Not the USA
Here’s The Economist, discussing the woes of the Labour Party:
In their recent book “Brexit Land” two academics at the University of Manchester, Maria Sobolewska and Robert Ford, argue that today’s political divide is cultural rather than economic. The university-educated classes define themselves by their cosmopolitan values—their enthusiasm for immigration and fierce hostility to racial and gender-based prejudice. Voters from the old working-class define themselves by their fealty to “traditional values” of flag, family and fireside. And a large new Labour block—immigrants and the children of immigrants—usually sides with the first group despite being more culturally conservative. Originating in long-term changes such as the expansion of the universities and the rise of a multicultural society, the division has been supercharged by Brexit.
Another article in the same issue points out that Labour’s problems are compounded by the fact that the “electoral geography” favors the Tories:
Culture matters too. Mr Johnson has offended the sensibilities of the liberal professionals whom Mr Cameron wooed. A hard Brexit, tougher migration rules that restrict the supply of European au pairs and restaurant staff, and cuts to foreign aid all run against the grain of these areas.
But gains in these areas alone would not provide Labour with a viable path to power. The party needs to gain 128 seats at the next election to get a majority. The graduate vote is concentrated in urban areas, giving it big margins in cities but not elsewhere. Analysis by Onward, a think-tank close to the Conservatives, suggests that changes in electoral geography mean the Tories could gain another 50 seats at the next election, while simultaneously losing 37 mostly in their southern heartlands.
And the Tories aren’t satisfied with their advantage in electoral geography, they also want to make it harder to vote:
American-style voter ID laws are coming to Britain
They will have almost no effect on fraud, because there is hardly any
Seven local authorities asked voters for various forms of identification in May 2019, after warning that they would be doing so. On average, 0.4% of would-be voters who were asked for id failed to show it, were turned away, and did not return to the polling station.
But many more might conclude that voting has become too much of a hassle, and not bother. “Not everyone gets as excited about elections as we do,” says Jess Garland of the Electoral Reform Society, which opposes the change. Any effect is likely to be uneven. A poll for the government found that 10% of non-white people would be less likely to vote in person if they were required to show photo id, compared with 5% of whites.
Remember, this is not the USA.
Another issue of The Economist looks at Mexico’s new president, a man of “the left” (as if these terms still have any meaning):
Mr López Obrador has attracted far less global attention than other populist leaders. But look closer and he appears astonishingly similar to them (see table). In his eyes, Mexicans fall into two groups: the people, whose authentic will he represents, and the elite, who are to blame for all Mexico’s ills. He sees himself as on a historic mission to sweep away the rotten habits of the past and establish a republic of virtue.
Inside the same issue, The Economist shows that in 1970, right-of-center parties received support from people with higher levels of education and higher incomes:
Today, right wing parties receive support from people with lower levels of education and higher incomes:
Show me a non-college educated business owner and I’ll show you a Republican. Show me a PhD making under $50k and I’ll show you a Democrat.
There are two types of people who accuse me of TDS. Those who say that Obrador, Bolsonaro, Modi, and Orban are obviously evil, but Trump’s not like that. And those who claim that Trump is similar to the other populists, but they are not in fact evil. I see both types in my comment section. Both are wrong.
Tags:
6. June 2021 at 11:35
There isn’t really a fact of the matter when it comes to defining evil.
6. June 2021 at 11:41
TGGP, Yes, but there also isn’t really a fact of the matter when it comes to defining “fact of the matter”. What’s the difference between objective facts and subjective beliefs?
6. June 2021 at 15:26
None of your examples really apply. It’s a straw man argument.
It’s TDS when someone focuses conspicuously on Trump and claims that he is special, often for things where he is obviously not special at all.
Or when someone makes excuses for the CCP or anyone else, but not for Trump.
Or when someone pretends there is an equivalence between Trump and the CCP or between Trump and Putin, along the lines of Trump is equally evil as a dictatorship.
Another topic:
The media coverage (for example Economist) seems to be at the expense of the right. In the populist checklist, only one left-wing politician appears at all.
The checkpoints themselves also appear arbitry. Which politician says of himself that he does NOT represent the will of the people and the voters? Probably no one.
Point 2 is pretty flat but at least funny. Point 3 is okay, I give The Economist point 3. They got one point right.
Points 4, 5, 6 are extremely subjective. I can name three dozen points for Germany alone where supposedly “normal” politicians violate these points, but they still don’t get any points on this checklist. It is totally subjective partisan nonsense.
6. June 2021 at 16:23
Christian List,
Are you saying Scott makes excuses for the CCP?
And, are you suggesting Trump would not be a dictator if he could be?
6. June 2021 at 16:41
I think the whole lot of them are evil; but so is Biden. That’s why I accuse you of TDS.
6. June 2021 at 17:29
What would make anyone think Biden is evil? Market forecasts indicate his economic policy will be somewhere between somewhat a drag on growth to barely helping at all, but is there any reason to think he has ill intentions?
7. June 2021 at 01:43
“And the Tories aren’t satisfied with their advantage in electoral geography,”
Well, sorta.
There is redistricting, as in the US, after each Census. But it’s not run by the legislature, nor the political parties, but by the Boundary Commission. Which doesn’t do gerrymandering.
Forgotten the exact numbers but each constituency should be about 100,000 people (about right, 650 seats for 65 million people). Some seats won’t be for geographic reasons, The Isle of Wight is too large, really, to be just one. But not large enough to be two. Cutting it in half (say, 70k each) and adding each side to a part of the mainland would be insane. So, it’s one oversized constituency. Other than a handful of those, plus dodgy business in Northern Ireland, there is just that decadal reallocation of seats to keep up with population movements.
Those movements, for all my life (getting on for 6 decades now) have been out of staunch Labour seats, the inner cities and the rust belt equivalent. So old seats abolished tend to be Labour, new seats created Tory. Sorta, around and about.
However, note that this process is carried out well after the Census. So at any one time the bias is in favour of Labour. And this is significant. It’s worth 15 seats, by another calculation 25:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/13/reality-check-bourndary-reform
The system, as is, generally favours Labour because elections are usually fought on decade or more old population patterns.
7. June 2021 at 02:55
– Like the Republicans from the mid 1990s onwards here in the US, the Tories in the UK have purged all “moderate”, “centre right” persons from the party. These people were replaced by more “right wing” people.
– The Tories in the european parliament have abandoned the “centre right” party and joined the “far right” party in the european parliament. This switch happened around the year 2014 (2015 ??).
– Of course, now with the UK having left the EU these Tories also have left the european parliament as well.
– A LOT OF british voters are “not happy” with Brexit. It meant e.g. that A LOT OF british pensioners, who lived in Spain (think: warmer climate) are forced to return to Britain.
7. June 2021 at 05:12
@ M. Sandifer
“ What would make anyone think Biden is evil?”
Biden wants to dramatically increase the amount of spying and harassment that the US’s intelligence/security services do on citizens who are residing in the US. Basically it seems like he wants the Patriot Act to be broadened so that it covers everyone at all times. And he has wanted to do so since the Oklahoma City Bombing.
That is to say, Biden wants the department of Homeland Security to have the same scope as its equivalents in authoritarian countries, and to use mostly the same tools. He is pushing for the Presidency and executive branch to have the tools of a dictator. Imagine if he succeeds and then Trump is elected in 2024! In my opinion, working to make it easy for a future President to become a dictator is a pretty evil thing.
7. June 2021 at 07:37
Christian, You said:
“Or when someone pretends there is an equivalence between Trump and the CCP or between Trump and Putin, along the lines of Trump is equally evil as a dictatorship.”
Will you ever stop lying about what I say? Or if you think you are not lying, then produce an example. Let me guess, hell will freeze over before you can cite a single blog post to support your claims.
Philo, Biden is just a run of the mill American politician, fundamentally no different from Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc. Trump tried to abolish democracy in America. If you can’t see the difference, then there’s no way I can help you.
Tim, You missed my point, I said the electoral geography favors the Tories, not that Tory government engaged in gerrymandering. Electoral geography can favor one party without there being any gerrymandering. Consider the US Senate.
7. June 2021 at 08:50
Obama and Biden seem to favor our enemies, where Trumps favored the US, so that seems to put Trump ahead of them.
Michael:”What would make anyone think Biden is evil?” Support for Hamas and Iran, the two largest terrorist groups in the world?
7. June 2021 at 12:38
If Trump were to get himself in power in a place with weak institutions… he would never leave. He would be like Putin and others and change the rules to never leave. Every election loss would be fake and fraud and he just would never leave.
These types of people never leave. He would jail his opponents, threaten and kill people using groups of inspired thugs. He doesn’t care about his wife, his business partners or anybody. He is an evil person.
And for this reason alone, nothing else matters. I might agree with him on matters (I do on some) but it doesn’t matter. He is a narcissistic despot Nothing else matters!
7. June 2021 at 13:19
Michael Sandifer,
Yes, I think he does that all the time. Just one example: One of his last headlines was the quote: “Which laboratory is responsible matters little”.
That is an *interesting* framing of the fact that there is growing suspicion again that the CCP operated and did not adequately secure laboratories that might be responsible for a pandemic with millions of deaths – combined with the proven fact that the CCP massively prevents disclosure, shows no transparency, takes no responsibility and threatens and terrorizes anyone who demands explanations.
As I said, just one example, but telling.
The headline basically turns the truth around. Orwellian newspeak at its very best.
You are living way too much in the could-be. I do think you are possibly right, he could possibly be a very brutal dictator – but he does lack competence to actually achieve that and he probably does not have the guts to really endure a lot of blood, maybe with help though and if he could “outsource” the actual blood and brutality. It’s possible for sure, in another place, another time, another century, let’s say Germany in 1933.
Characterwise he is going towards dictator, thats true. But as mentioned it’s all could-be. Speculation. You have to evaluate what’s happening for real. Real outcomes matter.
Again too much could-be and too much intentions. Why is this so important to you? The actual outcome is so much more important.
Imagine an idiot operating on you with the best of intentions and you end up dead or dead sick. And an idiot with bad intentions operates on you, but you end up better. You can’t seriously value intention over outcome.
Scott,
I think I have many examples. For example, there’s a popular narrative of yours that “America is the evil empire” by now.
The term evil empire is a term coined by Ronald Reagan to describe the Soviet Union. Reagan first used it around 1983. So either you don’t know that, limited historical knowledge, or you are just naive, or you do this on purpose in order to establish some kind of equivalency.
Another narrative of yours I would call “America, the Bully.” Blog entries of this kind go in the direction: America is a bully, paraphrased in such a way that one may also think: the most important bully, the biggest bully, the most dominant bully. There are also no headlines of this kind that the CCP or Putin is a bully. It’a a narrative and term reserved for America.
At least we can say that again some kind of equivalence is established: We are bullies, they are bullies, basically we can’t judge the other side morally, because we are bullies, too and maybe even the biggest bully of them all.
This can then culminate in sentences like: “[There’s a perception] that the US is a bully in the financial world in the same sort of way that Russia is a bully in foreign policy.”
Of course, there is this perception in Europe. But only by people who want to establish some kind of equivalence between America and Putin’s Russia, out of naivety, ignorance or on purpose.
You don’t repeat something like that if you don’t have similar views. You don’t really challenge those views, you just repeat them. I’m guessing with the intention that you actually wanted to challenge them. No, not really.
7. June 2021 at 13:20
@Student – Exactly right. He would never leave. I’ve always felt there was overemphasis on Trump’s racism and not enough on his authoritarianism. I wouldn’t vote for Trump even if I agreed with him on 100% of the issues for the very reason you cite.
7. June 2021 at 15:21
@Zephito
Well, he did leave. So, that’s a bit counterfactual.
Merkel didn’t leave for 16 years. Is this political strength and far-sightedness or rather the exploitation of weak institutions?
What I’m saying is that most politicians wouldn’t leave if they were allowed to decide whether or not they wanted to leave.
8. June 2021 at 01:13
I’m with Student and Zephito—and it goes beyond the personality cult of Trump. The GOP is trying to create an institutional framework for an authoritarian regime, which happens to be playing out in Poland, Hungary, etc…
It’s an old playbook in some respects, but to see democratic systems under assault is discouraging. What’s most discouraging is when a Republican voter justifies supporting a person like Trump on the grounds that “he’s good for business.”
Here’s something to watch for: A future Republican president pardoning anyone convicted of crimes associated with the assault on the Capitol.
8. June 2021 at 08:16
Christian, If the virus escaped from a lab, then labs should not be doing this sort of research, not just in China, but anywhere in the world. That’s the issue. Lab leaks are inevitable. If it’s a lab leak then it’s not the “China virus” it’s the “science virus”.
Because I see the public policy implications more clearly than you, doesn’t make me an apologist for the CCP, which I’ve called despicable on many occasions.
You said:
“There are also no headlines of this kind that the CCP or Putin is a bully. It’a a narrative and term reserved for America.”
This is a lie. I frequently call the CCP and Putin bullies in my blogging.
https://www.themoneyillusion.com/dont-kowtow-to-china/
Again, Produce one example of me defending the CCP. Just one.
Can’t find one? Maybe that’s because they are not there.
How about this one?
https://www.themoneyillusion.com/putting-a-smiley-face-on-the-chinese-communist-party/
10. June 2021 at 02:55
Christian List,
I think you’re way, way off. I’ve never seen Scott defend the CCP, and he’s been correct when he’s characterized the US as a “bully”. What else do you call a country that threatens to isolate and even invades some countries for merely supplying the dangerous drugs its own citizens want? A non-bully would focus on the demand side of that problem.
Also, you seem to ignore the fact that Scott has correctly pointed out that the CCP has morphed from a communist party into a fascist one. Can you accuse Scott of being soft on the CCP when he wrote a whole post once on how they are fascist? Also, he clearly does not favor China taking Taiwan, commiting crimes against Uighurs, etc. I think you’re often incapable of judging nuance as anything other than weakness, when in reality, Scott has very traditional American views on US foreign policy. He understands the value of the Atlantic alliance, keeping the status of Taiwan officially unresolved, and of the importance of the minimum moral obligations the US has to maintain the legitimacy necessary to execute foreign policy.
When it comes to Trump, I think you have a form of Trump derangement syndrome, in that you consistently underestimate the threat. Perhaps it is because you are a right-winger, and so you’re naturally soft on fascists? Perhaps like when Oliver Stone used to downplay concerns over Chavismo and supported Chavez, due to left-wing sympathies?
First, how is it not a threst to have someone who you acknowledge as lazy, stupid, and incompetent as chief executive of the most powerful country on earth? How is having a typical politician like Biden remotely as risky?
Then, consider intentions, which you foo foo, but suspect you would not if we were talking about a left-wing wannabe dictator. Apart from obviously dividing the country and setting the table for a competent fascist to challenge our very form of civilization, having convinced most Republicans that the election was stolen from him, he also did tremendous damage to our legitimacy as a moral and competent country. We won’t get this legitimacy back quickly or easily.
Think of the images of children separated from their parents at the border, possible forced hysterectomies, etc. These were clearly the result of ill-intentions, as was the early campaign to minimize the threat of the pandemic
You are obviously an intelligent person, but I have no idea what world you live in.
10. June 2021 at 15:15
Scott, seriously stop parroting Democratic party talking points that just don’t apply in the UK:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tower-hamlets-to-tackle-voterigging-with-photographic-entry-system-a4058746.html
10. June 2021 at 15:57
Alexander, So is The Economist magazine also parroting Democratic talking points? Presumably they know something about the UK, don’t they?
14. June 2021 at 19:37
When was the last time that prof. Sumner spent time in the UK? If he hasn’t spent much time there, it seems irrational to be overly confident that any press outlet, or even any group of press outlets, really provide honest, reliable coverage. The Economist probably just hires the same old Oxbridge folk that every other paper and magazine does in the UK. So by reading the economist, you get a view of the UK as seen through the eyes of some subset of Oxbridge grads. It seems foolish to believe that you are getting anything near a full or panoramic view of the UK, especially on any subject touching in the least bit on class.
15. June 2021 at 08:31
Lizard, I lived in the UK for 5 months when I was younger, but didn’t feel that experience gave me any more insights into UK politics than I’d get by reading The Economist.
15. June 2021 at 09:33
Today, right wing parties receive support from people with lower levels of education and higher incomes:
— This shows Scott’s arrogance. Reading in a library, learning a skill, and starting a business, is a lot more difficult than getting a four year watered down degree from schools like “Bentley”, where Sumner taught uneducated kids for thirty years. Indeed, they are so uneducated that their economic classes are devoid of mathematics – a stunningly remarkable achievement, considering much of economics involves calculation. In this statement, Sumner is attempting to establish the proposition that educating oneself is NOT a form of education, a proposition which we all know isn’t true. Not to mention, there are non college educated democrats who own businesses! Although, that group tends to be in the JFK camp, not the Cortez radical camp, precisely because they ARE EDUCATED, and KNOW the concept of risk!
Show me a non-college educated business owner and I’ll show you a Republican. Show me a PhD making under $50k and I’ll show you a Democrat.
— Your conclusion is wrong, because your proposition is wrong. Keep reading! And try again!
15. June 2021 at 09:49
1. If you read the Georgia bill, the state provides ID’s to all state residents for free. It doesn’t cost anything.
2. Almost every country requires ID’s except for the U.S.A.
3. Democrats’ who don’t support ID’s want to create a totalitarian society. They want to try and rig the election. It’s the only reason to oppose sensible policy. Anyone who wants a safe and secure election would support ID’s.
4. Asking for ID is not discrimination. It’s proof of residency.
Take the red pill folks before its too late. The CCP has control over the democratic party.
15. June 2021 at 09:55
Ankh, You guys will never learn. If you are not going to pay attention to what I say, why should I respond to your comments?