Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead at 87

[Frankfooter]

In my life, in US (or Canadian) federal politics, I cannot think of a politician to which I would apply the the "populist" label. Trump is the first. (You could argue Doug Ford since he often speaks of "elites".)

I still find it hilariously sad that someone born as a millionaire, who had daddy bail him out at school and in business repeatedly, a guy with a gold escalator and a series of luxury golf courses for the rich only, is supposed to be the representation of the poor.

Really, it just means that the term 'elite' refers to people smarter than you, not the rich and powerful who actually game the system and keep people down.
'Cuz if the attraction of Trump isn't that he's inchoherent and speaks like the masses then the only other option is that his base all are racist and afraid of minorities.

Bernier would have been the closest up here.
Or Layton.

 

[Valcazar]

Here's the salient quote: " Few people, including Senators and their staffs, had time to read the whole 2,700 page bill, much less note any possible weaknesses, flaws, or ambiguities. "

This is old news.

Yes. Volokh is misrepresenting the truth.
That's old news.

 

[Valcazar]

The effect of repealing Roe vs. Wade would be to leave it up to States to determine their policies towards state funded abortions. In other words, the states that vote Dem would continue state funded abortions, and some states that vote Red would not.

As a result, this issue may get people all riled up, but it would not flip a single state.

That's not right because what is Red or Blue in a national election is not the same in terms of state legislature.
Also, repealing Roe v Wade means the Federal government can ban abortion should it choose to.

That's not even getting into the idea that fundamental rights should be contingent on what state you live in isn't something we should go back to.

Right. LOL! Elected representatives fulfilling the election pledges is the end of democracy. You should speak the words as you type them to hear how ridiculous you sound.

I'm sorry, are you under the impression the GOP is trying to make things more democratic?
Because I hate to break this to you, they aren't.

I agree with my learned friend, the Captain on these points. Trump marks a clear break from the policies that the "patrician republican" establishment espoused and ran with. Romney, McCain and even Bush were traditional conservatives.

I agree with this. But the question is whether or not those were ever conservative policies or values that any of them actually held since the late 80s.
They gave lip service to them, but the base didn't care about them and the few vaguely "patrician republicans" who were still around have left.

So the questions is whether or not the "patrician Republicans" get to be the real conservatives or if the actual people in the conservative movement now and running it get to be called conservative.

Trump relies on sloganeering, racism and anti-immigrant rhetoric and a thinly veiled approval of armed vigilante groups. This always lurked in the shadows with GOP politics, but no leading politician espoused them. Trump's GOP is anti immigrant, anti Black, anti Hispanic, anti urban and caters to the lunatic fringe. This DOES bring a new element into politics. It also loses Trump the centre and I disagree with JTK that it's a winning strategy beyond 2016.

I disagree it is new. This has been a core part of the appeal to the base for a generation or more. There have been GOP politicians dogwhistling about it for ages at the national level and saying it flat out at the local level this whole time.
It has been key to their electoral strategy.

The only real difference is that the GOP leaders thought you had to no say the quiet parts loud at the national level and Trump proved you could.

That is an acceleration, and it shifts the nature of the game, but it's a tipping point, not a brand new thing.

There is little of substance in Trump's politics. He throws bones to whatever group will support him, including evangelicals and the rich. There is no long-term philosophy of government, national or international strategy or any intent beyond remaining in power as long as he can and - I would guess - letting his kids milk it in terms of business deals while the going's good.

Yes. Presidenting is work and he doesn't like work.
But there is a philosophy of government here.
The King gets to do what he wants, because he is King.

The problem for Trump is that there just aren't enough bigots and nutjobs, even in the USA to quite sustain him in office.

Not in an election that actually represents the votes of the people, but the US doesn't have that.

And the downside is not only that he loses the political centre, but he scares it so much that it will remain mobilized for the foreseeable future. That's likely to fuck the GOP in the short term and demographics will take care of fucking it in the long term.

Only if there is a chance to alter the current system.
The GOP can happily stay in power in the Senate and have strong chances to get the Presidency with a minority.
The additional attempts at voter suppression and disenfranchisement makes that more likely.
The Supreme Court is in favor of GOP minority rule and will strike down laws that can fix that.

The idea that Trump's populist approach is a winning coalition in the sense that it works for getting more votes is wrong. That it can create a coalition sufficiently well distributed to take advantage of the counter-majoritarian aspects of the US system is a valid argument.

 

[Valcazar]

Populism does not mean popular.

Yes I know. But your argument seemed to blend into one that implied it was, which is why I asked you to clarify.

In my life, in US (or Canadian) federal politics, I cannot think of a politician to which I would apply the the "populist" label. Trump is the first. (You could argue Doug Ford since he often speaks of "elites".)

That's odd. It is a constant refrain in American politics. Less so in Canadian, but has certainly come up repeatedly here as well.

Hell, in 2016 you had two candidates for president using populist rhetoric - Trump and Sanders. That is why some people were happy to jump from one to the other. They don't actually have policy preferences, they just have a fondness for the populist style/affect.
But American populism goes back 150 years or more.

Bernier certainly ran on some populist language, and early NDP and CCF ran in populist ways. The Reform party was populist. Social Credit probably qualifies. Most of the regional grievance politics work in a strong populist streak.

 

[mandrill]

That's not right because what is Red or Blue in a national election is not the same in terms of state legislature.
Also, repealing Roe v Wade means the Federal government can ban abortion should it choose to.

That's not even getting into the idea that fundamental rights should be contingent on what state you live in isn't something we should go back to.



I'm sorry, are you under the impression the GOP is trying to make things more democratic?
Because I hate to break this to you, they aren't.



I agree with this. But the question is whether or not those were ever conservative policies or values that any of them actually held since the late 80s.
They gave lip service to them, but the base didn't care about them and the few vaguely "patrician republicans" who were still around have left.
So the questions is whether or not the "patrician Republicans" get to be the real conservatives or if the actual people in the conservative movement now and running it get to be called conservative.
I disagree it is new. This has been a core part of the appeal to the base for a generation or more. There have been GOP politicians dogwhistling about it for ages at the national level and saying it flat out at the local level this whole time.
It has been key to their electoral strategy.
The only real difference is that the GOP leaders thought you had to no say the quiet parts loud at the national level and Trump proved you could.
That is an acceleration, and it shifts the nature of the game, but it's a tipping point, not a brand new thing.
Yes. Presidenting is work and he doesn't like work.
But there is a philosophy of government here.
The King gets to do what he wants, because he is King.
Not in an election that actually represents the votes of the people, but the US doesn't have that.
Only if there is a chance to alter the current system.
The GOP can happily stay in power in the Senate and have strong chances to get the Presidency with a minority.
The additional attempts at voter suppression and disenfranchisement makes that more likely.
The Supreme Court is in favor of GOP minority rule and will strike down laws that can fix that.
The idea that Trump's populist approach is a winning coalition in the sense that it works for getting more votes is wrong. That it can create a coalition sufficiently well distributed to take advantage of the counter-majoritarian aspects of the US system is a valid argument.

Too black, except for the comments about the Senate, which I more than agree with. And now the USSC.

An incompetent fuck-up can rarely win the swing states which are increasingly the whole point of national elections in bipolar America. Trump squeaked it in 2016. Bets are against him doing it in 2020.

And demographics is against the GOP, except again as concerns the Senate, where it really doesn't matter that WY only has 27 voting inhabitants, because it's a state goddamit and protected by the Constitution.

And factor in that the Judiciary may be conservative, but they're probably not impressed with Trump, the current "party leaders" and the culture and environment of the modern GOP - including QAnon and whatever other nutbar horseshit the GOP base is smoking this year. Once they are Seated, the judges are there for life and don't have to do favours to anyone. Don't count on them supporting an extreme right populist GOP if it does shit that gets up their intellectual, erudite, patrician noses.

Re abortion - I don't think the Feds have the constitutional jurisdiction to ban it, as it's medical interfaced with crim law - pretty solid states' jurisdiction stuff.

You will get crazy shit where someone who lives on the MO side of the Mississipi won't get access to abortion while someone who lives on the IL side will. But welcome to modern day America, folks! This same dichotomy is going to be more and more common as time goes on.

 

[Valcazar]

Yes, I agree with you that Trump was a Democrat because he was from NYC. But me saying he wasn't "Tammany Hall" agrees with you, he was never a card carrying Democrat as far as I'm aware. He never went all in on being a Democrat, nor was he ever a true Republican. Hence me saying, "he doesn't have an ideological bone in his body". He really doesn't. He picked the GOP banner to run under because he never had a shot in a million years with the Dems. The GOP tends to attract the "lunatic fringe" of American society. Famously recall the way John McCain reacted at one of his own rallies when some whacky old lady called Obama an Arab. (She meant to say, "he's a Muslim", but she caught herself.) Trump picked the GOP simply because they would let him run.

He also correctly identified that their base would go for what he was selling directly instead of the indirect way the GOP establishment was selling it.

And no, I do not recall him doing ANYTHING to restrict abortion access. I don't think he personally gives a fuck. Same with guns. He has not enacted any legislation to either promote or regulate gun ownership. Again, I don't think he gives a fuck either way. He just uses it to appeal to social conservatives (which are the ones who support him and they DO care about abortion and guns.)

It's his administration.
That his pursuit of both these things has been transactional doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The whole promise to put conservative judges on the court was to advance an anti-abortion agenda and he has said that explicitly.
The President doesn't propose legislation, they act via the executive branch.

But we may be splitting hairs here. If you want to argue that he doesn't care about these things, he just lets the groups that supported him do what they want because they supported him, I'm not going to argue,
But he has governed as a bog-standard Republican in virtually every way that isn't about his personal corruption and desire for authoritarianism. Even the racism is basic republicanism except for him saying the quiet parts out loud.

As to:

* White supremacy = arguable.
* Rich people are better and should get everything = Definitely.
* Authoritarianism is the only legitimate form of government = Definitely, but that gets back to the concept of populism and how it ties into nationalism..

It boggles my mind that you don't think he has a deep personal commitment to white supremacy, but it isn't really relevant to the overall argument.

Trumpism is my own label of that type of right wing populism that DT has created largely by himself that propelled him into the white house under the GOP banner. As I originally stated that before Trump came along, the GOP was moribund and I have 0 doubt that if the GOP had of nominated one of the traditional candidates like Ted Cruise or Marco Rubio or even Jeb Bush, all of the aforementioned men would have lost to Hillary because a huge number of people that voted for Trump would have just stayed at home figuring that it was just more of the same old same old. Trump introduced his own form of crazy that appealed to a lot of people (his so called "base").

There are still people who argue convincingly Rubio would have won easily. They may not even be wrong.
I personally am inclined to agree with you that Trump mobilized a bunch of people who responded to an explicitly racist form of populism.
But as I have said earlier, none of that was even new - it has been the base for a while. The only thing new was Trump saying the quiet parts loud.

Michael Moore in 2016 recognized the anger of the disenfranchised American working man (and woman) and that Trump had tapped into that anger and it gave him very real concern. Watch this BRILLIANT summation by Michael Moore (other than the whacky parody shit thing at the end) because it was pure prophecy on Moore's part and it explains how Trump parlayed that anger right into the White House. This anger was something that the Democrats had no fucking clue even existed. Hillary was too worried about bathroom rights and identity politics and social justice bullshit to even be able to identify with the working man. As a result, she got her ass handed to her by the kind folks of Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

White men. Trump lost the working man's vote overall.
He won with whites.
Whites who were upset with black people and other minorities "cutting ahead in line".

Playing down the racist aspect is missing a huge part of the story.

 

[Valcazar]

Too black, except for the comments about the Senate, which I more than agree with. And now the USSC.

An incompetent fuck-up can rarely win the swing states which are increasingly the whole point of national elections in bipolar America. Trump squeaked it in 2016. Bets are against him doing it in 2020.

And demographics is against the GOP, except again as concerns the Senate, where it really doesn't matter that WY only has 27 voting inhabitants, because it's a state goddamit and protected by the Constitution.

And factor in that the Judiciary may be conservative, but they're probably not impressed with Trump, the current "party leaders" and the culture and environment of the modern GOP - including QAnon and whatever other nutbar horseshit the GOP base is smoking this year. Once they Seated, the judges are there for life and don't have to do favours to anyone. Don't count on them supporting an extreme right populist GOP if it does shit that gets up their intellectual, erudite, patrician noses.

The only conservative justice who thinks like that at all is Roberts and that is only because he believes in the long term importance of the Court. If the Court loses too much credibility, he loses power.
The other 4 Con judges have shown again and again they are more than happy to go with whatever extreme right thing is needed. They decide the answer they need, and then construct the argument to justify it.
The new one will be same and with a 6-3 majority they can indulge the occasional dissent along obscure lines without failing their official mission.

Yes the demographics are against the GOP, but winning just white people still wins because the system doesn't weigh votes equally and that is the way the distribution goes.
The US is well set up to allow for minority rule, and the GOP is happy to be a party of minority rule. it's easier than having to appeal to more voters.

 

[mandrill]

That's odd. It is a constant refrain in American politics. Less so in Canadian, but has certainly come up repeatedly here as well.

Hell, in 2016 you had two candidates for president using populist rhetoric - Trump and Sanders. That is why some people were happy to jump from one to the other. They don't actually have policy preferences, they just have a fondness for the populist style/affect.
But American populism goes back 150 years or more.

Bernier certainly ran on some populist language, and early NDP and CCF ran in populist ways. The Reform party was populist. Social Credit probably qualifies. Most of the regional grievance politics work in a strong populist streak.

It's the "Talk" up here as well. But it has severe limitations. It's hard to sell dog whistle populism and "traditional core values" when Vanc and TO are over 50% non white immigrant. I mean, talk about shooting your own balls off! 25% of the potential seats are in the urban EGH and you're not going to win without them. And then BC......

And your other problem is that Quebec's dogwhistle populism involves hating on Anglo Canadians. So the Tories can suck their own dicks when it comes to hoovering up all those juicy quebecois bigots and getting them to vote blue.

The other problem is that the "meta theme" for Canada involves "scientific government" and technocratic solutions. Canadians believe in that shit - a lot! So when hard right doofus Doug Ford listened to Science re COVID, his popularity went through the roof! Total opposite game plan to that of the GOP in the USA, where believing in weird conspiracies and being anti Science drives the right wing political apparatus.

Hard to be a dogwhistle populist when even your hardcore support wants reputable scientific opinions before you take any new steps.

Of course, none of the above really applies to Alberta..........

 

[Frankfooter]

It's the "Talk" up here as well. But it has severe limitations. It's hard to sell dog whistle populism and "traditional core values" when Vanc and TO are over 50% non white immigrant. I mean, talk about shooting your own balls off! 25% of the potential seats are in the urban EGH and you're not going to win without them. And then BC......

And your other problem is that Quebec's dogwhistle populism involves hating on Anglo Canadians. So the Tories can suck their own dicks when it comes to hoovering up all those juicy quebecois bigots and getting them to vote blue.

The other problem is that the "meta theme" for Canada involves "scientific government" and technocratic solutions. Canadians believe in that shit - a lot! So when hard right doofus Doug Ford listened to Science re COVID, his popularity went through the roof! Total opposite game plan to that of the GOP in the USA, where believing in weird conspiracies and being anti Science drives the right wing political apparatus.

Hard to be a dogwhistle populist when even your hardcore support wants reputable scientific opinions before you take any new steps.

Of course, none of the above really involves Alberta..........

That's a fair analysis, polls show support for Trump continually very, very low up here.

Really, its happening in the US as well, the demographics have been against the GOP for a long time, hopefully Trump was the last time they can obtain power while not having majority support in the senate or presidency.

Looks like Trump is doubling down on using the court to overturn the election.
So far only Romney has said he's against it.

Romney: 'Unthinkable and unacceptable' to not commit to peaceful transition of power

 

[mandrill]

The only conservative justice who thinks like that at all is Roberts and that is only because he believes in the long term importance of the Court. If the Court loses too much credibility, he loses power.
The other 4 Con judges have shown again and again they are more than happy to go with whatever extreme right thing is needed. They decide the answer they need, and then construct the argument to justify it.
The new one will be same and with a 6-3 majority they can indulge the occasional dissent along obscure lines without failing their official mission.

Yes the demographics are against the GOP, but winning just white people still wins because the system doesn't weigh votes equally and that is the way the distribution goes.
The US is well set up to allow for minority rule, and the GOP is happy to be a party of minority rule. it's easier than having to appeal to more voters.

I disagree with your opinions. I think part of the pre Trump GOP strategy was reaching out to Latinos and educated centrist suburbans with a pitch that the "new" GOP was about self reliance, open doors to talent of all colours and extension of American opportunity to non whites and new arrivals. That strategy is now deader than a dog turd. If I have a college degree and I live in suburban D-FW, I'm probably busy telling my friends that Riding Joe isn't that senile after all. And most of them are probably nodding.

And the Court?..... Let's see what they do after another year or so of BLM protests. I'm betting that they start making compromises because they're smart people and they realize that SOME organ of govt has to foster a degree of consensus or the country will all fall apart so badly, it can't be put back together again.

 

[Valcazar]

It's the "Talk" up here as well. But it has severe limitations. It's hard to sell dog whistle populism and "traditional core values" when Vanc and TO are over 50% non white immigrant.

Populism does not have to be racist or anti-immigrant. It almost always is, but it doesn't have to be.
It has to have "us" - the real common people vs "them" - the treacherous elite.

Outside of that, it is pretty flexible. It isn't an ideology in and of itself, it is more like a style.
Because making a muti-ethnic population into a homogenous "us" is harder, you don't see it as often.

And your other problem is that Quebec's dogwhistle populism involves hating on Anglo Canadians. So the Tories can suck their own dicks when it comes to hoovering up all those juicy quebecois bigots and getting them to vote blue.

But the PQ and BQ have been pretty populist both when they were more left wing and more right wing. Hating on The Anglos who were screwing the good French people over. It has worked very very well.

The other problem is that the "meta theme" for Canada involves "scientific government" and technocratic solutions. Canadians believe in that shit - a lot! So when hard right doofus Doug Ford listened to Science re COVID, his popularity went through the roof! Total opposite game plan to that of the GOP in the USA, where believing in weird conspiracies and being anti Science drives the right wing political apparatus.

Populism doesn't require anti-science. It tends to help because there is supposed to be no doubt about what "The People" want, but it isn't necessary.
Populism almost always degenerates into reactionary right wing ideology, but it doesn't actually require it.

Looks like Trump is doubling down on using the court to overturn the election.
So far only Romney has said he's against it.

Romney said he is against threatening to use violence. He hasn't said he has any problem with using the court to overturn the election. (I don't see why he would.)

I disagree with your opinions.

Clearly!

I think part of the pre Trump GOP strategy was reaching out to Latinos and educated centrist suburbans with a pitch that the "new" GOP was about self reliance, open doors to talent of all colours and extension of American opportunity to non whites and new arrivals. That strategy is now deader than a dog turd. If I have a college degree and I live in suburban D-FW, I'm probably busy telling my friends that Riding Joe isn't that senile after all. And most of them are probably nodding.

I agree completely. They had a chance after 2012 to change course to head off the demographics. Trump showed they didn't need it because they could win with and consolidate a minority position due to the structure of the US system.
Therefore, maximizing their ability to win with fewer votes is the way forward.

And the Court?..... Let's see what they do after another year or so of BLM protests. I'm betting that they start making compromises because they're smart people and they realize that SOME organ of govt has to foster a degree of consensus or the country will all fall apart so badly, it can't be put back together again.

Why would the court be that organ? They have spent 40 years working to not be that organ. Maybe the threat of Congress reducing their power or flooding them with new justices might make them back down, but the one thing Roberts has been consistent about it gutting voting rights whenever he can.

 

[kherg007]

The Quebec thing is interesting. I think you non French Canadians are extraordinarily sensitive to the French speakers and i admire that. I did find it curious that Montreal seemed more French than France at times lol. I came out of a car park in Montreal and the ticket was all in french. Even in Paris there is an english subtitle on your parking ticket lol.

 

[Valcazar]

The Quebec thing is interesting. I think you non French Canadians are extraordinarily sensitive to the French speakers and i admire that. I did find it curious that Montreal seemed more French than France at times lol. I came out of a car park in Montreal and the ticket was all in french. Even in Paris there is an english subtitle on your parking ticket lol.

The level of Franco-Anglo animosity varies over the years. That changes how effectively a populist approach works. Right now I would say Alberta and the West has a more receptive audience for populist rhetoric.