Sanders Derangement Syndrome?
Yes, I have it.
But here’s my question. What about all those people who accused me of “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, and are now becoming completely hysterical about the prospects of a “commie” like Sanders in the White House? Do you still believe that claiming a presidential candidate is a complete disaster proves that one is mentally ill? Or does the “derangement” term only apply to criticism of people that you like?
Just asking.
Tags:
28. February 2020 at 15:32
I do not have SDS, just as I do not have TDS. In fact, I think Sanders might be able to get some Trump followers on his side. In some ways he has similar “qualities” to Trump, so I suppose that could help him to get some key white votes in swing states to switch sides.
You can see very clearly from Sanders that TDS really exists and that the term is not just an invention to defend Trump. The term “SDS” does not exist at all. There are also no terms like “Anti-Bernies”, but there are many “Anti-Trumpers”.
Sanders is just “a regular guy” for the Democrats. If he is not fully supported by some Democrats, it’s mainly because they don’t think that he would be a good candidate against Trump. It’s concerns about eligibility rather than fundamental differences, so there is no theatrical martyr show, neither are there “anti-Bernies” in relevant numbers.
28. February 2020 at 15:57
To be fair, you’ve described yourself as having TDS a few times too.
Regarding Sanders or any D in the WH: the threat is overblown, so no need for DITWHDS (Democrat in the White House derangement syndrome). They won’t get any of the bills they’re promising passed. Why? Because if any D enters the WH the GOP will remember to start pretending that they hate deficits again. Even if they lose the senate, they aren’t going to lose the filibuster. Ted Cruz will dust off his tri-corner hat and lead the “Freedom Caucus” and a reconstituted “Tea Party” charge on congress to shut down the government each and every time a debt ceiling cap raising is proposed. The GOP media will ignore the hypocrisy and reassure their audience that Trump always ran an infinite surplus, and anybody who says otherwise is spewing fake news. Their audience will believe it or pretend to in order to virtue signal their loyalty to the tribe.
In fact, if you want the GOP to remember to start pretending that they are conservatives again the best thing for that is a D in the WH. Pretending and gridlock are the best things any of us can realistically hope for, liberal or conservative. As it stands now, if you’re an actual conservative or one of the two dozen Tea Partiers who weren’t frauds, then you’re not represented in government at all right now. At least with a D in the WH one party will start pretending to be conservatives again, and that’s better than nothing, right?
28. February 2020 at 16:15
Christian, you write:
“Sanders is just “a regular guy” for the Democrats. If he is not fully supported by some Democrats, it’s mainly because they don’t think that he would be a good candidate against Trump.”
As a Democrat I don’t think Sanders is a good candidate and not just because of his odds against Trump. I know I’m not alone in that opinion and I hope there are enough people in the party who will vote against him (for any reason) to stop him.
28. February 2020 at 17:20
Scott,
Sanders may be a failure and he may not. But the fact that he is winning by such large number certainly says that he is onto something, or at least in the right direction.
For the last 50 years, worker wages haven’t been rising by very much for those at the bottom, including a substantial amount of immigrants. Additionally, the youth prospects are not exactly sterling nowadays.
The reason why so many Hispanics and Asians support him is because they are young, just as young Whites support Sanders as well.
The real story of this whole endavor is that America needs to be more democratic, representative democracy simply does not work as well as something like Switzerland. Or Singapore, which is representative democracy, with a huge emphasis on meritocracy.
Japan is also doing very bad, with their economy contracting something like 4% in the last few quarters + this one. Wages have been completely stagnant, things are going wrong in that country.
Unless you have a billion 100+ IQ people like China, you need radical democracy, otherwise your elites will mismange and lead your country to stagnation.
28. February 2020 at 17:52
John Arthur, you wrote:
“The real story of this whole endavor is that America needs to be more democratic, representative democracy simply does not work as well as something like Switzerland. Or Singapore, which is representative democracy, with a huge emphasis on meritocracy.”
The problem with that scenario is that the GOP (and some Dems) will obstruct anything a D in the WH wants to do. Don’t you remember the Tea Party frauds and Ted Cruz shutting down the government?
And we’re not getting more democracy at the Federal level when we still have huge population differences between states. We could try to change the constitution (which I think is highly unlikely). Or we could start dividing up big states (which is 100% constitutional) but still unlikely.
I live in California. Wyoming citizens get 7000% of the senatorial representation that I get. They also get 300% of the electoral college representation that I get and 130% of the house representation (i.e. 30% more). Why? Because CA has 70 times the population of WY. My county breaking off to form it’s own state (under the rules spelled out in our Constitution, and used in the formation of KY from VI) could change that.
29. February 2020 at 00:30
John Arthur,
you’re making no sense at all. “Unless you have a billion 100+ IQ people like China, you need radical democracy, otherwise your elites will mismange and lead your country to stagnation.”
So you imply that somehow the US doesn’t have a lot of smart people, and as a result the dumb ones oughtta rule because the smart ones would make a mess out of it?
Not that I believe any of this, but that statement isn’t even wrong. It’s a non sequitur.
The whole thing about incomes not going up for 50 years is also nonsensical. Regardless of numbers, I don’t remember the poor in 1970 running around with supercomputers the size of a cigarette pack in their pockets and connected wirelessly to the whole planet, with air conditioned cars at their disposal and 50 inch color TVs costing half the monthly wage of the poorest worker. I mean, seriously, you’ve got to keep it real.
29. February 2020 at 02:38
The difference is Trump gets blamed for stuff he isn’t guilty of whereas Sanders is a avowed commie. There is no such thing as SDS, he actually is what he is tarred with and admits it.
29. February 2020 at 03:54
As a non-US taxpayer, I think Sanders is what America deserves after voting in Trump.
Off topic, but Scott, have you listened to Tyler’s conversation with Garrett Jones and if so, do you have any comment on Garrett’s views on macroeconomics? In particular, his view that more demand following the financial crisis would not have been beneficial in reducing UnN faster? More generally, why is it that highly competent people confidently opine outside their areas of expertise?
29. February 2020 at 04:24
I think it’s depends on whether you’re deranged by a candidate’s policies or by a candidate’s personality.
29. February 2020 at 08:02
I haven’t seen enough material here on Sanders to support a “Yes, I have it” claim with regards to SDS.
TDS on the other hand…
29. February 2020 at 08:06
To be fair, I noted my own friends who had Obama derangement and although their predictions did not come true, there was a level of damage to elements of society that are important to me. As dtoh notes, polices or personality–one is genuine concern and the other a touch of derangement.
29. February 2020 at 08:13
I linked to this a few days ago, but in case it was missed, I thought I’d link to it again – Yglesias’s argument against SDS.
https://www.vox.com/2020/2/22/21148907/nevada-primary-results-bernie-sanders-establishment
Also Tyler C. linked to the following, which almost makes me cry – why can’t we get this guy to be *our* leader? Oh well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyZwtKJn-Ac
29. February 2020 at 09:13
Rajat, I saw the interview but don’t recall him saying exactly that. Do you have a quote?
Peter, You said:
“The difference is Trump gets blamed for stuff he isn’t guilty of whereas Sanders is a avowed commie. There is no such thing as SDS, he actually is what he is tarred with and admits it.”
I wish I had such a clear eyed objective view of the situation that you and my other commenters have. One derangement is justified and one is not. And the one that is justified is the one that you have. Why didn’t I think of that?
LOL
29. February 2020 at 09:23
I have critiqued you’re views on Trump——and will certainly do so again, I am sure. But your criticisms have a basis in reality—-even when I disagree—-but my real point is
“Sanders”.
Not sure what the scare quotes around “commie” are supposed to mean—-as if he were not sympathetic toward actual commies. But the “name” calling is certainly not the point.
It is what he is for that is the point. I am almost positive there are few of his policy proposals you favor. I am not going to hunt down some of his personal foibles to compare to Trump because I don’t care.
Your opinion, which has some validity, is Trump is a no-nothing, random, corrupt, and somehow dangerous.
One thing we can be pretty sure of, is he has at least not yet caused any economic disaster—-which was predicted by many (did you?—-I don’t think you did).
And his policies in general—-somewhat less regulation, lower corporate taxes, lower middle class taxes, lower marginal tax rates, and, of course, agreeing with Dems on the size of the Budget——are all kind of mainstream positions (whether good or bad)
Of course he is inconsistent and his persona is gruff, defensive, and exaggerated.
But Sanders has many of the same traits—-which I don’t care about——and his policies are crazy. If and when Sanders becomes President, you will forget Trump and I believe you will be writing highly critical essays about Sanders.
29. February 2020 at 09:25
anon/portly, Not very persuasive. Of course presidents have much less power than most people believe, that’s true of anyone. But suggesting he’s not so bad because he won’t do what he says he will do is a pretty weak argument. Trump also failed to do what he said he’d do. At the margin, he’ll do harm.
Agree about Singapore.
29. February 2020 at 09:29
Michael, You said:
“Not sure what the scare quotes around “commie” are supposed to mean—-as if he were not sympathetic toward actual commies.”
Sort of like how Trump is sympathetic toward actual right wing authoritarian leaders. But Sanders claims to only like the good things they do; Trump likes evil leaders precisely because they are authoritarian.
29. February 2020 at 09:31
Michael, More specifically, Sanders likes Castro despite the fact that he murdered people. Trump likes Putin and Duterte and Modi precisely because they murder people.
29. February 2020 at 13:35
Scott, it was a brief comment I was referring to at about 42:10:
“People saying things like, ‘We should just have had a lot more nominal expansion and we could have eliminated unemployment a long time ago.’ The belief that more spending early on in the Great Recession could have obviously had a huge multiplier effect seems wrong.”
To be fair, most of what he was saying was in response to questions about ‘sustained unemployment’ where structural explanations would be more appropriate.
29. February 2020 at 14:26
Mbka,
Countries like Switzerland which vote for things like direct referendum do better than representative democracies like Britain.
IQ doesn’t matter in the quality of a more direct democracy since people’s attiudes are usually spot on, whether they have an IQ of 100 or an IQ of 80.
For decades, the Anglo government of California destroyed Hispanic education with bilingual education. Hispanics have a lower IQ than Whites, yet in a direct referendum, voted against bilingual education by a 30pt margin.
Given freedom, the dumb masses make better decisions than the smart elites. How many would have voted for the Iraq War if it was a referendum? How many would have voted to destablize Syria? How many would have voted for bilingual education?
29. February 2020 at 14:27
Mbka,
You are right about incomes, in that they have improved. But they have not improved as fast as people wanted. Sinagpore does far better than the US, even when you account for IQ. Wages should have grown like they did in Singapore, and they would have had we had more direct referendum- resulting in freedom.
29. February 2020 at 14:33
Tom,
You are right. It is absolutely not fair that Wyoming gets more representation than California. Direct referendum changes that. Bilingual education was the worst educational system in modern America, and “representative democracy” got us that, now it is gone via direct referendum.
29. February 2020 at 14:53
It is my belief that if Sanders gets elected then it will likely be a democratic party sweep for the house, senate and president. I don’t expect this, but, it is something that would send me into derangement syndrome territory for sure.
With Trump, we do have divided government and thus no need for TDS.
29. February 2020 at 15:04
“Not very persuasive.”
Well, I didn’t find it all that persuasive myself, which is why when I linked to it before, I also linked to Yglesias’s piece just prior to the 2016 election, a bit of Kool-Aid slurpery where he tried to argue that Nate Silver had to be wrong (in giving Trump such a good chance to win).
“But suggesting he’s not so bad because he won’t do what he says he will do is a pretty weak argument.”
You’re right, but I wonder if there isn’t a kernel of a defense of Sanders in what he says that isn’t true. The argument is (I am extrapolating or translating or something) that yes, Bernie has always been a nut, but he’s a nut who has been able to function reasonably well – in a reasonably non-nutty fashion – as a mayor and as a US Rep and Senator.
Whereas of course another US politician, currently a politician at least, whose name I will omit to mention, has always been a nut and is obviously incapable of functioning in any sort of non-nutty fashion.
Hmmm, well, maybe think of it as a variation on PJ O’Rourke’s “Hillary’s bad, but bad within normal parameters” argument.
Or not. I am making no claims to commenting brilliance here….
29. February 2020 at 15:08
“I wish I had such a clear eyed objective view of the situation that you and my other commenters have. One derangement is justified and one is not. And the one that is justified is the one that you have. Why didn’t I think of that? … LOL”
Hmmm, you’re using *logic* (however unassailable) on Trumpistas? And then directing derisive laughter at them?
I think you should be consistently logical and direct the derisive laughter at yourself!
LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL….
1. March 2020 at 00:32
Scott brings up a good point. Trump is an evil person. He’s openly selfish, vindictive, greedy, power hungry, bigoted, vain, narcissistic, endlessly lying, and he’s seeks to destroy our republican system of government. Trump is a hateful fascist, grifter, and traitor who has sold US interests out to at least 3 other countries with evil governments.
Sanders has good intentions. He’s not as virtuous as he presents, but he recognizes many limits Trump does not. He’s not openly hateful, though he does demagogue billionaires na very ignorant fashion.
He’s pretty ignorant about the fundamentals of policy in every area. He’s not a communist or even really much of a socialist anymore, but he certainly underestimated the downsides of each in the past. He supported movements like Chavismo, before it obviously went bad. He’s seen bright sides to socialist and communist regimes that didn’t exist. This was not that uncommon on the left in the past, especially during the cold war. However, he’s always denounced authoritarianism.
His policy ideas are awful. I see a lot of good intentions, but I’d rather deregulate healthcare and subsidize incomes than institute a single payer system. That said, a single payer system might actually be superior to the one we have.
The Green New Deal idea is so bad, that it’s outright banana republican. The greenhouse gas emissions targets bear no relationship to reality. No respected economist takes the numbers seriously. It also lumps a lot of bad ideas like a jobs guarantee together with greenhouse gas emissions requirements for no apparent reason. It might be the worst set of policy ideas in the history of the Democratic Party. Larry Summers has done a good takedown of these ideas.
It includes allusions to MMT, which to the degree it’s unique is absurd, but is mostly warmed over Lerner. Sanders has had Stephanie Kelton as an economic advisor in the past, who has not demonstrated she even understands the mainstream economic models she rejects. Sanders sadly has sympathy with the idea that fusing monetary and fiscal policy would be a good idea, which I think would lead to stagflation.
However, I wouldn’t expect much of these nightmare policies in terms of getting passed. Hence, what concerns me most about Sanders is his naive perspectives on foreign policy. As a neo-realist myself, I fear that he would not only lack the aggressive strategic initiative needed to build a world order that bends the future toward freer markets and republican government, but that many rogue countries would eat our lunch in regions around the world, as is happening with Trump. I think we need a President who would strongly punish Russia, exploit Turkey’s new disadvantages in the Middle East, by building a base in a permanently independent Kurdistan, and then having a hammer to punish Iran should it become necessary, while containing Saudi overreach.
We should also pressure Modi to live up to international standards for humanitarian conduct by very selectively offering to share military technology in exchange for reforms. We should want India to be a more suitable partner in the effort to contain China in Asia over the coming decades. We will be limited in how much we can cooperate to the degree India strays from the very values we should promote in the region.
We should also continue to step up pressure to remove Maduro in Venezuela, especially since his policies not only destabilize the immediate region, but have invited the likes of Russia and China to be too heavily involved in our sphere of influence. We should more strongly enforce the Monroe Doctrine.
In sum, I favor boldly, strategically promoting US interests around the world via contributing to favorable balances of power, while promoting more international cooperation to take on common challenges, such as climate change.
So, I’m no Sanders fan, but he would be a significant improvement over Trump, being a better person, more intelligent, and not hostile to the republican form of government. He’s not qualified to be President, but he’s much closer than is Trump, which is why I can enthusiastically support him in that context, in a swing state.
1. March 2020 at 05:42
I have said this to too many people to count, so I may as well stop saying it. But one last time. In politics, we exaggerate the negatives of those we disapprove of, and ignore the negatives of those who we do approve. Or as Paul Simon once said, “we all see what we want to see and disregard the rest”.
PS Covid-19 Derangement syndrome
China announced February economic numbers Friday Night——Which were far worse than at least Reuter’s polls expected, I imagine we will have perhaps an historically bad Monday in the Equity markets—-but who knows. Since it is all Corona all the time (my son works in the Alcohol Industry—he told me Corona Beer is doing some large roll-out—-Corona’s biggest concern is “name contagion”—-which sounds absurd—-but is not).
What “blows my mind” is trying to understand why this virus has created such financial havoc—- and an insane obsession with quarantines—-than the 2009-2010 “return of the Spanish Flu in H1N1 form”. (My son actually had that Flu that year——and no one was speaking of quarantines).
One reason might be is it first appeared in China, not America. But let’s look at the US Flu numbers so far this year in America. As of 2/21, the CDC estimates 26 million people have had the flu and 14000 have died. Adjusting for population, we multiply these numbers by 4.4 and we get a “China equivalent” of 115 million people who have had the flu and 60,000 who have died. Assuming the Flu season begins in October, this would equate in China to 22 million flu cases a month and 12,000 deaths per month. China is now reporting at a rate of 1500 deaths per month for Covid-19 and a rate 18000 new cases a month. We don’t yet know the expected death rate——but the absolute death rate is far more relevant than the percentage death rate. And 8 times more people die from normal flu, than this flu.
So why don’t we quarantine during normal flu season world wide? The problem, of course, is when people think about this, they will not conclude we should not have panicked over Covid, but that we should have always panicked over normal Flu.
What about the “swine flu” of 2009? By the time Obama called it an official emergency in the Fall of 2009, 1000 people had ALREADY died ——versus this Virus when 0 had died when we called it an emergency. No one thought anything of it—-nor should they have.
Being a “Hypermind” or free market kind of guy, I don’t want to become a “prisoner” of simple arithmetic. Why are people acting like this is something more than a simple addition to our current 4 general strains of Flu? Certainly, the Swine Flu at the outset should have been very scary—-after all, it was like the “Spanish Flu”.
Maybe because the China numbers are concentrated in an area of 20 million people? Perhaps. But, how does that explain how we are reacting to the rest of the world? H1N1 supposedly came from Mexico——but eventually about 800 people in China died and people all over the world contracted the disease—-just like Covid and just like all Flu
I would not be surprised if Xi is wondering “what the hell did I do”? 200000 people died from swine flu in 2009-2010. Will Covid 19 hit that number? We will find out, but I am guessing not—-probably in part because we are being more paranoid. At a cost. And it’s not lives in exchange for GDP. Low GDP and panics have their own death rates—we just don’t know how to count it.
The one thing I wish Trump would do, and others who have a megaphone (but no one does) is literally say—-“we encounter these things about once every 10-15 years on average (a true number—-although more this century) and we always get through it and it is never as bad as we fear—-and specifically reference 2009.
Of course, the response by Trump haters would be——-“idiot, denier, bla bla…..because, because……Science”.
1. March 2020 at 07:53
John Arthur,
I was questioning your logic, I wasn’t talking about the validity of your facts (different can of worms).
On this: “Countries like Switzerland which vote for things like direct referendum do better than representative democracies like Britain. ” Well. Switzerland may be the ONE and only country that a) does a lot of direct democracy by referendum and b) does it (mostly) right. Even in Switzerland, it is not exactly what it seems – participation rates are often low, and referenda depend on initiatives. Day-to-day decisions are certainly NOT decided by referenda. And the Swiss were particularly aghast at how the one-shot Brexit referendum was naively taken as “the people’s will”, an absurdity and computational impossibility (at least since since Ken Arrow we know that there is no such thing as “the people’s will”).
What makes Switzerland’s democracy a success is mostly related to other factors, such as, deferring most decisions to local representation (and referenda) rather than nation wide decision making. Which works well if you’re a country with less population than Los Angeles metro.
Everywhere else, starting with the Romans 2000 years ago, then proceeding swiftly to Machiavelli (Discorsi, not Prince), the horrors of the French Revolution and Tocqueville, with brief mention of phenomena like Peronism ruining once promising countries such as Argentina: populism and direct democracy have been widely and roundly criticized for being potentially as abusive as the worst dictatorships – un-principled, and anti-libertarian. Virtually any constitution in the world is built on counter-balancing democracy with limits on popular power (bill of rights in the US). Constitutions generally are about LIMITING the things that democracy is allowed to decide over. Most famously, the United States was conceived as a Republic (not a democracy) “if you can keep it” (B. Franklin).
Unfettered people power can’t be trusted, just like any other unfettered power. I would absolutely be scared out of my mind if I lived in a country ruled by one referendum after the other. No planning would be possible and I’d fear for my life most of the time.
1. March 2020 at 11:10
Rajat, OK, I probably disagree with him at the margin, but I’d have to talk to him to be sure.
Anon, I have plenty of commenters laughing at me, I don’t need to pile on. 🙂
Everyone, I certainly favor Sanders over Trump.
1. March 2020 at 13:21
Scott. I keep thinking you favor Sanders over Trump due entirely to your disdain of Trump. But it just occurred to me you may also favor Sanders because at least for some of his views. I cannot think of what they might be. Accepting for arguments sake that Trump is simply the worst president we can possibly have, can you give any affirmative reasons for Sanders other than he is not Trump? If Trump did not exist, what do you like about Sanders. Curious minds want to know.
1. March 2020 at 13:46
Michael Rulle,
I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about Scott’s preference for Sanders over Trump. Trump is openly hostile to limits on executive power, and hence our entire form of government.
I can’t speak for Scott, but I think that difference alone would mean he would favor a candidate over Trump.
1. March 2020 at 18:21
Michael R you wrote:
“The one thing I wish Trump would do, and others who have a megaphone (but no one does) is literally say—-“we encounter these things about once every 10-15 years on average (a true number—-although more this century) and we always get through it and it is never as bad as we fear—-and specifically reference 2009.
Of course, the response by Trump haters would be——-“idiot, denier, bla bla…..because, because……Science”.
You’re right, it would be good for Trump to try that, and the reaction would be as you say. This is the problem with a Trump-like clownshow serial liar personality. At this point he can’t say anything presidential, because no one believes anything he says. This is the reason you don’t elect lying clowns, in a crisis even if they try to say or do the right thing, they won’t be able to get any traction.
So sure, policy-wise he hasn’t been that bad. But he has completely voided the bully pulpit and the idea of the president leading our nation, especially in a crisis. This is the problem with Trump, and anyone who says ‘oh I know he’s a jerk but I don’t care about that stuff’ misses the point.
2. March 2020 at 02:34
ssumner – Or does the “derangement” term only apply to criticism of people that you like? – hope you were using a rhetorical flourish. And not really asking.
The obvious answer though is: Yes. Unqualified Yes.
2. March 2020 at 09:30
@Anon:
Why are you being such a hypocrite? Your side complains about TDS, the other side complains about ODS, before that was BDS, and before that CDS. What is wrong with people when it comes to politics?
2. March 2020 at 21:05
@Rajat,
This sounds like spite: Trump voters should be punished with a Sanders. Rather than the logical, people deserve what they vote for.
@summner, Regarding TDS, I thought of you when your coblogger Bryan Caplan recently wrote:
That sums up TDS perfectly.
People are making rational/coherent arguments against Sanders but I don’t see the same phenomenon where people descend into this irrational furious rage over Sanders.
3. March 2020 at 07:27
@msgkings
I understand the hate Trump concept—–“he is what he is—nothing is good about it, nothing he can do can change anyone’s opinion, etc.etc.”—I have tried to stop persuading people to have this extreme an opinion—-because it is pointless. You even said “policywise he has not been that bad”—which is often said too. And “missing the point” has been directed at me countless times—so I actually understand it—I just think it is not rational
Still—for the 45-50% who support him, perhaps those kinds of statements would be helpful—-and “1 out of 2 ain’t bad”
3. March 2020 at 07:39
@Michael Sandifer.
Yes, many people think Trump wants to be a dictator—(implicit I think in your comment) and while we have seen unwanted (by me) increase in executive power for decades (in particular the Bureaucracy—which has more and more begun to write in the details of vague law) this is also a belief that cannot be refuted because it amounts to what the Fox people call “mind reading”. But Obama had his famous Pen—-this is not new—presidents wanting more power—remember FDR?
But to the main point on Scott’s view—it is hard to believe that one thinks Sanders would not want as much executive power as possible—so that does not seem to be the case.
If he ever answers the question for himself, I expect to hear everything you have said PLUS—that Trump is more likely to create a Black Swan event —-and not just a 1932 or 2008.
3. March 2020 at 07:44
@Michael Sandifer
PS—-but remember by ACTUAL question was “without reference to Trump. what affirmative reasons do you have to support Sanders”. It is not a trick gotcha question. My hypothesis is he has no reason other than he is not Trump. As I said to him—I really am curious—-because I cannot imagine what those reasons could be.
3. March 2020 at 08:35
@Michael Rulle: “And “missing the point” has been directed at me countless times—so I actually understand it”
It seems as if you don’t. Countless people have told you you’re missing the point, so maybe, y’know, you’re missing the point.
3. March 2020 at 09:41
Michael Rulle, just above:
“My hypothesis is he has no reason [to support Sanders] other than he is not Trump.”
Well, just a few days ago, on February 23, he wrote a post entitled “My hopeless dream that will never come true.” In this post (which by coincidence happened to occasion 2 Michael Rulle comments) he wrote the following:
“Sanders is such an awful candidate that I’d support almost any GOP nominee over Sanders, even someone as awful as Jeff Sessions or (gasp) Lindsey Graham. Indeed there’s only one Republican that would make me support Sanders.” (Cue a picture of DJT).
Whaddaya know? Hypothesis confirmed!
Some of us, in addition to leaving idiotic or insipid comments – comments which may betray little or no evidence that we actually read the blog – actually *do* make an effort, at least a cursory one, to *read the blog.* I make this point a propos of nothing, to be sure.
3. March 2020 at 10:33
Massimo Heitor’s point above is kind of nutty, isn’t it? Bryan Caplan doesn’t like Trump either.
When Caplan talks about “partisan irrationality and myopic rage” and “frankly stupid positions,” he may be talking about both sides, but I would be surprised if he was referring specifically to other people who share his own anti-Trump view of things. It’s not clear to me from the blog post (“My Social Media Hiatus”) exactly what sort of views Caplan is referring to.
4. March 2020 at 23:31
Captain Obvious: Just calling out human nature.
for the same situation and presidents response: Trumpista will say he is exercising his power; though when Obama (or any Dem P) does it that will be executive overreach, Obummer, name calling etc.
or for ssumner: if Putin/Duterte/Modi does something that is bad; when Xi Jinping does that is just the way China works; no one else understands that.
5. March 2020 at 07:05
@ portly
No, Caplan doesn’t like Trump at all. But in that blog post, Caplan was rather clearly referring to his friends who he had respected as intelligent, reasonable adults descend into partisan rage. To quote Caplan directly: