Populism's Dark Side
A few years back -- right around the time I started blogging, in fact -- I was also considering doing a writing project that never actually took shape. I wanted to write a book about how Populism was about due for a resurgence in American politics. This was after watching Ralph Nader and Howard Dean, but before John Edwards and (obviously) Bernie Sanders. The disconnect between how the politicians (of both parties) set their priorities and agenda and what the American people actually wanted from their government was growing into a chasm, which is why I began entertaining thoughts of writing about the historical parallels and the possibility of a Populist wave building in the near future.
That was almost 10 years ago, and here we are. Donald Trump is the frontrunner of the Republican Party, and Bernie Sanders is second on the Democratic side. Both could quite plausibly be labelled Populists.
But the reason I gave up on my project was that there is a historically dark side to Populism that I really didn't want to grapple with. Populism has always had a strong strain of nativism running through it. Anti-immigrant ideas are nothing new in American politics, they go back a long way. And Populism is part of that history. Populists didn't invent anti-immigrant concepts, I should mention (being anti-immigrant goes back a lot further in our history, in fact), but they certainly did embrace them. This is one reason why people on the Left chose to re-label themselves "progressives" (when "liberal" went out of style) rather than "populists."
Populism has always been hard to define. It's a "people-led" movement, hence the name. Beyond that, however, the details can get quite foggy. Academics struggle with the definition, but here's one (from Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell) sufficiently broad enough to be useful in this discussion: an ideology which "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous 'others‚' who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice."
It's the definition of the "others" which give rise to the quibbles over what is Populism and what is not. Sometimes the elitist others are Big Banks, sometimes Big Business, and sometimes Big Government. And, unfortunately enough, sometimes the big, bad others are immigrants.
There was, for a brief moment in American history, a Populist Party. They formed in 1892, and put out a founding document which espoused their agenda. The agenda was rather broad, because the party was really a coalition of some disparate movements which had been building in the 1880s. The first of these was the farmers' movement, which was bent on making things easier for the American farmer. Farmers had plenty of problems with monopolistic rail barons, as well as big East Coast banks. The second group in the Populist alliance was the greenback movement, which was fighting the battle over getting rid of the gold standard (their targets were also the big banks, obviously). But the third part of the Populist movement was Labor, who had their own concerns. Labor struggled for a long time (this wasn't so long after the Civil War, remember) with whether to allow blacks to join unions (and their movement) or not. But Labor was pretty unified in being against immigrant laborers.
When you read the founding document of the Populist Party (the Omaha Platform), you will find certain ideas that Bernie Sanders is still running on today. The language is a bit dated, but you can imagine Sanders including the following sentiments in one of his speeches:
The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of mankind; and the possessors of those, in turn, despise the republic and endanger liberty. From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed the two great classes -- tramps and millionaires.
The arguments were almost identical to what is said now about the influence of money in politics, and how the two-party system has left a whole lot of issues completely off the agenda:
We have witnessed for more than a quarter of a century the struggles of the two great political parties for power and plunder, while grievous wrongs have been inflicted upon the suffering people. We charge that the controlling influences dominating both these parties have permitted the existing dreadful conditions to develop without serious effort to prevent or restrain them. Neither do they now promise us any substantial reform. They have agreed together to ignore, in the coming campaign, every issue but one. They propose to drown the outcries of a plundered people with the uproar of a sham battle over the tariff, so that capitalists, corporations, national banks, rings, trusts, watered stock, the demonetization of silver and the oppressions of the usurers may all be lost sight of. They propose to sacrifice our homes, lives, and children on the altar of mammon; to destroy the multitude in order to secure corruption funds from the millionaires.
Their agenda included plenty of radical ideas, such as the possibility of nationalizing the railroads ("We believe that the time has come when the railroad corporations will either own the people or the people must own the railroads"), as well as the telegraph and telephone system. Some of these, such as a graduated (progressive) income tax, the eight-hour workday, secret ballots in elections, and direct election of senators, have indeed come to pass. Some of them are still being proposed today, such as postal savings accounts.
But just as most of the not-yet-achieved items from the Populist agenda would be cheered by Bernie Sanders supporters today, there's one agenda item that Donald Trump's fans would wholeheartedly agree with as well. The "urban workmen" were fighting for the right to unionize, and the "other" they were fighting against was clear, as "imported pauperized labor beats down their wages." This argument should sound familiar, since the "They took our jobs!" refrain is a common one indeed in the history of American politics. Even Bernie Sanders (previous to his presidential run) entertained the notion that being pro-Union also meant being against high levels of immigration (to keep wages high). There is also a plank in the Populist platform which would prohibit "alien ownership of land."
In the list of their agenda items at the end of the Omaha Platform, the following resolution spells the sentiment out more clearly, using language that Donald Trump would certainly agree with:
RESOLVED, That we condemn the fallacy of protecting American labor under the present system, which opens our ports to the pauper and criminal classes of the world and crowds out our wage-earners; and we denounce the present ineffective laws against contract labor, and demand the further restriction of undesirable emigration.
"Pauper" is not a word much in use today, but Donald Trump -- starting with his campaign launch announcement -- has been demagoguing immigrants as the "criminal classes of the world," who are clearly "undesirable" as well.
I learned about this dark side to Populism a decade ago, and decided it would be too tough to reconcile the nativist thread of Populism with a positive call for the future of populism in American politics. So I never wrote that book. But I did learn a piece of history, so it wasn't a total waste of my time. It did help spur me to write the book I did, which urged Democrats in Congress to adopt a slate consisting of the brighter side of Populism, in order to retake Congress.
The term populism (little-p, when speaking of it generically) is still being flung about without much attempt to define what it encompasses. Both Sanders and Trump see the term used about them on a regular basis, which does prove that the concept of populism cuts across the current divide between the two major political parties. My hope is that the further we get into the election season, a few more people in the media might hunt down the origins of Populism, to help Americans understand that there has always been an anti-immigrant dark side to the politics of Populism. Trump's ideas aren't so much radical concepts that are unprecedented in American politics, in fact they're a return to the actual roots of Populism. In Star Wars terms, Trump is entreating us all to embrace the dark side of the Populist force. Whether the people respond positively to him or not still remains to be seen.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
CW -
This may be the best column you have written.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
One of your best CW. Thanks.
One of the gifts from "One Summer: America, 1927" by Bill Bryson was the history of Italian immigrant hatred that was prevalent at the turn of the Twentieth Century - lynchings in New Orleans and Tallulah, and despite worldwide protests, the executions of Sacco and Vanzetti who were pardoned by Dukakis 50 years later.
We need to be better than this - Trump and Cruz cannot drag us back like this. It isn't our decent, honest progressives vs. our decent, honest conservatives; this is the 21st Century vs. the 14th. Trump, Cruz and ISIS are residues of that history, and we need to reject them.
TheStig and neilmcgovern -
Really? Dang, I thought it was just a little historical vignette. But sometimes the columns I don't think too deeply about are the ones with lasting power, so I do thank you for the compliments.
neil - haven't read the 1927 book, but I've read other Bryson books that were a delight to read, so I will try to check it out.
-CW
One other note:
Just went back and answered comments from all of this week's articles, so go check that out...
-CW
"Pauper" is not a word much in use today, but Donald Trump -- starting with his campaign launch announcement -- has been demagoguing immigrants as the "criminal classes of the world," who are clearly "undesirable" as well.
Has been demagoguing ILLEGAL immigrants...
Slight correction there...
No one is speaking of lynching immigrants or anything of the sort..
What's happening is more a case of putting the needs of AMERICANS *BEFORE* the wants and desires of immigrants..
No one, to date, has come up with a valid argument as to why that is a BAD thing...
Michale
302
"You have sat here too long for any good you have done here. In the name of God, go!"
-Oliver Cromwell
I'm just sayin'...
Michale
303
“I think it’s shameful for our country to have people running around to be president of the United States, saying these things, demonizing people.”
-Hillary Clinton
This, coming from a woman who calls fellow Americans "enemies"...
The blatant hypocrisy of this rhymes-with-witch knows NO depths..
It's nauseating...
Michale
304
The Potency of Trump's Populism
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/11/the_potency_of_trumps_populism_129001.html
Looks like someone at RCP is reading CW.COM :D
Michale
305
Let's face reality here..
The Establishment is hysterical over Trump because the Establishment has no control over Trump..
THAT is the only factor at work here..
Michale
309
Let's also take a step back and look at the FACTS objectively and without hysteria..
We have two fanatical muslims, one a recent immigrant, who just shot up an office and brutally killed and wounded almost 40 innocent Americans..
Trump says that we should suspend muslim immigration until such time as better security measures are put in place..
Now, tell me..
On what PLANET is that NOT a good idea???
Tell me in what dimension, one what astral plan, in what alternate time-line is this NOT a prudent measure to take??
Anyone?? Anyone?? Beuhler???
Michale
311
For the record, I just sent another donation into CW for comments up to #300...
Anyone want to make any matching pledges?? :D
How about a nickel from every Weigantian for every comment I make??
Double that if anyone actually gets me to concede anything.. :D
TRIPLE that if I actually get anyone to concede anything.. :D
It's for a worthy cause....
Michale
312
Trump says that we should suspend muslim immigration until such time as better security measures are put in place..
Now, tell me..
On what PLANET is that NOT a good idea???
Tell me in what dimension, one what astral plan, in what alternate time-line is this NOT a prudent measure to take??
ESPECIALLY when you consider that Obama's and the Democrat's response to the largest terrorist attack on US Proper since 9/11 was:
"We need more gun control!! THAT will stop these evil -not-going-to-say-muslim- terrrorists!!!"
Yea?? Again.... On what planet???
Michale
313
You really have to admire Trump on this..
He put forth a perfectly reasonable, logical and rational response to a muslim terrorist attack.. But he put it forth in such a manner that would guarantee that Obama and the Democrats would go beet red with apoplectic hysteria and be made to look like the incompetent fools that they are...
Obama even doubled down on incompetence and said there was no need to change anything about the fiancee visa program..
Obama and the Democrats got played and got played BIG TIME by Trump...
Michale
314
"We've got to do everything we can to weed out hate and plant love and kindness."
THAT is Hillary Clinton's plan for combating muslim terrorism..
Could this person be ANY MORE clueless!??
Michale
315
You should write that book, CW. I'm with 'Stig.
If I were a book agent, I'd consider this proposal. And include the dark side. That would be really interesting too.
I never thought about this until I went to see Robert Reich talk about his new book. Reich said something to the effect of, look at this election. It's all about anger with the status quo. Unfortunately, he said, this anger tends to take a couple of different forms: populism on the left and fascism on the right.
You're saying something very similar that's more like populism can take either a progressive or fascist form.
I think the establishment candidates ignore this at their own peril. One way or another, in order to win this election, I think a candidate needs to speak to the populist anger.
-David
Reich said something to the effect of, look at this election. It's all about anger with the status quo.
Just like the 2008 Election was...
Unfortunately, he said, this anger tends to take a couple of different forms: populism on the left and fascism on the right.
Hehehehehe
The Left is all goodness and light..
The Right is Hitler incarnate... :D
I think the establishment candidates ignore this at their own peril.
EXACTLY...
Hillary is the Establishment Candidate.. Worse.. She is a CLUELESS Establishment Candidate..
Trump is the ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT Candidate...
And that's why Trump will win...
Michale
316
LOL. A billionaire developer is the "anti-establishment" candidate.
Right ...
Compare this to Bernie:
“We need millions of people to stand up and fight back, to demand that government represents all of us, not just the one percent.
I'm trying to create a movement."
-David
p.s. I sent a few bucks your way CW for all the excellent work you do.
You are right though, Michale, that establishment Republicans do not like Trump.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/ben-carson-rnc-washington-post-216674
In my opinion, the problem's not Trump. The problem is that a whole lot of people are angry about the wrong things.
-David
As the old joke goes, a billionaire, a libertarian, and a union guy are sitting around a table with twelve cookies. The billionaire takes 11 cookies, turns to the Tea Party guy and says, "Hey, that union guys is trying to take your money!"
It also looks like this:
"Hey, those immigrants are trying to take your money!"
"Hey, those black people are trying to take your money!"
"Hey, those gay people are trying to take your religion!"
"Hey, those socialists are trying to take your money!"
Repeat. Ad nauseum.
-David
LOL. A billionaire developer is the "anti-establishment" candidate.
Yea, isn't it ironic.. :D
Compare this to Bernie:
And, if Bernie had a snowball's chance in hell of actually being the candidate, you would have an argument..
But he's not, so you don't..
The ONLY way that Bernie will be the Dem Candidate is if Hillary has a stroke or is caught in bed with a live underage girl or a dead underage boy... :D
The problem here is that ANYONE who doesn't toe the Democrat Party Line is Hitler...
Michale
317
I mean, seriously, David..
Don't you find all this talk of "Hitler" and "Fascism" to be JUST a tad over the top???
How can ANYONE take the Left Wingery seriously when they are hysterically screaming "HITLER!!!" and "TERRORIST" and talking about fellow Americans...
Honestly....
"Honestly.. Who throws a shoe!??"
-Austin Powers
:D
Michale
318
LOL. A billionaire developer is the "anti-establishment" candidate.
Yea, isn't it ironic.. :D
And guess who created this billionaire anti-establishement candidate??
The bonehead and incompetent moves of Obama and the Democrat Party...
Michale
319
Right, right. Obama blah blah broken record.
Bernie's got more of a shot than you think. Remember when people said the same thing about Obama?
-David
Trump says that we should suspend muslim immigration until such time as better security measures are put in place..
No, that is not what he said. He said: “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on”.
Now there is interesting questions to ask about this. All Muslims? What about the rich ones coming to the us for business deals? What about members of the UN? Can anyone even tell what a Muslim looks like compared to a Christian or Jew from the same region?
The problem here is that ANYONE who doesn't toe the Democrat Party Line is Hitler...
Oh, the misplaced hysteria! I had not realized Trump was supposed to toe the party line of the party he is not in...
The bonehead and incompetent moves of Obama and the Democrat Party...
Actually, I think you are directly to blame for Trump. He started his political moves with the idiotic birther movement to which you wholeheartedly parroted...
Right, right. Obama blah blah broken record.
How is that any different that "Right right.. Trump Hitler blah blah"??
Bernie's got more of a shot than you think.
Whatever ya need to think to get you thru the day.. :D
But my point is, when Bernie gets kicked to the curb, you will be right there to support the kicker...
Am I wrong??
Michale
320
No, that is not what he said. He said: “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on”.
How is that any different than what I said???
The point is, it's TEMPORARY...
And, given the circumstances VERY wise and prudent..
At least it is to those who have actual experience in the field...
Actually, I think you are directly to blame for Trump. He started his political moves with the idiotic birther movement to which you wholeheartedly parroted...
Never happened..
By why let facts interrupt a good hysterical tirade.. :D
Michale
321
The point here is that Trump is actually ADDRESSING the problem..
Yes, he is doing it in his normal ham-fisted bull-in-a-china-shop way...
But he is actually addressing the PROBLEM..
Compare that to the response from Democrats??
GUN-FRAKIN'-CONTROL...
THAT is Obama's response to the largest terrorist attack on US Proper since 9/11
Pushing an unpopular and unwanted and unnecessary partisan agenda that he has tried and failed to push before..
THAT is the Democrat response to terrorism..
Complain all you want about HOW Trump addresses the problem..
There ARE some legitimate complaints in that regard..
But at least Trump IS addressing the problem..
Rather than pushing an unpopular partisan agenda..
Michale
322
The point is, it's TEMPORARY...
And, given the circumstances VERY wise and prudent..
At least it is to those who have actual experience in the field...
No it's a pure call to populism. He would not even be able instigate it for over a year. I also find your Appeal to authority to be questionable at best.
I know that ya'all can't bring yerselves to say it, but I know ya'all are thinking it..
So, I'll say it for you..
"Ya know, Michale... That is a very good point. A very good point indeed.. Kudos"
Why, thank you.. That's really appreciated...
:D heh
Michale
323
No it's a pure call to populism.
No, it's a reasonable and tactically sound CT move...
I also find your Appeal to authority to be questionable at best.
"Now there's a fucking surprise...Wha?? What I say?? What??"
-Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY
:D
Michale
324
Keep 'em comin', Bashi!!!
Don't quit on me now!!! :D
Michale
325
I also find your Appeal to authority to be questionable at best.
For the record, it's not an appeal to authority..
It's an appeal to 25+ years of training, experience and expertise that no one else here can match..
"A modicum of {respect} would not be outta line here"
-Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY
:D
Michale
326
No, it's a reasonable and tactically sound CT move...
Banning all Muslims from entering the country even though the last terrorist attack, one of the perpetrators had been in the county a year and the other a natural born American? Sounds like populist fear to me. Now tactically speaking just how do you tell the 1.6 billion Muslims from the rest of the population? Are you including UN members? Oil business negotiators? Oh, alleged expert, how do you plan to carry this out, tactically?
It's an appeal to 25+ years of training, experience and expertise that no one else here can match..
At the grunt level at best. Maybe...
Banning all Muslims from entering the country even though the last terrorist attack, one of the perpetrators had been in the county a year and the other a natural born American? Sounds like populist fear to me.
As it would to anyone who is ignorant of the field..
No offense..
"You mean to insult me? There is no dishonor in not knowing everything.."
-Subcommander T'al, STAR TREK, The Enterprise Incident
:D
Now tactically speaking just how do you tell the 1.6 billion Muslims from the rest of the population? Are you including UN members? Oil business negotiators? Oh, alleged expert, how do you plan to carry this out, tactically?
Where was such specificty requirements when Democrats went off the rails pushing their agendas??
Of course, details would have to be worked out.. NOTHING happens in a vacuum...
But, as I said.. At least Trump has the right idea....
I mean, Obama's response is like the Democrat's response to the Charleston church shooting..
"OH MY GOD!!! THAT HORRIBLE PERSON BRUTALLY MURDERED CHURCH GOERS!!!! LET'S BAN A HISTORICAL BATTLE FLAG!!!"
Yea... THAT will accomplish a lot.. :^/
Michale
327
It's an appeal to 25+ years of training, experience and expertise that no one else here can match..
At the grunt level at best. Maybe..
Partially.. I was also an MI elltee during Desert Storm... But you, inadvertently I am sure :D, make my point..
You want to know the REAL unvarnished facts??
You talk to the grunts on the ground...
Michale
328
So, you got nothing...
But, as I said.. At least Trump has the right idea....
I mean, Obama's response is like the Democrat's response to the Charleston church shooting..
"OH MY GOD!!! THAT HORRIBLE PERSON BRUTALLY MURDERED CHURCH GOERS!!!! LET'S BAN A HISTORICAL BATTLE FLAG!!!"
Yea... THAT will accomplish a lot.. :^/
In response to muslim terrorism, Trump wants to temporarily ban all muslims..
In response to muslim terrorism, Hillary wants to sing, "LOVE WILL KEEP US TOGETHER" by Captain And Tenielle
Who would YOU want as a war time leader???
:D
Michale
329
A couple of things.
First, looks like I need to update the thermometer again. Woo hoo!
Second, anyone remember the "They took our jobs" South Park episode? With immigrants from the future? Heh. That's why I stuck that line in this article, truth be told.
Michale: since one of the shooters entered by the fiancée visa program, why has Trump not called for this to be halted? Maybe because that's how he gets his new wives? Just sayin'...
And have you heard Trump's implementation plan for his brilliant new border security? It consists of the border agents asking: "Are you a Muslim?" and turning away anyone who said "Yes." That's it. That's the sum total of his brilliant idea. Still think it would work or be effective?
Which reminds me of another South Park episode, where Jimbo tries to smuggle fireworks from Mexico...
JIMBO: Alright, Ned. Now we're coming up to the Amrican border. They can't know that we have fireworks in the trunk. Just let me do the talking. Ha ha ha ha, I guess that goes without saying, doesn't it?
[The border]
WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[Jimbo and Ned drive up. The border agents attend to them]
ALTO|STOP
AGENT: Good evening, gentlemen.
JIMBO: Hello there, fellow American. We're just anxious to get back to our homeland.
AGENT: Oh alright, I just need to ask you a few questions.
JIMBO: Fire away, we have nothing to hide.
AGENT: Is anyone other than the two of you traveling in this vehicle?
JIMBO: No, sir.
AGENT: Do you have any firearms or explosives in the car?
JIMBO: Yeah. I mean, no! No.
AGENT: Open your trunk, please, sir.
JIMBO: Damn! Damn, I always get that question wrong.
-CW
Michale: since one of the shooters entered by the fiancée visa program, why has Trump not called for this to be halted? Maybe because that's how he gets his new wives? Just sayin'...
He has called for all muslims to be banned..
It was Obama who said there was no need to change the F1-Visa program..
And have you heard Trump's implementation plan for his brilliant new border security? It consists of the border agents asking: "Are you a Muslim?" and turning away anyone who said "Yes." That's it. That's the sum total of his brilliant idea. Still think it would work or be effective?
Details, Schmee-tails..
At least Trump has the right idea..
Obama doesn't want to do ANYTHING except push his unpopular, unnecessary and incompetent agenda...
Muslim terrorists attack and brutally murder and injure almost 40 Americans..
Obama's response?? "I think we should plug fantasy gun show loopholes"...
Of course, DOING what Obama wants would not have prevented San Bernardino... But what does THAT matter!!
It's the AGENDA that is all important!!!!
:^/
Like I said.. When anyone... ANYONE has a gun control idea that doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment and actually will prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings and terrorist attacks, come talk to me..
But to date, NO ONE has...
Michale
330
I'll ask you the same question I asked Bashi... Only because it will allow me to shamelessly pad my comment count.. :D
In response to muslim terrorism, Trump wants to temporarily ban all muslims..
In response to muslim terrorism, Hillary wants to sing, "LOVE WILL KEEP US TOGETHER" by Captain And Tenielle
Who would YOU want as a war time leader???
Michale
331
Who would YOU want as a war time leader???
Between a blowhard that tosses out populist but impossible to implement plans and someone with a fairly detailed plan (without any singing that I could find, maybe you can point out that part) who also has met with many of the players in the current situation? I think I would take the later...
etween a blowhard that tosses out populist but impossible to implement plans and someone with a fairly detailed plan
Hillary's "plan" is nothing but Stay {Obama's} Course..
Jeeze, and you nitpick on Trump's details???
(without any singing that I could find, maybe you can point out that part)
Would it matter to you if I DID point it out??
Of course not..
So why ask for facts that you are just going to ignore anyways??
Michale
332
When Hillary is ready to apply her LOVE WILL KEEP US TOGETHER message to her fellow Americans and NOT to terrorists wanting to KILL Americans, then she can come talk to me...
Michale
333
good point about populism sometimes digressing into nativism. here's one of my favorite images on the subject:
https://masbury.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/illegal-immigrants.jpg?w=700
JL
When ya'all say "nativism" do ya'all mean "nationalism"??
Michale
334
here's another in a similar vein:
http://www.davegranlund.com/cartoons/wp-content/uploads/Pilgrim-refugee-vetting.png
JL
(nonetheless, i do consider myself a populist at heart, which is why i have a soft spot for both the occupy and tea party groups, in spite of the myriad evident flaws in both movements. it's really the ultimate irony that the most anti-populist decision in recent memory is called "citizens united")
When ya'all say "nativism" do ya'all mean "nationalism"??
no.
JL
K
Michale
335
Between a blowhard that tosses out populist but impossible to implement plans
You mean, like TrainWreckCare?? :D
Michale
336
populist but impossible to implement plans
You mean, like TrainWreckCare??
wrong on both counts. implementation of Obamacare has clearly been possible (even successful). However, while the rhetoric surrounding it may be populist, the reality on average has been much more of a boon to the people selling the insurance than the people buying it. Obamacare basically forces insurance companies to act in their own best interests, and a side-effect is that more people have been able to obtain health insurance.
also, just for the sake of clarity, a basic google search of the two aforementioned terms:
nativism - the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.
nationalism - devotion and loyalty to one's own country; patriotism. (sometimes an extreme form of this, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.)
wrong on both counts. implementation of Obamacare has clearly been possible (even successful).
On what planet???
Because here on planet earth, TrainWreckCare has already entered it's death spiral...
Notice how there aren't any more GOOD NEWS TrainWreckCare stories around??
That's because there is none...
As to the nativism vs nationalism point. Thank you for the clarification.. :D
Michale
337
wrong on both counts. implementation of Obamacare has clearly been possible (even successful).
Flatlined: White House Says Obamacare Exchange Enrollment Growth To Collapse In 2016
For years, this blog has been warning about how the high cost of Obamacare-sponsored insurance would limit the law’s expansion of health coverage. Well, the chicken has come home to roost. Today, the Obama administration announced that it projected dramatically lower enrollment growth for Obamacare’s exchanges in 2016: only 1.3 million, compared to a prediction of 8 million when the law was passed five years ago.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/10/15/flatlined-white-house-says-obamacare-exchange-enrollment-growth-to-collapse-in-2016/
Death Spiral anyone???
Predicted: 8 MILLION
Projected: 1.3 MILLION
No matter how you try and spin it, that is NOT a "success"...
Michale
338
Nearly a third of the innovative health insurance plans created under the Affordable Care Act will be out of business at the end of 2015, following announcements Friday that plans in Oregon and Colorado are folding.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/two-more-obamacare-health-insurance-plans-collapse/2015/10/16/cc324fd0-7449-11e5-8d93-0af317ed58c9_story.html
No matter how the spin goes, TrainWreckCare is dying...
It was a bad idea, wrapped in a catastrophe and transported by a train wreck...
Michale
339
Everyone knew that it was just a matter of time, but no one expected it to fail this fast. Yet, that is exactly what is happening, as bad news story after bad news story about the state of ObamaCare arrives on a seemingly weekly basis.
ADVERTISEMENT
ObamaCare co-ops were supposed to provide lower cost health insurance alternatives because they weren't driven by the profit motive. Now, just a couple of years after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was implemented, 12 out of 23 co-ops have failed, costing taxpayers $1.2 billion in defaulted loan repayments. The failure rate even outstrips the Labor Department's 2011 projections of 36 percent, and as The Carpenters used to sing, "We've Only Just Begun."
The impact on 100,000 New York state users of the failed Health Republic Insurance of New York co-op means they will have to find new health insurance. The New York Post writes, "Add 250 New York cancer patients to the long list of victims of ObamaCare's lies — just one more snapshot of the program's ongoing death spiral."
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/260948-obamacares-predictable-collapse
I think I have made my point....
I was dead on ballz accurate when I created the moniker TRAINWRECKCARE
And on THAT auspicious note, I am heading home. :D
Michale
340
On what planet???
Because here on planet earth
[snip]
"...the share prices of America’s five biggest health insurers—UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, Humana, Cigna and Anthem—have all roughly tripled over the past five years."
~ the economist
yes, small firms are getting eaten alive, but the industry giants are thriving as never before. as i said, successful, just the opposite of populist.
JL
As this conversation has taken a less interesting subject change, I offer up:
Star Wars as a parable of terrorist radicalization.
"...the share prices of America’s five biggest health insurers—UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, Humana, Cigna and Anthem—have all roughly tripled over the past five years."
That is how you qualify TrainWreckCare as a "success"??
The rich get richer and the middle class and the poor get scrooed??
Yea, I guess if that's the perspective...
Then TrainWreckCare is a SMASHING success...
For the Corporate Rich...
For everyday Americans and Joe & Jane Sixpack??
Not so much... :^/
Michale
341
As this conversation has taken a less interesting subject change, I offer up:
Less interesting!??
Shirley, you jest...
I was proven right once again!!!
That's about as interesting as it gets, bucko!!! :D
Night all.. Wife and I are going to watch THE MARTIAN :D
Michale
342
That is how you qualify TrainWreckCare as a "success"??
The rich get richer and the middle class and the poor get scrooed??
the successful part is that more people are insured at rates they can afford, while addressing some of the worst practices of insurers, which were the main goals of the ACA. in that sense, yes, it's been successful.
the fact that giant insurance corporations have thrived while smaller insurers have struggled is horrific in populist terms, but that's a different issue.
you're right that big corporations reap a windfall while smaller businesses get screwed; we just disagree about the relative values of tha aca's humanitarian impact versus its economic impact. i don't think we're in conflict as to the facts, just our priorities. i say that overall the nation still comes out ahead.
JL
Hey CW
That darker side of populism is currently being monopolized by the Trumpon, but the darker side has actually always been driven by his ilk.
The arguments that labor makes against unfettered immigration are actually substantiated by the facts. Labor pointing out that rich people are screwing over workers still has the rich people on the darker side doing the screwing... even if the remedy they proposed appears nativist and anti-immigrant, it could be argued that this approach was essentially forced on them as other potential remedies were denied by the Establishment.
Wage suppression remains a goal desired by the wealthy along with union busting and other anti-worker agendas like fighting workplace regulations, outsourcing, offshoring, etc..
Anything they can do to make a few extra dollars (including being the ones who actually employ all those illegal immigrants) remains desirable in their minds regardless of the consequences to average Americans... though they have gotten better at hiding how self-serving the policies they support truly are.
The Trumpon stereotyping for personal political gain because he lacks positive policies that could motivate voters is really the darkest of the darker side.
A
Micha
So, stereotyping a whole group of people based on the actions of two is "wise and prudent"?
That's quite a door you're opening.
Pride in bigotry and complete ignorance of statistical risk assessment notwithstanding, I'm assuming you will maintain your hypocrisy by railing against the stereotyping of Repubs, cops, fellow wingnuts, etc.?
I'm sure you'll miss the point and reply as if I wrote this comment to and for you.
A
nypoet22
I'm afraid the nation does not come out ahead by implementing the right wing corporatist "healthcare" reform that solidifies the role of greedy middlemen who provide no healthcare into place and gives them trillions of unearned dollars.
Every policy the wingnuts hatch ends in failure, so you may as well just lay the blame where it is due and stop defending their nonsense.
I recognize that some people are actually benefitting (beyond the insurers), I just don't think the costs are reasonable or that the political approach of defending their failure will help get us to a successful single payer policy.
A
I just don't think the costs are reasonable or that the political approach of defending their failure will help get us to a successful single payer policy.
Well, given the state of politics in your country today and for the foreseeable future, what do you think will get Americans to a single payer healthcare policy and would that approach have a reasonable prospect of succeeding if attempted?
alto:
I'm not saying the ACA is great, nor even good. my view is just that it's marginally better overall than what existed prior - the national rate of uninsured is significantly lower, the rate of people denied critical care is lower, insurance that works is a bit more affordable, and the overall quality of care is higher. i agree that these improvements come at a great cost, and i agree that the new system benefits giant corporate insurers at the expense of everybody else. i just think we need to see the forest for the trees. as liz says, does anyone really believe that single payer would somehow pass either house of congress, much less both?
JL
Thanks for the response nypoet22
I hear ya, but does defending it make it more likely or less likely we can progress towards a far cheaper single payer system that covers everyone?
It seems (sorry if I'm judging incorrectly) that you are to the left of Obama on this issue.
So, in a strategy of politics, does it make sense for someone on the left to spend a single second defending the right wing Heritage Foundation plan that Obama adopted?
Or, would a better strategy (for influencing the debate and the evolution of Congress in particular) be to spend your time pushing the better alternative?
In my opinion, what you are doing will not only keep elected Dems wasting time on defense, but also prevent any pressure from building on them to go on the offense for real reform.
You are absolutely correct about the current Congress, and at least the next one too, but if we can't pressure Dems to join the fight for better, they will continue to do their donors bidding and abandon a policy with broad popular support, and we will never get single payer passed.
Let's face it, no matter how much Micha and the wingnuts lament "the rich getting richer and the poor and the middle class getting scrooed" for current partisan advantage, the Repubs and their donors are tickled pink about the results. They got exactly what they wanted.
It's on the Dems, and they're going to have to be dragged along. But, I also think that those who support it will have an easier time winning elections, so the voters have leverage against the donors.
Liz- I think this comment covers my response to you too
A
nypoet/altohone-
Oddly enough, I think we have to do both. We need to defend the advances we made and we should also be pushing for single payer.
Every time a conservative I know complains about Obamacare (and it happens a lot), I suggest moving to the plan that all members of Congress have - single payer.
http://akadjian.com/2013/12/because-im-tired-of-explaining-a-conservative-health-care-law-to-conservatives/
-David
Oddly enough, I think we have to do both. We need to defend the advances we made
But that's just the point..
There ARE no "advances"..
And I think even Biga would agree with me on this.
The only "advances" that are made are in the bank accounts of Corporate Insurances wankers..
Health Insurances is a LOT more expensive than it was pre-TrainWreckCare...
Doctor Availability is a LOT more scarce than it was pre-TrainWreckCare...
The Middle Class is completely and utterly scrooed by TrainWreckCare...
Oh sure, out of 6 million Americans, you can find a couple here or there that love their TrainWreckCare... But even most of those are nothing but Democrat Activists...
But the mere fact that TrainWreckCare is entering it's well predicted death spiral shows that there is NOTHING successful about TrainWreckCare..
At least as far as the Middle Class is concerned..
Michale
386
How Marco Rubio is quietly killing Obamacare
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-marco-rubio-is-quietly-killing-obamacare/2015/12/14/c706849a-a275-11e5-b53d-972e2751f433_story.html
I knew there was a reason why I like Marco Rubio.. :D
Beyond his hot looking wife, of course.. :D
Michale
403