (and what good is a white America when your methods of getting there destroys America?). There are simply better and less divisive ways to create and keep jobs and reign in the wealthy interests dragging down our economy, and if Trump would do those things instead of locking up children, force-feeding them drugs, and calling their refugee parents gangsters and animals, even I would vote for him.

[NFR: No one wants open borders? That memo hasn’t yet reached Rep. Keith Ellison, the No. 2 Democrat in the DNC, who [5]earlier this year. — RD]

#31 Comment By Ellimist000 On June 29, 2018 @ 1:18 am

Noah172,

“No sharing. More women and POC winning D primaries means fewer white men. ”

So…what?

Why does one less white man, or a few, or even 50% less (which would put them at about their percent of the population) equal “no place for white men”. Heh, with such jumps to panic over the mere prospect of being a (sizable and still overly powerful) minority, it really boggles my mind that such white people don’t more empathize with other ethnic groups that have lived this way forever.

#32 Comment By Ellimist000 On June 29, 2018 @ 1:20 am

“Trump can poleax the Dems by demanding that Congress reinstate Glass-Steagall.”

I wish he would.

#33 Comment By Ellimist000 On June 29, 2018 @ 1:23 am

“ruthless criminal penalties for employers of undocumented labor, including a civil penalty forfeiting three times the wages earned to the employees being deported (which might help them get re-established when they get home)”

And I like this idea!

#34 Comment By Mia On June 29, 2018 @ 5:34 am

“That’s not the worst of it. If universal health care, free education and other socialist horrors come to pass, consider all the great things in contemporary America we will no be able to afford.”

Your post is a scream, but this part reminds me of the sticker shock I experienced reading about the new tax code/IRS reform bill. I think the price tag was something like $1.5 billion (or was it trillion) dollars. We already have an incredible deficit, but where is all of this money coming from? Is Trump paying for this himself? And that’s not counting his increase in spending for the military and other things he’s putting out there. Certainly, Trump is no fiscally sane person.

#35 Comment By Noah172 On June 29, 2018 @ 8:24 am

Ellimist000 wrote:

No. One. Wants. Open. Borders.

Please, Noah, if you are so content to punch strawmen, would you kindly go do so in the fictitious nation in which they reside?

Rod already corrected you with Keith Ellison, but you should also know that there is a growing movement among Democrats to abolish ICE. I already mentioned that Ocasio-Cortez, who will be in Congress next year, supports this. We also have half a dozen or so (at last count; it will grow rapidly) sitting Democratic Representatives (one of whom is introducing a bill to that effect) and now one Senator, Gillibrand, who is running for President. Kamala, also a 2020 contender, and the likeliest nominee IMO, has called for starting over or something with ICE. Senators Warren and Duckworth attended yesterday a protest where protestors were calling for ICE’s abolition.

Eliminating border enforcement means you have no border, just as eliminating highway patrol means your speed limit becomes meaningless.

Learn something before sneering about strawmen.

As to your other statements, get through your head, stuff’s not free

That was my point. Taxpayers, even in liberal places, are aware of that. “Socialist” politicians are aware of that: look at how Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez are cagey about how to pay for their pipe dreams (tax only The Rich, not you, middle-class voter, don’t you worry).

the GOP just designed a tax bill to cripple these very states that tax for the common good

You mean they limited — not eliminated — a subsidy for affluent people and owners of expensive homes. Some socialist you are. The Democrats think they can take high-income suburban districts this fall by stoking resentment that the Republicans raised taxes on their rich residents. Party of the little guy, indeed.

#36 Comment By Noah172 On June 29, 2018 @ 8:30 am

Do you know, Noah, that immigration is the lowest it has been in decades

Not legal immigration, which is still quite high (and, of course, we have all the immigrants from previous years and decades). Illegal border crossings did fall in 2017, but have risen now in 2018.

#37 Comment By Anne (the other one) On June 29, 2018 @ 9:09 am

cka2nd says:
June 27, 2018 at 11:14 pm

Jonah R. says: “I just read her bio on her campaign site. Even though she was born and raised in the Bronx, she somehow ended up going to public schools in Yorktown (90% white, 40 minutes away, median family income $154,984)”

So, what, people in the slums aren’t supposed to try to better themselves or the lives of their children? When I was growing up in East Harlem in the 70’s, hundreds of kids, including me and most of my siblings, were bused to schools on the Upper East Side because so many of those kids were being sent to private school. You think charter schools and vouchers were the original ideas involving school choice?

***********

I live in Yorktown NY. It is a solidly middle class, if not upper class neighborhood. Our schools don’t take non resident students.

The media is making her out to be a poor girl from the hood. She isn’t. She is a middle class. She is well educated.

#38 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 29, 2018 @ 1:55 pm

We already have an incredible deficit, but where is all of this money coming from?

Ryan and company are preparing to take it out of social security and medicare. That was always their goal. They set themselves up with the perfect excuse.

#39 Comment By Ellimist000 On June 29, 2018 @ 9:24 pm

“[NFR: No one wants open borders? That memo hasn’t yet reached Rep. Keith Ellison, the No. 2 Democrat in the DNC, who worked the crowds wearing a t-shirt calling for exactly that earlier this year. — RD]”

Rod, how cute. If you think a T-shirt constitutes policy, then you really should start supporting Donald Trump.

Please actually have a look at what Ellison actually says and does about immigration:

[6]

[7]

Particular he seems to have focused on legislation like H.R.4646/S.2540, which he co-sponsored, which, surprisingly, doesn’t dissolve the border, but advocated putting funds toward providing counsel to immigrants going through the system, strengthening and expediting the process. He may want MORE immigrants in the country, he may want it easier to accept refugees in (and I am inclined to agree) but that is not the same thing as open borders.

You may not like it, and folks may cry about Western Civilization, but God did not put me on this good green earth to worry about what they like in contradiction to the facts, nor did he appoint those who want to keep our border more closed than it already as the guardians of Western Civilization, of whom Ellison, myself, and all of those Latino refugees are the heirs of, at least as much as you and Noah are, insofar as it may be measured.

BTW my understanding is that the shirt can also translate to “I do not believe in barriers” or “I do not believe in limits”. He is connecting to that community (of Americans!) and it’s aspirations in a way you might never know how.

#40 Comment By Ellimist000 On June 29, 2018 @ 10:27 pm

“Rod already corrected you with Keith Ellison, but you should also know that there is a growing movement among Democrats to abolish ICE.”

Rod complained about a dumb meme on a T-shirt :p.

Incidentally, I was wrong, I now remember that there is one group I know of who really do advocate for open borders-Libertarians, of the Peter Thiel style.

I am fully aware of everything you said about ICE, because I support that myself. They have behaved as a bunch of thugs under this president and need to be seriously restructured. Noah, despite our disagreements, I don’t actually believe you are a ten-year-old (sorry for the quip, I’m in a happy mood having watched a funny Shakespeare play funded by good ole’ socialism), so I assume you must know that we have only had ICE since 2003. It’s just another part of the bloated post-9/11 security apparatus. I suppose you might argue that we had no borders before then, but keep pushing back further in time and you may hit the time period that Trump wants to vigorously ‘MAGA’ us to.

That said, I never thought it would happen. I am surprised how many Democrats are signing on. So are some top leaders in the investigative (not deportation) parts of ICE itself, who apparently want to do some actual good for the country. And the Ice chief is throwing border control under the bus, so God knows what will happen!

#41 Comment By Ellimist000 On June 29, 2018 @ 11:02 pm

“You mean they limited — not eliminated — a subsidy for affluent people and owners of expensive homes. Some socialist you are.”

Socialism is a broad ideology, but generally, it is not so much about people gaining any wealth at all, it’s more about WHO is gaining the wealth and why they are (ownership of the means and all that). And social democracy isn’t even that.

I was referring to the limiting of deductions of state taxes from federal, which the States are taxing from said affluent people to benefit the common good. This funnels more money to the centralized government, which I believe should be limited as much as is practical (for the common good), violates the ideals of Federalism by, yes, intentionally using federal power to make it politically difficult for the States to manage their affairs as they wish (because selfish rich and think-they-are-rich folk live in all 50 states and U.S. territories), and flies in the face of all conservative thought on double taxation.

Some right-winger you are?

“look at how Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez are cagey about how to pay for their pipe dreams”

I didn’t know who Ocasio-Cortez was before last weekend, so I can’t comment, but Bernie has said exactly what he would do. He has from the very beginning of his campaign said that he WOULD raise taxes on everybody, but they would get more than what they paid for by the creation of a healthcare program without outreach premiums and deductibles and corporate shenanigans-how it works in every other modern (and quite a few not so modern) nations (more mothers die here in childbirth than in Libia, hail Capitalism).

This is true for other programs as well: [8]

And others have thought of creative ways to pay for social programs even bolder than Bernie’s: [9]

Now what was Trump’s detailed plan to fund that wall again? 😉

#42 Comment By Noah172 On June 29, 2018 @ 11:03 pm

Ellimist000 hits back about Ellison’s T-shirt, but not about the growing chorus of Democratic officeholders and candidates (which will probably include Ellison any day now) calling for the abolition of ICE.

#43 Comment By Noah172 On June 30, 2018 @ 12:31 am

Apology for my 11:03 comment. I posted it before Ellimist’s responses of 10:27 and 11:02 were visible.

I assume you must know that we have only had ICE since 2003

And before that there was the INS, which did the same thing. Immigration enforcement did not begin in 2003.

You are not addressing how eliminating the agency responsible for immigration enforcement means you don’t have de facto open borders. Think of any other category of law and what would happen if you eliminated the agency responsible for its enforcement.

I was referring to the limiting of deductions of state taxes from federal, which the States are taxing from said affluent people to benefit the common good. This funnels more money to the centralized government

A deduction on federal taxes means less revenue for the feds, not more.

About that link to Bernie’s site, the tax proposals overwhelmingly claim they would hit only the wealthy. The non-rich tax hikes he proposes are:

1) a payroll tax for 12 weeks of paid leave for any worker, which he claims would cost 32 billion per year, which would be 4k per worker if 8 million workers (5% of current workforce) availed themselves of it (so I’m thinking the tax would have to be higher)

2) premiums for Medicare-for-all, although that gets buried under more talk of taxing the rich, and then an evasive line about “savings from health tax expenditures,” which means eliminating the health insurance tax deduction… which is a good idea on the merits, although the fact that is afraid to say it plainly shows he knows it is politically unpopular

BTW, Bernie has been in Congress awhile now. One of the things he has voted on is opposing (modest) reductions to doctor payments under Medicare Part B. Shows he is not serious about reigning in health care costs.

Now what was Trump’s detailed plan to fund that wall again?

Tax remittances. Tariffs on Mexican goods. He has not communicated this well, but it is not conceptually difficult. And really, curbing illegal immigration saves us enormously in the long run, no matter how we fund a wall initially.

#44 Comment By cka2nd On June 30, 2018 @ 3:53 am

Anne (the other one) says: “The media is making her out to be a poor girl from the hood. She isn’t. She is a middle class. She is well educated.”

Sorry, I was pretty much just going by what I read in Rod’s piece, a single viewing of her bio video on YouTube, and Jonah R’s comment – it looks like he did as little to research Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s life as I did – when I reacted to the latter.

Thank goodness for Wikipedia. Her family moved to Yorktown Heights when she was five and she attended school there, doing very well. It sounds like the family hit very hard times in 2008 when her father died without leaving a will. It’s interesting that this is at the same time that millions of others were experiencing financial calamities, also often involving their homes, during the Great Recession. When she returned home after college, she took bartender and waitress jobs to help her mother fend off foreclosure.

I don’t know anything about her father’s career as an architect or what work her mother did, but the family sounds like they were middle class, and then once her dad died, struggled mightily to maintain their class position. As someone who has personally experienced going up and down the class ladder in the United States, including 11 years as a proletarian and 15 years in the petite bourgeoisie, I can empathize with what she and her mother were going through. I also doubt that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is the only child of a middle class family who has been radicalized, in part, by the financial struggles of her parent(s).

So no, she is not a poor girl from the hood. She grew up middle class, got the education of a bright and talented middle class child, and then had to take working class jobs for a while to help her mom during a crisis situation. That experience and others radicalized her, and if she ain’t my kind of leftist, at least she had the better judgment to fall in with the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party and not the Hilary Clinton wing.

#45 Comment By Ellimist000 On June 30, 2018 @ 6:47 pm

Noah172,

“And before that there was the INS, which did the same thing. Immigration enforcement did not begin in 2003.

You are not addressing how eliminating the agency responsible for immigration enforcement means you don’t have de facto open borders. Think of any other category of law and what would happen if you eliminated the agency responsible for its enforcement.”

Listen to Gillibrand or the ICE agents who want to basically abolish ICE: [10]

Basically, there are two parts to ICE, the ones actually fighting transnational criminals like MS-13, who absolutely need the trust and support of immigrant communities, both legal and illegal, and the one that is in the news, who seem to be quite full of right-wing macho men who get jollies from off locking up children and people who have not committed a crime, not even the misdemeanor that is sneaking over the border. Keep one, the other needs to be “restructured” as I said and as both Harris and Gillibrand AND O-C have said (though I am wary about the need for any government agency younger than I am!).

INS stood for “Immigration and Naturalization Service”. That would lend one to think that their mission largely involved “immigration” i.e not about deterring immigration, and “naturalizing” not deterring naturalization to maintain some fantasy status quo. I am not opposed to controlling the border, I’m not opposed to reviewing how and if (and it is an if) undocumented workers are a significant contribution to the economic plight of the working class (and if the response is proportionate to it).

But I do not want to CLOSE the border and I would certainly tend towards increasing legal immigration of educated immigrants, particularly those educated here, and of refugees WITH an explicit integration program. I would prefer to create conditions where there were freer (but regulated and watched) movement across the border like we used to have when we were less of a burgeoning police state. Ironically, given that there is evidence that as border security increased (which started long before Trump, despite all the “open borders” talk) undocumented immigrants were less transient (i.e. they stayed here and had babies), freer movement might actually more preserve the white demographic/cultural hegemony (of course, that’s not why I want it).

Anyway, none of this constitutes “open borders”, no matter how much it may distress some conservatives.

Also,

“A deduction on federal taxes means less revenue for the feds, not more.”

Yes, that is what I was saying, and this is what I want. Apparently, Trump wants more money for the feds. In the abstract, I want local government to have more funds to do as they will, except some areas where it makes more practical sense for the federal government (such as that UBI idea I linked earlier, or health care, though a per state single payer would be OK too) as long as they are attempting not violating human rights and the structure of representative democracy (which is why in practice I don’t believe that certain red states can be trusted). Nothing in contradiction to what socialism actually is, but it is a fairly conservative idea, when “conservative” doesn’t mean “radical big-money white supremacist”.