Take courage people!
You too can become populists just like Pete and Little Marco. Just get your degrees from Princeton and Harvard and the Universities of Florida and Miami.
Take courage people!
You too can become populists just like Pete and Little Marco. Just get your degrees from Princeton and Harvard and the Universities of Florida and Miami.
1.61 votes for Nixon for every vote for McGovern, the real reason Democrats hated him so much.
The smallest popular mandate belonged to JFK over Nixon in 1960 at 1.0033. Democrats stole that election but Nixon let it pass for the good of the country.
There were smaller mandates, if you count Bush 2000 at 0.98 (Gore 1.01), or Trump 2016 at 0.95 (Hillary 1.04), lol, but those aren't really popular vote mandates now are they?
LBJ was second in 1964 with 1.58, because JFK had been assassinated in 1963. I don't think Jesus himself could have won it for the GOP in 1964.
Third overall was Reagan in 1984 with 1.44, followed by IKE at fourth and fifth with 1.36 and 1.24 respectively in 1956 and 1952.
If back-to-back terms is your yardstick, Reagan was tops with a combined mandate of 1.335, followed by Nixon at 1.31, IKE at 1.30, Bill Clinton at 1.17, and Obama at 1.115. Bush 43 brings up the rear at a distant 1.015.
People who think Trump is a repudiation of Bush 43 Republicanism should consider that Trump's not-back-to-back combined score is now 0.99.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Trump is a transitional figure for the GOP, and certainly not a nationally transformational one like Reagan who destroyed the bipolar world, IKE who re-moralized a victorious but demoralized nation, and Nixon who fatefully opened the door to China.
Unfortunately for the GOP, Trump is mostly just a wrecking ball who is wrecking his own HDQ, and the Democrat threat remains just decimal points away.
Trump's so-called party of populism has given us a cabinet teeming with billionaires.
Welcome to rule by the rich. We deserve them, good and hard.
Andreessen's hero, Thomas Jefferson, would have taxed them all into oblivion to keep their baneful influence from destroying republican government. Thomas Jefferson was an advocate of what we have known as steeply progressive taxation.
But billionaire Andreessen thinks you are too dumb even to know that.
Hell, he's probably too dumb to know that.
![]() |
"Exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." |
“I showed up in the 101st Airborne Division, in one of the most storied units in our nation’s history, with a bunch of combat vets who’d already done a tour in Iraq and they looked at me like, ‘Who the hell is this guy?’” Hegseth said in a 2021 interview on “The Will Cain Show” podcast.
One former officer who served with Hegseth said he was surprised to see a National Guard member taking on such a role. He surmised that Hegseth probably wanted to run for office someday and thought a combat tour could help, the former officer said. ...
The former Army officer who served with Hegseth in Iraq said he believes he has latched on to “populist scenarios” in a quest for personal gain. When news of Hegseth’s potential nomination emerged, old acquaintances from those days got back in touch with one another, the former officer said.
One text he received especially stood out. All it said: “WTF?”
More.
For the first time ever, the right-populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) won a state election. In Thuringia, the party gained 32.8 per cent of the votes – nearly 10 points ahead of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which came in second with 23.6 per cent. In Saxony, the AfD won 30.6 per cent and came just 1.3 per cent behind the leading CDU. ...
Meanwhile, the three parties of the ruling coalition government lagged far behind. Combined, their vote share amounted to less than 15 per cent in Saxony and just over 10 per cent in Thuringia. ... The AfD’s gains are not a one-off slip-up, but a continuation of its successes. The party was already the second-strongest force in both federal states in the last state elections in 2019. On a national level, the AfD came second in the EU elections this June. ...
The attempt to combat the AfD by merely dismissing it as beyond the pale clearly isn’t working. Even those who don’t like the AfD, but are principled democrats, can see the problem with freezing out a party that just won a democratic election. ... The polls are crystal clear about which topics matter most to voters – rising crime rates, unregulated migration, a sinking standard of living and the growing influence of radical Islam. These are all real, rational concerns.
More.
The whole thing makes sense, which is surprising coming as it does from The Washington Post, which ends this way:
[Even] her [good] ideas would cost money, yet she insisted in her speech that she would hold to President Joe Biden’s pledge not to raise taxes on any household earning $400,000 or less annually. That excludes 80 percent of taxable income, and does not take into account the recent surge in families earning over $400,000. The Harris campaign says it plans to raise revenue to cover these costs but did not provide specific offsets in its economic plan rollout. Without them, Ms. Harris’s full plan would add $1.7 trillion to federal deficits over a decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan budget watchdog.
To be sure, every campaign makes expensive promises that will never come to pass, especially with a divided Congress. Remember Mr. Biden’s pledge to make community college free? Even adjusted for the pandering standards of campaign economics, however, Ms. Harris’s speech Friday ranks as a disappointment.
Wow.
What's that old saying, When you're a liberal and you've lost The Washington Post, you've already lost?
Well ......................................................................................... is the Democrat Party still liberal though?
Politico reports here.
IIF CEO Tim Adams sounded the alarm on rising levels of debt while
speaking to CNBC’s Silvia Amaro at the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland. ... "We need sobriety . . .."
The global banking industry’s premier trade group said late last year that worldwide debt climbed to a record of $307.4 trillion in the third quarter of 2023, with a substantial increase in both high-income countries and emerging markets.
The IIF said it expected global debt to reach $310 trillion by the end of 2023, warning that elections in more than 50 countries and regions this year could usher in a shift toward populism that brings with it still-higher debt levels.
More.
“He emphasized that he was committed to running as a Democrat but said that he considered himself very libertarian,” Ms. McArdle said in an interview, adding that they agreed on several positions, including the threat of the “deep state” and the need for populist messaging. “We’re aligned on a lot of issues.”
“My perspective is that we are going to stay in touch in case he does decide to run,” Ms. McArdle said. “And he can contact me at any time if that’s the case.”
More.
Scott Sumner, here:
The consequence of the reckless fiscal policy will not be a financial crisis. Nor will it be a default. Even the permanent monetization of the debt is unlikely, in my view. The most likely consequence will be higher future taxes and slower economic growth. This will lead to reduced living standards. It might also push politics in a more “populist” direction, with consequences that are difficult to predict (but unlikely to be desirable.)
Trump lacked the discipline.
Stated here.
That's still the fundamental problem, but that's been the case from the beginning.
Character counts. Trump has never had it and never will. I cut my losses with Trump in 2018 when he exposed himself as a phony on his chief plank, illegal immigration. He already did that in August 2016, so fool me once, shame on Trump. I am not ashamed to state it over and over again.
The rest of the party still hasn't come around, however, with so-called conservatives still yammering on about stuff like pOPuLiSm. But that's because opposition to illegal immigration was never a GOP value. The GOP would never be upset because he lied about that.
It's hard to imagine the GOP pointing to anything in particular which was a line too far. 121 voted in the House to object to the 2020 Arizona vote, 138 to the Pennsylvania vote. Not even three horrible elections in a row is proving to be decisive.
Meanwhile Democrats have exploited Trump's weakness, and therefore the GOP's, to consolidate power with extraordinary new depth. The new regime of mail-in voting everywhere changes everything. The chain of custody of ballots in voting precincts is broken forever.
It's the end run around representative government we only imagined the National Popular Vote Compact would be. It's the path to pure democracy. It's the end of legislatures, the end of republicanism, and makes the tyranny of the majority and the repression of the minority the new, terrible future.
A Supreme Court in principle deferring to the states on everything from election law to drugs, marriage, abortion, gender, etc. is no bulwark against what's coming, indeed, what's already here.
The people will decide by referendum.
The people be damned.
The Fed is all talk about combating inflation, no action.
Because the top 10% of the country has 89% of the money that way, dummy.
True populism would throw the bums out and end The Fed, but we haven't got any.
In 2018, Kotkin was still tip-toeing around the obvious, but not anymore:
Mussolini’s notion of fascism has become increasingly dominant in much of the world . . .
Mussolini, a one-time radical socialist, viewed himself as a “revolutionary” transforming society by turning the state into “the moving centre of economic life”. In Italy and, to a greater extent, Germany, fascism also brought with it, at least initially, an expanded highly populist welfare state much as we see today.
Mussolini’s idea of a an economy controlled from above, with generous benefits but dominated by large business interests, is gradually supplanting the old liberal capitalist model. ...
fascism — in its corporate sense — relies on concentrated economic power to achieve its essential and ideological goals. ...
China, in many aspects the model fascist state of our times, follows Il Duce’s model of cementing the corporate elite into the power structure. ...
But in the battle between the two emergent fascist systems, China possesses powerful advantages. Communist Party cadres at least offer more than a moralising agenda; they can point to the country’s massive reduction of extreme poverty and a huge growth in monthly wages, up almost five-fold since 2006. At a time when the middle class is shrinking in the West, China’s middle class increased enormously from 1980 to 2000, although its growth appears to have slowed in recent years.
Like Mussolini, who linked his regime to that of Ancient Rome, China’s rulers look to Han supremacy and the glories of China’s Imperial past. “The very purpose of the [Chinese Communist] Party in leading the people in revolution and development,” Xi Jinping told party cadres a decade ago, “is to make the people prosperous, the country strong, and [to] rejuvenate the Chinese nation.”
Kotkin recognizes at least that American right-wing libertarianism is part of the problem, not part of the solution:
the consolidation of oligarchic power is supported by massive lobbying operations and dispersals of cash, including to some Right-wing libertarians, who doggedly justify censorship and oligopoly on private property grounds.
Regrettably, however, Kotkin still does not connect this failure of the old liberal order in the West with the failure of the old moral order which gave it birth and on which it depended. This is because Kotkin still sees things in primarily materialistic terms.
Kotkin is oddly politically correct when he denounces possible recourse to nativism, which blinds him to the nativism which is at the heart of Chinese state capitalism and gives it much of its appeal and strength. He calls for "a re-awakening of the spirit of resistance to authority" in the West, not realizing that it was Protestantism which made that even possible in the first place.
The problem of the West is spiritual, and Catholicism will never be able to rise to the occasion of refounding it as long as globo-homo defines Rome. The whole idea is inimical to the notion of founding a nation "for our posterity".