For those screeching about Theresa May's "Austerity"...
..a handy graphic =
https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-kingdom-government-s...
"Austerity" appears to be what Europeans call "only growing spending by single-digits when they would prefer it grew by double-digits"
They're like obese people crying they're being "starved" when denied their second dessert.
..a handy graphic =
https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-kingdom-government-s...
"Austerity" appears to be what Europeans call "only growing spending by single-digits when they would prefer it grew by double-digits"
They're like obese people crying they're being "starved" when denied their second dessert.
5
Mr Stephens:
I was no great fan of yours when you wrote for the WSJ. But for this column, I offer you a well-earned Bravo! Indeed, the folly lies with the electorates. The elected are just the symptom of what I hope is a passing intellectual flu but I fear is a fatal cognitive leprosy.
I was no great fan of yours when you wrote for the WSJ. But for this column, I offer you a well-earned Bravo! Indeed, the folly lies with the electorates. The elected are just the symptom of what I hope is a passing intellectual flu but I fear is a fatal cognitive leprosy.
16
There is a great difference between reckless and stupid. Reckless is taking a chance, placing a frivolous bet, buying a lottery ticket. Stupid is voting for a patently unqualified, unquestionably incompetent " person". After seeing evidence, with your own eyes, and ears. On " Tape", no less.
Reckless can be chalked up to a learning experience, and forgiven.
Stupid, not so much. IF I were in charge, those that voted for HIM, would be branded with a scarlet " T". On their foreheads. Ok, not really. But it's a very pleasant fantasy. Especially while he's spewing on TV.
Reckless can be chalked up to a learning experience, and forgiven.
Stupid, not so much. IF I were in charge, those that voted for HIM, would be branded with a scarlet " T". On their foreheads. Ok, not really. But it's a very pleasant fantasy. Especially while he's spewing on TV.
17
Brett:
News flash - when a majority of people feel that the "system" has ignored them for so long, they're going to act very predictably: they're going to overthrow the system, "logic" be damned. This is why anarchists like Trump and Corbyn and the Brexit tribe gained so much support. You and your fellow intelligentsia have been blind - and continue to be so - to the severity of the problem facing the middle and working class. While the "system" works just dandy for you and the well-to-do, it doesn't work for the rest. Left unaddressed for long enough, that's a recipe for a Boston Tea Party, or Arab Spring. What you're witnessing with these elections is the first tremors of those potential events coming to pass. If you want to prevent that, you need to begin recognizing the problems that have been ignored for so long, and support those who have ideas for addressing them, people such as Bernie Sanders, But if you don't wake up soon, you will be overwhelmed by the events you refuse to see.
News flash - when a majority of people feel that the "system" has ignored them for so long, they're going to act very predictably: they're going to overthrow the system, "logic" be damned. This is why anarchists like Trump and Corbyn and the Brexit tribe gained so much support. You and your fellow intelligentsia have been blind - and continue to be so - to the severity of the problem facing the middle and working class. While the "system" works just dandy for you and the well-to-do, it doesn't work for the rest. Left unaddressed for long enough, that's a recipe for a Boston Tea Party, or Arab Spring. What you're witnessing with these elections is the first tremors of those potential events coming to pass. If you want to prevent that, you need to begin recognizing the problems that have been ignored for so long, and support those who have ideas for addressing them, people such as Bernie Sanders, But if you don't wake up soon, you will be overwhelmed by the events you refuse to see.
18
Rid yourselves of the troglodyte Bret Stephens. Two strikes against him : He's ok with Trump and hates the "vile " Corbyn.
A great addition to the opinion page would be a millennial- like the young voters who favored Corbin in Great Britain. But who reads newspapers anymore?
A great addition to the opinion page would be a millennial- like the young voters who favored Corbin in Great Britain. But who reads newspapers anymore?
12
[[In every other sense May is a humiliated politician, who squandered a huge lead in a lousy campaign against a vile opponent.
Sound familiar?]]
Not exactly.
I suggest that Clinton never actually had a lead against Trump except in the theoretical world of those lousy pollsters and the self-delusional minds of her cronies working the levers of the DNC political machine.
Clinton was arrogant, lazy and entitled. Her problem is she didn't and doesn't feel the need to rub shoulders and elbows with us proles. And unfortunately for her career ambitions the people returned that feeling and the proles simply stayed away from the polling station.
Another contrast is that May stumbled by mistakenly calling an early election while Clinton failed in an election for which she had four years during which that was her only priority.
Trump is a disaster.
But what are we to make of Clinton's actual abilities? She had the election teed up, took years to study the ball, had one massive swing, and missed completely.
Sound familiar?]]
Not exactly.
I suggest that Clinton never actually had a lead against Trump except in the theoretical world of those lousy pollsters and the self-delusional minds of her cronies working the levers of the DNC political machine.
Clinton was arrogant, lazy and entitled. Her problem is she didn't and doesn't feel the need to rub shoulders and elbows with us proles. And unfortunately for her career ambitions the people returned that feeling and the proles simply stayed away from the polling station.
Another contrast is that May stumbled by mistakenly calling an early election while Clinton failed in an election for which she had four years during which that was her only priority.
Trump is a disaster.
But what are we to make of Clinton's actual abilities? She had the election teed up, took years to study the ball, had one massive swing, and missed completely.
14
One might assume that Benjamin Netanyahu is included in the writer's thesis (and in his self-assessment) of reckless voting? Israel has been hobbled, if not devolved and endangered, by the extremist Likud Party: populists, radicals, bigots, and xenophobes, indeed.
19
Once again Bret Stephens disappoints. if I wanted to read the Wall Street Journal editorial page, I would not be a Times print and digital reader. Theresa May created her party's manifesto. The people rejected it and her. Jeremy Corbyn is a hard buy but the principles of the Labour party are more clearly attuned to the improvement of the lot of the poor and middle class than those of the Conservatives . Brexit is not a good thing for Britain. The increased vote of the young who did not come out for the Brexit referendum will hopefully lead to new parliamentary elections that will lead to Britain staying in the EU. The pitiful campaign of May's predecessor David Cameron led to the disastrous Brexit result. It appears that May learned nothing from the arrogance of Cameron than to outdo him in arrogance. Who but an out of touch politician fails to show for a campaign debate.
14
If you wish to see what Britain will look like after a period of time under Corbyn all you need to do is look at Venezuala.
13
Call it the New Appeasement. We appease ignorance, irrationality, hysteria, fundamentalism, authoritarianism, sexism, boorishness, triviality, symbolism, and tribalism, while competence is considered compromise, depth is considered relativism, education is considered elitism, thoughtfulness is considered inaction, and facts are considered optional. And the root of it all is projection: The problem is not me IN HERE, but you OUT THERE.
We have become children of the Middle Ages.
If a few more ice sheets melt away we may even make it all the way to the Dark Ages.
Cheers.
We have become children of the Middle Ages.
If a few more ice sheets melt away we may even make it all the way to the Dark Ages.
Cheers.
8
On the other hand, read your own newspaper to see an account of how "reckless voters," having chosen a fresh face as their president, are now poised to elect a parliament of fresh and diverse faces. I suspect you won't like that either. You probably have a secret longing for the return of aristocratic rule.
5
To create a false equivalence between the "nasty left" and the "ugly right," Stevens had to look overseas to find a liberal he could attack. That's a compliment to American progressives, I guess.
16
Interesting article, somewhat preachy, and naïve and full of liberal mantra and idealism that has little to do with the real world,
The electorate in all the countries mentioned were assumed to be dumb animals who could be manipulated or at least ignored by the established political parties. The electorate has just had enough of that.
Yes, I am also including President Macron of France whose most recent initiatives are no different from those of his predecessors. He fired the lead journalist of France 2 the premier government television journalist whose ratings were the highest in France because he displeased Macron for some of his questions. Already one of his ministers was caught in "flagrant delit" of corruption but not dismissed.
All this even before the second round of legislative elections. What will Macron be liked after5 years of his presidency?
As for the reasons for all the populism? The word hubris comes to mind.
I would ask whose fault is all that?
The electorate in all the countries mentioned were assumed to be dumb animals who could be manipulated or at least ignored by the established political parties. The electorate has just had enough of that.
Yes, I am also including President Macron of France whose most recent initiatives are no different from those of his predecessors. He fired the lead journalist of France 2 the premier government television journalist whose ratings were the highest in France because he displeased Macron for some of his questions. Already one of his ministers was caught in "flagrant delit" of corruption but not dismissed.
All this even before the second round of legislative elections. What will Macron be liked after5 years of his presidency?
As for the reasons for all the populism? The word hubris comes to mind.
I would ask whose fault is all that?
6
TRUMP: allow poor people to die for want of healthcare (and remind them they deserved it for their bad choices), bomb foreign nations indiscriminately, increase mass surveillance, lower taxes on the wealthy so they may continue their dynastic deathgrip on capital, encourage those dynasties to poison the Earth at will, ban all Muslims, mock minority appeals for justice as biased, suppress LGBTQ rights to appeal to reactionary bathroom warriors, hire cryptoNazis to design your domestic and foreign policies, confidently lie and contradict yourself to the point of obfuscating any notion of consensus reality.
CORBYN: universal healthcare, free higher education, mandatory living wage, tax corporations more than poor people, avoid meddling in foreign conflicts when possible, allow minorities and LGBTQ people to live normal lives, remain accountable for your words and deeds, don't allow industry to consign our planet and species to die in a hot acid ocean.
STEPHENS: these positions are basically the same
CORBYN: universal healthcare, free higher education, mandatory living wage, tax corporations more than poor people, avoid meddling in foreign conflicts when possible, allow minorities and LGBTQ people to live normal lives, remain accountable for your words and deeds, don't allow industry to consign our planet and species to die in a hot acid ocean.
STEPHENS: these positions are basically the same
37
It is a historical fact that widening income inequality leads to social unrest and in some cases Revolution. Elections theoretically allow for economically corrective law before a big blow up becomes necessary. But when the legislators get to choose their voters as they do with gerrymandering the real issues do not get addressed. The more radical Candidate running for the top spot is the only place where the people's anger might find expression.
Thus, we get an incompetent liar as President and a bunch of sycophantic enablers in Congress. With a right wing Court in position I doubt whether the devolution to 50 state governance and minimal federal moral or ethical power can be stopped unless people vote in great numbers to balance the Congress so that compromise is actually required for legislation. Looks very much like the decline and fall of the Roman Empire at the moment -- without the outright murders of the opposition.
Thus, we get an incompetent liar as President and a bunch of sycophantic enablers in Congress. With a right wing Court in position I doubt whether the devolution to 50 state governance and minimal federal moral or ethical power can be stopped unless people vote in great numbers to balance the Congress so that compromise is actually required for legislation. Looks very much like the decline and fall of the Roman Empire at the moment -- without the outright murders of the opposition.
9
Total distortion of what happened in the UK. And absolute silence on the anti-gay, anti-abortion, climate change denier, and xenophobic stands of the Irish party Theresa May is bringing into the government.
Now I'm really thinking of canceling my subscription. Should I really contribute whatever proportion of my monthly payment to a fascist writer? This is becoming more than a political question. More even than a moral quandary. It is becoming a health issue : I cannot feel like vomitting two or three times a week.
Now I'm really thinking of canceling my subscription. Should I really contribute whatever proportion of my monthly payment to a fascist writer? This is becoming more than a political question. More even than a moral quandary. It is becoming a health issue : I cannot feel like vomitting two or three times a week.
20
"Reckless voting" cannot fully explain the trend toward the fringes in Western democracies. The problem is the ideological void in the center: For decades, political and financial elites have favored the interests of the wealthy - the so-called 1% - while ignoring the middle class and working people who have become marginalized by unemployment, underemployment, wage stagnation and economic inequality.
8
Contemporary politics in America lies along a continuous circle. At the top of the circle, in the daylight as it were, we find the safe but mundane centrists. At the bottom, where it is dark, we find the secret place where the far left (Senator Sanders) meets the far right (President Trump). For example, both the Sanders and Trump campaigns were fundamentally anti-woman. Both called the election rigged (undermining its legitimacy). And both were fake populists (e.g., blaming America's problems on foreigners and trade pacts). The Trump campaign benefited greatly after it adopted most of Sanders' talking points. This spot on the circle also appears to be characterized by anger and even violence. Anger and implied violence was found not only at the massive Trump rallies but also at the Democratic caucuses here--many older people did not attend them specifically because they were afraid.
5
Looking at America's and England's electoral map we can discern that the antihuman legacy of Thatcher and Reagan is coming to an end.
Flyover country is solidly Republican or Conservative while the future belongs solidly to those that choose the general welfare to greed and selfishness.
I am 69 and may be a cockeyed optimist but having seen the need for another American Revolution I can now feel it coming.
Who better to represent the dying beast of neoliberalism than Trump and May. Uncompromising True Believers whose zeal is only trumped by their incompetence.
Flyover country is solidly Republican or Conservative while the future belongs solidly to those that choose the general welfare to greed and selfishness.
I am 69 and may be a cockeyed optimist but having seen the need for another American Revolution I can now feel it coming.
Who better to represent the dying beast of neoliberalism than Trump and May. Uncompromising True Believers whose zeal is only trumped by their incompetence.
15
As the saying goes, “You get what you pay for?” The British got a “hung Parliament” and we pretty much have the equivalent of a “hung Congress,” where nothing is getting done because the president is constantly hung up in his lies.
Ms. May hitched her wagon to Trump and behaved invincible, only to find the wheels come off a great trans-Atlantic partnership? Despite Trump’s “America First” rhetoric and May’s Brexit bombast, it appears like the European Union will come out the winner. The election of France’s Macron and a strong likelihood of the reelection of Germany’s Angela Merkel in September will put an end to the madness of the political fringe parties. The West will walk back from the ledge and the U.S. will have a choice to either be a part of this rebirth or relinquish its leadership to a new, stronger Europe.
Ms. May hitched her wagon to Trump and behaved invincible, only to find the wheels come off a great trans-Atlantic partnership? Despite Trump’s “America First” rhetoric and May’s Brexit bombast, it appears like the European Union will come out the winner. The election of France’s Macron and a strong likelihood of the reelection of Germany’s Angela Merkel in September will put an end to the madness of the political fringe parties. The West will walk back from the ledge and the U.S. will have a choice to either be a part of this rebirth or relinquish its leadership to a new, stronger Europe.
5
I have to study up on Corbyn, but one thing is for sure if Stephans a far right neo con has bad things to say about him, he's probably ok...
28
This is a terrible, terrible analysis of what happened in the UK. The conservatives, both in their actions and in their manifesto are the party of austerity for those at the bottom, cuts to vital public services, and a hard and damaging brexit, about which they refuse to be honest with the electorate. Yet Corbyn is the "nasty" left, running on a (costed) manifesto to promote more economic equality, closer ties with Europe, and better public services.
In comparing Jeremy Corbyn (an uncharismatic man of deep principle) to Donald Trump (a charismatic man with no principles) the writer displays a profound level of ignorance.
In comparing Jeremy Corbyn (an uncharismatic man of deep principle) to Donald Trump (a charismatic man with no principles) the writer displays a profound level of ignorance.
31
We have different ideas about "charisma", but otherwise, yes.
7
Nail meet head. Stephens is an intellectual lightweight who doesn't write very well.
9
An excellent, succinct analysis of . The crux: "We now have a Western politics in which the center bends toward the fringe, not the other way around." The electorate is indeed the cause of the problem: 'Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter' (epitomized by Trump and his band of sycophants and apologists) is now a maxim that can be applied to many other nations. To put the 'Debbie Downer' bow on this package, these developments summarized by Stephens clearly show us how the western world is headed for truly dark times ahead...while the critical man-made problems of the world--over-population, religion and belief-based politics and behavior, environmental destruction and unsustainability, and increasing human laziness and ignorance--fester and yet continue to be normalized.
3
Corbyn is an ordinary politician. Trump is only for Trump and has demonstrated it amply. These are not comparable situations.
15
It was May that said she would rip up human rights laws, not Corbyn.
i guess i don't mind that voters are fickle as much as i mind civic ignorance.
6
I agree with A. Brown. You know nothing about British politics and nothing about the British electorate. You condemn young voters for allegedly voting in their own interests when in fact older voters constantly vote in their own interests - and that happens in every country. Lets face it, it was older voters more than any other sector of the respective electorates who voted in the US for Trump and in the UK for Brexit. They were not exactly thinking of future generations were they?
I lived in the UK for some years and from that experience I have absolutely no doubt that this was an election full of complex issues. People did not vote for the 'nasty' left. They voted for a left that said enough is enough, enough of austerity, enough of run down public services, enough of being treated like children, enough of lack of housing and sky high rents, enough of working all hours only to barely survive etc. They voted for a politician who holds to his principles even if you don't agree with them. Jeremy Corbyn could have made life easier for himself by directly condemning the IRA and by saying he would use Trident but he stuck to what he believed. Aren't we all sick and tired of politicians who say anything to be elected and then renege the minute they are elected?
Britain and the US are two different countries with different politics and electorates and trying to extrapolate from one experience to the other is ridiculous.
I lived in the UK for some years and from that experience I have absolutely no doubt that this was an election full of complex issues. People did not vote for the 'nasty' left. They voted for a left that said enough is enough, enough of austerity, enough of run down public services, enough of being treated like children, enough of lack of housing and sky high rents, enough of working all hours only to barely survive etc. They voted for a politician who holds to his principles even if you don't agree with them. Jeremy Corbyn could have made life easier for himself by directly condemning the IRA and by saying he would use Trident but he stuck to what he believed. Aren't we all sick and tired of politicians who say anything to be elected and then renege the minute they are elected?
Britain and the US are two different countries with different politics and electorates and trying to extrapolate from one experience to the other is ridiculous.
16
I wonder why no one as yet has mentioned the May-Trump hand-holding as at least one cause of May's demise. I felt absolutely sick when I saw that shot of May holding Trump's hand and I have to assume that some Brits must have had the same reaction. I can only hope Trump's state visit will be on hold awaiting his impeachment.
14
This column, like many others castigating the voters of various constancies for their choice, further supports my concern over liberalism, and conservationism to a slightly lesser extent, that many of the supporters would be more comfortable if democracy was not so wide spread.
The left seems to have an especially split personality on this issue; on the one hand they are bemoaning voter suppression yet on the other they are talking about how the voters are too deplorable to see their own best interests.
If one believes in democracy, then one must also believe that the voters will pick the candidates who best represent them. If one does not believe that the voters are capable of doing so, then one should come out and say that the elite, however they may be defined, should rule over the ignorant masses.
The left seems to have an especially split personality on this issue; on the one hand they are bemoaning voter suppression yet on the other they are talking about how the voters are too deplorable to see their own best interests.
If one believes in democracy, then one must also believe that the voters will pick the candidates who best represent them. If one does not believe that the voters are capable of doing so, then one should come out and say that the elite, however they may be defined, should rule over the ignorant masses.
2
Conservationism?
What on earth are you trying to say?
What on earth are you trying to say?
Stephens really ought to look up Rev. Ian Paisley, whose followers make up the ten seats held by the democratic unionist party in Ulster, the rump that is propping up Theresa May. Nasty? Stephens has no clue what nasty means...
To quote Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan: "Don't criticize what you don't understand."
To quote Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan: "Don't criticize what you don't understand."
13
Reckless, ignorant voters = people who actually have the gall to believe that their wants, needs, and points of view will be taken seriously by those elected. If that's the problem, let's get rid of the existing pretense of democracy we have, and come up with a system that produces better results, according to the lights of superior intellects like Mr. Stephens.
5
Stephens disappoints with shallow punditry. the US election was stolen from the US voters by the party machines, not manipulation of the vote or voting machines. Not that I wanted Bernie Sanders, but the dems never put up a decent candidate against HRC -- perhaps because they didn't have one -- or because, following their guiding light of identity politics, dems wanted the 1st female prez to be a dem. And they felt bad for poor little HRC who put up with Billy all these years then Barry beat her. But never mind, when push came to shove and a legitimate dem opponent arose (if you can call Bernie legit) the dem party ensured he didn't get the nomination.
As for the Repubs. That was a little better as the actual voter got to decide among a wide range of candidates. Now -- maybe having 550 or so candidates isn't a good idea because it allows a gunslinger like Trump to pick them off one at a time. Maybe five or so strong candidates (I'm not sure any of the initial group of candidates except JEB qualifies) would have ensured that Trump was nothing more than what was original thought, a humorous diversion in an otherwise serious campaign. But once again, the voters were given smoke glass and mirrors, but not much of a choice from their party.
As for the Repubs. That was a little better as the actual voter got to decide among a wide range of candidates. Now -- maybe having 550 or so candidates isn't a good idea because it allows a gunslinger like Trump to pick them off one at a time. Maybe five or so strong candidates (I'm not sure any of the initial group of candidates except JEB qualifies) would have ensured that Trump was nothing more than what was original thought, a humorous diversion in an otherwise serious campaign. But once again, the voters were given smoke glass and mirrors, but not much of a choice from their party.
5
I'm not a member of the Labour party but I do live in the UK. You are wrong about Corbyn and this piece is an utter distortion. The reason he did well is because he's patently a decent and honest man who has connected with ordinary voters in a way that establishment politicians have failed to do for a decade. Large swathes of UK voters discovered this through social media and the live debates which exposed the right-wing media's demonisation of him as laughably false. I realise this mundane truth doesn't help you get clicks but there you are.
22
Reckless = Not How I Want
Central Planning is great except for all those pesky people.
Central Planning is great except for all those pesky people.
5
Thanks for this. It places the blame where it belongs: ON THE VOTERS.
Yes, Trump is a total disaster, but that's no surprise to those who didn't vote for him. The only serious concern is that the people who voted for him still support him. That means it can--and probably will--happen again.
What to do about that? This article comes up empty....NOT that I know either.
Yes, Trump is a total disaster, but that's no surprise to those who didn't vote for him. The only serious concern is that the people who voted for him still support him. That means it can--and probably will--happen again.
What to do about that? This article comes up empty....NOT that I know either.
5
You appear confused. The ghastly, lying, vile opponent playing with people's fears was Theresa May, who in her visible contempt stomped all over the people she needed to support her coronation.
The other one inspired the youth and talked of Hope for the first time in any election I can think of. No matter how much of a pipe dream his promises may have been if elected (and we all know what happens to politicians promises when gifted power - we've seen it before), it is far more refreshing than asking the people to ensure continuing Conservative hegemony which many people across all social and ideological divides are fed-up with.
The other one inspired the youth and talked of Hope for the first time in any election I can think of. No matter how much of a pipe dream his promises may have been if elected (and we all know what happens to politicians promises when gifted power - we've seen it before), it is far more refreshing than asking the people to ensure continuing Conservative hegemony which many people across all social and ideological divides are fed-up with.
12
Stephens underplays the significance of May allying herself with the contemptible Paisleyites of Northern Ireland to keep power. That's founded, unlike ravings about anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and Heaven knows what else.
9
The men and women who survived WWII not only knew the horrors of war, but they knew that the way to avoid the ideological polarization that caused it was to create a society that benefited the many over the few. People must benefit from from comformity to moderate values if those values are to have a chance in electoral process. Corporate interests and Wall Street's singular focus on higher returns have left too many in a position where supporting a moderate status quo is clearly not in their best interests. We have to get back to balanced society where mutual sacrifice garners mutual benefits.
12
What about "conservative" amnesia of the collective effort required to defeat both totalitarianism and the ravages of unfettered markets? Its decades-long dalliance with corporate subservience masquerading as libertarianism has helped bring us to this point - an exceptional America with the least socio-economic and health security among the wealthiest nations of the world. I agree that voters - and especially non-voters - have much to answer for. But, the ideological and political leaders who have lied about their true intentions and betrayed their constituents also share in the responsibility for the current crisis.
6
Tell the truth Mr. Stephens. This is why you don't like Corbyn:
"He voted against the Iraq invasion, has opposed successive attempts to roll back civil liberties in the fight against terrorism and has long argued against deregulation and free-market reforms."
"Under the banner of “For the Many Not the Few,” he vowed to nationalize the railroads, make universities free again and inject billions into the National Health Service by raising taxes on companies and the top 5 percent of income earners."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/world/europe/uk-jeremy-corbyn-labour-...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Doesn't sound like reckless voting to me!
"He voted against the Iraq invasion, has opposed successive attempts to roll back civil liberties in the fight against terrorism and has long argued against deregulation and free-market reforms."
"Under the banner of “For the Many Not the Few,” he vowed to nationalize the railroads, make universities free again and inject billions into the National Health Service by raising taxes on companies and the top 5 percent of income earners."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/world/europe/uk-jeremy-corbyn-labour-...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Doesn't sound like reckless voting to me!
15
This column joins another in consideration of the sensibilities of modern voters: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/more-professionalis... ("More professionalism, less populism: How
voting makes us stupid, and what to do about it"). Several points:
"The point is not that specialist or professional judgment is necessarily better than voter judgment, nor that specialists and professionals are better able to reach consensus...nor that they are free of corruption or self-interest. For the Founders to have been right in choosing a hybrid system, all that matters is that specialist and professional judgment be different than the judgment of the public... Like it or not, most of what government does simply must be decided by specialists and professionals....That is, it matters whether specialist and professional judgment would add useful information to the picture and, in combination with public judgment , tend to produce better decisions.
...modern anti-institutional populism, with its instinctive suspicion of anything or anyone deemed “elite,” often underestimates and unfairly denigrates how much intermediation has to offer—and how successful it has been. ..."
It is not enough for voters to be "more informed on the issues." Many issues require substantial expertise. The voters need to interact with those experts, as opposed to denigrating those opinions.
The West hasn't entered free-fall yet. But we had better be careful.
voting makes us stupid, and what to do about it"). Several points:
"The point is not that specialist or professional judgment is necessarily better than voter judgment, nor that specialists and professionals are better able to reach consensus...nor that they are free of corruption or self-interest. For the Founders to have been right in choosing a hybrid system, all that matters is that specialist and professional judgment be different than the judgment of the public... Like it or not, most of what government does simply must be decided by specialists and professionals....That is, it matters whether specialist and professional judgment would add useful information to the picture and, in combination with public judgment , tend to produce better decisions.
...modern anti-institutional populism, with its instinctive suspicion of anything or anyone deemed “elite,” often underestimates and unfairly denigrates how much intermediation has to offer—and how successful it has been. ..."
It is not enough for voters to be "more informed on the issues." Many issues require substantial expertise. The voters need to interact with those experts, as opposed to denigrating those opinions.
The West hasn't entered free-fall yet. But we had better be careful.
"The Labour leader “has created what some have referred to as a ‘safe space’ for those with vile attitudes toward Jewish people”"
"But there’s no need to normalize what you already like. All you need to do is raise it to the surface. Neither Corbyn nor Trump would have come as far as they did if they hadn’t seized control of their parties by stroking some inner ideological id."
The left in the U.S. has a similar same "safe space", although it's buried under many more layers of sediment and rock, and distinguishable by it's "plausibly authentic" expression of "anti-zionism" as opposed to the good old days of open anti-semitic activities.
For what it's worth, on this side of the pond, the anti Israeli sentiment appears to be more authentically linked and driven by moral questions vis-a-vis the palestinian "occupation". The European flavor of anti-semitism seems to be a more "pure" version. not necessarily tied to a moral transgression, but simply as a continuation of centuries of open hatred that need no equivocation or elaborate cover story.
"But there’s no need to normalize what you already like. All you need to do is raise it to the surface. Neither Corbyn nor Trump would have come as far as they did if they hadn’t seized control of their parties by stroking some inner ideological id."
The left in the U.S. has a similar same "safe space", although it's buried under many more layers of sediment and rock, and distinguishable by it's "plausibly authentic" expression of "anti-zionism" as opposed to the good old days of open anti-semitic activities.
For what it's worth, on this side of the pond, the anti Israeli sentiment appears to be more authentically linked and driven by moral questions vis-a-vis the palestinian "occupation". The European flavor of anti-semitism seems to be a more "pure" version. not necessarily tied to a moral transgression, but simply as a continuation of centuries of open hatred that need no equivocation or elaborate cover story.
5
'What we can learn from two electoral disasters, one near-disaster, and one pleasant surprise.'
Brexit is not a disaster nor is Trump. Brexit and Trump were the results of democratic elections, the people of the UK and US respectively spoke. Is the headline writer against the democratic process? One would be forgiven to come to that conclusion.
When Norbert Hofer (remember him) lost the retake of the recent presidential election in Austria, after winning the first vote last year before the absentee ballots were counted and narrowly reversed the outcome, he said that 'the people are always right in a democracy'. The press loves to skewer the right wing parties, but this was a very magnanimous statement, after a reversal of his win in a very narrow contest, also with election irregularities, but the MSMS will not give him any credit. Too bad that the MSM is not so magnanimous when the democratic results do not suit their agenda.
Brexit is not a disaster nor is Trump. Brexit and Trump were the results of democratic elections, the people of the UK and US respectively spoke. Is the headline writer against the democratic process? One would be forgiven to come to that conclusion.
When Norbert Hofer (remember him) lost the retake of the recent presidential election in Austria, after winning the first vote last year before the absentee ballots were counted and narrowly reversed the outcome, he said that 'the people are always right in a democracy'. The press loves to skewer the right wing parties, but this was a very magnanimous statement, after a reversal of his win in a very narrow contest, also with election irregularities, but the MSMS will not give him any credit. Too bad that the MSM is not so magnanimous when the democratic results do not suit their agenda.
4
last paragraph rephrased !
When Norbert Hofer (remember him?) lost the retake of the recent presidential election in Austria, he said that 'the people are always right in a democracy'. It was a roller coaster election. He won the first election but it was very close and the results was reversed after election rules were not followed when the absentee ballots were counted (the left leaning party counted the absentee votes before the election observers were present). A judge ruled that the election should be redone and then the envelopes for the absentee ballots were found to lack glue. A third date was held, and in the meantime of all of this, Hufer lost some of his support. The press loves to skewer the right wing parties, but this was a very magnanimous statement, after a reversal of his win in a very narrow contest, also with election irregularities, but the MSM will not give him any credit. Too bad that the MSM is not so magnanimous when the democratic results do not suit their agenda.
When Norbert Hofer (remember him?) lost the retake of the recent presidential election in Austria, he said that 'the people are always right in a democracy'. It was a roller coaster election. He won the first election but it was very close and the results was reversed after election rules were not followed when the absentee ballots were counted (the left leaning party counted the absentee votes before the election observers were present). A judge ruled that the election should be redone and then the envelopes for the absentee ballots were found to lack glue. A third date was held, and in the meantime of all of this, Hufer lost some of his support. The press loves to skewer the right wing parties, but this was a very magnanimous statement, after a reversal of his win in a very narrow contest, also with election irregularities, but the MSM will not give him any credit. Too bad that the MSM is not so magnanimous when the democratic results do not suit their agenda.
3
Very interesting that as the generation that endured ww2 leaves the planet, all that wisdom, a la EU, NATO etc., leave with them. As the saying goes, all we can learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
4
All this talk about right, left and center is misleading. There is reality and there is myth. For example, many people believe that federal deficit spending is bad for the economy. Increasing the debt is considered to be extreme left. The right want to eliminate the debt and the center wants to pay it down a bit.
But reality, in the form of history, shows that ALL 6 times we did pay down the debt 10% or more, we fell into a full blown depression. Furthermore when our debt was the largest as a percentage of GDP, over a 27 year period we increased it by 75% and enjoyed Great Prosperity.
But reality, in the form of history, shows that ALL 6 times we did pay down the debt 10% or more, we fell into a full blown depression. Furthermore when our debt was the largest as a percentage of GDP, over a 27 year period we increased it by 75% and enjoyed Great Prosperity.
12
While an electorate is responsible for educating themselves about the candidates who are seeking office, the political parties bear a far greater responsibility in having presented their members with a candidate who does not represent the party's views and platform, candidates who are viewed by the majority of the country's citizenry as unfit for office. Far too often we hear the expression "I chose the lesser of two evils". Where are the leaders that we can all respect, even if we don't always agree with them?
Here in the USA , thanks to campaign financing laws that are practically nonexistent, politicians are, for the most part, bought not elected. The unending commercials, the retoric of unending character asassination, distorted truths and outright lies go on and on until we become disgusted with all the candidates and the political process in general. The political parties, the finance laws that allow and encourage huge contributions, the media that rush to publish all the latest political dirt, the rise of false information widely distributed through social media have resulted in a polorized, disenchanted electorate.
" We the people" fear that we have lost our voice in a country founded on the principle of political freedom and so reach out to candidates that appear to be independent of the huge political machines that are grinding down the freedoms that we have for so long taken for granted.
Here in the USA , thanks to campaign financing laws that are practically nonexistent, politicians are, for the most part, bought not elected. The unending commercials, the retoric of unending character asassination, distorted truths and outright lies go on and on until we become disgusted with all the candidates and the political process in general. The political parties, the finance laws that allow and encourage huge contributions, the media that rush to publish all the latest political dirt, the rise of false information widely distributed through social media have resulted in a polorized, disenchanted electorate.
" We the people" fear that we have lost our voice in a country founded on the principle of political freedom and so reach out to candidates that appear to be independent of the huge political machines that are grinding down the freedoms that we have for so long taken for granted.
3
No generation can transmit its experience to the next, which means that no generation can ensure that its ideas will be understood. For children, the world is a given. They make of it what sense they can. They don't understand achievements of their elders as achievements, but simply as the way things are. Thus the young vote reckelssely because they don't understand, But their elders vote recklessly because they do understand, and they want the old days back again.
4
Before we lay all of the political trainwrecks (and especially the election of Donald Trump and the hegemony of the far-right in America) at the feet of "the voters," perhaps we should be more inquiring about the vote counters and the processes by which we have permitted our votes to be tallied. A lot can happen in the pitch-dark of cyberspace--where "Russians" might be hacking and insiders at outfits like Dominion, ES&S, and Command Central simply programming our sovereignty away. Until we restore public, observable vote counting, let's at least leave open the possibility that the numbers that decide our elections are not the numbers in which voters marked their ballots or otherwise attempted to register their choices.
3
The individualist, "me, me, me" values of West, especially USA have fundamental and deep impact to all spheres of life.
When one cannot see beyond themselves, their tribe, their ilk, then it is impractical to expect a good solution for all.
Combine that with lack of education, especially of the kind that truly matters: debate societies, having commitment to common values of truth, objective analysis, data and facts have all but left our educational arena. Education has become vocational, for profit and worse yet, focused on sports and recreation.
Finally, our media is saturated with sensational, partisan and negative news and information. Media was meant for educating populace of key issues, view points, encourage learning.
Unless we all agree to sacrifice some to gain some we will be like galaxies dead going further and further away from the center into our own darkness.
When one cannot see beyond themselves, their tribe, their ilk, then it is impractical to expect a good solution for all.
Combine that with lack of education, especially of the kind that truly matters: debate societies, having commitment to common values of truth, objective analysis, data and facts have all but left our educational arena. Education has become vocational, for profit and worse yet, focused on sports and recreation.
Finally, our media is saturated with sensational, partisan and negative news and information. Media was meant for educating populace of key issues, view points, encourage learning.
Unless we all agree to sacrifice some to gain some we will be like galaxies dead going further and further away from the center into our own darkness.
3
Hey Bret: It's Northern Ireland party, not "northern Irish." Sloppy script, sloppy thinking.
6
To put it mildly, I am no fan of Trump, Corbyn or May.
Here and in the U.K. the collective voice of the American and British people have made itself heard with resounding force.
As distressing as the results may be, it verges on anti-democratic to brand the voters as reckless. It sounds too much like "I wanted them to vote differently."
The American and British societies produced these "reckless" voters.
As French philosopher Joseph de Maistre so famously put it, "Every nation gets the government it deserves."
We need to look much deeper at the state of the American and British people to determine why the voted as they did. Dismissing them as reckless in the extreme.
Here and in the U.K. the collective voice of the American and British people have made itself heard with resounding force.
As distressing as the results may be, it verges on anti-democratic to brand the voters as reckless. It sounds too much like "I wanted them to vote differently."
The American and British societies produced these "reckless" voters.
As French philosopher Joseph de Maistre so famously put it, "Every nation gets the government it deserves."
We need to look much deeper at the state of the American and British people to determine why the voted as they did. Dismissing them as reckless in the extreme.
3
Finally an article that accurately casts blame in the direction of that most sacred entity, the electorate. The general electorate is indeed uninformed and does not make decisions based on critical analysis and bears real responsibility for much of the political wreckage in the world. What better evidence is there than the failure to recognize that voting for a man like Donald Trump was a terrible bet or that the UK would be stronger by going it alone, or that nationalism is the answer to economic and social ills? We the people mostly vote with our guts and not with our heads. Only national movements that make critical thinking and reason a major part of school curriculums and the germination and growth of the belief that rigor and the scientific method is the best way to understand and address societal problems will ultimately reduce the people's tendencies to self inflict serious political wounds. It will take at least a generation, but it is our best hope.
2
"democracy is a system in which people are only accountable to themselves. The recklessness of their leaders is a result of personal choices at the ballot box" -- then why do you equate all critics of Israel with anti-Semites? Israel is a democracy where citizens shape policy, so Israelis can be faily held responsible for their leaders' policies.
6
Don't really think you can talk about Corby & Trump in the same breath. Whatever one may think of the former's principles, he at least has some.
8
You lost me with your second paragraph: Lousy pollsters? The pollsters called Brexit to Close to call, and they predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the popular vote by Three percent. They were correct both times. Who completely failed us, were pundits like you, Sir, who completely mirepresented the data. A Sin you repeat in this despicable hitpiece . I'm as a German who grew up in the last decades of the cold war very much appreciate NATO, but context matters, when Nato backs the US in destabilizing the middle east, then ist is a danger to world peace.
Corbyn should be compared to Bernie Sanders not to Donald Trump. What People like about him is that he stayed true to his principles for 30 years and more. And those principles made him talk to the republican Irish at a time when the official policy was still to execute them by SAS. I have news for you, it was talking, not executions that ended the conflict in northern Ireland.
You even stoop down to the tactics of Bill O`Reilly:
a Report says "what some refer to as a safe space"
Who are those some?
Corbyn ist considerably more left than i am, and i disagree with him on quite a few issues, criticize him if you want, but do so fact based.
Warmed up marxism? Please?
Nationalizing a few private Monopolies would have been in the mainstream in Europe in the early eighties. And the neoliberal economics of Reagan and Thatcher have so thoroughly failed that you can hardly blame People who want to turn that clock back.
Corbyn should be compared to Bernie Sanders not to Donald Trump. What People like about him is that he stayed true to his principles for 30 years and more. And those principles made him talk to the republican Irish at a time when the official policy was still to execute them by SAS. I have news for you, it was talking, not executions that ended the conflict in northern Ireland.
You even stoop down to the tactics of Bill O`Reilly:
a Report says "what some refer to as a safe space"
Who are those some?
Corbyn ist considerably more left than i am, and i disagree with him on quite a few issues, criticize him if you want, but do so fact based.
Warmed up marxism? Please?
Nationalizing a few private Monopolies would have been in the mainstream in Europe in the early eighties. And the neoliberal economics of Reagan and Thatcher have so thoroughly failed that you can hardly blame People who want to turn that clock back.
17
Still another "both sides do it" article.
Lazy, trivial...not even an attempt to peel the onion.
Lazy, trivial...not even an attempt to peel the onion.
10
Despite the reference in the title to "reckless voters", Brett has used this space to tag the left with latent antisemitism.
Can't we get anything actually thoughtful from you, Brett?
Can't we get anything actually thoughtful from you, Brett?
9
This article is a disappointing piece.
9
Nasty woman here, proud to be part of the pussy-hatted nasty left who wants the government to ensure that we all (Jews included) can enjoy our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This means protecting things like affordable health coverage, quality education, job security, safe food and water, beneficial public infrastructure, control over our own reproductive choices, comfortable retirement, and sustainable stewardship of planet Earth. The far-right Ayn Randian philosophy of getting these things only works for the aggressively selfish. I will recklessly vote for candidates who want to share.
14
Behind the recklessness that Bret Stephens points out is impunity - the systemic assumption that having political and economic power allows you to get away with anything you do or say, regardless of the harm to others. Trump is the prime example. But he's far from alone. The Wall Street bankers and traders who recklessly brought on the Great Recession evaded accountability and only got richer while millions suffered. The politicians and advisers who invaded iraq after lying to the American people about WMD's still hold prestigious jobs and write lucrative memoirs without admitting their colossal, costly mistakes. One presidential candidate reveals his delight in misogyny, lies and slanders as a matter of habit, and refuses to be conventionally transparent. Millions cheer him into the White House. The losing candidate blames others for her own shortcomings. To gain a seat on the highest court, leaders of a major political party are openly dismissive of their constitutional responsibility and rewarded for their behavior. It's get all you can while the going is good and to hell with everyone else. Or in the immortal words of Alfred E. Neuman, "What, me worry?"
3
It it is a good thing that you are pointing out the hostility towards Jews that is rampant in Mr. Corbyn's Labour Party.
4
Not a great believer in democracy is this Bret fellow, is he?
Honestly, how dare you? A "vile" opponent- Jeremy Corbyn worked for peace in Northern Ireland while Mrs May's new coalition allies were the political wing of the UDA. There is a grey borderland between anti-Zionism, opposition to Israeli oppression of Palestinians, and anti-Semitism, racist hatred against Jews, but the latter is not tolerated. The Labour Party held a hearing to expel Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London, from the party.
We have an extreme Right Conservative Party bolstered by the climate change denying, Creationist, incompetent DUP- your Google term for amazed disgust is "Cash for Ash". Against that, we have a popular movement, yes, but one backed by sound economics and against Austerity.
We have an extreme Right Conservative Party bolstered by the climate change denying, Creationist, incompetent DUP- your Google term for amazed disgust is "Cash for Ash". Against that, we have a popular movement, yes, but one backed by sound economics and against Austerity.
This article is really in the dark. First, equating Trump and Corbyn is an extraordinary example of false equivalency.
It's also, second, a perfectly empty rendition of the rhetoric of "centrism," empty in its lack of historical content, but also as a really pathetic nostrum for the economic difficulties and generational and regional schisms that have opened in the neoliberal era.
Third, here we go again with a lot of anti-communist red-baiting. Oh no, Corbyn must be a "Marxist" for daring to talk about inequality. Or for speaking to those awful, undeserving, lazy young people -- who are so unlike the 70 year old baby boomers that went to college for free, inherited job and housing opportunities that were supported by social institutions, and now turn around and tell Horatio Alger stories about their valiant efforts. No wonder the young are sick of old people.
In essence this article has nothing to say about the economic situation, nothing about neoliberalism's crises, and instead attempts to conflate a left-leaning economic proposal with either trumpian malfeasance or Joseph Stalin, both of which are totally unrelated, and really pretty ridiculous. (Is this the New York Times?) If "centrism" means anything in this article, it simply points to the giant hole in the middle of the author's attempt to add anything useful, something other than cliche and faux-history, to economic and generational turmoil and the loss of futurity in places like the the US or UK.
It's also, second, a perfectly empty rendition of the rhetoric of "centrism," empty in its lack of historical content, but also as a really pathetic nostrum for the economic difficulties and generational and regional schisms that have opened in the neoliberal era.
Third, here we go again with a lot of anti-communist red-baiting. Oh no, Corbyn must be a "Marxist" for daring to talk about inequality. Or for speaking to those awful, undeserving, lazy young people -- who are so unlike the 70 year old baby boomers that went to college for free, inherited job and housing opportunities that were supported by social institutions, and now turn around and tell Horatio Alger stories about their valiant efforts. No wonder the young are sick of old people.
In essence this article has nothing to say about the economic situation, nothing about neoliberalism's crises, and instead attempts to conflate a left-leaning economic proposal with either trumpian malfeasance or Joseph Stalin, both of which are totally unrelated, and really pretty ridiculous. (Is this the New York Times?) If "centrism" means anything in this article, it simply points to the giant hole in the middle of the author's attempt to add anything useful, something other than cliche and faux-history, to economic and generational turmoil and the loss of futurity in places like the the US or UK.
18
I see Brett Stephens is still amazingly stupid in not realizing the alternative to Trump was the criminal Hillary. Whom he voted for.
Makes sense he went from the WSJ to the NYTs.
Makes sense he went from the WSJ to the NYTs.
" WE" may be dancing at the cliffs edge. BUT, the cliff is crumbling, quickly. Climate Change, perhaps?????
3
False equivalence anyone?
8
One small consolation of our national disaster is that it appears to have served as a wake up call for our European friends who were also seemingly too willing to vote someone in to 'shake it up'. Somehow I credit 45 for inadvertently sobering up the voters in the UK and France. After seeing our debacle .......they are coming out of their nationalist stupor ......to say.....no....wait.......we do not want what happened in America.
Unmitigated absurdity. This kind of drivel is the journalistic version of fiddling while Rome burns. Corbyn is some weird Trump equivalent? Corbyn is quite bright, slyly humorous, apparently reasonably honest and has 35 years of government service including recognition for his commitment to peace and social justice. You might not like his views, but this false equivalence is ridiculous.
Trump is corrupt, willfully ignorant, an admitted sexual predator, a serial liar, a likely sociopath, an inexperienced buffoon, a cheater, a fraud, a bully, a vainglorious fool, an inarticulate blowhard, a pathetic whiner, an insecure child, a negligent father, and a preening narcissist with a character disorder and the temperament of a spoiled child who should be in residential treatment.
Any other discussion invoking his name is a foolish distraction.
Trump is corrupt, willfully ignorant, an admitted sexual predator, a serial liar, a likely sociopath, an inexperienced buffoon, a cheater, a fraud, a bully, a vainglorious fool, an inarticulate blowhard, a pathetic whiner, an insecure child, a negligent father, and a preening narcissist with a character disorder and the temperament of a spoiled child who should be in residential treatment.
Any other discussion invoking his name is a foolish distraction.
8
Wow, great litany. Much like Gail Collins invocation of Romney's dog, I thought you would have to stop much earlier than you did. Thanks.
2
Thanks Bret For all the ridiculous columns about Hillary..How do you view your part in making Trump President!!
6
It is my belief that the Roberts' Court Citizens United ruined our 2016
election and other elections as well: because....
When those who can buy candidates are say one percent of the electorate,
then the voters will have no voice......
It was amazing to see that Bernie Sanders raised money almost entirely
from small do,nations from the average voter for his 2016 campaign for
President whereas: Trump was supported by Citizens United and Hillary
Clinton was also supported from the financing of the one percent who
could afford all the media advertising....
So the popular voters were overwhelmed by the one percent who could
afford to buy their candidate.
Neither Clinton or Trump were the preferred candidates by the majority of
voters....These two 'worst candidates' running for President in recent times
had a lot of very bad "baggage"....but they were making the media very very
rich...with Citizens United money and commercials...and the TABLOID
news still continues...making the media rich...newspapers rich with the
TABLOID news to this date....So I will call upon the New York Times to
rise to a level of morality which they had the privilege to be noted for by
their fine journalists of the past....and I leave these journalists names for
your Mr. Stephens to tell us all about....I do know them...but why don't you
explain my argument that Citizens United was a very bad ....say temptation
for the media...to resist...ergo...Money is indeed to root of All Evil....isn't it.
election and other elections as well: because....
When those who can buy candidates are say one percent of the electorate,
then the voters will have no voice......
It was amazing to see that Bernie Sanders raised money almost entirely
from small do,nations from the average voter for his 2016 campaign for
President whereas: Trump was supported by Citizens United and Hillary
Clinton was also supported from the financing of the one percent who
could afford all the media advertising....
So the popular voters were overwhelmed by the one percent who could
afford to buy their candidate.
Neither Clinton or Trump were the preferred candidates by the majority of
voters....These two 'worst candidates' running for President in recent times
had a lot of very bad "baggage"....but they were making the media very very
rich...with Citizens United money and commercials...and the TABLOID
news still continues...making the media rich...newspapers rich with the
TABLOID news to this date....So I will call upon the New York Times to
rise to a level of morality which they had the privilege to be noted for by
their fine journalists of the past....and I leave these journalists names for
your Mr. Stephens to tell us all about....I do know them...but why don't you
explain my argument that Citizens United was a very bad ....say temptation
for the media...to resist...ergo...Money is indeed to root of All Evil....isn't it.
3
Perhaps Stephens might read the paper that pays his salary?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/opinion/great-performance-of-donal...
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/opinion/great-performance-of-donal...
4
Is Bernie Sanders also a member of the "Nasty Left?" You know, Bernie, that guy who has was the one true stalwart of consistency and integrity in our last election, and who remains the most popular politician in America for that reason?
OK, ok, so he also wants government to represent the majority of its people rather than the .01% (how NASTY of him!). Yeah, that may have something to do with his, and Corbyn's, popularity as well. How RADICAL of them!
Good thing we have the likes of you and the New York Times to blow dog whistles and serve as trusty centurions for the Established power (of which you are, of course, members) to remind us all how reckless and dangerous us plebes behave when we consider thinking for ourselves, and actually voting for politicians who present even the slightest chance that the status quo, which has done nothing but exploit us for half a century, might change.
OK, ok, so he also wants government to represent the majority of its people rather than the .01% (how NASTY of him!). Yeah, that may have something to do with his, and Corbyn's, popularity as well. How RADICAL of them!
Good thing we have the likes of you and the New York Times to blow dog whistles and serve as trusty centurions for the Established power (of which you are, of course, members) to remind us all how reckless and dangerous us plebes behave when we consider thinking for ourselves, and actually voting for politicians who present even the slightest chance that the status quo, which has done nothing but exploit us for half a century, might change.
7
I've heard this song several times before. Anyone to the left of Attila the Hun must by definition be a Communist, Communist sympathizer, or a Robespierre.
It is always sung by a off key chorus of right wing ideologues that just know, mind you, that all would be right if the masses would just accept their lessened lot in life so the wealthy can get richer.
Hows that ledge looking now?
It is always sung by a off key chorus of right wing ideologues that just know, mind you, that all would be right if the masses would just accept their lessened lot in life so the wealthy can get richer.
Hows that ledge looking now?
5
"All this is on the voters. It’s easy to come up with reasons for why populists, bigots, radicals, xenophobes, and useful idiots are now in — or edging closer to — power throughout the West. But democracy is a system in which people are only accountable to themselves. The recklessness of their leaders is a result of personal choices at the ballot box, not impersonal social or economic forces." I hate to quote so much of you back to you, but this summarizes so perfectly what has been on my mind these last months. It is all on the voters. They did it. Russians dabbling in elections, Comey acting inappropriately re emails, unhappy ex-coal miners, all this had something to do with it. But ultimately we must blame the voters, here a slight minority though they are. We have a government supported by and supporting the Nazi no-longer-fringe and the KKK. You think we haven't walked over the ledge. I'm not so sure.
1
But hasn't Mr. Stephens, despite his criticisms here of Mr. Trump, aided Trump + supporters by calling climate change "an imaginary enemy," +
describing Obama's nuclear deal with Iran "worse than appeasing Hitler."
This seems fully polarizing.
Many of us are still trying to get over the recent Times article claiming the Republican Party’s fast journey from debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist as "a story of Democratic hubris in the Obama years."
Especially when oil, gas and coal industries funded Republicans 15 to 1 in the past 3 election cycles, and the 22 GOP senators notifying Trump to get out of the Paris accord received 11 million from these industries--with other millions unaccounted for. Talk about corrupt!!
As journalist John Harwood observed," it's a measure of asymmetric polarization in US politics that acting on climate change becomes "Democratic hubris."
Doesn't Mr. Stephens mocking of progressives for championing environmental protections, while scoffing at global warming as being "the flavor of the decade," contribute to the polarization seen in these US + world elections his article details?
describing Obama's nuclear deal with Iran "worse than appeasing Hitler."
This seems fully polarizing.
Many of us are still trying to get over the recent Times article claiming the Republican Party’s fast journey from debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist as "a story of Democratic hubris in the Obama years."
Especially when oil, gas and coal industries funded Republicans 15 to 1 in the past 3 election cycles, and the 22 GOP senators notifying Trump to get out of the Paris accord received 11 million from these industries--with other millions unaccounted for. Talk about corrupt!!
As journalist John Harwood observed," it's a measure of asymmetric polarization in US politics that acting on climate change becomes "Democratic hubris."
Doesn't Mr. Stephens mocking of progressives for championing environmental protections, while scoffing at global warming as being "the flavor of the decade," contribute to the polarization seen in these US + world elections his article details?
5
A rant of the extreme centre. Seriously, is Stephens living in 1989, back when communism and fascism were the "twin totalitarianisms?" The world has fortunately moved on since then and neoliberalism is dying. But apparently this commentator hasn't. Labelling support for Palestine versus Israel as bad, and saying that it took two generations to "unlearn the lessons of the "far left." I would expect this from The Wall Street Journal, not the New York Times. Oh wait.....
8
All the more reason for #calexit.
Spot-on! Thank you.
Islamist terrror dominated the British Parliamentary election.
Enoch Powell warned 50 years ago.
It should not be Scotland's problem. Time for Scotland to exit
the UK and continue with the EU.
Enoch Powell warned 50 years ago.
It should not be Scotland's problem. Time for Scotland to exit
the UK and continue with the EU.
You don't make a lot of friends by calling voters idiots and anti-Semites. I don't think the far-right or the far-left are really rejecting the ideological center. They are rejecting the people representing the ideological center. I don't believe Bret Stephens is truly center anyway. He wishes to appear moderate in light of recent events. However, the reality is a perspective on a spectrum. In the vast scatter plot, social party that is right and left, Stephens is upset that the dots are moving away from his own position rather than towards him. Look both ways and he's becoming isolated on the line. Dare I say irrelevant. He never stopped to reason that perhaps he himself and people like him are the reason others are moving away.
5
"He has done as much to shove the Labour Party to the nasty left as Donald Trump has shoved the Republican Party to the ugly right."
Obnoxious and deceitful article.
On the other hand this is what we get every day in the press in Britain. The Daily Mail, a paper that supported the Blackshirts in the 1930s, is the pack leader. Its role in life is to dish the dirt on any figure who opposes the Tories. The Daily Express, owned by a right wing porn baron, just makes stuff up. The Sun lampooned Labour on a daily basis. This paper is owned by Murdoch and part of stable of publications which tapped hundreds of people's mobile phones. The Telegraph is owned by two tax exiles and now accepts paid-copy. This is the press we have in Britain, and we have a BBC, which for all its virtues, has been heavily leant by the government to speak the language of the right (using the right wing press for its cue cards).
Obnoxious and deceitful article.
On the other hand this is what we get every day in the press in Britain. The Daily Mail, a paper that supported the Blackshirts in the 1930s, is the pack leader. Its role in life is to dish the dirt on any figure who opposes the Tories. The Daily Express, owned by a right wing porn baron, just makes stuff up. The Sun lampooned Labour on a daily basis. This paper is owned by Murdoch and part of stable of publications which tapped hundreds of people's mobile phones. The Telegraph is owned by two tax exiles and now accepts paid-copy. This is the press we have in Britain, and we have a BBC, which for all its virtues, has been heavily leant by the government to speak the language of the right (using the right wing press for its cue cards).
7
Mr. Stephens explains the “rising electoral success of populist authoritarian parties” by quoting a deep moral-historical assertion: “As the memory of World War II, the Holocaust and the Gulag fades, so too does the antipathy to the illiberal ideologies that spawned Europe’s past horrors,” The juxtaposition of the Holocaust with The Gulags is a sophisticated Nazi-apologists’ gambit: first, give them the Holocaust was bad but equate it with Communist state-brutality; then go ahead and ever so slightly push the claim the Communism was actually more evil than Nazism (see the “Blood Lands”).
Take that for measure: As the memory of the Indian Genocide, Slavery and the Hegemonic Devastation of South East Asia fades, so too does the antipathy to the American Neo-Con ideologies that spawned the third millennium global horrors --for example, Mr. Stephens’s off-hand absolution of NATO’s expansion and his disregard to NATO’s deterrence-destabilizing anti-missile systems’ deployment in Eastern Europe.
As to Corbyn, extreme left or not extreme left, his political rise is a (tentative) proof that the British young generation of the middle and working class isn’t as xenophobic and hope-depraved as their American counterparts.
Take that for measure: As the memory of the Indian Genocide, Slavery and the Hegemonic Devastation of South East Asia fades, so too does the antipathy to the American Neo-Con ideologies that spawned the third millennium global horrors --for example, Mr. Stephens’s off-hand absolution of NATO’s expansion and his disregard to NATO’s deterrence-destabilizing anti-missile systems’ deployment in Eastern Europe.
As to Corbyn, extreme left or not extreme left, his political rise is a (tentative) proof that the British young generation of the middle and working class isn’t as xenophobic and hope-depraved as their American counterparts.
4
It's clearly easy to make a career out of excreting words about issues one has not even the most basic understanding of. You can dislike Corbyn's politics - fair enough, he believes that anthropogenic global warming is an issue and even that Muslims are people - I can see how that would upset our overpaid interlocutor. But Corbyn a jerk, Trump style? No. In fact his refusal to be one is maybe a weakness.
7
Yesterday’s NYT piece on the “Revenge of the Young” has a more robust explanation of the rise of Jerimy Corbin than these weak, antique charges of retroded Maxisms. First Kissing Trumps rear backfired as the Britt's learned of Trump. Secondly the article,complete with video , shows the pro Corbin movement has had enough of wealth gobling all the goodies for themselves. The just want jobs, educations, healthcare, and decent care for weak and the old. To dismiss this as extremism is really quite wacky. Why does this author chose to throw baseless anti-semetic dirt, like a government in power never wrote biased report , than to address the substance of Jerimy Corbin's thrust , which if this worldwide Billionaire pillaging has got to end for the middle class to have a decent life.
6
The nasty left, eh? So glad I can read the paper I pay for and get back to back conservative gibberish in columns by right wing creeps. Today we learn that the U.K. also suffers from the maker / taker phenomenon identified by good old mitt and that apparently imbecilic Fox News consumers don't really believe the nonsense that is pounded into their heads. Really? Enough already. Idiots rule.
The op-Ed editors at the times should have one criterion before allowing a piece to go forward in the production process: Does the writer participate in false equivalency? It's a disease that spreads quicker than conjunctivitis. Unlike pinkeye you can't just wait until it goes away, so it's probably best to wash your hands frequently. It would be nice if the Timea washed its hands of the fallacy once and for all.
7
So,
Corbyn = Trump?
Equally "vile"?
Corbyn = Trump?
Equally "vile"?
5
Stephens claims It's the voters fault. Too many ruffian ignorant peasants who lack his erudite sage insight and good manners. What a bunch of ivory tower navel gazing narcissism.
America was founded by a socioeconomic educated elite white male misogynist cabal of men who owned property including enslaved Africans. Men who feared their own human nature so much that they divided power among three branches of government. And they feared their 'lesser' human beings with the voting franchise more than any foreigner. The Electoral College, along with independent state elections for President and state legislatures electing U.S. Senators and denying the right to vote to blacks and women were all intended to limit democracy.
The twin holocausts of World War II were 30 million dead Chinese beneath the Rising Sun of the Japanese Empire and the 27.5 million dead Soviets beneath the Swastika of Nazi Germany. More human beings were killed in one conventional bombing raid over Tokyo than died in either atomic bombing. While the triumph of the war was the collapse of European colonial empires and a new world order focused on expanding human natural divine equal certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for more people.
The notion that moderation is the answer is immoral. The idea that extremism is the answer is amoral. Our individual context and perspective clouds our judgement. More democracy for more people is the best that we can ever do.
America was founded by a socioeconomic educated elite white male misogynist cabal of men who owned property including enslaved Africans. Men who feared their own human nature so much that they divided power among three branches of government. And they feared their 'lesser' human beings with the voting franchise more than any foreigner. The Electoral College, along with independent state elections for President and state legislatures electing U.S. Senators and denying the right to vote to blacks and women were all intended to limit democracy.
The twin holocausts of World War II were 30 million dead Chinese beneath the Rising Sun of the Japanese Empire and the 27.5 million dead Soviets beneath the Swastika of Nazi Germany. More human beings were killed in one conventional bombing raid over Tokyo than died in either atomic bombing. While the triumph of the war was the collapse of European colonial empires and a new world order focused on expanding human natural divine equal certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for more people.
The notion that moderation is the answer is immoral. The idea that extremism is the answer is amoral. Our individual context and perspective clouds our judgement. More democracy for more people is the best that we can ever do.
2
What a shoddy, intellectually lazy, morally repugnant, and empirically imprecise column! Comparing Corbyn to Trump, please, don't insult the readers of the NYT. The charge of anti-smiths my and Putin-coddling would be laughable if it were also not so vile. Shame on Stephens and the New York Times.
8
Ah! Auto correct strikes again. I meant 'anti-semitism' not 'anti-smiths my'. Apologies...
2
In the democratized world the following statement is paramount, and the implications are horrifying and could portend the end of a ling and noble political experiment that basically misjudged humanity:
"All this is on the voters. It’s easy to come up with reasons for why populists, bigots, radicals, xenophobes, and useful idiots are now in — or edging closer to — power throughout the West. But democracy is a system in which people are only accountable to themselves. The recklessness of their leaders is a result of personal choices at the ballot box, not impersonal social or economic forces."
"All this is on the voters. It’s easy to come up with reasons for why populists, bigots, radicals, xenophobes, and useful idiots are now in — or edging closer to — power throughout the West. But democracy is a system in which people are only accountable to themselves. The recklessness of their leaders is a result of personal choices at the ballot box, not impersonal social or economic forces."
Oh please stop with the claptrap about Jeremy Corbyn hating Jews. It's slander. The actual reason you loathe Corbyn is because he says things like this, which stick in your craw:
"I share the growing concern over the failure to stop Israel’s violation of international human rights law. Add to that the impact of the blockade in Gaza, the random and arrest without trail of civilians including children, and the harassment and humiliation of Palestinians as they go about their everyday life, it is clear that human rights violations are fuelling the conflict....It is wrong that we continue to sell arms to Israel and I fully support the calls for an arms embargo."
"I share the growing concern over the failure to stop Israel’s violation of international human rights law. Add to that the impact of the blockade in Gaza, the random and arrest without trail of civilians including children, and the harassment and humiliation of Palestinians as they go about their everyday life, it is clear that human rights violations are fuelling the conflict....It is wrong that we continue to sell arms to Israel and I fully support the calls for an arms embargo."
7
Vive le France!
2
He has "shoved" the Labour Party to the "nasty left"? Wow. What's
so nasty about it? How did he "shove"? I thought he was elected by his
party. Was someone holding guns to people's heads? Wow. You lost me at that sentence.
so nasty about it? How did he "shove"? I thought he was elected by his
party. Was someone holding guns to people's heads? Wow. You lost me at that sentence.
6
More like "voting stupidly."
Democracy is the counting of heads, not what’s in them!
–Padraig Deignan
Sad but true.
–Padraig Deignan
Sad but true.
2
The left in this country is not really left. It is elites. You can not be left and abandon the workers. Read what progressives are supposed to be based on. Read Marx and see what he says about the workers. Then look what is happening here. The workers were cast aside with derivision and scorn. It took Trump to bring any attention to their plight. It is easy to feel superior living here in NY and feel the majority of "fly over country" is just filled with deplorables. You elites and your attitudes are what has made this country struggle the last 20 years. Hillary lost. Get over it! Stop trying to punish the rest of the country for your selfish hateful attitudes.
1
I will happily take responsibility for Jeremy Corbyn (who wasn't elected anything) when conservatives take reponsibility for that imbecile occupying the White House and the idiotic xenophobia know as Brexit. Conservatives have much to atone for.
5
"He has done as much to shove the Labour Party to the nasty left as Donald Trump has shoved the Republican Party to the ugly right."
Vile false equivalence, and the NYT is enabling this slander.
Vile false equivalence, and the NYT is enabling this slander.
9
Wow. This is my first--probably only-- reading of Bret Stephens and I see what the howl was about when the NYT defied hired him. Too bad the Times has insufficiently covered Jeremy Corbyn so that I unwittingly clicked on such his vile distortions of Corbyn and the genuine left.
9
Bret is a welcomed voice to the opinion page. Good move NYT. Now bring back the Public Editor.
1
For a racist conservative to allege that the left is anti: semetic; american; and underdog, is rich indeed. Chutzpah to the n'th degree. To conflate Corbyn and that treasonous trump, though, shows the shallowness of the author's mental processes.
9
This piece is a nasty bit of false-equivalency. Corbyn has repeatedly stated that the Labour Party has no place for anti-Semitism in response to idiots like Ken Livingston piping off. Trump, by contrast, encourages his followiers to single out and attack those who are different, physically and online.
What you call the extreme leftism of Corbyn is about as extreme as having a sprained ankle compared to the cancerous extremism of Trump.
What you call the extreme leftism of Corbyn is about as extreme as having a sprained ankle compared to the cancerous extremism of Trump.
10
If we keep dancing to the music being played by the discordant orchestra now on stage we will slip off the edge.
Rather than adhering to the principles of social advance which discards ideas and thoughts which are proven regressive we drag them along with us in pursuit of what? Equality? Fairness? Justice?
The fact is we carry fear and with it the failed elixirs still being peddled by those who should have been sidelined from governing at the very inception of our nation.
There is no reason why governing and governing well is still an "experiment".
We know how our society works and how to make the most efficient use of our nation's physical and our citizenry's mental resources, but rather than accept the voices of reason we still drag "otherworldly" values of whatever stripe into our civics.
While our form of government allows freedom of belief it cannot serve them all which is why there is a separation of church and state.
There is good reason why we have to leave our guns outside the courthouse.
Rather than adhering to the principles of social advance which discards ideas and thoughts which are proven regressive we drag them along with us in pursuit of what? Equality? Fairness? Justice?
The fact is we carry fear and with it the failed elixirs still being peddled by those who should have been sidelined from governing at the very inception of our nation.
There is no reason why governing and governing well is still an "experiment".
We know how our society works and how to make the most efficient use of our nation's physical and our citizenry's mental resources, but rather than accept the voices of reason we still drag "otherworldly" values of whatever stripe into our civics.
While our form of government allows freedom of belief it cannot serve them all which is why there is a separation of church and state.
There is good reason why we have to leave our guns outside the courthouse.
Sounds like this columnist is using "dog-whistle" tactics to appeal to NYT readers - claims of anti-semitism made against Corbyn, several times in the article. I see no evidence to back this up.
Having lived in England and having family and friends there, I followed this election fairly closely, and it seems clear that May's threats to privatize social security, and her ridiculous ideas to hurt the less well-off elderly did her the most damage. The Tories have been uniquely playing on fear of foreigners as a tactic, and they should have at least had the sense to hide their dastardly plans, just like the Republicans do in the US.
Having lived in England and having family and friends there, I followed this election fairly closely, and it seems clear that May's threats to privatize social security, and her ridiculous ideas to hurt the less well-off elderly did her the most damage. The Tories have been uniquely playing on fear of foreigners as a tactic, and they should have at least had the sense to hide their dastardly plans, just like the Republicans do in the US.
12
I gather if there were some more deserving high-brow nationalism, instead of this "dumbed down" version, everything would be ok for Bret.
Teresa May wanted to sell off the NHS and other government assets and make life more difficult for the poor and disabled and easier for the comfortable, and it's the left that's "nasty" and "vile"?
What a topsy-turvy sense of morality you have, Mr. Stephens.
What a topsy-turvy sense of morality you have, Mr. Stephens.
Just as the FTSE rose as the pound tanked, Corbyn's star rose as May strangled hers in the bath. Corbyn hasn't suddenly become "normalized." His leadership of the Labour Party was sharply contested up until May called the snap election. His weakness was the very reason May called the election in the first place!
The title of this column is misleading. It seems to suggest that the voters are reckless. Maybe, just maybe, and I'll say that only grudgingly. Why? Because we have feckless leaders who willfully lie. The Brexit campaign and The Donald's campaign were filled with lies, outright lies. And the spineless party and supine media participated in this feast rather than calling out the lies. Yes, the voters are ultimately responsible, but they were fed falsity.
And now, members of the party "have become accomplices in this project of their own intellectual and moral debasement." Thankfully the media has woken up from their collective stupor.
And now I hope the public is awake, wide enough to give a knockout punch to the lying demagogues in 2018.
And now, members of the party "have become accomplices in this project of their own intellectual and moral debasement." Thankfully the media has woken up from their collective stupor.
And now I hope the public is awake, wide enough to give a knockout punch to the lying demagogues in 2018.
2
Voting recklessly? That would be the United States of America.
The UK voters had rejected the rw party of Nigel Farage.
The French, Dutch and Austrians also voted down their rw parties in recent elections.
But the US voted in it’s extreme rw party, and now it controls our 3 branches. The country is in danger in a myriad of ways. We're the ones dancing at the clift's edge.
The UK voters had rejected the rw party of Nigel Farage.
The French, Dutch and Austrians also voted down their rw parties in recent elections.
But the US voted in it’s extreme rw party, and now it controls our 3 branches. The country is in danger in a myriad of ways. We're the ones dancing at the clift's edge.
6
The stuff about Corbyn being an anti-Semite is nonsense. The stuff about him representing the lunatic fringe is nonsense. When the two main parties' manifestos were published, a large part of the electorate realised that Labour were more sensible and the Tories were more extreme than they'd been led to believe. Another major reason for Labour's vote surge is that the London Bridge attack highlighted that Theresa May had starved British police of the resources they needed to keep Britain safe, and had scolded or ignored them when they'd pointed it out. The fact that Bret Stephens doesn't know this is concerning and the way he's presented Corbyn as a terrorist lover is irresponsible.
12
You left out the real reason people vote republican, giving rise to president pumpkin - false equivalency. You and your ilk demonize responsible democrats by equivocating them with far right ideologues who deny climate change and want to cut taxes and regulations on the backs of the poor and most vulnerable bear all the responsibility for the rise of the Ryan agenda, and gave birth to tRump. You broke it, you bought it. Now own up to it.
7
In essence, then, American voters are the dumbest? Actually not. We didn't elect Trump, even though 62 Americans were stupid enough to vote for an unqualified, mendacious con man. Even with Comey's help and Russian meddling, Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million. He only won via the antiquated and anti democratic electoral college.
6
Presumably you meant 62.9 million. The electoral college may be antiquated and is intentionally anti-democratic, but everyone with a brain new in advance that that's how our presidential elections are conducted. There's no evidence that either Comey or the Russians changed a single vote - that's just more whining.
1
We're not "dancing." Those of us who haven't jumped off the ledge are screaming, crying, and pulling out our hair. The press--who can't define a center except by looking at those in the jump-fest and those screaming and crying--calls our reaction "partisan."
1
Well, if it isn't a voice from the nasty center ready to make an empty character assassination on Mr. Corbyn. Look in the mirror, Mr. Stephens, Trump is the symptom but it's the neoliberalism that you love that is the problem. All of the wealth from the past 40 years has gone to the top due to your heroes Thatcher, Reagan, Blair and the Clintons. You can have your Millband and your Jeb Bush. Thanks but no thanks. For the many, not the few!
5
Walked over the ledge, yet? Far from it. Jeremy Corbyn's "nasty left", as you call it, represents a chance for the common man to have a decent shake in life. Is that too much to ask of a government? Apparently so, in your view.
8
I honestly wish I could disentangle some of Bret Stevens' wide net of name-calling, hyperbolic adjectives and unsupported generalizations to see if there is anything there worth understanding and evaluating.
Mr. Stevens seems to have many decades of cultural bile and vitriol stored up, to be released in a flood whenever the occasion arises. (Remind you of any other commentators, and at least one White House figure?)
Perhaps if he were to focus on one issue at a time he could achieve an editorial restraint that would allow the rest of us to treat his ideas seriously. Perhaps.
Regards,
JV
Mr. Stevens seems to have many decades of cultural bile and vitriol stored up, to be released in a flood whenever the occasion arises. (Remind you of any other commentators, and at least one White House figure?)
Perhaps if he were to focus on one issue at a time he could achieve an editorial restraint that would allow the rest of us to treat his ideas seriously. Perhaps.
Regards,
JV
5
Fox news. Radicalization of the right. Republicans are mostly John Burchers not just a faction. No taxes, unlimited guns, no government regulations, no government, because it is the problem. Who win in this environment, the rich. Their biggest expense is taxes. A good society needs the money recycled for the public good, a poor society let's the rich keep most of the money.
2
Equating Corbyn with Trump immediately discredits anything else you have to say.
5
Trying to make Jeremy Corbyn the British version of Trump is beyond disengenuous. It's plain false. The current president a reality show host, misogynist, racist, possible rapist and all-around con-man who may or may not have been fairly elected to an office that he is now using as his personal cash cow. He has proven over and over again his inability to stop lying, contradicting himself, tweeting while brain-dead, then denying what he tweeted or lied about. He's a narcissist and may likely have lost his grip on truth and reality a long time ago. He has no ideal except himself and money. He is a paranoid conspiracy theorist when it suits him and a walking anachronism. He may actually believe he can bring back the coal industry single-handedly when reality screams otherwise.
Corbyn, on the other hand, has a broad range of support among young people and others that Labour neglected in its efforts to be junior partner to the U.S.A. during the Blair, Brown and Cameron eras. He needs to be persuaded to wear a tie and he's not so enthralled with NATO, but neither is he an anti-Semite or a race baiter, unlike Trump. He speaks in full sentences. He has been consistent in his values and positions over the years, which is why so many hate him.
So yes, the similarities are uncanny - or they would be if "uncanny" meant far and few between. Maybe you should explain what you mean by the "nastiness" of the left and the "ugliness" of the right in a future column.
Corbyn, on the other hand, has a broad range of support among young people and others that Labour neglected in its efforts to be junior partner to the U.S.A. during the Blair, Brown and Cameron eras. He needs to be persuaded to wear a tie and he's not so enthralled with NATO, but neither is he an anti-Semite or a race baiter, unlike Trump. He speaks in full sentences. He has been consistent in his values and positions over the years, which is why so many hate him.
So yes, the similarities are uncanny - or they would be if "uncanny" meant far and few between. Maybe you should explain what you mean by the "nastiness" of the left and the "ugliness" of the right in a future column.
8
As a Jew (and proud to be one) and an anti-Zionist (and proud to be one), I find this article not only off-base but offensive.
There are certainly those whose anti-Zionism is a fig leaf covering their anti-Semitism, but it is tiring - and, more importantly, simply wrong - to imply that anti-Zionism necessary equates with anti-Semitism.
In fact, I am anti-Zionist, among other reasons, because I think Zionism has been and is "bad for the Jews".
In Western countries, anti-Semitism is doubtless present, but is also, currently and thankfully, much less rabid and influential that a series of other prejudices, among them Islamophobia.
Ask yourselves a simple question: would you rather be a Jew or a Moslem right now in the United States or the United Kingdom? I think that answers itself.
There are certainly those whose anti-Zionism is a fig leaf covering their anti-Semitism, but it is tiring - and, more importantly, simply wrong - to imply that anti-Zionism necessary equates with anti-Semitism.
In fact, I am anti-Zionist, among other reasons, because I think Zionism has been and is "bad for the Jews".
In Western countries, anti-Semitism is doubtless present, but is also, currently and thankfully, much less rabid and influential that a series of other prejudices, among them Islamophobia.
Ask yourselves a simple question: would you rather be a Jew or a Moslem right now in the United States or the United Kingdom? I think that answers itself.
Nice try Brett. Next you will tell us that Rachel,Maddow is only the left wing version of Rush Limbaugh. This somehow ( in your mind) makes trump less of your right wing problem, and more a reckless voter problem.
No sir. Trump is the distraction, while the conservatives enact their revolting agenda. Lowering the standard of living for poor people, in order to increase it for those at the top.
No sir. Trump is the distraction, while the conservatives enact their revolting agenda. Lowering the standard of living for poor people, in order to increase it for those at the top.
It's a sad state of the world when anyone with genuine concern for others who wants to help create a fairer society where people earn a decent living is branded the 'nasty left'. Seems to me with comments like this that it is not really the left who are nasty.
5
Having lived in London for a time (my wife is from there) Some thoughts come to mind.Neither Corbyn or May is a really good choice. Kind of like Donald and Hillary.
I see people on this board addressing some things and not others. The far left of Labour is out and out Anti-Semitic. This is not just about Israel, it's about Jews. There have been several incident during voting where people were attacked at the polling place by people yelling kill the Jews. Those are in articles in British newspapers. So, not fantasy. Corbyn does hang out with terrorists, he has publicly called Hamas and Hezbollah his friends and has invited IRA terrorits to Parliament. Add in Red Ken and few others I could name and the attitude Labor towards Jews is clear.
May is toast, stick a fork in her, she's done. there will be another election soon. God save the Queen because the politicians on both sides can't even save themselves.
I see people on this board addressing some things and not others. The far left of Labour is out and out Anti-Semitic. This is not just about Israel, it's about Jews. There have been several incident during voting where people were attacked at the polling place by people yelling kill the Jews. Those are in articles in British newspapers. So, not fantasy. Corbyn does hang out with terrorists, he has publicly called Hamas and Hezbollah his friends and has invited IRA terrorits to Parliament. Add in Red Ken and few others I could name and the attitude Labor towards Jews is clear.
May is toast, stick a fork in her, she's done. there will be another election soon. God save the Queen because the politicians on both sides can't even save themselves.
I wonder whether you are suggesting the following, Mr. Stephens.
That, a cynical, largely angry and frustrated group of people - who for one reason or another - have lost their currency, find no reason not to attach themselves to the nihilism of the left or the right. Of course the anti-Semitism of Corbyn's acolytes is reprehensible.
If so, there is solid supporting evidence from sociology, culture, and anthropological literature.
However, I would hate for people to therefore also infer the following:
a. That the anger and frustration that Trump supporters feel has resulted from factors beyond their control, or that they should have their pre-civil rights privileges restored to them.
b. That the acolytes of Corbyn and Trump are morally equivalent.
The sanguine tones of the center that view the right and the left as morally equivalent are reprehensible.
Trump acolytes want slavery restored, civil rights gone, and people deported if not gassed. The left is not staffed by people with rich experiences working for Pol Pot or Che Guevara. Trump has ex-Nazis on his staff.
The left shows signs of inexhaustible hubris, stupidity, and cowardice. They do not however, exhibit beliefs, values, and actions that can match the insurmountable evil of the right. While I would not willingly choose either, I am quite clear who is preferable if they are the only choices.
Your turn. Do you?
Kalidan
That, a cynical, largely angry and frustrated group of people - who for one reason or another - have lost their currency, find no reason not to attach themselves to the nihilism of the left or the right. Of course the anti-Semitism of Corbyn's acolytes is reprehensible.
If so, there is solid supporting evidence from sociology, culture, and anthropological literature.
However, I would hate for people to therefore also infer the following:
a. That the anger and frustration that Trump supporters feel has resulted from factors beyond their control, or that they should have their pre-civil rights privileges restored to them.
b. That the acolytes of Corbyn and Trump are morally equivalent.
The sanguine tones of the center that view the right and the left as morally equivalent are reprehensible.
Trump acolytes want slavery restored, civil rights gone, and people deported if not gassed. The left is not staffed by people with rich experiences working for Pol Pot or Che Guevara. Trump has ex-Nazis on his staff.
The left shows signs of inexhaustible hubris, stupidity, and cowardice. They do not however, exhibit beliefs, values, and actions that can match the insurmountable evil of the right. While I would not willingly choose either, I am quite clear who is preferable if they are the only choices.
Your turn. Do you?
Kalidan
2
The CLIFF needs a great big beautiful wall. And Mexico will pay for it.
3
Communism and social democracy are different things.
9
All that to say this: we get the gov't we deserve.
The Romans didn't want to give the vote to the unwashed masses and one day on planet Trump makes it clear why. If there is a god, let him/her seed the world with a pod of benevolent dictators. Maybe Trump was god's latest try at that.And an epic fail. Sent us a spoiled child who thinks he sent himself here to save the world.
Can't make this stuff up.
The Romans didn't want to give the vote to the unwashed masses and one day on planet Trump makes it clear why. If there is a god, let him/her seed the world with a pod of benevolent dictators. Maybe Trump was god's latest try at that.And an epic fail. Sent us a spoiled child who thinks he sent himself here to save the world.
Can't make this stuff up.
Oh good, in addition to the conservative Republican rambling of David Brooks, and the religious conservative Republican preaching of Ross Douthat, the New York Times now gives me the right-wing conservative Republican diatribes of Bret Stephens imported from the solidly right-wing Wall Street Journal opinion pages.
The damage of this ridiculous move was immediate and concrete. The new head of the EPA bolstered his climate change denying press conference the other day by quoting directly from an opinion piece by climate change denier Bret Stephens here in the New York Times, able to now say basically "See? Even the New York Times agrees that climate change is a hoax!"
Stephens' ridiculous rant about Jeremy Corbyn misses the real meaning of what happened in the UK elections, which was, together with the defeat of Marine Le Pen in France, the breaking of the extreme right-wing fever that had risen in seemingly much of the globe recently. The fever broke too late to prevent the temporary insanity from giving us Donald Trump as President, but it appears as if antibodies are now working to purge him from our system, or at the very least limit the damage he does.
In the meantime the New York Times, seemingly still in a feverish daze, goes in the opposite direction from history, hiring right-wing polemicists under the guise of providing "all sides" of the story.
Bad move.
The damage of this ridiculous move was immediate and concrete. The new head of the EPA bolstered his climate change denying press conference the other day by quoting directly from an opinion piece by climate change denier Bret Stephens here in the New York Times, able to now say basically "See? Even the New York Times agrees that climate change is a hoax!"
Stephens' ridiculous rant about Jeremy Corbyn misses the real meaning of what happened in the UK elections, which was, together with the defeat of Marine Le Pen in France, the breaking of the extreme right-wing fever that had risen in seemingly much of the globe recently. The fever broke too late to prevent the temporary insanity from giving us Donald Trump as President, but it appears as if antibodies are now working to purge him from our system, or at the very least limit the damage he does.
In the meantime the New York Times, seemingly still in a feverish daze, goes in the opposite direction from history, hiring right-wing polemicists under the guise of providing "all sides" of the story.
Bad move.
10
The "small northern Irish party" Stephens refers to is the evangelical DUP, Theresa's new partner in government. It was founded by a man who interrupted a speech by John Paul II by screaming: "I denounce you as the Antichrist!". A man who picketed gay rights events, saying homosexuality should be criminalized. The current DUP, replete with homophobes, anti-Catholics, creationists and climate change-deniers, has not softened such positions. Any opinion piece about radicalization, nastiness and the West walking over the ledge does a disservice to its readers by not pointing out that May's favorite new "partner" is as vile as any political party one can currently find in Europe.
9
In 2010, Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas found for Citizens United. Unlimited money into politics.
And thus began, the politicians volunteering for the "Do the Jerk" dance contest to see what outrageousness would attract enough of the disenfranchised to get them crowned king of the spectacle.
And so, the Mega-donors bequeathed the greatest treasure to the Biggest Jerks, hungry newbies, eager to please (and to be rewarded) by their donor masters.
And now, in the chaos of "big donor" government and the inevitable pushback from the people, the Mega-donors will have to resort to their doomsday strategy: a false flag operation or a convenient crisis.
Stay very aware, people, and question everything, The people are being herded toward the cliff, but unlike lemmings, we are going to get in the faces of our elected representatives and then we will elect the incorruptible.
Back into your holes, Mega-donors, because God made the cliffs for you, the people advise against your efforts to start a stampede.
And thus began, the politicians volunteering for the "Do the Jerk" dance contest to see what outrageousness would attract enough of the disenfranchised to get them crowned king of the spectacle.
And so, the Mega-donors bequeathed the greatest treasure to the Biggest Jerks, hungry newbies, eager to please (and to be rewarded) by their donor masters.
And now, in the chaos of "big donor" government and the inevitable pushback from the people, the Mega-donors will have to resort to their doomsday strategy: a false flag operation or a convenient crisis.
Stay very aware, people, and question everything, The people are being herded toward the cliff, but unlike lemmings, we are going to get in the faces of our elected representatives and then we will elect the incorruptible.
Back into your holes, Mega-donors, because God made the cliffs for you, the people advise against your efforts to start a stampede.
2
Bret, you have no standing respectfully to bemoan the near disaster in the UK. Who was speaking out against the anti-semitic and Holocaust deniers surrounding Corbyn, I heard only silence in our elite media. Instead an ongoing obsession with our duly elected President drowned out these crucial facts. We have a President devoted to cementing US - Israel bonds and building our Nation. You fail to acknowledge we are past the era of international approaches and in a new era of America First, you are not pleased, but that is the will of our voters. Within those parameters President Trump's priorities include protecting Israel and fighting radical Islamic terrorism. We all indeed dodged a bullet in the UK, but I thank God our President was elected here to protect us overall.
Corbyn vile? What garbage: this was a vote for "Daniel Blake," the British workingman or woman who has been abused by politicians of the Third Way for a generation--the Blairs, Camerons, Mays, and on this side of the water, the Clintons and Obamas who claim to stand up for average folks, then sell out to the plutocracy. Ordinary Britons, young and old, rejected that trickery for the same reasons the Sanders camp shows no quit. They recognize the class enemy, and they won't be distracted by other issues.
This column is pure pandering--its analysis couldn't be more wrong.
This column is pure pandering--its analysis couldn't be more wrong.
6
People tend to forgive the extreme ideologies and personal transgressions of people whose politics they prefer. Voters, left and right, are often not as extreme as Corbyn or Trump, but would rather elect an extremist of their own party rather than of the other. Theresa May smiled sweetly while proposing that elderly British pay "more for their care," which did not go down well. Cutting police also was a negative for her. Average folks all hope to make it to elderly-ness without living in poverty. Everyone wants to feel and be safe. All of our leaders have feet of clay but we need them to have hearts of gold, heads full of facts and widely beneficial policy plans. Where are these people?
13
I usually don't agree with you Bret, but this is exactly what it comes down to. The right loves to pontificate about personal responsibility, but ignores the fact that this encompasses one's responsibility to act with integrity, decency, and respect for fact. One's character is reflected in one's choices, including a willful vote for depraved candidates. These voters own their choice, whether they acknowledge it or not. People of reason and moderation who did not vote are also at fault; their abstinence was also a choice they must own. We will not be able to move forward and address the real problems that exist for millions of these voters until they take the responsibility to become educated, and/or exercise their civic duty.
11
"It took three generations to lose the lessons of prewar isolationism. It took two to ignore the benefits of postwar European integration." And it took House Republicans nine years to forget the Great Recession. They just repealed Dodd-Frank, our protection against Wall Street greed. Voters were not clamoring to be put at risk of having to bail out banks. No, the fringe right is "dancing at the cliff edge" of a kleptocracy all by itself. Right-wing "populism" is a lie.
28
Dodd-Frank was written by the Wall Street banks for their own benefit. It has been main street and the community and small regional banks that took the hit from Dodd-Frank.
1
Apparently Corbyn's mortal sin is to hold left wing views. Whereas all the right wing did -- including Britain's foreign minister under May, Boris Johnson -- was to lie outright to the British people about the costs and benefits of Brexit, thus bringing Brexit about, and then to pursue a hard Brexit with a kind of ideological fervour (May herself). Yeah, gosh, it's such a relief, as the writer suggests, that May is still able to scrape together a slim, tottering majority. After all, she's not an extremist.
20
The enemy is ignorance. Without knowledge of what is the truth and at least a smattering of wisdom to guide how to make decisions based upon the truth, voters will continue to make choices that are often worsening their own situation.
A certain small fraction of the population now controls much of what is disseminated to the public as truth and fact. The Koch brothers are supporting many of the economics programs at universities, giving them a say in what is taught- an opportunity to promote their brand of free market economics. Super pacs flood the airways with biased and false views- usually negative- of opposing candidates. FOX news promotes skewed news reports along with some that are totally false. CNN does not promote false reports as FOX does, however, their reporting is otherwise almost indistinguishable from FOX with their own skewed presentations of the news.
The people who control the information the voters receive to a large extent control their choices. I have an advanced degree in education and a bachelors in economics. The news cycle is so fast I can't keep up even though I try to absorb as many viewpoints as possible.
I think some voters are lazy and some are reckless. However, the primary problem voters encounter is ignorance in the midst of information and misinformation bombarding them each day as they try just to make ends meet and take care of their families.
Caring, enlightened voters ARE the answer...truth and wisdom the keys.
A certain small fraction of the population now controls much of what is disseminated to the public as truth and fact. The Koch brothers are supporting many of the economics programs at universities, giving them a say in what is taught- an opportunity to promote their brand of free market economics. Super pacs flood the airways with biased and false views- usually negative- of opposing candidates. FOX news promotes skewed news reports along with some that are totally false. CNN does not promote false reports as FOX does, however, their reporting is otherwise almost indistinguishable from FOX with their own skewed presentations of the news.
The people who control the information the voters receive to a large extent control their choices. I have an advanced degree in education and a bachelors in economics. The news cycle is so fast I can't keep up even though I try to absorb as many viewpoints as possible.
I think some voters are lazy and some are reckless. However, the primary problem voters encounter is ignorance in the midst of information and misinformation bombarding them each day as they try just to make ends meet and take care of their families.
Caring, enlightened voters ARE the answer...truth and wisdom the keys.
72
"He has done as much to shove the Labour Party to the nasty left as Donald Trump has shoved the Republican Party to the ugly right."
Because free school lunches and a Muslim ban really share _so_ much moral equivalence. Though I wouldn't expect anything less from a neocon thinkpiece trying to pretend that moral repugnance isn't solely his party's issue.
Because free school lunches and a Muslim ban really share _so_ much moral equivalence. Though I wouldn't expect anything less from a neocon thinkpiece trying to pretend that moral repugnance isn't solely his party's issue.
49
Oh well put! Perfect, succinct call out withe true problem of false equivalence, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood reasonable sounding hard right ideologue who gives cover to racists.
As I, a lifelong Democrat, read this article and the comments, am struck by claims of only attacking the left when this article warns us, as voters, of the dangerous lies and directions of extremist parties. I am upset at the Democrats for focusing on the faults of Trump, a failed electoral strategy, rather than put up a for discussion a centrist platform they would be willing to support on health care, immigration, tax reform, etc should the Republicans propose them. The Contract with America propelled a persistent Republican majority in the House. Extremism from any side relies on intellectual laziness to perpetuate itself. I would love to see Mr Stephens send this article to McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, and Ryan suggesting that they go to Pence and assure him of sustaining invoking the 25th Amendment if he agrees to immediately nominate Comey for VP. End this American nightmare immediately.
10
I wouldn't hold my breath on any of that happening, Wayne.
A democrat wanting Pence and his anything but christian agenda in the white house is insane.
2
Talk about getting the story wrong, not a word about Milennials/young people getting out to vote because they disdain global neo-liberalism, austerity is a gov't invention.
8
The attempt to equate Trump and Corbyn is lazy and ultimately demonstrably false. Corbyn does not lie. He is not a grifter. He fights for the many and not the few. He is not perfect (who is?) and I don't agree with his every position but he has reintroduced hope and honesty to British politics. Instead we are left with a power-hungry Tory party out to enrich the super-rich at the expense of the everyone else. What's worse is the alliance with homophobic and misogynistic party some of whose leaders are connected to acts of terrorism. Nice to see what sort of rubbish you support Bret.
29
Bret,
No one is perfect. If I were British and had to "pick my poison" I would surely choose Corbyn over May.
May was against Brexit, was politically savvy enough to fill a void in her party post Brexit to become PM, and lead Brexit policy; exactly the opposite of what she stood for. And, now, she is utterly at sea trying to execute it. No convictions.
She is also turning UK into the next Greece with her austerity measures.
Doesn't generally care for people but her own place as PM in the history books.
The last nail in the coffin for me was when she called the flash elections and refused to participate in debates for elections that she herself thrust on a country tired of elections. May must have thought that with Corbyn on the other side I simply need to ride the "oh not him" wave. That to me is the height of hubris, hypocrisy, ignorance of voter needs and disrespect for voters.
Corbyn, at least this time, had a better platform and showed that he understood the voter sentiments. Most importantly, was moving to the center, which, I agree is essential to maintain a " society."
No one is perfect. If I were British and had to "pick my poison" I would surely choose Corbyn over May.
May was against Brexit, was politically savvy enough to fill a void in her party post Brexit to become PM, and lead Brexit policy; exactly the opposite of what she stood for. And, now, she is utterly at sea trying to execute it. No convictions.
She is also turning UK into the next Greece with her austerity measures.
Doesn't generally care for people but her own place as PM in the history books.
The last nail in the coffin for me was when she called the flash elections and refused to participate in debates for elections that she herself thrust on a country tired of elections. May must have thought that with Corbyn on the other side I simply need to ride the "oh not him" wave. That to me is the height of hubris, hypocrisy, ignorance of voter needs and disrespect for voters.
Corbyn, at least this time, had a better platform and showed that he understood the voter sentiments. Most importantly, was moving to the center, which, I agree is essential to maintain a " society."
15
Marvelous phrase, Mr. Stephens. "...breadth of civic ignorance..." There is no depth, of course. Shallowness is the underlying foundation of ignorance. The lack of curiosity, the unwillingness to investigate, to listen, to believe your lying eyes are hallmarks of the followers of Trumpism. Evolution, global warming/climate change, Barack Obama's birth certificate: Hoaxes, one and all.
How did we get to this point? One thing to consider is that, as the right sees it, America's educational system has failed the young. What that same right refuses to accept is its contribution to that failure by demanding its own faith-based curriculum supplant the traditional logic- and science-based formula that lifted us out of the Dark Ages.
How did we get to this point? One thing to consider is that, as the right sees it, America's educational system has failed the young. What that same right refuses to accept is its contribution to that failure by demanding its own faith-based curriculum supplant the traditional logic- and science-based formula that lifted us out of the Dark Ages.
13
The USA and Britain could use a little "warmed-over Marxism" these days, as it seems Ayn -Rand-style capitalism isn't exactly workin' out for us. In contrast, Socialist countries like Norway, Denmark, and Sweden enjoy peace and prosperity. Well, at least we have more billionaires than they do. In fact, if you look at billionaires as the sign of a great society, the USA is right up there with Russia and China, our fellow crony capitalists!
12
The media clings to an outdated "left" vs "right" narrative that in no way explains what is really going on in the world. It's class warfare, autocrats vs everybody else, what's behind all the current events. The autocrats pose, lie and form coalitions with whomever caters to the lowest common denominator. And the people, in their desperation, vote for anything and anybody who appears an outsider, not tainted by the ultimate pervasive corruption.
Things are much worse in the US with it's unlimited money = virtue dogma, but the same trend is going on everywhere.
Things are much worse in the US with it's unlimited money = virtue dogma, but the same trend is going on everywhere.
9
It's called checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism and all the other institutions we already have to balance the fevers of human emotion. It's too bad that across 25 years people on both sides have turned a blind eye toward the excesses of their respective Golden Boys, and then created higher standards for the presidents they don't like. Stephens is exactly right --- WE own this. You want balance and a strong center? Then rein in presidents and parties you like before demanding that the other party show some discipline. Maybe then we will all trust one another again.
3
There was a film some years ago called "The Cooler" about a guy who was so unlucky that casinos sent him around to 'hot' tables to end winning streaks.
Trump is now that guy, in spades. First Marine Le Pen, now May. Anyone out there got a right wing candidate you need to defeat? Get Trump to endorse them and the game is over.
It is futile to resist the mystical power of Covfefe!
Trump is now that guy, in spades. First Marine Le Pen, now May. Anyone out there got a right wing candidate you need to defeat? Get Trump to endorse them and the game is over.
It is futile to resist the mystical power of Covfefe!
10
"Trump has shoved the Republican Party to the ugly right??" What about ugly Democratic leaders who have known for months that Trump wasn't being investigated and still acted like he was? Or an ugly media who released leak after leak, but not the fact that Trump wasn't under investigation. That's true ulgyness of character.
1
Reading this reminds me of Diane Vaughan's brilliant analysis of the Challenger Disaster when she developed the idea of the "normalization of deviance".
Vaughan was writing about management and engineering, but the same phenomenon can been seen in contemporary politics where yesterday's extreme views have become today's norms - something seen at its most depressing in the Republican Party.
WB Yeats' wrote that "the centre cannot hold". We need to fight to get it back and prove him wrong. Most of all, America needs the Republican party to somehow find its way back to its traditional values.
Vaughan was writing about management and engineering, but the same phenomenon can been seen in contemporary politics where yesterday's extreme views have become today's norms - something seen at its most depressing in the Republican Party.
WB Yeats' wrote that "the centre cannot hold". We need to fight to get it back and prove him wrong. Most of all, America needs the Republican party to somehow find its way back to its traditional values.
2
"It has taken just a single generation to forget the sins of the far left: anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism; anti-Americanism masquerading as pacifism; fellow-traveling with dictators and terrorists masquerading as sympathy for the wretched of the earth."
So, this is what it means to be "far left." I didn't know.
You could almost say it was far right, except for maybe that part about "anti-Americanism masquerading as pacifism." That would have to be changed to xenophobia masquerading as patriotism.
I believe that the UK election is less about "Corbyn's rise" than it was about the realization that the Conservatives are failing to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. The response should not be to go back to the days of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Corbyn doesn't provide the answers any more than Donald Trump does.
Focus on the personalities of celebrity candidates will lead to more disaster. The road to perdition will be paved by fake news and commentators who are so bound by their ideological binders that they lose sight of what ought to be important.
We should have learned by now that voters can be manipulated. It seems significant that Rupert Murdock has a major presence in both the US and the UK. Throw in a few Russian dirty tricks and democracy is in danger.
So, this is what it means to be "far left." I didn't know.
You could almost say it was far right, except for maybe that part about "anti-Americanism masquerading as pacifism." That would have to be changed to xenophobia masquerading as patriotism.
I believe that the UK election is less about "Corbyn's rise" than it was about the realization that the Conservatives are failing to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. The response should not be to go back to the days of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Corbyn doesn't provide the answers any more than Donald Trump does.
Focus on the personalities of celebrity candidates will lead to more disaster. The road to perdition will be paved by fake news and commentators who are so bound by their ideological binders that they lose sight of what ought to be important.
We should have learned by now that voters can be manipulated. It seems significant that Rupert Murdock has a major presence in both the US and the UK. Throw in a few Russian dirty tricks and democracy is in danger.
4
Mr. Stephens: You covered everything is just a few words - "because we have lousy pollsters and lackluster mainstream politicians. There's also the matter of reckless voters." Perfect ending to the saga of a Twit with a Twitter. All we the people have to do is hope the world stops laughing at us before the next election. Which I doubt will happen.
3
Brett
These unusual outcomes might reflect that Russia has succeeded in cyber hacking, we do need to find these answers. The survival of the world depends on the outcome of the investigation. (We need to see Trump's tax returns, with schedules, for the past ten years.). Trump had many of his top individuals in constant contact with the Russians, why?
These unusual outcomes might reflect that Russia has succeeded in cyber hacking, we do need to find these answers. The survival of the world depends on the outcome of the investigation. (We need to see Trump's tax returns, with schedules, for the past ten years.). Trump had many of his top individuals in constant contact with the Russians, why?
3
What a superbly written, big picture article. I think that the French learned something from the American electoral disaster, and I admire them for their smarts and their manifest maturity in managing their civic responsibilities.
3
You are so correct. In America we did avoid a disaster. Clinton almost won which would have had our country maintaining a downward spiral abroad and domestically..
Trump may be a self centered dolt but he was spot on about our problems. We needed to change and we need to clean out all of these old line politicians... And I am referring to both sides of the aisle.
Trump may be a self centered dolt but he was spot on about our problems. We needed to change and we need to clean out all of these old line politicians... And I am referring to both sides of the aisle.
Laugh out loud covfefe! One should base their votes on policy positions to problems, not who makes the most of the problems. Talk about cognitive dissonance!
We're not coming back from Trump. After his weird combination of whimsical oligarchic policies and insincere theocratic decrees abetted by a feckless GOP, the US will continue to unravel for a few years before imploding. Interesting that a generation after the fall of the USSR, which should have been one of universal prosperity and progress, the US has reached this sorry state: Czarist Russia levels of inequality, Civil War levels of division, and no solution in sight. Enjoy the show. I think I know how this one ends.
It's no so much voting recklessly as voting stupidly. Electing Trump president was the height of stupidity as anyone with an ounce of sense could see that a serial liar would never be able to fulfil the promises he made on the campaign trail. Brexit was also the height of stupidity that will isolate Britain, constrain its economy and remove all the advantage of EU membership. And when Trump is impeached for abuse of power -- or resigns to avoid that humiliation -- Britain will be truly alone.
64
So comforting to know that those on the far left can easily divide the country into those who think like them and therefore are smart like them, and everyone else, who are stupid.
No Brett, the main issues that lost the Tories the majority were their own party manifesto and PM May's utter tone-deafness, hubris, and arrogance. This was self-immolation of the highest variety. Even the conservative voices on the News Quiz have been ridiculing her Orwellian presentation of herself as the only thing between anarchy and order. The Labour manifesto was also ridiculous--because it was a "what the heck, we aren't going to win so let's just give it everything we've got" wish list of tax hikes for the wealthy and a return to social justice and a top-down approach to diversity, inclusion, and financial growth. There's nothing wrong with those ideals. However, the Tory party's vision of the next five years includes fox hunting, removing welfare payments for dementia patients, raising university fees, and cutting taxes on the wealthy while eviscerating social programs for everyone else: who does THIS sound like?
It isn't Corbyn who is out of touch. It's you.
It isn't Corbyn who is out of touch. It's you.
7
Voters can become reckless in a two-party system like we have in the US and the one in Britain. Not so much in the French presidential election. It's about time we jettison the left-right straightjackets and focus on solving people's real problems.
2
Let's see. Where else has an unlikely individual risen to power promising the world to his followers? And only has delivered on promises which will have minimal impact on their day to day lives? The reason why May lost was her arrogance, failure to deliver for the common person, and a willingness to punish the defenseless. Let's see how that works out here. When you are expecting changes to help you have a better life, there won't be a whole lot of patience from the voters. Didn't take May very long to fall from grace. And if the politicians can't figure it out quickly enough, the voters are here to remind them. And my bet is the Republicans, like the Democrats, will scratch their heads and wonder where it all went wrong.
1
I happen to agree completely with the author's view of both Trump and Corbyn. But what he's saying here, in essence, is that people who voted for Trump and Corbyn are reckless and endanger the prevailing social order. The author understands the world view and imperatives of white, upper middle class Americans and Europeans, the socio-economic group to which he belongs. From that he concludes that his particular viewpoint is the non-reckless, responsible one to have. In essence, everyone should think like me, and if they don't they're simply wrong. "What I know, I know. What you know is very much open to debate." It's this kind of attitude that brought us Trump in the first place.
A more useful point of view would be to ask why people voted for Trump and Corbyn in the first place (not all of those voters are bigots, radicals, etc.), and then explore ways of meeting some of their concerns, thereby cooling the political atmosphere and perhaps dampening the appeal of the right- and left-wing populism that Mr. Stephens so deplores.
Not everyone
A more useful point of view would be to ask why people voted for Trump and Corbyn in the first place (not all of those voters are bigots, radicals, etc.), and then explore ways of meeting some of their concerns, thereby cooling the political atmosphere and perhaps dampening the appeal of the right- and left-wing populism that Mr. Stephens so deplores.
Not everyone
First, the UK election is not like a US presidential election. It isn't about electing one person. Just because Labour saw gains it doesn't mean that Jeremy Corbin appeals to many voters as a leader. Probably more about the many inadeqacies of Conservative policy, especially in economics.
Secondly, in modern democratic systems saying people are only accountable to themselves is a bit ridiculous. Didn't you just elect a president who recieved more than two million votes less that his opponent? The structure of the system matters. Procedure matters. Voters have little influence over these things.
Secondly, in modern democratic systems saying people are only accountable to themselves is a bit ridiculous. Didn't you just elect a president who recieved more than two million votes less that his opponent? The structure of the system matters. Procedure matters. Voters have little influence over these things.
The 'respectable' left, gave Britain the likes Blair, who was a loyal lapdog to the US in its misbegotten war on Iraq, not to mention making Britain a big, more accessible target of terror attacks. Corbyn is "vile?" Listen, Mr Stephens, austerity has gone far enough, and the voters told PM May that in no uncertain terms. Even's Trump's freak electoral college election can be ascribed to his outflanking of centrist H.Clinton from her left on trade. Seems that corporate centrists are not getting the job done, and the wealth is being vacuumed up by the most wealthy. That leaves an opening for freaks like Trump who are beloved among the white nationalist community. Comparing him to Corbyn is out of line.
4
The French election was a relief but want totally on script. Like her father Jean-Marie, Marine Le Pen had no chance winning the French election and we defeated her simply by turning out to vote (75% voter turnout was a bit low but still ok). Democracy dies with abstention
2
The first paragraph sets the tone: it's a shambles. It seems the elections or referenda in The Netherlands, Austria, and Italy didn't register on the Stephens radar. Neither did the right-wing horrors of Poland and Hungary. "Civic ignorance" is a cop-out of an explanation of the right-ward trend of Western democracies. No one knows everything; no one knows the future; nativist populations are scared and not only ignorant. They're scared and the powerful in society like that and do what they can to keep the fear alive.
1
You can take the man out of the WSJ, but you can´t take the WSJ out of the man. Bret's piece is pure, far right hysteria. Corbyn is much closer to the center than Thatcher and mildly proposes to undo some of the worst changes she made in English society (that she denied existed). He wants to fund NHS adequately--good!--make university education, the way out of the underclass, free (as in most of the Nordic countries)--good!--renationalize some of the industries Thatcher gave to privateers, better! The great experiment of cutting taxes for the rich and raising them for the rest (Thatcher,Reagan, Mulroney--and Brownback) failed the people but pleases the top of the 1%.
6
So, what can the 'nice' right offer? Tax cut for the rich and race to the bottom for everybody else? And talking about hypocrisy, didn't Thatcher praise Pinochet for 'preserving democracy'?
Yes there is voter ignorance, yes no political ideology owns stupidity. My take, humanity is showing signs of the end. Overpopulation will destroy our planet, our political dysfunction is merely a symptom of a species in danger of imploding into extinction.
1
American politics has moved so far to the right that even mild-mannered Jeremy Corbyn, by European standards a moderate Social Democrat, is being painted as a neo-Stalinist authoritarian and a threat to democracy.
Make no mistake - Putin's vote was for May...
Make no mistake - Putin's vote was for May...
1
you may add the recent Constitutional Referendum in Italy to the list of elections that gave results which were a total surprise - at least for the donks who had strongly worked to make them happen. As head of government at the tine, Matteo Renzi was the strongest and almost sole promoter of that poll, that in his understanding would mark the popular approval of his general reform design. But the outcome was just the opposite, and he was forced to suddenly resign from office, if only for a short time, in his dreams.
How can these top politicians be so poor at understanding the popular mood, is something that is deeply related to how our modern democracies work.
How can these top politicians be so poor at understanding the popular mood, is something that is deeply related to how our modern democracies work.
Corbyn, with alleged anti-Semitic views and all, may have won more seats in the parliament, but not nearly enough to become the Prime Minister. Likewise, a pro-Putin and anti-NATO advisor to Corbyn's is unlikely to be in the government.
In other words, unlike the US, where a pro-Putin anti-NATO candidate was elected president with an alt-Right's Bannon in a prominent position as "strategist," the British people had the good sense to not to go all in on Corbyn.
What's worse, the "year of voting recklessly" also gave us a Republican Congress whose members have become enablers and apologists for Trump.
That's a "huuge" difference.
In other words, unlike the US, where a pro-Putin anti-NATO candidate was elected president with an alt-Right's Bannon in a prominent position as "strategist," the British people had the good sense to not to go all in on Corbyn.
What's worse, the "year of voting recklessly" also gave us a Republican Congress whose members have become enablers and apologists for Trump.
That's a "huuge" difference.
2
Sadly, it's not as simple as Ed Koch's remark after losing an election, " The People have spoken … and they must be punished"..Let's hope some sanity comes out of all this.
Is it the fault of voters? Look at the choices we had here in America this past election. The two most hated candidates in (recent) history. Was our choice at the polls manipulated by big partisan money and and party elites?
There is even great concern now in America if our votes are even counted and if so in a fair way.
No this is not on the voters. It is on the citizens to reclaim their rights to begin with. We must insist upon clear and fair voter registration. We must insist upon clear and fair district lines with no monied gerrymandering. We must insist upon a limit to the influence of big partisan money in our electoral process.
We must insist that we have a public school education available to all equally.
We must insist on the truth and not fake news or propaganda being spewed at us 24/7.
In order for these things to occur the imbalance of the power of money in American society must be addressed. How does my vote count if I am being denied the right to vote by computer programs designed to eliminate my name from the voter registration rolls because it is a 'black' name? Where in this instance do I get my vote back?
When it takes billions of dollars to run a presidential campaign with any weight to it, where are the candidates going to come from? Not the masses that's for sure. Money will win out every time in American society.
Leveling the playing field will take time. And it will take the commitment of those who hold all the 'power' now to become principled.
There is even great concern now in America if our votes are even counted and if so in a fair way.
No this is not on the voters. It is on the citizens to reclaim their rights to begin with. We must insist upon clear and fair voter registration. We must insist upon clear and fair district lines with no monied gerrymandering. We must insist upon a limit to the influence of big partisan money in our electoral process.
We must insist that we have a public school education available to all equally.
We must insist on the truth and not fake news or propaganda being spewed at us 24/7.
In order for these things to occur the imbalance of the power of money in American society must be addressed. How does my vote count if I am being denied the right to vote by computer programs designed to eliminate my name from the voter registration rolls because it is a 'black' name? Where in this instance do I get my vote back?
When it takes billions of dollars to run a presidential campaign with any weight to it, where are the candidates going to come from? Not the masses that's for sure. Money will win out every time in American society.
Leveling the playing field will take time. And it will take the commitment of those who hold all the 'power' now to become principled.
1
Mr. Stephens,
You are first a neoconservative, you were an advocate for the Iraq war, insisting as late as 2013 that there was "solid evidence" for the Bush war, you suggested Iraq possessed the ability to be the first Arab nuclear threat, etc.
While you somewhat agree climate change is occurring, you believe humankind is not a cause. How can a man of your intellect be "agnostic" with respect to the human component of climate change, given the solid evidence.
And now you castigate Corbyn, a Bernie Sanders like representative of the people, one who has heard the discontent across the land, consequently seeking to bring back true representative government in the UK.
What is it with this universal blindness which affects the neoconservative and neoliberal elites, how is it you believe your brutal policies of disenfranchisement of the people are going unnoticed, don't you see the world is in the grip of a nationalistic fervor, created by your ill-advised policies; the common man, thanks to the Web, is in instant communication with like-minded people everywhere on the planet, and soon we will see a unity of purpose occur, against which the elites will be defenseless.
If that day of reckoning is to be avoided, you and your compatriots had best rethink your policies, and share the livelihood you have denied the people.
You are first a neoconservative, you were an advocate for the Iraq war, insisting as late as 2013 that there was "solid evidence" for the Bush war, you suggested Iraq possessed the ability to be the first Arab nuclear threat, etc.
While you somewhat agree climate change is occurring, you believe humankind is not a cause. How can a man of your intellect be "agnostic" with respect to the human component of climate change, given the solid evidence.
And now you castigate Corbyn, a Bernie Sanders like representative of the people, one who has heard the discontent across the land, consequently seeking to bring back true representative government in the UK.
What is it with this universal blindness which affects the neoconservative and neoliberal elites, how is it you believe your brutal policies of disenfranchisement of the people are going unnoticed, don't you see the world is in the grip of a nationalistic fervor, created by your ill-advised policies; the common man, thanks to the Web, is in instant communication with like-minded people everywhere on the planet, and soon we will see a unity of purpose occur, against which the elites will be defenseless.
If that day of reckoning is to be avoided, you and your compatriots had best rethink your policies, and share the livelihood you have denied the people.
2
Education, especially in history and critical thinking, is an antidote to such recklessness. Unfortunately, as we can see in Kansas, it is hardly a conservative priority.
2
The attack on voters, dating back to the "silent majority" through the relentless promotion of "stupid" in the 1980's and beyond, finally found pay dirt in 2016. Voters disregarded their brains for their guts, and now we are paying the price. The failure of the "intellectuals" dates back many years and is an essential aspect of any analysis of 2016.
I suppose, for Mr. Stephens, the merits and virtues of the political center are self evident. Missing here is any sense of a) what the center actually stands for beyond the vague notion of a kind of respectable, bourgeois civility and b) why the nasty and deviant electorates surging in the West would have any gripes to begin with.
2
This is so predictable, sad! The wisdom and true value of democracy should be questioned and studied at least in many other societies. In fact, binge-watching House of Cards is so yesterday. The reality TV show House of Trump is far more exciting. Seriously, what do you really expect?! Human nature is to blame others for their own shortcomings. At ballot boxes, they behave the same. Tell me between the new reality of lifelong learning and the good old days of high school graduates can have decent middle class jobs, what would be the choice for most people?! Liberals, globalists and elitists are to blame for the decline of American way of life. Of course, it is convenient and effortless. The surest sign of the decline of America is the campaign slogan Make America Great Again. If the best days of America have yet to come, then why bring back the past?
I have no solutions either because the root of the problem is in our DNA. We are doomed!
I have no solutions either because the root of the problem is in our DNA. We are doomed!
Casting Corbyn's success as the rise of anti-semitism is a ridiculous theatre of disdain and ignorance. You seek to reinforce the stereotypes by which his opponents sought to reduce a nuanced, earnest and thoughtful man to a series of conveniently abhorrent labels. Well here is the label you really want: a socialist. Then you will have them scared - because people believe that the means of production should be unregulated by government and owned by a few really, really rich guys.
1
Are you in agony over Trump? Take a deep breath. Whatever we dish out will eventually come back around and bite us anyway.. Maybe if human beings had longer life spans and longer memories we would not gallop so recklessly toward the cliff's edge. But hey, we are not all that important in the long run. History is only human-centered, ignoring all the rest of this world's life. Politics is only a human game that can turn ugly or not. As a species we will be pathetically short-lived. This old world will wipe us off it's surface and still continue on, perhaps to form another top life form that is wiser in a few million years.
As the Sage of Baltimore expressed it:
"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby." — Henry Louis Mencken, The Chicago Tribune, September 19, 1926.
Then there is this observation by Harry S. Truman, "The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know." (Neglecting the sciences, of course, which are constantly adding new knowledge.) — As quoted in "Plain Speaking : An Oral Biography of Harry S Truman," by Merle Miller (1974, P. 26.)
A vibrant, not to mention decent, society requires an educated electorate with a modicum of discernment and grounded in evidence-based reality (which implies the ability to separate fact from trash) — and that votes.
"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby." — Henry Louis Mencken, The Chicago Tribune, September 19, 1926.
Then there is this observation by Harry S. Truman, "The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know." (Neglecting the sciences, of course, which are constantly adding new knowledge.) — As quoted in "Plain Speaking : An Oral Biography of Harry S Truman," by Merle Miller (1974, P. 26.)
A vibrant, not to mention decent, society requires an educated electorate with a modicum of discernment and grounded in evidence-based reality (which implies the ability to separate fact from trash) — and that votes.
1
What a superbly written, big picture article. I think that the French learned something from the American electoral disaster, and I admire them for their smarts and their manifest maturity in managing their civic responsibilities.
2
Voters are cynical because their trust has been abused again and again and again. Thus politicians who speak to their cynicism resonate. Voters feel that honesty and simplicity go hand and hand; they distrust caveats and maybes; black and white are vastly preferred to grey. Thus politicians who speak like football coaches find popularity.
The western world has been amazingly free of war and hunger since WW2. Terrorism, so far, has not presented an existential threat. Even the poorest people have food. The worries of Europeans and Americans are the worries of wealthy people and wealthy people feel freer to be irresponsible than others.
With the nasty exception of rising hate crimes against non-whites and non-Christians, the daily lives of most western voters have yet to be affected by the likes of Trump or Corbyn or Le Pen. The downside of voting emotionally rather than rationally has yet to exact a price. Does Putin threaten life in America or England in any meaningful way? Would any American parents choose to defend Lithuania with the lives of their sons and daughters?
These are the reasons irresponsible candidates have been succeeding. Let's hope the day of reckoning remains distant.
The western world has been amazingly free of war and hunger since WW2. Terrorism, so far, has not presented an existential threat. Even the poorest people have food. The worries of Europeans and Americans are the worries of wealthy people and wealthy people feel freer to be irresponsible than others.
With the nasty exception of rising hate crimes against non-whites and non-Christians, the daily lives of most western voters have yet to be affected by the likes of Trump or Corbyn or Le Pen. The downside of voting emotionally rather than rationally has yet to exact a price. Does Putin threaten life in America or England in any meaningful way? Would any American parents choose to defend Lithuania with the lives of their sons and daughters?
These are the reasons irresponsible candidates have been succeeding. Let's hope the day of reckoning remains distant.
No. This is not on the voters. This is on propaganda spewed on social media and the web like droplets from a viral cough. How are voters, responsible voters, to understand the issues when disinformation is everywhere? It is the reason people vote against their interests. We are overwhelmed.
We react with our gut because we lack the context to think rationally.
We must find a way to counter misinformation and overexposure. We cannot review every decision, every piece of data, every tidbit of information. We must have facts without bias. We turn to trusted sources but they exploit us.
Obsession with what our neighbor is doing while our own dog is digging under the fence must stop. We are addicted to voyeurism. It is a form of avoidance. We need an intervention.
We react with our gut because we lack the context to think rationally.
We must find a way to counter misinformation and overexposure. We cannot review every decision, every piece of data, every tidbit of information. We must have facts without bias. We turn to trusted sources but they exploit us.
Obsession with what our neighbor is doing while our own dog is digging under the fence must stop. We are addicted to voyeurism. It is a form of avoidance. We need an intervention.
42
It's still on the voters. I had no problem seeing through the fog of misinformation that accompanied the election. It seems you didn't either. People are easily manipulated only when they want to be. The people who elected Trump believed what he said, and apparently still do. It would be one thing if they saw that they were duped and wanted to do something about it. It is quite another that they know what they got and are delighted with it.
1
Corbyn and Trump are great examples of political tribalism - a significant proportion of the electorate (both here and there) would vote for their tribe no matter what, especially if the leader stirs then up. That said Clinton and May have only themselves to blame for their inept campaigns. May now outdid Clinton by squandering 20 points lead in a single month. How many politicians have done that (without being implicated in corruption or felony)?
1
Loved it. Every word.
I was really surprised that in the U.K. - of all places - a man like Corbyn gained so much power. Disappointing.
I was really surprised that in the U.K. - of all places - a man like Corbyn gained so much power. Disappointing.
Glad you mentioned Ryan. How far will he go in maintaining Trump? What will it
take for him to abandon his claim "Oh he doesn't understand the ways of Washington"? What must Trump do for Ryan to abandon his self-interest for the
interest of the country?
take for him to abandon his claim "Oh he doesn't understand the ways of Washington"? What must Trump do for Ryan to abandon his self-interest for the
interest of the country?
Actually it's not "all" on the voters. It would be if we had a genuine democracy, but we don't-- ours is greatly diminished. An unlimited amount of private money is mainlined to candidates and into campaigns (Citizens United). Voter suppression (felons can't vote; onerous ID requirements)and gerrymandering rule the day. Many officeholders (that would be most in the case of the GOP) conduct themselves with their personal and party (think tribal) interests ahead of the national or public interest. The parties have devolved to tribes (GOP) or family affairs (Democrats under the Clintons) rather than custodians of constitutional democracy. This is not to say that the stupefying ignorance and nihilism of many voters should be absolved. Just that in the aggregate, citizens have to fight through a lot of flak to act like good (lower case "d") democrats.
1
This voting recklessly is the justified outcome of enriching recklessly. Please someone tell me how we can break the nepotism, the gilded circles in the western world, if not by the ballot ?
Wasn't draining the swamp a slogan that ensnared the electorate. The party of the robber barons making their last stand with xenophobia, mercantilism, lies, distraction and more lies. And the more moderate parties were incompetent guardians for the promise of freedom and opportunity, under their watch the participation of the little people on the wealth of the country eroded away. So what is left to vote for ?
And anyway, havn't the political system already failed when politicians like Trump and May become candidates in the first place. Don't blame the voters from picking bad apples from a basket full of deplorables.
Wasn't draining the swamp a slogan that ensnared the electorate. The party of the robber barons making their last stand with xenophobia, mercantilism, lies, distraction and more lies. And the more moderate parties were incompetent guardians for the promise of freedom and opportunity, under their watch the participation of the little people on the wealth of the country eroded away. So what is left to vote for ?
And anyway, havn't the political system already failed when politicians like Trump and May become candidates in the first place. Don't blame the voters from picking bad apples from a basket full of deplorables.
53
Patronising and lazy analysis. The electorates of Western democracies are not homogeneous but millions of people have had it with the establishment who presided over disastrous foreign policy in the middle east and the 2007/8 financial crisis which led on to austerity economics (punishing the poor and the middle classes whilst protecting the rich). These two factors have progressively eroded confidence in the 'experts' and that especially includes the political elite. I note that Stephens was a strong advocate of the Iraq war based on a pack of lies about Iraq and WMDs and even carried on denying the facts for years after the war. Corbyn was supported by millions precisely because he has authenticity unlike those who remain blind to the facts of the failures of modern capitalism to deliver for the majority of voters.
2
I think the mainstream reactions to recent elections are missing something big. It is not enough to say that voters are disaffected, reckless, fed up with the status quo or economically depressed. Voters are longing for something, searching for something new, but they don’t know what it is. They have the feeling that something is dreadfully wrong with the way everything has gone but they don’t know what it is. They aren’t sure how we got this way or, more importantly how we change it. They want economic security, sure, but they want a way of organizing our economy and practicing our politics that doesn’t make them feel dirty. They are sick of the dog eat dog, unethical, everything for profit world we have made. There are a lot of haters out there, sure, but there many more out there who are just sick of all the bile.
Look at the choices they have. It has all been done before and it has all failed before. The right believes in a freedom that means big corporations are free to run roughshod over workers and consumers and our environment and all the left seems to care about is doing away with corporate power and white male privilege. Everyone told them that globalization would be good for them but it has left them struggling and replaced the world they grew up in with a wasteland. They were ripe for being taken in by a demagogue and charlatan and that’s what happened.
What we need, and what is sorely missing are new ideas and new leaders.
Look at the choices they have. It has all been done before and it has all failed before. The right believes in a freedom that means big corporations are free to run roughshod over workers and consumers and our environment and all the left seems to care about is doing away with corporate power and white male privilege. Everyone told them that globalization would be good for them but it has left them struggling and replaced the world they grew up in with a wasteland. They were ripe for being taken in by a demagogue and charlatan and that’s what happened.
What we need, and what is sorely missing are new ideas and new leaders.
2
The real issue here is touched upon but not fully engaged with: the passage of time and the loss of hard-won lessons. The problem isn't the voters per se, it's that we as a society don't value history and don't pay enough attention to it. Harry Truman, the last President not to have a college degree, said that the only thing new is the history you don't know. Harry knew what he was talking about.
America has changed over the past 150 years. The idea that an educated electorate was essential to a functioning democracy -- the idea that got Harry the farmer wrapped up in book learning -- has been replaced by passive entertainment. Instead of reading de Tocqueville, people watch "The Apprentice" and we are paying a price for that.
My grandparents were the generation that fought World War 2 and then waged the Cold War. I heard enough from them to hate Fascism and distrust the far left and it is no coincidence that a Richard Spencer saying "Hail Trump" is on the stage now after that generation had passed. Nor is it a coincidence that as the memory of the Soviet Union begins to fade that Russia gets trusted in some quarters and far left ideology starts making a comeback.
History is the way generations pass on what they have learned to those who come after. The lessons are there -- for those who care to pay attention. Unfortunately, few are. And that is the problem.
America has changed over the past 150 years. The idea that an educated electorate was essential to a functioning democracy -- the idea that got Harry the farmer wrapped up in book learning -- has been replaced by passive entertainment. Instead of reading de Tocqueville, people watch "The Apprentice" and we are paying a price for that.
My grandparents were the generation that fought World War 2 and then waged the Cold War. I heard enough from them to hate Fascism and distrust the far left and it is no coincidence that a Richard Spencer saying "Hail Trump" is on the stage now after that generation had passed. Nor is it a coincidence that as the memory of the Soviet Union begins to fade that Russia gets trusted in some quarters and far left ideology starts making a comeback.
History is the way generations pass on what they have learned to those who come after. The lessons are there -- for those who care to pay attention. Unfortunately, few are. And that is the problem.
4
Civic ignorance goes both ways Mr. Stephens. It is equally as illogical and irrational to continue to elect the same elites over and over again yet expect a change in people's lives.
1
Corbyn is something of a chump but this demonization of him by Stephens is completely over the top obviously prompted by Stephens' obsession with Israel. The reasons Labour did well, to some extent in spite of the demonization of Corbyn (the Daily Mail sometimes called the Daily Hate Mail devoted 13 pages to abusing him on the day before the election) are complicated. Stephens' silly comments do nothing to clarify these reasons.
5
It's either laughable or slander to compare or to even mention Trump and Corbyn in one sentence. True conservatives have lost the Republican Party to "factless" and feckless ideologues and demagogues. I feel sorry for your loss. However it does not help you to now smear left wing politicians from all sorts of countries as a mirror image of Trump and his camarilla. Corbyn is an upright, honest and authentic politician who has not changed his views over decades. He reminds people of a time when social progress and justice was at the heart of the Labour Party.
When it comes to Trump and Republicans, you need to finger point to yourself. The GOP made the bed for him and his crude mix of authoritarianism, xenophobia, coal nostalgia and fiscal fantasies.
As much as Corbyn won the election with his social democratic agenda, May lost it by waffling and associating her with Trump. Many European voters suffer a historic flash back of a slippery and disastrous slope towards fascism when they see or hear Trump. He serves as a constant reminder that it worthwhile to engage in a democracy. It might not be perfect but it's definitely better than anything else.
When it comes to Trump and Republicans, you need to finger point to yourself. The GOP made the bed for him and his crude mix of authoritarianism, xenophobia, coal nostalgia and fiscal fantasies.
As much as Corbyn won the election with his social democratic agenda, May lost it by waffling and associating her with Trump. Many European voters suffer a historic flash back of a slippery and disastrous slope towards fascism when they see or hear Trump. He serves as a constant reminder that it worthwhile to engage in a democracy. It might not be perfect but it's definitely better than anything else.
145
I completely disagree re Corbyn.
I voted for Labour to send a message to Teresa May re hard Brexit.
I would never want Corbyn as PM.
I voted for Labour to send a message to Teresa May re hard Brexit.
I would never want Corbyn as PM.
True enough Mr. Stephens, but isn't the bigger question why? I would submit that much of the electorate's "recklessness" is explained by that worn adage "money talks." Having essentially removed any constraints on campaign finance and lobbying and using both broadcast and print media (e.g., Murdoch's empire) as tools, special interest groups have made an art form out of pandering to voters' prejudices. People are going to hear what they want to hear, and we end up with a large portion of the public being ill-informed and unwittingly voting against their own interests. They also don't feel like their votes matter--it's the money that talk's and greases the wheels--so what matter if they vote for a dog or a cartoon character? One person, one vote is just a joke.
2
The way out of dangerous swings to political right and left in the modern world and creation of a solid and stable center politically?
The problem seems to be that the most successful societies so far, for all progress, and for all distinguishing of themselves from left and right wing swings not to mention totalitarianism, have not really lived up to the central concept of societies in modern times, the idea of progress itself.
By now in a modern society it should be obvious that if we want to prevent right and left wing swings not to mention keep totalitarianism at bay, all effort in society must be toward creation of an arrow, direction of progress, and all technology, the best minds, the most full of integrity people must crowd in the center of society to clearly demonstrate for all failings of the center it is the best step forward humanly known, the step forward least totalitarian and most likely to result in a better society.
But of course the center of society today is hardly like this type of sensible project. Instead we get a center which warns of the extreme right and left and parades itself as the sensible course and farthest removed from totalitarianism when in actuality it is nothing like crowding the best minds, best ideas, most full of integrity people together to clearly explain the human project to public to best available knowledge and action so far. The center in fact appears corrupt, no arrow of progress but a controlling elite over restless public.
The problem seems to be that the most successful societies so far, for all progress, and for all distinguishing of themselves from left and right wing swings not to mention totalitarianism, have not really lived up to the central concept of societies in modern times, the idea of progress itself.
By now in a modern society it should be obvious that if we want to prevent right and left wing swings not to mention keep totalitarianism at bay, all effort in society must be toward creation of an arrow, direction of progress, and all technology, the best minds, the most full of integrity people must crowd in the center of society to clearly demonstrate for all failings of the center it is the best step forward humanly known, the step forward least totalitarian and most likely to result in a better society.
But of course the center of society today is hardly like this type of sensible project. Instead we get a center which warns of the extreme right and left and parades itself as the sensible course and farthest removed from totalitarianism when in actuality it is nothing like crowding the best minds, best ideas, most full of integrity people together to clearly explain the human project to public to best available knowledge and action so far. The center in fact appears corrupt, no arrow of progress but a controlling elite over restless public.
There is no need to rehearse here the benefits and perils of democracy. The trouble is that we have nothing better, so we must take the good with the bad. Among the good parts is the fact that we are not stuck with our errors forever. We have a chance to reset, repair, repent, restart. There is in every country a substantial number (I like to play with figures, but I will forgo my favorite parlor game) of people who are deeply unaware of the political and economic forces in their country and they vote out of disgust, anger, or blind self-interest. Our problem becomes real when otherwise responsible people join this irreducible percentage to form a majority. Our constant hope is that they will recognize their error and rejoin the reasonable center.
5
Weak whataboutism. Fair criticisms about Corbyn can perhaps be made, but comparing him to Trump to paint his views as non-serious isn't the way to get there.
As Labour head, Corbyn hasn't campaigned against NATO, and has allowed open votes on the Trident missile system. (Not unusual that he would do this.) He hasn't tried to force his party to take his controversial foreign policy decisions. Conversely, Trump has unilaterally changed the United States official positions on multiple alliances without even consulting with anyone.
The substance of the anti-Semitism allegations in the link provided are that Corbyn offered a peerage to an anti-racist campaigner who had joined Labour and authored a report claiming it was not overrun by anti-Semitism. I can't imagine Trump caring about any of these things enough to issue a report at all. He only talks about anti-Semitism when hounded by the media for not doing so.
Corbyn is just a Labour backbencher promoted by a party that's tired of New Labour. One might not like everything that amounts to, but it's not socialism and it's not that extreme of a view. It was mainstream politics for the nations that rebuilt Europe after the Second World War.
Trump, meanwhile, is a know-nothing fool who represents a very serious failing of the conservative movement, one that is not present on the left in the US and the UK no matter how Never Trump conservatives wish it were so. Face it, this is a problem with your movement, no one else's.
As Labour head, Corbyn hasn't campaigned against NATO, and has allowed open votes on the Trident missile system. (Not unusual that he would do this.) He hasn't tried to force his party to take his controversial foreign policy decisions. Conversely, Trump has unilaterally changed the United States official positions on multiple alliances without even consulting with anyone.
The substance of the anti-Semitism allegations in the link provided are that Corbyn offered a peerage to an anti-racist campaigner who had joined Labour and authored a report claiming it was not overrun by anti-Semitism. I can't imagine Trump caring about any of these things enough to issue a report at all. He only talks about anti-Semitism when hounded by the media for not doing so.
Corbyn is just a Labour backbencher promoted by a party that's tired of New Labour. One might not like everything that amounts to, but it's not socialism and it's not that extreme of a view. It was mainstream politics for the nations that rebuilt Europe after the Second World War.
Trump, meanwhile, is a know-nothing fool who represents a very serious failing of the conservative movement, one that is not present on the left in the US and the UK no matter how Never Trump conservatives wish it were so. Face it, this is a problem with your movement, no one else's.
16
Simply put, free market capitalism on steroids for 40 years along side well financed manipulation of social issues have left many people feeling lost and afraid in their own country.
Who wouldn't welcome immigrants if they felt secure in their lives at home and at work.
This is primarily a symptom of worshipping money and material excess by the powerful vs providing a vigorous and fair work environment for everyone else.
Stephens will highlight Corbyn but not bring up Bernie.
It's because the disease is in the conservative movement.
Who wouldn't welcome immigrants if they felt secure in their lives at home and at work.
This is primarily a symptom of worshipping money and material excess by the powerful vs providing a vigorous and fair work environment for everyone else.
Stephens will highlight Corbyn but not bring up Bernie.
It's because the disease is in the conservative movement.
4
Recklessly voting like all of the US voters for the Congressional members of the Freedom Caucus candidates (Tea Party) who wanted change in the Congress. Change so everyone could see what was bill being proposed and how these bills would be voted on - no the Freedom Caucus meets behind closed doors, no hearings, no input by voters, no release of bills' information and no CBO scoring. That is reckless voting - US voted for change and end up with the same old same old.
8
Jeremy Corbyn and the "nasty left?" That is the most utter nonsense I have read in a long time from an entitled speaker for the comfortable 1%.
Higher education without tuition? The rest of Europe has it. Investing in the hollowed-out - by austerity-wielding Conservatives - healthcare system? Works in other European countries. Re-nationalizing privatized trains? Maybe then they would get fixed.
Mr. Stephens seems to be expostulating so vigorously to pre-empt the good readers of the NYT from getting any ideas. Ideas like that maybe taxing the upper crusts to some mildly reasonable degree could help pay for some urgent projects right here.
What if millions of young voters turned out for the same goals Mr. Corbyn champions, right here in the USA? The nasty left demanding health care for all, free higher education, livable wages and an actual transportation system in this country?
Mr. Stephens will weigh in to assert the impossibility (and failing that, the nastiness) of such developments.
Higher education without tuition? The rest of Europe has it. Investing in the hollowed-out - by austerity-wielding Conservatives - healthcare system? Works in other European countries. Re-nationalizing privatized trains? Maybe then they would get fixed.
Mr. Stephens seems to be expostulating so vigorously to pre-empt the good readers of the NYT from getting any ideas. Ideas like that maybe taxing the upper crusts to some mildly reasonable degree could help pay for some urgent projects right here.
What if millions of young voters turned out for the same goals Mr. Corbyn champions, right here in the USA? The nasty left demanding health care for all, free higher education, livable wages and an actual transportation system in this country?
Mr. Stephens will weigh in to assert the impossibility (and failing that, the nastiness) of such developments.
26
What I learn from the electoral disasters is that democracy and the popularization of information can't coexist.
Classical Greek democracy was maligned by Plato and Aristotle as the worst system of government because it was direct---the ignorant cobblers an butchers determining the fate of philosophers, sometimes to death. Western culture generally adopted this attitude, for millennia, until the 18th Century invention in the U.S. of representative democracy and the success it could show. Nowadays direct democracy has again crept to the front, through social media and the polls, and representatives no longer lead but are lead by the political marketplace forces.
Moreover, the integrity of democracy is critically dependent on the integrity of the information on which the voters base their votes. In the era of fast frenetic social networks, with alternative realities in the lead, that's no longer the case.
I am a morbid pessimist, I admit, and an old man too. I'm glad having lived in the era of democracy in a fairly democratic country. But I'm afraid my grandchildren won't---democracy will dissolve itself through Trumps and le Pens and Corbyns and Maduros, and the Putins will again seem the saner alternative.
Classical Greek democracy was maligned by Plato and Aristotle as the worst system of government because it was direct---the ignorant cobblers an butchers determining the fate of philosophers, sometimes to death. Western culture generally adopted this attitude, for millennia, until the 18th Century invention in the U.S. of representative democracy and the success it could show. Nowadays direct democracy has again crept to the front, through social media and the polls, and representatives no longer lead but are lead by the political marketplace forces.
Moreover, the integrity of democracy is critically dependent on the integrity of the information on which the voters base their votes. In the era of fast frenetic social networks, with alternative realities in the lead, that's no longer the case.
I am a morbid pessimist, I admit, and an old man too. I'm glad having lived in the era of democracy in a fairly democratic country. But I'm afraid my grandchildren won't---democracy will dissolve itself through Trumps and le Pens and Corbyns and Maduros, and the Putins will again seem the saner alternative.
1
Well put.
1
I am quite tired of every liberal or progressive politician in the western world being accused of being a stooge for Russia or the Soviets in days past and an enabler of anti-Semitic policy just because they do not blindly follow the radical policies of the Likudniks who run the Israeli government. If you have proof, bring it. How this hit piece passed muster worries this subscriber- especially now that we no longer have a Public Editor.
I wonder about the decision making that hires another Conservative but closed the office of Public Editor.
I wonder about the decision making that hires another Conservative but closed the office of Public Editor.
37
I seem to agree with you over and over again. I'd describe myself as a conservative Democrat, or a liberal Republican. The middle of the road is empty these days.
Corbyn? First, let me take a Tums. Ok, that anti-market, anti-Semitic, Irish and Arab terrorist-hobnobbing old fool. He's the new face of British liberalism? Teresa May is boring, but she does have a functioning brain.
Trump? There is no limit to the contempt he holds for just about everyone. Other than the people who still adore him (I'm still trying to comprehend it), his every misstep is chalked up to malfeasance and cunning. The simple explanation is that he's just incompetent.
Despite Hillary's baggage, I find it lamentable that we would be suffering none of this chaos if she'd squeaked through, as she nearly did, especially after winning the popular vote.
Ah, time for more Tums.
Corbyn? First, let me take a Tums. Ok, that anti-market, anti-Semitic, Irish and Arab terrorist-hobnobbing old fool. He's the new face of British liberalism? Teresa May is boring, but she does have a functioning brain.
Trump? There is no limit to the contempt he holds for just about everyone. Other than the people who still adore him (I'm still trying to comprehend it), his every misstep is chalked up to malfeasance and cunning. The simple explanation is that he's just incompetent.
Despite Hillary's baggage, I find it lamentable that we would be suffering none of this chaos if she'd squeaked through, as she nearly did, especially after winning the popular vote.
Ah, time for more Tums.
4
I'm not sure how well the Tory brains are functioning. They have single handedly made this country incredibly unstable with an uncertain economic future. Austerity is proven not to work and it has driven people young people to anxiety about their future and the country to vote to leave the EU. They have called a disastrous referendum and general election, both of which were vanity projects, gambling to gain more power and both have failed miserably. The referendum particularly was offered with absolutely no plan in place for if people voted to leave. I think the Tories have lost all credibility and have been completely reckless in their behaviour. It is the public that are suffering.
3
You clearly have no idea, at all, as to why people are rising up against proponents of the status quote, and incrementalism, or you are one of the elite, engaged in your now obviously failing program of perception management, hoping to continue fooling the poor and middle-class.
Rather than spell it out, a few words say it all, and those words are, "disenfranchisement of the poor and middle-class, on a scale of historic proportions, resulting in economic slavery, and penury"
Rather than spell it out, a few words say it all, and those words are, "disenfranchisement of the poor and middle-class, on a scale of historic proportions, resulting in economic slavery, and penury"
2
Blaming this on the voters is to ignore our corrupt system of campaign financing, gerrymandering, and self-serving plutocrats with monopolistic media outlets.
16
Amen, Amen, Amen!
1
Well this is one of the silliest articles I have seen in the NYT!
Firstly for all his faults Jeremy Corbyn is not the epitome of evil as described here. I suspect the writer has a pro Israel at all cost agenda going on here and is blinkered to anything else.
The electorate is not stupid or irrational in its increasing antipathy towards mainstream politicians such as May, Clinton etc. These mainstream types are clearly identified by more and more voters as the stooges of an oligarchic elite that has waged economic war against ordinary people since the late 70s. They are the real enemy.
We need a transition to principled left wing politicians who look after the interests of the majority at the expense of the oligarchy. Once those electoral programs cohere around credible figure then the market fundamentalists will become figures from the past.
Firstly for all his faults Jeremy Corbyn is not the epitome of evil as described here. I suspect the writer has a pro Israel at all cost agenda going on here and is blinkered to anything else.
The electorate is not stupid or irrational in its increasing antipathy towards mainstream politicians such as May, Clinton etc. These mainstream types are clearly identified by more and more voters as the stooges of an oligarchic elite that has waged economic war against ordinary people since the late 70s. They are the real enemy.
We need a transition to principled left wing politicians who look after the interests of the majority at the expense of the oligarchy. Once those electoral programs cohere around credible figure then the market fundamentalists will become figures from the past.
18
Why is David Miliband mentioned here? As boring? Perhaps the author meant Ed. This is an uninformed and biased piece - no mention of austerity or DUP party - Tories' new coalition partners who oppose gay marriage; support a ban on abortion which imprisons women; and have appointed a climate change denier as an environmental minister. Also no mention of the increase in Lib Dem seats, which shows a concern about radical left politics in Britain. In terms of Corbyn himself, he has a well-known stance against nuclear weapons, his opposition to NATO is not financial, like Trump's. References to terrorists are distasteful and have been thoroughly and better discussed elsewhere. Really, this article is attempting to impose a disparaging and simplistic narrative on a complex situation, and it's that which leads to the extremist politics the author is supposedly lamenting. Terrible piece.
8
Corbyn: Let's have better healthcare for all
Trump: Let's dismantle healthcare and save the rich
Stephens: SEE THEY'RE THE SAME
Goes to show that the NYT needs to hire better writers
Trump: Let's dismantle healthcare and save the rich
Stephens: SEE THEY'RE THE SAME
Goes to show that the NYT needs to hire better writers
36
Stephens is looking at Corbyn as a possible dictator, yet there is nothing to suggest that he would be Stalin. The Left does not have to be a dictator, and to assume that you would have Gulags, is really Fox News level junk.
12
In America's Revolutionary War the Brits made a terrible military blunder -- the kind of thing dictated by some armchair clown looking at a map rather than a real general with experience in combat on the terrain: they tried to move an army from Canada down lake Champlain.
It was a fiasco; they were sniped at, harassed, and supply lines failed. The rebels controlled the Lake. Fatigue and disease took its toll. Depleted, they were defeated at Saratoga and ignominiously surrendered.
But then in America's war of 1812 our politicians did the dumbest thing in American history until Iraq -- they decided to try the same thing going north up Champlain, with a rag-tag militia of 6,000 men marching up from Albany to Plattsburgh, who then refused to leave New York to fight in Canada! This was the most ridiculous and pusillanimous moment in a pathetic phase of American history that nobody wants to remember.
It's a mistake the first time, idiocy to repeat it with less preparation and resources the second.
It was a fiasco; they were sniped at, harassed, and supply lines failed. The rebels controlled the Lake. Fatigue and disease took its toll. Depleted, they were defeated at Saratoga and ignominiously surrendered.
But then in America's war of 1812 our politicians did the dumbest thing in American history until Iraq -- they decided to try the same thing going north up Champlain, with a rag-tag militia of 6,000 men marching up from Albany to Plattsburgh, who then refused to leave New York to fight in Canada! This was the most ridiculous and pusillanimous moment in a pathetic phase of American history that nobody wants to remember.
It's a mistake the first time, idiocy to repeat it with less preparation and resources the second.
4
It pains me to see how the US and UK are destroying themselves in paroxysms of populist hatred, while France and Germany - not my favorite cultures - are setting themselves up as torch-bearers of liberalism, progress and the ideals of the Enlightenment. To be fair to the UK, May is a terrible politician and the wound of Brexit is still too fresh. I know many intelligent, liberal Brits who were willing to overlook Corbyn's antisemitism and close ties with Russia and Hezbollah, just to register their disgust with the conservatives. The US, though, has no justification. We have elected an ignorant populist autocrat and now the left is trying to find another ignorant populist autocrat to run against him. It won't work. There is no difference between Sanders and Trump. There is no difference between demagoguery of the right and the left. Both are poisonous to the liberal free-market order which, despite, its flaws is the best the world has ever seen. And if you think it's horrible, here is a time machine. Where would you go? The Thirty-Year War, the Russian Revolution, or Auschwitz?
I imagine economic conditions in France and Germany hadn't reached the levels or decline being seen in the US and UK?
"There is no difference between Sanders and Trump".
You couldn't be more wrong. Sanders is sane and understands policy.
You couldn't be more wrong. Sanders is sane and understands policy.
1
Corbyn's antisemitism and his ties to Russa and Hezbollah are fictions from the right wing press. It is really time to stop this.
2
You can argue that there is a "certain sexiness" in the political center, but first you have to define what the "center" is.
If you can conflate the "center" in France, the US, and the U.K., then your measure of what is a reasonable "centrist" is meaningless.
France has practically free universities, universal healthcare, and plenty of vacation time. Macron doesn't propose to change much of this at all.
Sanders, on the other hand, proposed adopting a few of these ideas and was labeled a ranting communist left wing maniac.
Corbyn may be problematic, but you fail to note that the presumably more reasonable Conservatives have chosen to form a coalition with the DUP, a sectarian jingoistic party founded by the hate spewing Ian Paisley, a man whose hatred for certain groups of people makes a Trump stump speech look like a kumbaya session.
Your argument would have been a lot more firm had you noted the DUP's repulsive pedigree. Apparent having 10 seats to firm up support is sexy enough.
If you can conflate the "center" in France, the US, and the U.K., then your measure of what is a reasonable "centrist" is meaningless.
France has practically free universities, universal healthcare, and plenty of vacation time. Macron doesn't propose to change much of this at all.
Sanders, on the other hand, proposed adopting a few of these ideas and was labeled a ranting communist left wing maniac.
Corbyn may be problematic, but you fail to note that the presumably more reasonable Conservatives have chosen to form a coalition with the DUP, a sectarian jingoistic party founded by the hate spewing Ian Paisley, a man whose hatred for certain groups of people makes a Trump stump speech look like a kumbaya session.
Your argument would have been a lot more firm had you noted the DUP's repulsive pedigree. Apparent having 10 seats to firm up support is sexy enough.
10
As an American who has lived in the UK for the past 13 years, I can confirm that this is a spectacularly ignorant editorial. Corbyn's popularity across a wide spectrum of left and progressive communities cannot be explained away as anything remotely similarly to Trumpism. If this is the level of political analysis in the NYT, well, good luck to you.
33
Wow, your ignorance of the elections in Austria, Italy and the Netherlands must be some sort of hallmark of Anglo-Saxon right wing arrogance. Had these gone the wrong way, they would have received much more attention. Or not, the Italian referendum did go the wrong way, but fell of the radar pretty blamed quick.
And let's not get excited about Macron. He seems to be an austerity lover, in the vein of Merkel, but without the economic strength to accompany it.
But what truly reveals your mendacious rightwingerism, is your main gist is that you're trying to sell us on the notion that Corbyn and Trump are two equal sides of the same coin of extremism. In no way can that be true.
The right wing pattern is always the same:
Blame the progressives for something they said YEARS ago, but ignore/downplay/equate that with the conservative extremism that is happening RIGHT NOW.
That sickening to the point of nausea.
And let's not get excited about Macron. He seems to be an austerity lover, in the vein of Merkel, but without the economic strength to accompany it.
But what truly reveals your mendacious rightwingerism, is your main gist is that you're trying to sell us on the notion that Corbyn and Trump are two equal sides of the same coin of extremism. In no way can that be true.
The right wing pattern is always the same:
Blame the progressives for something they said YEARS ago, but ignore/downplay/equate that with the conservative extremism that is happening RIGHT NOW.
That sickening to the point of nausea.
10
One would expect nothing less than this commentary from an avowed neo conservative . The "nasty left" oh yes the policies of Margaret Thatcher and Saint Ronald Reagan have done such good for the general population. Perhaps he can cite all the benefits derived by this "laissez-faire "line the pockets of the corporate donors coffers has trickled down to the masses .Why not because there are none. The pendulum is swinging and it is about. Call them nasty then because guess want , they are tired of your shallow rhetoric and unfulfilled promises.
11
As long as those in the Acela Corridor confuse internationalism with a right on the part of the US to intrude into other nations at will, and as long as it is the sons and daughters of flyover country who are placed into places like Afghanistam, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan Syria and on and on...rather than the Acela area's progeny, and as long as any criticism of Israeli oppression of Palestinian peasants is labeled anti-Semitism, we will labor under the current atmosphere. You aren't listening, Mr. Stephens.
10
Maybe only dancing on the cliff's edge, but I suspect that it is night, there is a storm and we are wearing a blindfold.
2
So when conservatism is defeated, it comes at the hands of the reds. What else could cause a conservative movement to be embarrassed except Stalinist antisemitism and anti-Americanism?
Sir, this is called red-baiting. It is something Republicans have a lot of experience with.
As for the apparently impartial report, that includes a criticism of Corbyn (say he does not take antisemitism seriously enough) -- look at who wrote it.
This is called reporting as a fact a partisan opinion. Another thing Republicans have a lot of experience with.
Sir, this is called red-baiting. It is something Republicans have a lot of experience with.
As for the apparently impartial report, that includes a criticism of Corbyn (say he does not take antisemitism seriously enough) -- look at who wrote it.
This is called reporting as a fact a partisan opinion. Another thing Republicans have a lot of experience with.
5
Why? why?! why?!!! No discussion of how the elites have betrayed the majority of voters and workers, hoarding ever more wealth for themselves and opportunities for their own children. The financial sector gets bailed out and homeowners get turfed out. Trade deals are justified on the basis that they are a net gain, that "the winners can compensate the losers" but then they don't.
In the US at least, rent and tuition (not to mention health care) keep going up while wages and salaries stay flat. Inequality yawns ever larger. Dark money consumes our politics. Then the centrists point to the extremists as a sufficient case to be voted back into office. One way or another, it can't go on this way.
In the US at least, rent and tuition (not to mention health care) keep going up while wages and salaries stay flat. Inequality yawns ever larger. Dark money consumes our politics. Then the centrists point to the extremists as a sufficient case to be voted back into office. One way or another, it can't go on this way.
8
What an unpleasant article in its attack on Corbyn (American readers should read Saunders for a direct comparison). A reasonable man who rose to prominence because of this principled and prescient campaign against Iraq and Libyan "adventures".
4
Mr Stephen has made an effort to dredge up issues, useful for denigrating Jeremy Corbyn and the "nasty left", one of them being Corbyn's warnings about NATO.
Please note - it was not only the "nasty left" that was concerned about NATO expansion. Some conservatives (and I) also think this brinksmanship might have been going too far, for example:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/bad-move-further-nato-expansion-1035...
There is no reason to equate caution on NATO expansion with "something nasty in the woodshed" -
Jeremy Corbyn is a social democrat, of the same ilk as Bernie Sanders. Quite refreshing in his tone, unusually honest, and thoughtful.
We need more like him.
Please note - it was not only the "nasty left" that was concerned about NATO expansion. Some conservatives (and I) also think this brinksmanship might have been going too far, for example:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/bad-move-further-nato-expansion-1035...
There is no reason to equate caution on NATO expansion with "something nasty in the woodshed" -
Jeremy Corbyn is a social democrat, of the same ilk as Bernie Sanders. Quite refreshing in his tone, unusually honest, and thoughtful.
We need more like him.
8
I've heard Corbyn described as naive and idealistic, but it was quite a shock to read the degree of vitriol being levelled at him in this column. On what basis, I wondered, has a politician with a lifelong record of opposing war and racism and championing the disadvantaged, earned the description "vile" and "nasty"?
Reading a little further, it became clear that Mr. Corbyn's "crime" is that he is an anti-Zionist, which apparently equates in Mr. Stephen's universe to antisemitism.
Stephens has, as I recall, written one or two worthwhile articles since joining these pages. When it comes to the topic of Israel, however, it has become abundantly clear that his views are remarkably crude and simplistic - a throwback to the 1960s. They look thoroughly out of place in today's NYT.
Reading a little further, it became clear that Mr. Corbyn's "crime" is that he is an anti-Zionist, which apparently equates in Mr. Stephen's universe to antisemitism.
Stephens has, as I recall, written one or two worthwhile articles since joining these pages. When it comes to the topic of Israel, however, it has become abundantly clear that his views are remarkably crude and simplistic - a throwback to the 1960s. They look thoroughly out of place in today's NYT.
12
I made it as far as "nasty left" ...
The categories are already conveniently inexact Mr. Stephens without your additional descriptors. As always, heat not light.
You waste the inches granted you.
The categories are already conveniently inexact Mr. Stephens without your additional descriptors. As always, heat not light.
You waste the inches granted you.
8
Bret, it takes leaders in the moderate middle to restore sanity. Dynamic, thoughtful leaders. Where is our Macron?
On vacation in Italy with his wife,and dining with Trudeau in Montreal. That's where.
1
Strange fear of a man who is just basically a social democrat. Corbyn believes in public health car, publicly owned public transit , and access to higher education for the less fortunate. How terrifying.
7
The core support for Trump was due to racism and misogyny. Pure and simple. A backlash to our 1st black president and the fear of a 1st woman president. It was a revenge of the resentful working class white community coupled with an unmotivated black community in places like Milwaukee who sat it out. Combine that with the tribalism of the GOP and the gerrymandering of states like Wisconsin Florida and North Carolina, as well as many others and you get Trump. He is not the norm. He is the full manifestation of what a war weary population who watches its wealthy either rise to the top 1%, or squandered for the military or foreign aid, all the while our communities crumble with no health care, education, jobs or modernized infrastructure. Our government has failed us, in particular the likes of the Tea Party and some elements of the GOP. I am hoping Trumpism will be nothing more than temporary. Momentary insanity. The USA's mid-life crisis.
Like many a middle aged man, they will wake up and ask what and why did they think that was a good idea and why did they destroyed our stable, secure, beautiful home and family over a loud, ignorant, selfish crass low class fling. I just hope it's not too late for our fellow countrymen to ask their country and those of us who did not vote for Trump for forgiveness and acknowledge their selfish reckless and destructive ways and repair the damage they've done.
Like many a middle aged man, they will wake up and ask what and why did they think that was a good idea and why did they destroyed our stable, secure, beautiful home and family over a loud, ignorant, selfish crass low class fling. I just hope it's not too late for our fellow countrymen to ask their country and those of us who did not vote for Trump for forgiveness and acknowledge their selfish reckless and destructive ways and repair the damage they've done.
2
This is a ridiculous piece of propaganda. Corbyn is UK's version of Bernie (who actually called to congratulate him; whose campaign advisors helped the UK Labour Party make a comeback). Both of them have policies like FDR's New Deal, which did a lot of good for Americans in distress during the Depression. Equating Corbyn with Trump is akin to equating Bernie with Trump, which the NYT indulged in during the campaign and which helped get us into the current mess, with uninformed Bernie voters who didn't like Hillary switching to Trump! Trump, with his privatization mania, is a deranged extreme capitalist. The world needs some politicians who still believe government has a right to exist and has a responsibility to help its citizens rather than leaving them to freeze and starve. Call it a "nanny state" and blame "welfare mothers," but this view will just keep us on the path we are on, towards total concentration of wealth at the very top, towards "profit uber alles," with most of us being turned into modern day medieval serfs.
2
Unlike Le Pen, Corbyn is not a nationalist. Unlike Trump, Corbyn is not a "populist" authoritarian buffoon. He's not a xenophobe, a bigot, or any other slur this column tries to tar him with. He is a socialist, and not a nominal one. That doesn't mean, as this column implies, that he wants to set up Gulags in Great Britain. Instead, Corbyn and his supporters believe that society would be better off if resources were distributed more fairly. Maybe that scares some people...
5
Well, your title is certainly misleading. Let's not forget, first of all, that Brits don't vote for an individual but a party. Clearly, both May and Corbyn have forgotten this, but I suspect the voters haven't. The big disaster of a vote in the UK last year was the Brexit one. Unable to take the bad with the good of the EU, half of the British decided to vote like it was the nineteenth century. The only problem is, the biggest economic boost in post-Colonial times for the Brits has been the EU. It's pure folly and some pretty familiar arrogance to think they can do better without it. Nationalist pride and a shrunken GDP is what they'll get. Thursday's vote was about young people and other cosmopolitans in the UK saying no to the Tories' Brexit, their embrace of austerity, and probably May's handholding with the fascist in the White House. But, you make it all about Corbyn. It's not America, Mr. Stephens, and no doubt the voters who voted Labour want to keep it that way.
125
Stephens grounds his indictment of Corbyn in three troubling tendencies concerning Putin, NATO and anti-Semitism - all three detached from comment of Corbyns core, domestic platform. The first two vaguely left to cherry picked links, the last is ballasted with a quote to a Parliamentary report on British anti-Semitism that is taken out of context. To focus on the last matter, it should be noted that the reports reference to Corbyn hardly dominated it, come in the context of admiration for Corbyn's anti-racism, and focuses not on manifest racism on Corbyn's part but the judgement that Corey's and Labour's Campaign against anti-Semitism was incompetent. A touch of a smear mars a good piece.
Mr. Stephens blames voters for not being informed enough to get behind centrist candidates. Why not put some blame on those who have turned our democratic institutions into private playgrounds for the rich? In mass democracies run by and for elites and oligarchs, even the most educated and informed voters become alienated.
4
Stephens blames the voters without mention of, in this country at least, 24 hour a day propaganda on radio and Faux News. In the UK, Murdoch spreads his dangerous ignorance too. It is no coincidence that the French ultimately repudiated LePen because of an absence of Murdoch or his type.
Maybe Stephens should consider the corrosive effect of Citizens United in the moneyed realm of the Kochs, Mercers and Adelsons.
Maybe Stephens should consider the corrosive effect of Citizens United in the moneyed realm of the Kochs, Mercers and Adelsons.
12
Enjoyable piece to read and reflect upon. Unfortunately, your remarks are too close to our reality...for comfort. Vicious ignoramus Trump is not, however undeservedly, in power by pure chance or to fulfill the need to change for the better. No, he is there filling a void the rest (politicians and us the people) didn't see coming, but brewing nonetheless in the background, just waiting for a demagogue ready and willing to tell us sweet lies, in between vulgar insults, to seize momentum and assault the presidency for his own designs. Einstein's remarks come handy; when asked if the Universe had limits, he thought for a while, then said: "I'm not sure; the only thing I'm sure about is the unlimited supply of people's stupidity". And 'since we ask the impossible, honesty from a crook, it is just that even what is possible be denied to us' (as expressed so nicely in "Don Quijote"). As it stands, with 'our' continuing support for such a vulgar bully in the WH, and calling it 'the new normal', we have lost our marbles in calling the U.S. a democracy; a pluto-kleptocracy may be a more honest answer. That the republican party is complicit, no doubt remains; but could it be true for the rest of us as well? These are hard times, confusing as well, as a truly inconsiderate clown feasts on our complacency.
1
Remember, for the New York Times favorite Right Wing hack columnist, the "nasty left" is a platform that fights against crippling austerity politics created by decades of giving tax cuts to the rich. It supports human capital by reducing fees for education and aims to make services that had been all but ruined by privatization better by nationalizing them. I guess if the only issue that matter is tax cuts for rich people, this extremely hopeful platform might seem `nasty.'
7
The reckless vote in Britain was Brexit which surprised many young voters who did not bother to vote believing it did not need their vote to pass. This time around the only way for young voters to show their dismay was to vote for Corbyn who also happen to go after their vote by addressing issues of concern to them. Not enough people bothered to vote to know whether Brexit was favored by a majority of the population, May embraced Brexit as if it was an overwhelming mandate of the British people, ignoring that Scotland, Northern Ireland and London were adamantly opposed to it. The last election results were payback for that arrogance.
The time to call for parliamentary elections was after the Brexit vote and let the new parliament decide whether to honor the referendum or call for another vote.
The time to call for parliamentary elections was after the Brexit vote and let the new parliament decide whether to honor the referendum or call for another vote.
11
I haven't seen the raw popular vote numbers in the UK yet, but at least in the case of the US general election it is wrong to blame the voters for the outcome: Clinton beat Trump by nearly 3 million votes. Please lay some of the blame for these electoral outcomes at anti-democratic voting systems.
15
Let's ignore that fundamentally, people are social creatures. Let's isolate the effects and impact of media, news, social and cultural narratives, neighbors, ideological explanations that mislead, outright lies--strip all this information out.
Behold, the voter! Solely responsible for his or her choice. True, the voter does cast the ballot. But the chain of responsibility goes through several corridors, runs past several gauntlets, picks up support on the way to entry into the polling station.
Stephens is suggesting a blind trust for voters more consequential than any Trump has established for his financial interests!
Behold, the voter! Solely responsible for his or her choice. True, the voter does cast the ballot. But the chain of responsibility goes through several corridors, runs past several gauntlets, picks up support on the way to entry into the polling station.
Stephens is suggesting a blind trust for voters more consequential than any Trump has established for his financial interests!
4
There is a difference between a vote cast with a sense of desperation and a vote cast recklessly. That is the lesson of the elections in the US and the UK. And we are not speaking just of elections. In Kansas, the Republican controlled legislature overrode Gov. Brownback's veto to roll back the Conservative tax cuts that were the centerpiece of Brownback's plan to shrink the government and starve government schools. That vote reflected the desperation voters feel.
In a society that functions well government is not the enemy, it is the institution voters rely upon to collectively regulate the forces that shape their lives and a future for their children. In the US and the UK government has not functioned as regulate the economy in the interest of ordinary American citizens and ordinary British citizens.
In a society that functions well government is not the enemy, it is the institution voters rely upon to collectively regulate the forces that shape their lives and a future for their children. In the US and the UK government has not functioned as regulate the economy in the interest of ordinary American citizens and ordinary British citizens.
13
It is not enough to out down voter recklessness down to civic ignorance. Many voters feel that since 2008 and even before then neoliberalism had failed them. Centrists politicians need to recognise this and address it or they will not hold. Blaming the voter is never a satisfactory answer in a democracy and is, in its own way, as dangerous as the nonsense being spouted by the Trumps and Corbyns of this world.
On another point, Corbyn was indeed one of the winners of the election, along with the Scottish conservative Ruth Davidson who is a conservative moderate. But Corbyn did not in fact win the election. a majority of British voters voted for parties other than Labour and the Tories still won a plurality of the vote, and in fact one of their highest percentage totals since WW2. That does not excuse May's own recklessness, but shows quick judgments are risky in this era.
On another point, Corbyn was indeed one of the winners of the election, along with the Scottish conservative Ruth Davidson who is a conservative moderate. But Corbyn did not in fact win the election. a majority of British voters voted for parties other than Labour and the Tories still won a plurality of the vote, and in fact one of their highest percentage totals since WW2. That does not excuse May's own recklessness, but shows quick judgments are risky in this era.
9
Our current malaise stems in part from uncertainty over where we want power to reside. The Great Depression and WWII confirmed the role of the federal government as the central institution in American society. Democrats and Republicans might clash over the preferred policies of Washington, but neither really challenged the new ascendancy of the feds.
The election of Reagan in 1980, however, in retrospect marked a tectonic shift in popular attitudes toward political centralization. Although the new president's open disdain for federal power expressed itself more in rhetoric than in concrete measures, his administration still forced liberal defenders of Washington onto the defensive for the first time since the war. Clinton won election partly by conceding that the era of big government had ended, while President Obama achieved limited success in enhancing federal power only because of the effects of the Great Recession.
Washington retains its formal position at the center of American life, because neither the states nor the private sector have demonstrated a capacity to perform its functions. The inability of Congress to pass budgets or to rebuild our infrastructure, however, illustrates the impotence of the federal regime. The election of Trump thus reflects the ambivalence of a people who still want government services but don't trust the feds to provide them. But choosing an agent of chaos could not create a new consensus over the proper role of Washington.
The election of Reagan in 1980, however, in retrospect marked a tectonic shift in popular attitudes toward political centralization. Although the new president's open disdain for federal power expressed itself more in rhetoric than in concrete measures, his administration still forced liberal defenders of Washington onto the defensive for the first time since the war. Clinton won election partly by conceding that the era of big government had ended, while President Obama achieved limited success in enhancing federal power only because of the effects of the Great Recession.
Washington retains its formal position at the center of American life, because neither the states nor the private sector have demonstrated a capacity to perform its functions. The inability of Congress to pass budgets or to rebuild our infrastructure, however, illustrates the impotence of the federal regime. The election of Trump thus reflects the ambivalence of a people who still want government services but don't trust the feds to provide them. But choosing an agent of chaos could not create a new consensus over the proper role of Washington.
4
The plutocracy selects the candidates by providing funding for their chosen, the popular media legitimize those as the only valid choices by marginalizing all other voices and still, "(a)ll this is on the voters?" Really?
The overclass is trying to get us to blame ourselves for their decades of misrule. Don't fall for it.
The overclass is trying to get us to blame ourselves for their decades of misrule. Don't fall for it.
18
And you Bret Stephens, assisted in the normalization of the extreme positions promoted by your former employer- the Wall Street Journal - for many years. You're as complicit as anyone.
But you never touched on the root cause in this article, just as you avoided the unpleasant realities surrounding us before. Who feeds you the story lines you use? I see you as just a tool of various forces, a phony, a sham, a shill for the casino.
But you never touched on the root cause in this article, just as you avoided the unpleasant realities surrounding us before. Who feeds you the story lines you use? I see you as just a tool of various forces, a phony, a sham, a shill for the casino.
22
I am no authority on British politics, and I am trying to learn more about the views of Jeremy Corbyn. Unfortunately, I don't think I stand to learn much from Mr. Stephens's screed. Stephens slurs Corbyn as a representative of the "nasty left," whatever that is, and likens his populist views to those of Donald Trump. To whatever extent Corbyn is anti-EU, pro-Russian, or antisemitic, I share Stephens's disagreement with him. The problem with this column, though, is that Stephens writes not one word about Corbyn's progressive views--that is, his proposals for making Britain a more egalitarian and just society, and for steering it away from excessively market-oriented course that Margaret Thatcher charted in the 1980s. Corbyn may have his flaws, but if Mr. Stephens aims to be fair-minded, he ought to acknowledge his virtues as well.
23
Mr, Stephens, "Vile oponent", "nasty left", etc.? If the rest of your political analysis is as superficial and gratuitously opiniated as your echoing of the UK gutter press assessment of Mr. Corbyn and the Labour campaign, it is a waste of time. Stick you writing about matters you know or take the time to research properly.
26
You ask if May's squandered lead sounds familiar. No it does not.
There were more than a few discrepancies in America's vote counts. After all why is that the exit polls favoring Hillary Rodham Clinton proved wrong but France's and Britain's were correct?
In James Comey's testimony on Thursday when asked whether he had any doubts that Russia hacked our election, he answered "I have no doubt." But when asked whether he had any doubts that Russia manipulated the vote count, Comey replied he was "confident" they had not.
Reality Winner and the NSA document, anyone?
Let's not forget that Trump is president of the United States even after every poll, every pundit and every newspaper said otherwise. So, until it can be cleared up without any doubt that Russia didn't create mayhem with the 2016 vote count, it's time to stop smearing Clinton's campaign.
There were more than a few discrepancies in America's vote counts. After all why is that the exit polls favoring Hillary Rodham Clinton proved wrong but France's and Britain's were correct?
In James Comey's testimony on Thursday when asked whether he had any doubts that Russia hacked our election, he answered "I have no doubt." But when asked whether he had any doubts that Russia manipulated the vote count, Comey replied he was "confident" they had not.
Reality Winner and the NSA document, anyone?
Let's not forget that Trump is president of the United States even after every poll, every pundit and every newspaper said otherwise. So, until it can be cleared up without any doubt that Russia didn't create mayhem with the 2016 vote count, it's time to stop smearing Clinton's campaign.
14
To your reference to Comey: It's not a contradiction. Changing actual votes after they've been cast is one thing. Comey said there was no evidence that such interference had occurred. But he confirmed that there was a broad Russian campaign to influence VOTERS before they cast their votes. As for *every poll* etc., that was before Comey's intervention and before Trump went to the new battleground states that had been targeted by 1,000 Russian trolls. Remember, as few as 80,000 votes made the difference for Trump in the rust belt, the areas targeted by Russia.
18
Clinton smeared her own campaign. Did Putin hold the gun to her head and force her to spend August partying with the .001% in the Hamptons to raise money to run "Trump Sux" ads, instead of actually, you know, getting out and working for the vote in MI, WI, and PA? Did he write the Deplorables speech for her? Clever guy. It's certainly possible that he had a hand in hacking Podesta's account, but did he write the speech about the public and private positions? Put a chip in Bill's brain to direct him to Lynch's plane for a chinwag about the grandkiddies? Just a small handful of the screwups that were legion, and preventable by a candidate with even a vague semblence of a clue.
Yes but.
People are accountable to themselves but politics and workplaces are relational.
Early in the film McClintock, John Wayne pays rousing tribute to the notion of an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. But that's a relationship that benefits from stability and can be spoiled on either side of the equation or by outside forces.
J.D. Vance tells of his childhood friend from greater Appalachia who quit his job because he was tired of getting up so early every morning but blamed Obama on Facebook. That rings true. Some farmers and ranchers say they've tried hiring citizens but can't get them to do the work and stick to it. That rings true, too.
That doesn't mean there shouldn't have been more labor protections put into trade agreements or more consideration for American labor in developing and enforcing immigration policy.
It's a thorny problem. People are accountable to themselves, shouldn't forget the lessons of past horrors, and should know better than to put their trust in hucksters. Establishment politicians in the national government and their backers should consider the greater good and spend more time perceptively considering their constituents than keeping them riled up.
People are accountable to themselves but politics and workplaces are relational.
Early in the film McClintock, John Wayne pays rousing tribute to the notion of an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. But that's a relationship that benefits from stability and can be spoiled on either side of the equation or by outside forces.
J.D. Vance tells of his childhood friend from greater Appalachia who quit his job because he was tired of getting up so early every morning but blamed Obama on Facebook. That rings true. Some farmers and ranchers say they've tried hiring citizens but can't get them to do the work and stick to it. That rings true, too.
That doesn't mean there shouldn't have been more labor protections put into trade agreements or more consideration for American labor in developing and enforcing immigration policy.
It's a thorny problem. People are accountable to themselves, shouldn't forget the lessons of past horrors, and should know better than to put their trust in hucksters. Establishment politicians in the national government and their backers should consider the greater good and spend more time perceptively considering their constituents than keeping them riled up.
8
A clear,well written,misleading,overly simplistic caveat.People,here, there, wherever,in democracies,are blamed for being reckless in their voting,hinted-at complacency and perhaps,even their/our cooptation. We, or perhaps a targeted generalized They, dancing-at-a-dangerous-distance-from-self-destruction,have not behaved responsibly.Not chosen to be accountable. Accountable people,accordingly,do not do, do not cause,what now IS! A linear, cause and effect description.Posing as an explanation.For a dynamic, multidimesional, non-linear,not yet completed outcome.This experienced Pulitzer Prize accountable, or not, journalist chooses not to help us readers to consider how accountable citizenry is created.Nourished. Sustained.In realities of daily interacting uncertainties. Unpredictability. Randomness. impermanence. And a lack of total control.Even as each of needs to respond as best as we can.In our range of roles.Given our internal and external available and accessible resources.Given who we are.Who we are not and may never be.Given our good enough, or not, daily functioning.Coping and adapting. Daily. In inequitable WE-THEY environments.And cultures.Given that “well being” and “quality of life,” for many- family, friends, neighbors and strangers- are little more than words.Or just letters joined.Absent, in this caveat,which may merit its own article, is the media’s accountability in what is.What was.What can yet be.To enable menschlich,needed,changes.Helpful blaming?
3
Bret, this was not a well thought out article and no real due diligence is present here as if it were the article would take so much more into consideration before any conclusions were drawn.
It will be fun examining your future work for the same absence of thought.
It will be fun examining your future work for the same absence of thought.
8
It's your comment that's not well-thought-out. I'm not even sure what the point of it is, except you didn't like what Stephens says. I don't look forward to examining your future work.
5
Mr. Stephens, you are right--all of this is on the voters. I would suggest that our failure to elect better candidates has been caused by a combination of:
lack of critical thinking skills, to better analyze and evaluate what these candidates are actually advocating (or not)
fear of changes caused by globalization
cynicism and crassness of our two major political parties, who seemingly will do anything to win, and who seem to care more about winning and staying in power than what is best for the country. And by that I mean the entire country, not just their passionate base.
the media wringer, which makes good people shy away from running for office
and, frankly, sheer laziness on the part of our citizens, who are not willing to invest the time to educate themselves on the issues.
All of these things have led us to the kind of "leaders" we have elected today. In a democracy, the buck stops with the voters. We have no one to blame but ourselves. The good news is that we always have the power to fix it, with each election. That is, if we can tear ourselves away from dancing cat videos and Kim Kardashian long enough to actually be responsible citizens.
lack of critical thinking skills, to better analyze and evaluate what these candidates are actually advocating (or not)
fear of changes caused by globalization
cynicism and crassness of our two major political parties, who seemingly will do anything to win, and who seem to care more about winning and staying in power than what is best for the country. And by that I mean the entire country, not just their passionate base.
the media wringer, which makes good people shy away from running for office
and, frankly, sheer laziness on the part of our citizens, who are not willing to invest the time to educate themselves on the issues.
All of these things have led us to the kind of "leaders" we have elected today. In a democracy, the buck stops with the voters. We have no one to blame but ourselves. The good news is that we always have the power to fix it, with each election. That is, if we can tear ourselves away from dancing cat videos and Kim Kardashian long enough to actually be responsible citizens.
15
Meaning of political elections in the U.S., France, Britain 2017? The need to avoid extremes of right and left and to somehow make the political center more appealing, that any orientation toward political center, such as election of Macron in France is a relief?
The problem appears to me rather obvious: Probably the key concept in the modern world is that of progress--there is an arrow, a direction, by which society can be made better for all. Extremes of left and right are taken as deviations from this arrow. The political center should be this arrow clarified, the direction established, the future, progress blazed.
But in the modern world the political center is far from clear--in fact people are wary of the center being progress and justifiably so: The political center seems incremental, hurting, grinding under millions and just as painful for all stability as an extreme swing to left or right. The political center like any left or right swing does not seem particularly a place of innovation, enlightenment, honesty, a place where the best minds have oriented and where the best minds can be found.
If the political center would succeed it has to be composed of people of integrity and be clearly defined to public satisfaction as the best known human path so far for society development. But the political center rarely talks about subjects such as overpopulation, need for massive no nonsense education, environmental problems, technology challenges, etc. Be arrow or fall.
The problem appears to me rather obvious: Probably the key concept in the modern world is that of progress--there is an arrow, a direction, by which society can be made better for all. Extremes of left and right are taken as deviations from this arrow. The political center should be this arrow clarified, the direction established, the future, progress blazed.
But in the modern world the political center is far from clear--in fact people are wary of the center being progress and justifiably so: The political center seems incremental, hurting, grinding under millions and just as painful for all stability as an extreme swing to left or right. The political center like any left or right swing does not seem particularly a place of innovation, enlightenment, honesty, a place where the best minds have oriented and where the best minds can be found.
If the political center would succeed it has to be composed of people of integrity and be clearly defined to public satisfaction as the best known human path so far for society development. But the political center rarely talks about subjects such as overpopulation, need for massive no nonsense education, environmental problems, technology challenges, etc. Be arrow or fall.
6
"The recklessness of their leaders is a result of personal choices at the ballot box, not impersonal social or economic forces." --Is it? For the last 50 years median-income (in real dollars) has been flat; though housing costs and college tuition has doubled and hospitalization costs have increased ten-fold. Yet the choice at the U.S. ballot box was between Hilary Clinton's 'incrementalism' (which is how we got here) and Donald Trump's propaganda. Given that media no longer has the filters of three major TV networks, and fantasy & science-fiction has the same relevance as journalism, what can one expect? Elections are being driven by 'personal' social and economic forces.
14
How about Stephens even mention the recklessness of Faux News and hate radio?
3
I read this as a plea for centrism; there are many in this country who are exhausted by far right and far left extremes, they long for the healthy give and take of the middle where a broad cross section benefits.
8
While ideology is no doubt important, charisma and personality may matter more in elections. Macron won, not just because he was a centrist, but because he was able to portray himself as something new and likable. At least the new part of that was truthful, as he had only a very limited stint in government. There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary lost because she was unable to portray herself as either-though even despite that she won the popular vote by a decent margin. There is no doubt in my mind that a centrist Democrat who had the stage presence of Macron or Justin Trudeau would have beaten Trump in a landslide, as evidenced by the fact that both of those centrists cruised to easy victories. Like it or not, how the candidate says it matters just as much if not more than what they say.
8
Electoral systems heavily disguise the meaning behind elections. The US, French and UK systems are very different. Moreover, traditions of class, race, religion and region play their own important roles in each polity as does the relative competence of the politicians. With respect to the latter it can be said that the "winners": Trump, Macron, Corbyn were the better politicians in their time and place.
However, there is one common factor running through all these elections: the rise of the new younger generation of voters. My daughter, born in 1999 told me, born in 1949, cruelly but precisely that…"i was leaving the stage as She was entering it".
What does this generation want? Firstly, peace. Secondly, equality. Thirdly, conservation. It wants the Economy and the State to be organized such as to pursue these objectives. Only in Macron, and only perhaps, have they discovered a leader of an age near to theirs who will pursue their goals There is an opening in both the US and Britain for a politician of a similar generation to replace the Sanders/Corbyn throwbacks that are currently seen as imperfectly responding to this new generation.
However, there is one common factor running through all these elections: the rise of the new younger generation of voters. My daughter, born in 1999 told me, born in 1949, cruelly but precisely that…"i was leaving the stage as She was entering it".
What does this generation want? Firstly, peace. Secondly, equality. Thirdly, conservation. It wants the Economy and the State to be organized such as to pursue these objectives. Only in Macron, and only perhaps, have they discovered a leader of an age near to theirs who will pursue their goals There is an opening in both the US and Britain for a politician of a similar generation to replace the Sanders/Corbyn throwbacks that are currently seen as imperfectly responding to this new generation.
14
In what ways are Sanders & Corbyn imperfectly responding to the desire for peace and equality?
4
People believe and vote for the person who says they will solve the problem they have. The unfortunate part is many fail to dig in to see how and if that person can follow through and deliver on their promise. trump is the perfect example. He said what many people wanted to hear, he said that he, and only he, could solve all the problems of the US very quickly.
7
Very true. It's more exciting to sell a dream, instead of talking about a reality where many of our issues are not easy to solve.
The angry "protest" voters today are not voting FOR anything or anyone. They are voting AGAINST, and to hurt, those within the entrenched establishment in powerful government positions who they think are taking from or ignoring them in order to cater to the needs of resented minorities, or lower paid foreign workers whom they sees making inroads at their expense. They see the entrenched and privileged bureaucrats as engineering this. True or not, that is how they see it, and why the any vote that way. Ask some, and then remain silent, and merely appearing as an interested listener as they reply.
16
I have always supported public education but the election of Donald the Chaotic indicates a lack of basic critical thinking and citizenship skills.
18
Just remember that the Republicans are the ones cutting funding, rewriting curriculum in their own bias, and actively promoting vouchers (for profit and parochial schools). They are no friends of public education.
31
At 13, Trump, a schoolyard bully who has bragged that he punched a teacher in the face, was shipped off by his parents to a pricey private military school, a typical dumping ground for public school misfits. Then it was on to college at Catholic Fordham for two years before finishing up at Ivy League University of Pennsylvania. So don't blame public schools. Indeed, perhaps he would have learned those vital skills and lessons had he attended one.
- Proud spouse of a dedicated, hard-working and selfless public school teacher
- Proud spouse of a dedicated, hard-working and selfless public school teacher
3
Stephens' column today is glib, dismissive and cartoonishly elitist in its characterization of what is driving the roiling discontent of the populism that is sweeping through the West today.
Consider the following three forces that have pushed the US and Europe back on their heels:
1. An economy that has gone from broad-based, growing and responsive to an economy that now has small pockets of extreme growth with larger swathes of stagnation that is leaving millions not participating. From the late 1970's through 2000 deregulation and reforms propelled growth in the West. Since 2000 globalization has hollowed out and off-shored millions of jobs with no like jobs to replace those lost.
2. Terrorism and a state of perpetual war. Radical Islam is a scourge that we have been confronting expensively and mostly ineffectively through conventional means. It is dragging all of us down.
3. Bloated, ossified, unaccountable and unresponsive central governments. Under Reagan, Thatcher and Clinton, government was re-purposed to serve the people. We've now backslide to the 1960's and 70's where government is more about serving special interest and the connected rather than all citizens. For example, our educational-industrial complex is more about serving college prep, liberal arts majors than the technology, vocational needs of the new economy.
So, Brett, let's try to be a little more expansive in diagnosing the ills of today instead just falling back on cheap, liberal bromides.
Consider the following three forces that have pushed the US and Europe back on their heels:
1. An economy that has gone from broad-based, growing and responsive to an economy that now has small pockets of extreme growth with larger swathes of stagnation that is leaving millions not participating. From the late 1970's through 2000 deregulation and reforms propelled growth in the West. Since 2000 globalization has hollowed out and off-shored millions of jobs with no like jobs to replace those lost.
2. Terrorism and a state of perpetual war. Radical Islam is a scourge that we have been confronting expensively and mostly ineffectively through conventional means. It is dragging all of us down.
3. Bloated, ossified, unaccountable and unresponsive central governments. Under Reagan, Thatcher and Clinton, government was re-purposed to serve the people. We've now backslide to the 1960's and 70's where government is more about serving special interest and the connected rather than all citizens. For example, our educational-industrial complex is more about serving college prep, liberal arts majors than the technology, vocational needs of the new economy.
So, Brett, let's try to be a little more expansive in diagnosing the ills of today instead just falling back on cheap, liberal bromides.
16
I dont disagree with what you've said. However, the onus is still on responsible voters to make a responsible decision at the ballot box. If I'm angry with my spouse, I don't hit them. If my baby is crying nonstop, I don't shoot them. To cast a vote just to give the "establishment" the middle finger is irresponsible. To put someone unfit into office with the power to launch nuclear strikes is just insanity.
1
Don't elide the effect of widespread media propagandizing on the right, and Citizens United unleashing the Kochs, Mercers and Adelsons of the world.
2
I am fascinated by all the negative reaction to this article in comments list here. The comments defending Corbyn have revealed to me for the first time the blindness many have to the threat of radicalism from the left. As a center-left voter, I am appalled by Trump and LePen, but Corbyn gives me pause as well.
The author is acutely observing our political systems teetering on the edge of radicalism that is threatening democratic institutions, regardless of whether it comes from the left or the right.
Many of the commenters here ignore this warning and instead sympathize with "voter discontent". In this case, from the left in U.K.
In the US, we objectively elected someone to destroy our system (many literally wanted that). A system that has provided its citizens with the greatest living standards of any society in history in the shortest time period. Ironically, this top standard of living continues for the vast majority of the people who put Trump in office (who's average household income was $72,000, more than the $62,000 average who voted for Clinton).
The author is acutely observing our political systems teetering on the edge of radicalism that is threatening democratic institutions, regardless of whether it comes from the left or the right.
Many of the commenters here ignore this warning and instead sympathize with "voter discontent". In this case, from the left in U.K.
In the US, we objectively elected someone to destroy our system (many literally wanted that). A system that has provided its citizens with the greatest living standards of any society in history in the shortest time period. Ironically, this top standard of living continues for the vast majority of the people who put Trump in office (who's average household income was $72,000, more than the $62,000 average who voted for Clinton).
32
The women who help me with my mother don't make a living wage (yes, I supplement that and am lucky to be able to do so). They work two jobs and have trouble paying all the bills: rent, food (more expensive and less healthy in poorer districts), transport (more expensive for the poor), school fees (increased these days thanks to government greed at the top), internet (no working person can live without this, minimal health care (about to be taken away), etc. etc. If they should be so unlucky as to be caught LWB (living while Black) by authorities, they may even have disgustingly large court fees and bias there as well.
Do the math:
$10/hour (above minimum wage) is $20,800 per year.
There are some regions where housing costs are lower, but on most of the eastern seaboard that barely covers minimum standard housing in poorer areas.
Fact is the average covers outrageously high pay at the top. Those top people and middle top, never miss getting their raises, while the hardworking poor are held down.
Do the math:
$10/hour (above minimum wage) is $20,800 per year.
There are some regions where housing costs are lower, but on most of the eastern seaboard that barely covers minimum standard housing in poorer areas.
Fact is the average covers outrageously high pay at the top. Those top people and middle top, never miss getting their raises, while the hardworking poor are held down.
5
I want to thank Bret Stephen for a thoughtful column, all the points he made , sadly, are so true.
10
The sins of the far left? Anti-semitism posing as anti-Zionism? Anti-Americanism posting as pacifism? I suspect the writer is not in favor of anti-Zionism or pacifism either. And where is the evidence that Corbyn ran an anti-Semitic or anti-American campaign? Nowhere, as far as I know. It's just planted here as a vague suggestion that the writer hopes will somehow stick.
The sins of the far right, such as eliminating health care for all and redistributing wealth from the poorest to the richest, are well documented and conveniently left unsaid here.
Let's hope that the "far left," which stands for universal health care, increased access to education, a return to a fair tax structure, environmental stewardship, respect for diversity, and peace, can take root elsewhere as well. There was a time when these basic ideas were not painted as radical. Corbyn's success is hopeful.
The sins of the far right, such as eliminating health care for all and redistributing wealth from the poorest to the richest, are well documented and conveniently left unsaid here.
Let's hope that the "far left," which stands for universal health care, increased access to education, a return to a fair tax structure, environmental stewardship, respect for diversity, and peace, can take root elsewhere as well. There was a time when these basic ideas were not painted as radical. Corbyn's success is hopeful.
81
Agreed. This is lazy journalism. Evidence please to support the accusation of anti-semitism on Corbyn's part.
4
"All this is on the voters." No doubt, but "all this" also reflects a social failure to produce good leaders.
8
The move towards the fringe was easily foreseeable, in fact as early as 1980 when the principles of Reaganomics (LBOs, Trickle-Down Economics and disproportionate wealth creating deficits) began to destroy the world.
Brexit and Trump are mere symptoms of an Anglo-Saxon disease reflected in Consumerism, Wealth Disparity and Wars of Choice. When the people lack powers of discernment, and those in power make decisions designed only to keep themselves in power, the results are predictably extremist. The political climate in the U.K. and U.S. is eerily similar to the political and economic environment that gave rise to Fascism in Germany.
Impossible? It won't occur overnight, but if Anglo-Saxon politicians keep making the same mistakes, while expecting different results, they will make the 'impossible' possible.
Brexit and Trump are mere symptoms of an Anglo-Saxon disease reflected in Consumerism, Wealth Disparity and Wars of Choice. When the people lack powers of discernment, and those in power make decisions designed only to keep themselves in power, the results are predictably extremist. The political climate in the U.K. and U.S. is eerily similar to the political and economic environment that gave rise to Fascism in Germany.
Impossible? It won't occur overnight, but if Anglo-Saxon politicians keep making the same mistakes, while expecting different results, they will make the 'impossible' possible.
43
Excellent analysis, thank you!
1
The West hasn't walked over the ledge, yet. Let's not forget that it's the forces of the Right, and the uneducated former Left, that are doing all the pushing in that direction. Bret Stephens is right that, in the end, "All this is on the voters." I wish I had an idea about how to fix this. It may not be fixable. Tempting to add a history/civics test as another qualification for voting, but of course we don't really want that--what we really want are more centrists.
8
“Three generations from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves”. An old truism lamenting the brief time it takes to destroy what someone has built with much sweat – and , in the case of nations, sometimes with much blood.
Establishments fail, so bomb-throwers make incremental and sometimes decisive gains. We must find leaders who stand midway between the establishments and the bomb throwers. I’m not sure that Macron fits that bill as Bret suggests, but certainly neither Corbyn nor Trump do, either. The ascendancy of excessives points out the solution to those willing to recognize truth: self-government only succeeds in diverse societies that nurture many opposed convictions … by compromise. That means that both sides agree to negotiated policies that nobody likes but with which a majority can just barely live.
Britain has yet to come to that truth but will – probably not with May OR Corbyn as leader. France has bigger problems, structural challenges that Macron’s can-kicking and defense of the establishment aren’t likely to effectively address.
Trump represents the real test. Democrats still are so astonished at his election that even after seven months they haven’t twigged to the fact that their paralysis and sole focuses on impeachment and frontal “resistance”, unchanged, simply will mean that excessives on the right win because they’re ineffectively challenged.
It’s not really “reckless” voting. It’s a message from regular people: get your acts together and do something useful.
Establishments fail, so bomb-throwers make incremental and sometimes decisive gains. We must find leaders who stand midway between the establishments and the bomb throwers. I’m not sure that Macron fits that bill as Bret suggests, but certainly neither Corbyn nor Trump do, either. The ascendancy of excessives points out the solution to those willing to recognize truth: self-government only succeeds in diverse societies that nurture many opposed convictions … by compromise. That means that both sides agree to negotiated policies that nobody likes but with which a majority can just barely live.
Britain has yet to come to that truth but will – probably not with May OR Corbyn as leader. France has bigger problems, structural challenges that Macron’s can-kicking and defense of the establishment aren’t likely to effectively address.
Trump represents the real test. Democrats still are so astonished at his election that even after seven months they haven’t twigged to the fact that their paralysis and sole focuses on impeachment and frontal “resistance”, unchanged, simply will mean that excessives on the right win because they’re ineffectively challenged.
It’s not really “reckless” voting. It’s a message from regular people: get your acts together and do something useful.
13
"negotiated policies that nobody likes but with which a majority can just barely live." Blech, I much prefer everything or nothing.
Daphne:
If your way wins, you'll most likely get nothing. But then, we've been accustomed to that for eight years, haven't we?
If your way wins, you'll most likely get nothing. But then, we've been accustomed to that for eight years, haven't we?
2
Richard -- been to any Republican town halls lately?
2
I'm a liberal who's no fan of Jeremy Corbyn, but it's not all on the voters. Unlike the US, the UK doesn't have primaries; Britons don't choose their party leaders, MPs do.
If Labour had put forward a decent candidate, they actually might have won.
If Labour had put forward a decent candidate, they actually might have won.
11
The UK does have an equivalent to primaries; most parties have leadership elections. The main difference is that the process is entirely determined by individual parties. In the case of Labour and the Conservatives, they both nominate candidates that the party membership then vote for.
4
Goodness. Yes, how annoying to have 'voters.' Did this columnist read the conservative and labour manifestos? Has he heard of 'austerity' and how these policies have impacted actual people? Did he see Ms. May and Mr. Corybyn in action in the campaign? It was pretty clear, even to those in the middle, which candidate proposed policies that would lead to a fairer Britain and which sold fear. Fear lost this time. Corbyn and Trump are not comparable.
257
It's true that it all comes down to voters in the end, but consider this: voters can only realistically vote on the candidates that are offered to them. If the candidates, or their parties, are way, way out of touch, people may make a very dangerous "protest vote." Parties are just so out of touch with ordinary people, and the results are scary. As the US primaries began, the Republican and Democratic parties displayed a complete and comprehensive misreading of the electorate, by putting forward the names "Bush" and "Clinton." The biggest money was behind these candidates. Although these candidates were and are very qualified, very reasonable people, they just seemed to be reading from old scripts - completely deaf and blind to what was actually going on Out There - and there was way too much "historical baggage" in each case. To this day, neither party seems really to understand where it went wrong.
29
Both the United States and Britain have dipped into the grab bag of conservative economic tricks, mostly consisting of tax cuts and some degree of "austerity". In the US, we had twelve years of the Bush tax cuts. Recall how GWB left the economy: basically in free fall. Also there is the example of Kansas, where Governor Brownback's tax cuts led to economic stagnation and the significant decline of public infrastructure, especially roads and schools. I propose a new experiment: a "patriotic surtax" to be levied on all sources of income, both earned and investment, over the amount of, say, $750,000 per year. Designate this revenue to paying down the national debt. Have the surtax sunset in, say, 9 years (so not in an election year). See what happens. Could be a very interesting experiment.
25
Devoting a high-income surtax to reducing the debt would be a waste of the revenue. It could much better be used on social programs and infrastructure updating, which would have a significant multiplier effect. Tax money spent redeeming bonds would most likely sit in the accounts of the very rich, or be used to purchase overpriced and unproductive assets, such as luxury real estate. The money should go to people who will actually spend it at ground level. Reducing debt might be good for a family's budget, but much different standards and functions apply to government.
21
Paul W.--A paraphrase of your comments is that the level of our debt does not matter. Your comments are incomplete without answering the question: Is there any level of debt that does matter?
In answering this question it is important to realize that debt is more than an obligation to redeem bonds at maturity--it involves ongoing interest obligations. Interest is one of the largest obligations in our national budget. There is some level of excessive debt where interest rates rise and obligations start to crowd out other government expenditures. And federal interest rates affect all other rates and have a direct bearing on our economy. It is a mistake to believe that our national debt just serves to enrich wealthy individual bondholders--most of our debt is held by foreigners and institutions like pension funds and insurance companies.
In answering this question it is important to realize that debt is more than an obligation to redeem bonds at maturity--it involves ongoing interest obligations. Interest is one of the largest obligations in our national budget. There is some level of excessive debt where interest rates rise and obligations start to crowd out other government expenditures. And federal interest rates affect all other rates and have a direct bearing on our economy. It is a mistake to believe that our national debt just serves to enrich wealthy individual bondholders--most of our debt is held by foreigners and institutions like pension funds and insurance companies.
Let's see what has happened EVERY time we paid down the national debt by 10% or more:
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years, and paid down the debt more than 10% in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 38% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
This was an experiment we tried 6 times. I have two quotes for you, aem:
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years, and paid down the debt more than 10% in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 38% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
This was an experiment we tried 6 times. I have two quotes for you, aem:
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
1
Theresa May did not learn the lesson of David Cameron's massive miscalculation in thinking that acceding to an unnecessary Brexit referendum would ensure his political future, and she has paid the price. She thought an early election would shore up her majority and then proceeded to run an entitled but at the same time waffling campaign which fully justified her being nicknamed by the "Economist" - "Theresa Maybe." The now notorious "dementia tax" in the hasty and ill thought-out Conservative Manifesto was the final debacle which sent many of her natural supporters scurrying to other parties. If only the young voters had been as galvanized by the Brexit referendum as they were for this election things might have been very different.
16
Everyone seems to forget that for every bit Corbyn veered to the left, Theresa May veered to the right. Corbyn's most extreme manifesto pledge was to re-nationalise utilities companies and railways. It was extremely unlikely this would have ever come to fruition. Theresa May pledged to cut corporation tax even further - all the way down to 17% (significantly less than most other developed countries which don't hold themselves out to be tax havens) - while also cutting free school lunches for pupils who couldn't afford them. That's about as far right as you can get in a developed country. It's easy to pick on Corbyn (and other socialists) but May is just as extreme, only the people who suffer from her policies are the ones who can't afford to suffer - who are more concerned about making ends meet than maximising their dividends and mitigating their taxes.
97
Between left and right, sometimes one side is right and the middle is wrong even though it is popular. Segregation in North Carolina was generally more tolerable than segregation in Alabama, but the right thing for both was to abolish it. If Democrats had stayed with the white South, maybe the white South would still be Democratic and a Great Society that favored white people would still be popular and include universal medical care.
The present inequality in the distribution of income and wealth could be increased, decreased, or left the same. The middle course is to leave it the same, but if it is unbalanced the middle course is bad.
The present inequality in the distribution of income and wealth could be increased, decreased, or left the same. The middle course is to leave it the same, but if it is unbalanced the middle course is bad.
24
This is a strange, tortuous account of the UK election result. Jeremy Corbyn ran a good campaign. In his unwillingness to suffer fools gladly and to stay focused on the policies that effect the daily lives of ordinary Britons, he is very much like our own Bernie Sanders. The lesson from this election is that Labour does have a possible future. Corbyn, in the end, may not be the best leader for it, but he has shown that it is possible to run on the best of the socialist traditions in the UK, starting with the raft of changes introduced by the Post WW-II Atlee government: free university, NHS, national insurance, etc. Re-nationalizing the rail system is an excellent idea in the wake of the privatization disaster. If the Labour Party can bring in the enthusiasm and abilities of the younger generations -- as this election showed possible -- the party has a promising future.
194
Thanks for this, Gerald. Bret must live in a different UK than I do. Corbyn is the farthest thing from a Trump-like figure, and much more akin to Bernie.
2
People, especially the young, voted Labour because of one simple message. "We will give you a massive amount of things for free and punish anyone who earns over £70K". Students and the poor, who contribute virtually nothing to paying for the policies and are the largest recipients, were of course going to vote for such programs.
11
Just for the record, I think your post seriously underestimates the young people of Great Britain. And I also object to your dividing of Britons into 'contributors' and 'recipients'. It is not a helpful strategy for developing a positive future of any political hue.
63
You left out the elderly. Which you will be one day - if you are not already - and if you are lucky. Status changes over time, in case you haven't experienced this yet. Sometimes the poor become rich, sometimes the course is reversed. Everyone ages, and students graduate or otherwise move on. You will be happier, and therefore more pleasant to be around, if you recognize yourself - yes, yourself - in all of the groups you clearly revile, because you have been, or will be, in one of them.
58
THIS.
1
The NYT hired WSJ’s Stephens to increase its roster of conservative columnists. Why? He calls Corbyn worse than left, he’s nasty left.
Columnist Gary Younge in the Guardian, U K, says: “The economic crash and the austerity that followed caused a tectonic shift in our political culture …..the conventional wisdom is that elections are won in the center. But the center can move.”
The center in US politics had moved rightward for decades, so now our Dem leaders and candidates are more like moderate Gop of the past.
The young in US and Britain show they don't want Trump types but they don't want the centrist status quo either. No to Clinton Democrats and no to Teresa May Tories. Good show! as they say.
It’s said that Teresa's Tories aim to privatized their National Health Service. That’s hardly a ‘conservative’ policy. It is a radical break from a respected tradition, first achieved in 1948---health care for all----that even arch conservative Margaret Thatcher said she was proud of. Imagine.
In this sense it’s the Tories who are the radicals. Maybe Corbyn/Labour are the real ‘conservatives’ aiming to preserve single payer health care for all---what’s worth saving and what citizens want.
Like Bernie Sanders was actually a conservative -- aiming to restore low cost college tuition of past generations, restore needed bank regulations. To revitalize FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society. Restore the middle class, using what was once more 'centrist' USA 'socialism'.
Columnist Gary Younge in the Guardian, U K, says: “The economic crash and the austerity that followed caused a tectonic shift in our political culture …..the conventional wisdom is that elections are won in the center. But the center can move.”
The center in US politics had moved rightward for decades, so now our Dem leaders and candidates are more like moderate Gop of the past.
The young in US and Britain show they don't want Trump types but they don't want the centrist status quo either. No to Clinton Democrats and no to Teresa May Tories. Good show! as they say.
It’s said that Teresa's Tories aim to privatized their National Health Service. That’s hardly a ‘conservative’ policy. It is a radical break from a respected tradition, first achieved in 1948---health care for all----that even arch conservative Margaret Thatcher said she was proud of. Imagine.
In this sense it’s the Tories who are the radicals. Maybe Corbyn/Labour are the real ‘conservatives’ aiming to preserve single payer health care for all---what’s worth saving and what citizens want.
Like Bernie Sanders was actually a conservative -- aiming to restore low cost college tuition of past generations, restore needed bank regulations. To revitalize FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society. Restore the middle class, using what was once more 'centrist' USA 'socialism'.
217
Bravo Meredith. The Western world has accrued enough history that both parties can be "conservative" for different eras. Sanders harks back to what Krugman calls The Great Moderation starting after World War II (when, according to Piketty, the wealth to national income ratio, which reached 7 to 1 between the Gilded Age and World War I, had been whittled by war and depression to 2 to 1. Now the ratio is approaching 7 to 1 once again) the lower middle class found it easy to buy homes and attend college. May and Ryan and their ilk pine for the age of the Robber Barons, when growth seemed almost exponential, forgetting that so much of that growth was generated by exploiting newly-found natural resources both at home and in colonies abroad. Consider that those on the right insist that taking away financial support from the most needy will spur the wretches to work, while taxing a few percent from the wealthiest among us will cause those worthies to quit working and "creating jobs." Perhaps those who pine for Carnegie and Morgan believe their own spiel, and it's understandable that an electorate educated by 20-second sound bytes might fail to understand context or nuance, but it's sad when the paper that is still living down Judith Miller chooses to offer (without an FDA warning) those such as Bill Kristol and this author who so blithely libel rather than explain.
10
The founding fathers really understood the danger of popular passion. It is worse now because it seems that few Americans know or care about history and geography. How many non-immigrants know a second language? At the same time people are more and more dependent on the federal government which is heading towards financial disaster. Politicians, whose number one motivation is reelection stoke the dissatisfaction. It seems to me that we are headed to a battle between nationalist nihilism (Trump/Bannon) and Santa Claus socialism (Sanders). One can only hope that our institutions are strong enough to survive what seems to motivate our poorly educated impatient voters.
15
Progressives in the US are marginalized as extreme left wing in our politics that's distorted by rw Gop extremists and Fox News monopoly media. The Dems are on the defensive to not be too 'liberal' lest they use the corporate billions they need to run for office.
Sanders and other liberals are hardly santa clause socialists. They fight against special interests contradicting our national ideals of equality. To fulfill the whole purpose of having a democracy and voting-- to elect lawmakers to work for their legitimate interests--- economic basic security, opportunity and meritocracy for the citizen majority.
Or is that too quixotic for 21st C America?
Sanders and other liberals are hardly santa clause socialists. They fight against special interests contradicting our national ideals of equality. To fulfill the whole purpose of having a democracy and voting-- to elect lawmakers to work for their legitimate interests--- economic basic security, opportunity and meritocracy for the citizen majority.
Or is that too quixotic for 21st C America?
3
Why not repeat the same analysis for Theresa May who dissolves public institutions such as the police and the NHS, fans false bigotry based on immigration, and treats the poor or those with disabilities as outcasts? The issue in an election is a choice - lots of people appeared to have felt that Corbyn was the better choice. Mr. Stephens would do well to actually analyze Theresa May's actions rather than just presenting a one-sided view.
104
While you're right that Corbyn has some very suspect views, allies, and positions, it would be a mistake to lump him in with Trump in terms of appealing to some "inner ideological id."
In fact, none of his past statements or positions came into this campaign. As you say, the Conservatives didn't call him out on any of it. He wasn't dog-whistling to anti-semites or other bigots. He simply set out a better-sounding agenda than the dismal Conservatives. Higher taxes on the rich. Funding for the NHS. Making education free.
Compare that with Theresa May, who called an election despite promising not to, then failed to show up for the debates, told concerned low wage earners that "there's no money tree," and banged on about "strong and stable" when Brexit is clearly making people uneasy. Alex Massie's Atlantic piece is the best I've read on the subject: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/britain-theres...
In comparison, Corbyn looked like a breath of fresh air. If voters even know about his radical positions on the EU, NATO, etc. (and I bet most of them don't), I think they felt they could be pretty certain that those tendencies would be restrained by the generally centrist system.
Not so with May. who's got into bed with the DUP, which is effectively Trump's base in Northern Ireland.
In fact, none of his past statements or positions came into this campaign. As you say, the Conservatives didn't call him out on any of it. He wasn't dog-whistling to anti-semites or other bigots. He simply set out a better-sounding agenda than the dismal Conservatives. Higher taxes on the rich. Funding for the NHS. Making education free.
Compare that with Theresa May, who called an election despite promising not to, then failed to show up for the debates, told concerned low wage earners that "there's no money tree," and banged on about "strong and stable" when Brexit is clearly making people uneasy. Alex Massie's Atlantic piece is the best I've read on the subject: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/britain-theres...
In comparison, Corbyn looked like a breath of fresh air. If voters even know about his radical positions on the EU, NATO, etc. (and I bet most of them don't), I think they felt they could be pretty certain that those tendencies would be restrained by the generally centrist system.
Not so with May. who's got into bed with the DUP, which is effectively Trump's base in Northern Ireland.
81
Your conviction that in spite of th 1% and the declared ruling oligarchy and the slow erosion of basic human quality of life, we are supposed to vote for conformists who are willing to let the erosion continue. Whether you go right with Trump or left with Corbyn, you're voting to say, clearly, that no, the erosion CANNOT continue...we will not permit it.
If you really want people to vote for the Jeb Bushes and the Hillary Clintons, then push them to go back to all our roots, and go back to the things that worked, and figure out how to restate and revive and rebuild based on goals higher than to maintain the status quo of slow loss and destruction.
If you really want people to vote for the Jeb Bushes and the Hillary Clintons, then push them to go back to all our roots, and go back to the things that worked, and figure out how to restate and revive and rebuild based on goals higher than to maintain the status quo of slow loss and destruction.
15
We live in a world of uneducated, ill informed voters. Voters who cast their votes based on fake media, immediate desires, fake promises, and hype.
Until we make some basic rules for who can vote - some requirement of knowledge of basic facts and issues to be determined in the election - as well as the stand of the candidates on the issues - we have no chance at an informed electorate.
Until we make some basic rules for who can vote - some requirement of knowledge of basic facts and issues to be determined in the election - as well as the stand of the candidates on the issues - we have no chance at an informed electorate.
13
One man, one vote. That is the basis of democracy. We do not, must not, control who votes. But we must prevent propaganda from poisoning the electorate well.
22
There is no natural law supporting the democratic system of government. We have come to hear "right way" when someone says "American democratic system." There are many similar phenomena - we accept something as superior because it has always been or because that is what everyone says. The true test has to be empirical. If it works, keep it. If not, change it. It could very well be that given the current job description of POTUS, selection of the office holder should not be left up to the current process. The current process appears to have failed and should be examined closely.
5
How about 1 person 1 vote, in this day and age? We have to stop the automatic use of the words man or men to mean persons, people, humans, citizens, populace, voters, etc.
7
We live in an extraordinarily complex world. One far more complex than the ancient communities that both came up with the idea of democracy and agonized that is would be vulnerable to the ignorance and passion of the mob. It is time to reconsider the basics. At least to revise our obsolete constitution.
7
I suspect the difference is that French intelligence and British intelligence woke up in time to counter the Russian disinformation campaign. The sleeping giant of America is awakening now. Just hope that we can make it through the current Trump crisis without a cataclysm.
72
I'm always hearing about how "nasty" it is for government to "pick winners and losers" in energy, but near as I can tell, trillions have been handed out to big fossil while clean renewable energy is disadvantaged. That doesn't seem wise.
Theresa May and her colleagues are making a big bet on fossil fuels forever, along with having the Chinese (!) build them old-tech nuclear (I heard a credible rumor that this expensive kludge was a way to get fuel for nuclear subs, costly and inefficient). Meanwhile, they plan an outright ban on land-based wind power, which is about as stupid as it gets. This is not progress, quite the reverse.
Theresa May and her colleagues are making a big bet on fossil fuels forever, along with having the Chinese (!) build them old-tech nuclear (I heard a credible rumor that this expensive kludge was a way to get fuel for nuclear subs, costly and inefficient). Meanwhile, they plan an outright ban on land-based wind power, which is about as stupid as it gets. This is not progress, quite the reverse.
79
Government usually picks winners and losers, or at least has a thumb on the scale. This is probably inevitable, so the only thing we can do about it is be honest about what is going on. If we take an honest look, we will probably want to change something.
If a company produces more disabling injuries per thousand employees than the competition, it should be picked to lose because the rest of us have to pick up the cost of the disabled people. It used to be families that were stuck with these costs, but now that health is closer to a right, all of us wind up paying.
If a company produces more disabling injuries per thousand employees than the competition, it should be picked to lose because the rest of us have to pick up the cost of the disabled people. It used to be families that were stuck with these costs, but now that health is closer to a right, all of us wind up paying.
7
Thanks sdavid. Apologies for presuming to judge about the UK, what I don't know would fill a library. I get a lot of my info from a Yorkshireman who is in the Green party. Wish we had a system here where the Green party could participate without handicapping the more humane party. (And there's no excuse for Jill Stein, with her demagoguery and peculiar positions, not to mention this! http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696 She claims that was an innocent effort to promote disarmament, but her VP candidate was fixated on hating Obama which was also not helpful.)
1
This claim that U.K. voters embraced the "nasty left" is way off base. The results of yesterday's election were not a vote for anti-semitism or a vote against NATO.
Labour voters in the U.K. were voting against years of austerity and cuts to the National Health Service forced on them by the Conservatives. Theresa May recently called for elderly citizens to pay more for their social benefits, which was dubbed a "dementia tax" by opponents. The price for all this austerity has been paid by the most vulnerable in British society, including the elderly and disabled. These were the issues that folks I know in the U.K. voted on.
It is also incorrect to say, "All this is on the voters." Perhaps if the Conservatives in the U.K. had moved closer to the political center themselves, they would have lost fewer seats. May gambled recklessly by calling for an early election, and she paid a price.
Labour voters in the U.K. were voting against years of austerity and cuts to the National Health Service forced on them by the Conservatives. Theresa May recently called for elderly citizens to pay more for their social benefits, which was dubbed a "dementia tax" by opponents. The price for all this austerity has been paid by the most vulnerable in British society, including the elderly and disabled. These were the issues that folks I know in the U.K. voted on.
It is also incorrect to say, "All this is on the voters." Perhaps if the Conservatives in the U.K. had moved closer to the political center themselves, they would have lost fewer seats. May gambled recklessly by calling for an early election, and she paid a price.
276
I agree with Susan. This opinion paper contains a series of unfounded accusations. I checked some sources with disappointing results.
65
Thank you! This article was absolute nonsense; thank you for your sensible rebuttal. M
To say nasty left is automatic for Stephens. He pitches this column to make Corbyn look bad. The times hired him from the wsj editorial board, to add to the nyt op ed page conservative columnist roster.
Excellent opinion piece. Merkel and Macron are now the de-facto leaders of the rational democratic world. The center has currently no effective champion in the US and Britain and desperately needs one. The answer to the likes of Trump and Le Pen are not Cobryn and Sanders..
36
If not Corbyn or Sanders, then who? Certainly not a recycled Clinton or Blair!
3
Yelling and lying from the extremes has no chance of addressing serious problems and real opportunities ... nationally or globally. For every extremist on the far right, there's an offsetting extremist on the far left, roughly speaking. Solutions depend on constructive collaboration and compromise. I wonder how long our societies need to go through the venting, anger and destructiveness that's all to common today?
Who do you propose to be the answer? Global corporatists like Hillary Clinton? More center-right pragmatists that talk much and achieve nothing? The U.S. electorate rejected "more of the same."
The elites that have co-opted the democratic wing of the democratic party helped to fuel the rise of Trump. Many of us have had enough. We demand change. Radical change.
The elites that have co-opted the democratic wing of the democratic party helped to fuel the rise of Trump. Many of us have had enough. We demand change. Radical change.
Bret, when I was heading up the elevator in the building in which I work the other day, an interesting factoid appeared on the mini-TV screen inside.
"The UK had the lowest GDP growth rate in the European Union in the first quarter of 2017, according to the European statistics agency Eurostat."
Brett, would you agree that this anemic growth rate likely has a little bit to do with the strong showing of Corbyn?
Would you further agree that seven years of austerity has British workers losing patience with neo-liberal economics?
When George Washington was in the grip of the throat infection that led to his death, his doctors bled him, purged him, and generally made the last hours of his life a living hell. Isn't that pretty much the same general approach that British conservatives have pursued in the aftermath of the World Financial Crisis?
If so, can you perhaps understand why even a problematic Labor leader might appear sympathetic to a people who have been bled, purged, and otherwise abused ever since the fiscal excesses of neo-liberal sleazeballs made their lives a living hell?
Is the science behind austerity economics any more credible than the science behind the medicine that killed George Washington?
"The UK had the lowest GDP growth rate in the European Union in the first quarter of 2017, according to the European statistics agency Eurostat."
Brett, would you agree that this anemic growth rate likely has a little bit to do with the strong showing of Corbyn?
Would you further agree that seven years of austerity has British workers losing patience with neo-liberal economics?
When George Washington was in the grip of the throat infection that led to his death, his doctors bled him, purged him, and generally made the last hours of his life a living hell. Isn't that pretty much the same general approach that British conservatives have pursued in the aftermath of the World Financial Crisis?
If so, can you perhaps understand why even a problematic Labor leader might appear sympathetic to a people who have been bled, purged, and otherwise abused ever since the fiscal excesses of neo-liberal sleazeballs made their lives a living hell?
Is the science behind austerity economics any more credible than the science behind the medicine that killed George Washington?
335
Britain didn't choose austerity. It had no choice. Britain has a huge current account gap and can't spend money unless foreigners will lend it. The US has seen a surge in oil production, and is richer today than in 2008, but Britain has seen a steep drop in oil production, on top of the loss of profitability of the City of London. The UK is genuinely poorer now than in 2005, and its expenditures inevitably must follow that.
2
This proposition would be more credible if UK growth had been slow since 2008. In fact, UK growth has been stronger than almost any other EU country apart perhaps from Germany. What is also true is that UK workers have less job security than many other countries. But the fact is that the UK has one of the better economic records since the 2008 Crash and one of the benefits of Brexit and the drop in the pound has been improved exports.
I think economic uncertainty and insecurity is the biggest driving force. Corbyn's solutions will do nothing to change that, by the way.
I think economic uncertainty and insecurity is the biggest driving force. Corbyn's solutions will do nothing to change that, by the way.
1
my god, you're forced to watch tv in the elevator where you work? what abuse. with sound or subtitles?
"vile"? "nasty left"? Nonsense! Sounds awfully personal ...
Corbyn tried to bring back some proper societal concerns and stop the looting of the UK's common property and services on behalf of those who already had more than their share. Selling off everything of value for short-term profit (those lovely tax cuts for the rich that solve nothing and create a demand for phony overpriced luxury goods) does not bode well for the future.
"Socialism" is not a supreme evil. Caring for each other is good for everyone. The gross exaggerations of Corbyn's positions are caricatures at best, lies at worst. What has happened to us all that we lie instead of looking at the record.
Republican "hero" Hayek, for example, is for universal health care and a guaranteed minimum income. Ayn Rand would not impress him.
Corbyn tried to bring back some proper societal concerns and stop the looting of the UK's common property and services on behalf of those who already had more than their share. Selling off everything of value for short-term profit (those lovely tax cuts for the rich that solve nothing and create a demand for phony overpriced luxury goods) does not bode well for the future.
"Socialism" is not a supreme evil. Caring for each other is good for everyone. The gross exaggerations of Corbyn's positions are caricatures at best, lies at worst. What has happened to us all that we lie instead of looking at the record.
Republican "hero" Hayek, for example, is for universal health care and a guaranteed minimum income. Ayn Rand would not impress him.
310
Socialism is not evil? Tell this to its millions of victims. Or better still, ask citizens of any Eastern European country who have had a real experience with it, whether they would like to go back. This was real socialism; there is no other. The lie that Scandinavian countries are socialist has been refuted too many times to even mention. Scandinavia, Germany (where I just visited) and indeed, all European countries are capitalist, free-market economies with welfare state protections. The essence of socialism is not a single payer healthcare, which exists in super-capitalist Hong Kong and Singapore. The essence of socialism is class hatred, anti-Semitism and glorification of violence, displayed by Corbyn's ideology (though, to be fair, not by the traditional British Labour which I support).
6
Either capitalism or socialism taken to extremes is bad. But capitalism well regulated by elected govt can further individual development and rights, and make progressive modern society possible. Our own US past is a positive role model, when the middle class was expanding, not shrinking. This is rarely referred to by either the media or by politicians.
11
Mor -
"so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
What does that have to do with "class hatred, anti-Semitism and glorification of violence"?
"so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
What does that have to do with "class hatred, anti-Semitism and glorification of violence"?
7
"Reckless voters"? Not a word of any relevant analysis here of economic/income issues which may have accounted for a rejection by voters of a prolonged status quo of widening income inequality, accompanied by diminished personal incomes. While not an endorsement of the candidates eventually selected by these "accountable" voters, to suggest that these voters turned to hard right or left "fetish" candidates because of a rejection of "boring" centrist choices glaringly ignores the central, historic place of "pocketbook issues" in voter choices. How about thoughtfully placing some of the onus, at the very least, on the utter failure of those "boring" candidates to vigorously embrace policies improving the lives of the everyday citizenry?
116
We have had a year of voting dangerously because far too many demagogues, in their pursuit of personal power, foster and prey on the public's ignorance and fears.
Constitutional republics are founded on certain fundamental legal principles--now accepted and recognized in all mature democracies--which limit and control the effect of any decisions made by government officials. The rule of law requires courts to uphold these principles and to protect the rights they articulate. In a rights-based constitutional democracy, checks and balances are in place to guarantee that no person is sovereign and no decision or action is above the rule of law.
Our democratic institutions are designed to protect individuals against both dictatorial authoritarianism and majoritarian "populism": bias against and scapegoating of minorities, neglect of the vulnerable, rank political opportunism, consolidation of anti-democratic power, xenophobia, jingoism, abuse of power by governmental and economic elites, and conflicts of interest on the part of elected officials.
President Trump and far too many other politicians, both here and abroad, disdain these ideals. Orban in Hungary and Erdogan in Turkey provide other demagogic examples.
Do the above ideals no longer inspire the voting public? Have materialism and individualism destroyed all sense of the humane and communal? Will democracy succumb to demagogic, plutocratic and kleptocratic forces--and vanish from the face of the earth?
Constitutional republics are founded on certain fundamental legal principles--now accepted and recognized in all mature democracies--which limit and control the effect of any decisions made by government officials. The rule of law requires courts to uphold these principles and to protect the rights they articulate. In a rights-based constitutional democracy, checks and balances are in place to guarantee that no person is sovereign and no decision or action is above the rule of law.
Our democratic institutions are designed to protect individuals against both dictatorial authoritarianism and majoritarian "populism": bias against and scapegoating of minorities, neglect of the vulnerable, rank political opportunism, consolidation of anti-democratic power, xenophobia, jingoism, abuse of power by governmental and economic elites, and conflicts of interest on the part of elected officials.
President Trump and far too many other politicians, both here and abroad, disdain these ideals. Orban in Hungary and Erdogan in Turkey provide other demagogic examples.
Do the above ideals no longer inspire the voting public? Have materialism and individualism destroyed all sense of the humane and communal? Will democracy succumb to demagogic, plutocratic and kleptocratic forces--and vanish from the face of the earth?
38
I would say that Western democracy in the US and U.K. has failed to protect the majority population from the abuses of economic elites for generations. Unfortunately, we got a Trump instead of a Corbyn, who isn't much of a populist. His Labour policies would have been tame in the 1970s. The fact that they are considered extreme now is an indication how far things have been pushed to the Right over the years.
144
Agreed, H.V.
By Social Democratic standards set in Europe, the U.S. voters, on economic matters, are given two choices: right of center Dems or
ultra-right Republicans.
The flaws of robber baron capitalism were still very much evident in the financial collapse of 2008 and have remained evident ever since. Here in the U.S., mergers and acquisitions continue to result in too-big-too-fail financial institutions and corporations; a narrow focus on the enhancement of shareholder value remains detrimental to the interests of employees and consumers; robots and other technological innovations reduce the demand for workers; competition decreases; entrenched wealth dominates the political and legal systems; disparities between the wealth and incomes of the top 1% and the lower 99% continue to increase; ordinary people feel in their bones that the system is rigged; lower-middle-class and working-class resentment flares and finds its expression in support for a superficially anti-establishment Leader who proclaims that he alone can set things right.
The pro-plutocratic agenda of Ryan-Trump is designed to return us to the robber baron glories of the Gilded Age. Will this Gilded Age be once again followed by another Great Recession or Depression?
Perhaps Americans, during this Ryan-Trump Era, should familiarize themselves with the Marxist and Neo-Marxist critique of capitalism and judge for themselves the extent to which it applies to capitalism as currently practiced in the U.S
By Social Democratic standards set in Europe, the U.S. voters, on economic matters, are given two choices: right of center Dems or
ultra-right Republicans.
The flaws of robber baron capitalism were still very much evident in the financial collapse of 2008 and have remained evident ever since. Here in the U.S., mergers and acquisitions continue to result in too-big-too-fail financial institutions and corporations; a narrow focus on the enhancement of shareholder value remains detrimental to the interests of employees and consumers; robots and other technological innovations reduce the demand for workers; competition decreases; entrenched wealth dominates the political and legal systems; disparities between the wealth and incomes of the top 1% and the lower 99% continue to increase; ordinary people feel in their bones that the system is rigged; lower-middle-class and working-class resentment flares and finds its expression in support for a superficially anti-establishment Leader who proclaims that he alone can set things right.
The pro-plutocratic agenda of Ryan-Trump is designed to return us to the robber baron glories of the Gilded Age. Will this Gilded Age be once again followed by another Great Recession or Depression?
Perhaps Americans, during this Ryan-Trump Era, should familiarize themselves with the Marxist and Neo-Marxist critique of capitalism and judge for themselves the extent to which it applies to capitalism as currently practiced in the U.S
30
Andrew, these are among the most articulate, measured, insightful comments (including op-eds!) I've seen in the Times in quite awhile.
Please write more often, if you have the time.
www.remember-to-breathe.org
Please write more often, if you have the time.
www.remember-to-breathe.org
4
My take on the UK election was that it was "Prime Minister May's to lose" and, unfortunately, she did it (mostly, anyway). You are absolutely correct that Corbyn's alt-left excesses have been papered over, and I would tremble at what his Cabinet choices would be.
I can't like Mrs. May's collaboration with the SNL, though; I tremble as to what compromises that will require.
I can't like Mrs. May's collaboration with the SNL, though; I tremble as to what compromises that will require.
13
What a fresh thoughtful voice at NYT.
The world and the electorate has gone the way of extremes, including in politics. In the era of fast food and reality TV, extreme snap judgments are the equivalent of comfort food. I would like to think that some people's lives are either too busy for reading and contemplation or too difficult to allow them to be thoughtful. However, I am afraid that too often it is also the mental laziness and lack of education when growing up, so constructive and analytical thought process does not come naturally.
The world and the electorate has gone the way of extremes, including in politics. In the era of fast food and reality TV, extreme snap judgments are the equivalent of comfort food. I would like to think that some people's lives are either too busy for reading and contemplation or too difficult to allow them to be thoughtful. However, I am afraid that too often it is also the mental laziness and lack of education when growing up, so constructive and analytical thought process does not come naturally.
22
My main issue with this column is the blame on the voters. This strikes me as somewhat similar to blaming "the media" for behavior of voters.
The truth is, the underlying reasons for human behavior are complex and difficult to discern. Our circumstances and are environment have high levels of effects on who we are as people.
We can't control genetics too well but we can control the environment that the 21st Century citizen of a liberal Democracy resides in (to some extent).
If people are embracing ideologies which dramatically conflict with the one we desire, it seems far more prudent to look at where we went wrong rather than place abstract blame on "the people".
The truth is, the underlying reasons for human behavior are complex and difficult to discern. Our circumstances and are environment have high levels of effects on who we are as people.
We can't control genetics too well but we can control the environment that the 21st Century citizen of a liberal Democracy resides in (to some extent).
If people are embracing ideologies which dramatically conflict with the one we desire, it seems far more prudent to look at where we went wrong rather than place abstract blame on "the people".
20
Many if not most British pundits and pollsters, and more than a handful of his fellow party members, who mistakenly wrote off Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour party because he was too far left are swallowing humble pie and admitting they were wrong. To the extent that he is in today's political spectrum far left, Corbyn managed to capture many disillusioned voters, by reawakening the Labour Party's long-lost values, in much the same way that Bernie Sanders reminded people what the Democrats stood for within many of our lifetimes.
Bret, far from accepting that there is something positive to Corbyn's appeal, you double down on the idea of the "nasty left", which actually strives for a more equitable and just society. This goal used to be accepted even by the center-right; those of us who lived through that part of the past saw that it was working - right until Margaret Thatcher, soon to be aided and abetted by Ronald Reagan, came along and declared "there's no such thing as society".
Bret, far from accepting that there is something positive to Corbyn's appeal, you double down on the idea of the "nasty left", which actually strives for a more equitable and just society. This goal used to be accepted even by the center-right; those of us who lived through that part of the past saw that it was working - right until Margaret Thatcher, soon to be aided and abetted by Ronald Reagan, came along and declared "there's no such thing as society".
433
So can we expect a British Prime Minister Corbyn?
'Something positive to Corbyn's appeal' is no substitute for winning the right to govern and rule.
I know that my main man Bernie Sanders lost. And I could care less about his appeal with the Donnie the Barbarian occupying the White House while Hillary whines and whimpers over her millions and Barack is smiling on the verge of his pot of gold.
'Something positive to Corbyn's appeal' is no substitute for winning the right to govern and rule.
I know that my main man Bernie Sanders lost. And I could care less about his appeal with the Donnie the Barbarian occupying the White House while Hillary whines and whimpers over her millions and Barack is smiling on the verge of his pot of gold.
3
Good points. Voters are responsible. But let's not discount the detrimental effects of 20 or more years of propaganda by Fox News and right-wing radio has had on rational thought of too many Americans.
197
Responsible voters in the U.S. can't count on fair elections or that their votes will be counted. The GOP has long waged a war against fair elections to shut-out Democrats and Independents: 1-Pass Citizen's United to gain unfettered access to dark money; 2-Flood state races to pick up seats, cut regulations; 3-Gerrymander districts (Operation Red Map); 4-Purge 1.1+M mostly African-Americans from voter rolls in GOP-controlled states ("Crosscheck", KS Sec of State Kobach); 5-Gut the Voting Rights Act and pass onerous voter ID rules targeting poor, elderly, African Americans, Hispanics; 6-Underfund and close thousands of polling sites in Dem-leaning districts; 7-Intimidate voters and cage votes; 8-Reduce voting poll hrs & days, install broken, non-functioning, fewer machines; 9-Shunt voters to provisional ballots (no proof votes will be counted), and to wrong sites to vote; 10-Legalize methods to prevent votes from being tracked, fail to secure votes and keep counting methods secret; 11-Employ expensive law suits to contest a recount and actual results in court; 12-Target state judges to remove from office and independent election watchdogs; 13-Strike down legislation to auto-enroll voters when they renew their driver's license; 14- Suppress and refuse to investigate Russian influence and hacking. And celebrate assaults on the press. Without a secure voting system, the will of the majority of Americans is nullified.
24
Democrats do more than their fair share of shutting out Independents as well. And that quite rightly cost them.
2
rtj - Some examples please.
Well said, Bret. Thanks.
17
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2017/06/labour-and-its-left.html