"First, I think anyone who calls herself a democratic socialist must either be ignorant of the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century or, more frighteningly, cognizant of it." Fortunately for the GOP memory cells, Fascism did no damage in the 20th century.
10
Yes, anyone can get in the game these days. It's easier than ever to get the facts, even if they are Russian facts.
Too, folks can easily find definitions and make translations.
"Make America Great Again" See Translation:
"Make the World Flat Again"
It's the 4th of July and soon we may have this great democracy, by way of it's courts, define when life begins!
7
Bret Stephens like to play with words trying to equate 2 terms that sound similar but are very different.
" I think anyone who calls herself a DEMOCRATIC socialist must either be ignorant of the immense damage SOCIALISM did in the 20th century" He didn't write The immense damage DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM did to the 20th century. Because he knows that is not true. Democracies like Norway, Denmark, the UK, Canada, New Zealand have regular elections freedom of speech and all the other freedoms. But Capitalism is the mover of the economy. These smarter countries believe taking care of all citizens through healthcare, free or affordable higher education, support for those in need are important for a better society. And this is proven by multiple surveys every year. The US never appears close to the top. Socialist countries like the USSR and its bloc and China have been damaging but were the antithesis of democracy. Mr Stephens should stop playing with semantics as it highlights the weakness of his argument. Thanks
9
For those who quake, like Bret, at the label "Socialist," it is worth considering the record of socialism in Milwaukee during the first half of the 20th century.
A series of socialist mayors, between 1910 and 1960 enjoyed remarkable popularity and reputations for fiscal probity and good governance. They were credited with cleaning up city government, literally as well as figuratively, hence the term "sewer socialist."
7
Personally, I think it's time for some socialism when a relative handful of oligarchs own a majority of the wealth in the country and have their own political party to ensure even more riches in the future.
11
Bret's concern about the "financial class" is totally misplaced. By financial class, you mean big business, right, and who's making class warfare better than them? They just established right-to-work in government agencies and schools; as mentioned in the article, they can buy their own personal politicians, and it looks like civil rights might be overturned by "free speech" as interpreted by this court. What's there for the "financial class" to be afraid of?
7
Yes, Bret, the game of politics ends up between the 40 yard lines, but you need to throw over the top the goal line once in awhile, especially when the game stagnates. And don't get carried away with the label "socialist." Democratic socialism is Roosevelt and other liberals who applied government intervention when needed. To remedy wage stagnation and inequality we have to shoot for the goal line.
6
I have an exciting topic no one seems to be thinking about, concerning the rebalancing of the arms of government power. In theory, Congress, the Executive and the Court may freely exercise their powers to serve the public, above party affiliation or labels like 'socialist', with the president starting the ball rolling and the other two branches checking his initiatives to maintain balance of power. However,the Supreme Court is not above labels like 'conservative Republican ideologue' at present. If it now revisits settled precedent, as it did in Janus, it can't claim to be innocent of judicial activism in the service of maintaining social order. This leaves Congress as the only check directly responsible to taxpayers. But it is paralyzed by big money donors and lobbyists, who argue with strange logic. We can hope Roberts is above partisan. Now I loose the shocking thought: can lifetime tenure for members of the Court be cancelled by Act of Congress, as an amendment to the Constitution? Are present articles for their impeachment clear and applicable to an evolving situation? I suggest Congress has to find a way to go on the offensive.
2
Oh, just a word, or maybe a quibble would be more accurate. Bret says "...anyone who calls herself a democratic socialist must either be ignorant of the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century..." The ignorance lies, I think, in his understanding of socialism as averred by folks like Sanders. The socialism that so damaged the 20th century was communism, the bastard son of socialism. Sure, when a self-styled socialist prefers "the ownership of the means of production and distribution by the state", he's talking about socialism as the precursor of communism as imagined by Marx, but folks like Sander don't forward that idea at all. That's Marxist theory, and nothing more. The "ownership of the means of production and distribution by the state" doesn't represent the Sanders brand of Democratic Socialism at all. He and other Democratic socialists are content with the kind of mixed economy we now enjoy, but think it needs serious tweaking to avoid a plutocracy. And a plutocracy is where we're headed, if we're not already there.
13
Bret mentions the evils of socialism in the 20th century. Perchance was he referring to Social Security or Medicare and Medicaid? Or perhaps he meant our socialized system of highways that replaced private roads and helped make possible our powerful economy? Or maybe he was referring to our public education system that made possible our abundant technological progress. Oh shucks - thats right; I forgot, he was referring to the failed soviet and Chinese attempts at command economies which were really about power grabs by one party in those countries. Why is it that faux conservatives like Bret get so confused by the noble and civilized activity of social funding of programs that benefit society?
14
The term ''moderate'' is as outdated as the term ''bipartisanship''. It denotes a time of working together. That ended around the time of Gingrich and his trying to impeach a President at all costs.
You cannot be considered a ''moderate'' if your voting record is lock step with your party and President of 90% - 100 %. Wouldn't a moderate be voting around 50-60%, especially when voting to take away people's rights ? ( like health care as an example )
Bipartisanship means that a piece of legislation gets around a equal number of Democrats and republicans and gets signed into law, regardless of the political spectrum the President sits on. It does not mean 95% of one side and one or two voted from the other.
Even when there is clear bipartisan support for legislation, (like in 2013 when Democrats got republican support on a comprehensive immigration reform package in the Senate and republicans/Leader in the house did not even allow it for a vote) ?
How about when a Democratic President has the Constitutional authority to nominate a replacement Supreme Court judge, but the other side (republicans do not even allow a meeting with him, let alone a vote)
Even we are going to use the terms, then let's be consistent. What has been happening for a long time is that Democrats win 7 out of the 8 national elections ( popular vote ) yet have been barely allowed to govern as republicans filibuster anything that moves. When republicans govern, it is by fiat.
Not moderate at all
16
Ocasio-Cortez is what about the democrats need to do ; clean house of the old and get in the young, new, articulate, forward thinking men and women, who everyone sees and hears and stands up and shouts YES.
Thats what i did when i saw her on Colbert's show last week.
I recommend everyone google it.
Also, We miss you Gail.
7
"The Sanders-style instinct of treating the financial class in the United States as virtual criminals is an ugly form of class warfare this country doesn’t need."
Bret, do you realize how lame you sound when you say stuff like this? When I think of people who deserve sympathy for how they're described by politicians, the guys in the "financial class" don't register at all. I think of Barack Obama being called a liar by Joe Wilson of South Carolina. Now that's ugly class warfare.
12
While some (Bret Stephens included) have reserve about Ocasio-Cortez’ identity as a Democratic Socialist, I will remind those persons and Mr Stephens that at 28 she has watched what the ravages of unchecked capitalism can do to our society. She and her peers came of age watching their parents lose their jobs and their houses, and Wall Street bankers keep their bonuses and pay no price for their recklessness with other people's money and fiduciary violations. These kids watched income inequality advance rapidly in the last 17 years. And now they have watched a Republican president promise to help the "forgotten working man" then sign the biggest tax cut for the rich in decades, while cutting assistance for those further down the ladder and putting babies in detention centers after snatching them from parents crossing our border seeking asylum.
That's how you create a GENERATION of Democratic Socialists. And why they will now run for office in droves.
12
Bret's comment about judges evolving to liberalism on social issues is a hoot! A conservative who backs limited government wants government regulation of reproductive or marriage choices? Nooooooo, these are true conservatives who actually aren't hypocrite republicans using social wedge issues to divide us to win elections.
4
Gosh, how does Gail resist the temptation of beating Stephens with a stick?! Dude is just plain full of covfefe and himself. Sanders (who I detest) started the class warfare against the Wall St. banksters?! Fyi, Bret, the wealthy have been practicing class warfare against workers since time began. Yeesh...
6
Maybe Trump will pick his sister, who is an appeals court judge.
1
Bret -- Do you really think that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or anyone "who calls herself a democratic socialist" is ignorant or cognizant of -- or better yet, advocating an actual transformation towards -- socialism? Do you really believe there is a movement afoot to nationalize Apple, Facebook and Amazon? I suspect not. I'm really not sure exactly what those using the phrase mean by it, but I'm pretty certain it's not that. And at the same time, do you think those who recoil at the very mention of the word understand how many aspects of government intervention into the marketplace -- which include, among other things, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage legislation, collective bargaining rights, public schooling, and tax incentives for industry -- call them "socialistic" -- we've come to live comfortably with and, to varying degrees, depend upon? I call for an end to the word itself unless and until the user defines its terms.
7
what happened to the story on the wires earlier last week about Justice Kennedy's son loaning billions to Trump for real estate when no one else would loan to him? is anyone following up on that? It is very disturbing to think that there may be a relationship between the money to Trump businesses and the pressure from the WH for Kennedy to step down. Or am I just being paranoid?
13
Roe v Wade is toast. What people don't realize is that the Republicans intend to go farther than that. They will attempt to criminalize abortion in the entire country, in every state. Each state will have legal or illegal abortion. You think they will accept that? Anti-abortionists truly believe that abortion is murder. They believe life begins at conception, period.
6
Robert Bork was rejected by a bipartisan group of senators - including Republicans. I know it is popular to claim is was Democrat extremists who did the deed, it just doesn't happen to be true.
9
Agree but no point bringing facts to an ideology fight...
5
Nicely parried. However I would suggest that "The Sanders-style instinct of treating the financial class in the United States as virtual criminals is an ugly form of class warfare this country doesn’t need." needs a bit more play time. After all this would be the greatest step towards equality for all this nation has taken since LBJ lit up Texas. The Rich, the Poor, and the Middle Class all in the same boat flying the flag of criminality for all regardless of intent or facts.
2
If Trump and the GOP stay in office much longer, there won't be any history to come knocking for Trump--or Planet Earth either.
4
""The Sanders-style instinct of treating the financial class in the United States as virtual criminals is an ugly form of class warfare..."
Yeah, the "financial class" is all about the societal good. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are part of the resistance to class warfare instigated by the tax-cutting GOP. Warfare that Warren Buffet freely admits he and his ilk are winning.
4
"The Sanders-style instinct of treating the financial class in the United States as virtual criminals is an ugly form of class warfare this country doesn’t need."
You lost me here Brett, I guess you are ok when the shoe is on the other foot like it has been for the last 40 years while you and your "conservative" friends have been busy destroying the middle class.
10
Bret should familiarize himself with Social Democrats in Europe. We are considered to be "moderates" here and the movements's legacy is pretty great.
8
Bret Stephens should familiarize himself with the term Mensch. He has relatives rolling over their graves to have such a relative on earth today.
2
Bret Stephens writes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that, "anyone who calls herself a democratic socialist must either be ignorant of the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century or, more frighteningly, cognizant of it." This is an unjustifiable slur, no different from liberals and progressives who are too quick to label nearly every conservative a "fascist."
3
Stephens wrote:
"We conservatives have grown leery of watching judges like David Souter, a George H.W. Bush nominee, “evolve” into liberals once they’re on the high court. Chief Justice John Roberts looks like he may be another evolver, by the way. "
Why is it bad for a judge's thinking to evolve? Doesn't that indicate an open mind, and critical thinking skills that can acknowledge, accept, and be persuaded by other person's arguments? Doesn't evolution indicate positive adaptation to changes over time? Aren't these the traits we'd hope to see in a judge, rather than a rigid and ossified perspective that doesn't live and think in the modern world?
And OMG: Evolving into a Liberal is even a more horrible sin!
Notably, when people discuss how judges evolve, it's most often an evolution from conservatism to more liberal perspectives. Why does that seem to be the norm? Here's why: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
In other words, a thoughtful judge DOES evolve and become more liberal overtime, because that usually reflects the ways that societies evolve! In Darwinian terms, Conservatives' obsession with sticking to rigid and outdated dogma is maladaptive.
Sorry Og, but the bow and arrow has replaced your club....
5
All the division caused by a minority party with all the power has made me understand how the Shia in Iraq felt under Sunni Hussein back then. Will future generations look back on us as being so tribalistic, so cultist as they are? Saying that since Reagan (Hussein), both parties have been at war with each other for umpteen decades?
1
Glad to see Bret's finally gotten internet service in his fallout shelter. Amazing that people are still railing against socialism, as if the word still has any sting left beyond the geezers who gum their cottage cheese while fixated on Fox News. Many Trump voters will be begging for it in a few years.
11
"First, I think anyone who calls herself a democratic socialist must either be ignorant of the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century or, more frighteningly, cognizant of it."
Yikes, this from a NY Times columnist.
Socialism is not communism. Every socialist does not pine for a dictatorship or authoritarian leader nor does every socialist want collectivisation.
NY Times people expect more from you than this. But the demonization of socialism has already begun in the American media - much to the pleasure of Trump and the Republican Party. They thank you for the free handout.
13
IT would be expected to see a leftist movement of Latinos and blacks gain traction against the Republican rightist views.
2
" It's the same old story, same old song and dance, my friend ". Susan Collins, the eternal ingenue, constantly amazed and appalled that those brutish Men broke their promises, to her. Well, I ain't buying it, Lady. Voters of Maine, wake up. Please. She's scamming you.
8
Murkowski, officially an Independent. In reality, her own party, of the excessively self serving variety. Don't play us for fools, Woman. That game is over. Seriously.
5
Did you really need to make fun of the cake guy, Gail? Ridiculing him for his beliefs is not the way to go here.
1
Can't help but see Trump's latest cliffhanger as another tiresome chapter of The Apprentice. Or, better yet, his own Supreme Court version of a beauty contest. Who will the boss like best? Who is the prettiest? Best dressed? Who draws the most audience applause?
3
Gentlepersonly. Ministry of Love. Somehow … I prefer the days when we DIDN’T encounter attempts every day to invent language solely for the purpose of flogging ideological convictions and expressing power. Must be a sign in me of (rapidly) advancing age. When younger, I’d respond with a ridiculous and deflationary counter that communicated my contempt for the effort. These days I save deflationary humor mostly for Nancy Pelosi and – what does the president call her? – some Native American historical figure?
Barrett, huh? Could be, and for the reasons Bret gives. But unlike everything else Trump does, so far (with Gorsuch) he’s chosen to make his SCOTUS picks beyond reasonable question, if not beyond ideological outrage – unlike the mixed discipline with which he’s approached other federal court appointments. With Kavanaugh, he would opt, as he did with Gorsuch, for a deep grounding in constitutional experience. If it’s a Court legacy he seeks, then nominating Barrett would explode that legacy.
But you never know. George H.W. Bush famously regarded the nomination of David Souter as his “biggest mistake” as president. Could be that Barrett astonishes everyone as a SCOTUS justice by torpedoing any attempt to reverse Roe v. Wade -- at least until Trump gets to nominate replacements for Ginsburg and Breyer.
Besides, Barrett is pretty hot, and Trump could nominate her for that reason alone.
2
As an aside, I’m reminded of the extreme pressure Ruth Bader Ginsburg came under during Obama’s last two years to retire, thereby allowing him to replace her with a like-minded liberal in the then-considered-as-possible eventuality that a Republican would succeed Obama. If it had been known then that it would be Trump who succeeded Obama, I have no doubt the RBG would have caved to the pressure.
But it occurs to me that it wouldn’t have made any difference to the eventual outcome. McConnell merely would have advanced the pretext for not allowing a vote on that replacement that a lame duck president shouldn’t nominate a SCOTUS justice in odd- OR even-numbered years.
2
Barrett is "hot"? Showing your true colors here, Dick...
3
Rocko:
Do now what you should have done BEFORE you offered your response: Google "Amy Coney Barrett".
The notion that Susan Collins is moderate is silly. What moderate vote has she ever made?
7
"Game" Gail? Tell that to the parents and children torn apart at the border. That they are just losers in a game. The flippant tone between you and Bret works better when lives are not on the line. I appreciate that Bret sees this administration as beyond the pale but he and his ilk have provided the intellectual underpinnings that have put us in this dangerous and cruel position. And about the socialist that have caused all of our problems... You mean like the socialists who poisoned the water in Flint, MI? Or the socialists who lynched black people in the Jim Crow south? Any problems ever caused by under regulated corporate greed that you can think of?
5
Is it possible that at least one of Trump's appointees will testify as Bork did during his Senate hearings and drive away at least a few moderate Republicans and alienate the red state Democrats sufficiently so that Trump will have to propose someone else? And might that process play out past the November mid-terms?
Or am i whistling past a very dark graveyard here?
Nixon attempted at one point to put an ex-Klan member (Harold Carswell, if I'm remembering correctly) on the court and he (Carswell) was dealt with summarily, as was at least one other Nixon candidate (I'm failing to remember that jurist's name). Both were at one point dismissed as "mediocrities" by then Senator Fulbright (he was correct). This led then Senator Roman Hruska to lament that in a democracy there ought to be room for mediocrities as well as highly qualified, accomplished people. His comment was meant with much hilarity.
Thinking of the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, one can only wonder at how much things have changed.
5
Both Murkowski and Collins are going to play stupid and let themselves be suckered.
Oh they'll do the dance, but that's it. When the vote is called AND the GOP NEEDS their vote they'll vote the party line. Now if a few Dems cave, likely, McConnell may let them off the hook.
There is no way those two will say no to Trump if he needs their vote, not going to happen.
8
What are we to make of Bret Stephens's "First, I think anyone who calls herself a democratic socialist must either be ignorant of the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century or, more frighteningly, cognizant of it."?
I think you're confusing socialism with communist dictators. Stalin was a socialist in name only. You know, sort of like Trump is a patriot in name only, what with his blatant allegiance to Putin, Kim, Duterte, and Erdogan, etc. And even the Nazi Party was called the National Socialists but were anything but as they colluded with the oligarchs of 1930s Germany, basically killing off the labor leaders as needed. Hardly socialist in their outlook and behavior.
The first socialist party was the Australian Labor Party [Wikipedia] -- which is still operating. It would come as a surprise to my sister, who lives there and votes for them, that they have done more damage to Australia than the so-called Liberal Party.
And democratic socialism -- an even further cry from Marxist socialism or Chinese- or Soviet-style communism (dictatorship of the proletariat) -- is thriving in Northern and Western Europe where sane governments plot beneficial, advantageous, and useful policies for their citizens, something of which the US House of Representatives is obviously, unabashedly, shamelessly, glaringly, and openly incapable.
11
Collins has caved in to her party's wishes before. Party OVER Country.
Here's hoping that she and wobbly democrats have some spine and courage for a change.
5
Ugly class warfare that America doesn't need? Well, if it doesn't need, it shouldn't start. The war is already here. And we can see it in the Citizen United that gave much more voice to rich than to the poor (if money is a speech, than the amounts of money define how much speech every person has), combine that with dismantling Unions and you got one of battles in the class war. Should we remember non-compete agreement that brings workers pretty close to a status of slaves of their employer, that exacerbates their dependence based on health insurance. That's the another battle. Should we remember decision against class suits when employers force the employees to sign the contract that is not in interest of employees and give much more power to employer? Like it or not, the ugly class war is already here And it was not started by socialists. Rather socialists are a response to this class war. Don't kill the messengers. Remember once public education was a radical socialist idea, and yet today is a norm of life, as Social security and Medicare. I totally envision Medicare for all as a new norm, especially when the universal health care is already norm in other countries. And guess what? despite of their socialist programs many of the Western countries remain democracy, while the US does move to strong man rule, despite not So many socialist programs. so, seems to me fears of the author are overblown
5
Why does Ocasio Cortez winning have to be viewed as a litmus test on where the Democratic Party is headed? This is bonk from the lazy media that just wants to stir things up. A progressive minority candidate won in a progressive minority district. That's as it should be and if the Democratic Party is to have a left wing they'd better win in those districts. It doesn't mean the Dems can't elect a centrist in suburban Pittsburgh. The Party is big enough for both and will need both to take back control.
Bret is one of a new wave of Republicans who rightly can't stand their own party so want to pull the Democrats to the right with fear mongering about failure if they elect true liberals. Gail should know better and should not have allowed Bret's unsubstantiated slur against democratic socialism to go unchallenged. Come on guys. You can do better.
8
How news and ideas have been shared among our citizens over time has clearly influenced our history. It is seen in our roots as a nation, the Federalist Papers. We have it today with Facebook and our current crisis.
Things are much different now than the period between World War II and Reagan, the days when I thought America was great, if only for striving for greatness. Then we had fundamental regulatory changes to news broadcasting and media ownership rules, with CATV and Murdoch. These were game changers.
Although Hearst-on-steroids Murdoch is out, his re-branding of yellow journalism continues at FOX. Adding an old Red’s social media influence on elections and issues worldwide (Putin), and the “big lie” con-artistry of Donald Trump, I would say we are living in the age of Orange Journalism. And, media consolidation continues.
Orange has always meant caution and danger. So watch out when you hear Trump tweet and repeat 142 or fewer characters. For example, we are continuing to hear the media reiterate Trump’s talking point that Democrats are hurting themselves wanting to abolish ICE.
People need context from media. I believe only three Democrats total--one not yet seated, out of the 240 now holding federal office have said ICE should be abolished. Yet, I’m sure the next poll would show that a majority of Americans believe the Democratic Party wants ICE abolished.
4
Comments about Sanders liberals resonate with me. I am liberal, but not socialist. However, Sanders liberals have a role to play in bringing attention to issues that many have ignored.
We need campaign finance reform; it needs to limit donations and it needs to make all donations transparent. Right now, the outrageously wealthy are buying elections. The Koch brothers are one example.
I will be donating only to candidates who refuse corporate and "big donor" donations for this reason.
Meanwhile, I am working to elect Democrats in the House and Senate. We won't have a true balance of power again until we vote out some of the Republicans who are bowing down to Trump's hysterics and lies.
2
Do you really know what a socialist is?
1
Among the other tremendous 'damages' which 'socialism' has wrought in the 20th century is having brought high-quality, relatively low-cost health care to all of Western Europe as well as much of Asia. The word 'socialism' has become a thought-free slur in the minds of many Americans because a lack of any true understanding of how the world works beyond our borders.
3
Bret and Gail. . . .
. . .thank you.
I love hearing you--I love READING you--as delicately, deftly you circle one another in these little debates. All good humor--good manners--oh Lord! LORD! why can't more of us do the same?
"Cause the same old question haunts me day and night. (And when I say "night"--I mean that literally.)
Where are we? What is happening to us? What WILL happen to us? Down what dark road is Trump taking us? What on earth became of the Republican party I knew in my youth? The party that Mr. Boehner (now retired) has called "the party of Trump." While the REAL Republican party (was there ever one--really?) is "taking a nap somewhere."
You two--Gail and Bret. . . .
. .. I don't know. I read you and in "this present darkness" I see glimmers of reason. Balance. And a word batted about assiduously nowadays--CIVILITY.
What has happened to the America I grew up in? During the 50's and 60's. And later. Where are "the wise men'? AND women? The leaders? The capable people?
Thanks. I had to get that off my chest. A prolonged cri de coeur. (Sounds more elegant in French, no? But the pain is real.)
Please, you two. At least keep TALKING to each other. Without name-calling. Or vulgar insults. Or vile innuendos. Such as flow so plentifully from. . .from. . ..
. ..YOU know who I mean.
(And his friends. Some of whom are the very boors and louts HE is.)
Thanks again. Always good to hear from you.
Aiee! Bret, if we went toward unlimited campaign financing as in the trend set by the Citizens United decision, we would not eliminate or reduce the effects of money in elections, we would greatly increase them. I'm all for eliminating money in elections but short of allowing only the $3 contribution from federal income tax, no magic formula has surfaced, although I admit no one is very interested in this for the obvious reasons. Until such time, we rely on good people promising not to spend any more than they need to publish their platform, a scenario far removed from today's blatant "politics is just business" strut.
1
The immense damage socialism has done during the last century can be measured by its achievements in Sweden, Holland, or Canada,where judicious mixtures of free enterprise and democratic socialism (similar to what we have, but with more socialism) have been far from disastrous.
The opposite of democratic socialism is countries with governments that are lackeys to elites and business interests (often foreign). Examples of these include Mexico, Honduras, Egypt, or the Philippines. They show the fruits of a mindless and absolute antisocialism masquerading as anticommunism.
6
The wealthy "wheeler -dealers" on Wall Street got even more wealth with my 401K. It cost me $400,000 of my savings in 08 and 09 and now I get by on my S.S. and pension. I really can't add much value to the U.S. economy if I have to sit at home and watch T.V.
Not one of the upper class criminals even got a hand slap. How's that for class warfare Bret ?
6
Always a pleasure when Gail and Bret confab to certify the obvious for us.
1
"Bret: Look, I think politics is a game best played within the 40-yard lines. Trump took the right to the 15-yard line, and I’d hate to see the left go the same way. Someone needs to stay sane in this country. The ball is in your hands." So who is supposed to stay sane? Just Democrats, or Republicans too?
4
Sen. Collins is naive and believes what her fellow Republicans tell her, when they want her vote. Sen. Heitkamp seems more Republican than not, and Sen. Murkowski is an opportunist more than a person of conviction. I don’t consider them reliable on any political issues. As far as SCOTUS is concerned I think it would be preferable to keep cases out of its consideration, unless you want Trump’s benighted rulings.
4
Bret -- I know Earl Warren, among others, "evolved" into a liberal once he was on the Supreme Courant.
And I recall a major study that showed that's the ONLY direction that justices go -- from conservative to liberal, not the other way around.
Why do you think that is? And does that somehow worry conservatives when they make these choices -- do they fear that any candidate they choose will be tempted to shift leftward?
7
Dear Bret, when you look at the pain the monied classes have caused this country just in the last ten years-the near collapse of 2008 and the election of the current administration-it’s hard to believe that there aren’t More people calling the rich criminals. But as in the case of some of the workers at Harley Davidson who are about to lose their jobs, they support the president’s tariff blustering, so stupid is as stupid does. You just keep worrying about all the harm “socialists” have done to this country when the air pollution is so bad we’ll have days like China when we can’t go outside because the air is so bad, the water from your faucet can be set on fire, and there will be Trump towers at every national park. Yep, them pesky socialists, worried that people aren’t treated with respect.....
13
If Democratic Socialists don’t want to be unfairly associated with the discredited socialist movements of the 20th century they should come up with a new name for their movement. How about Democratic Egalitarianism?
3
Gail, thanks for taking the breathlessness out of Crowley losing. Note to NY Times - nobody outside of NYC probably cares too much that some guy who had his seat forever lost to a woman who had the gall to knock on doors.
8
Can we please stop referring to Gail Collins as the “moderate Senator from Maine”? Collins has long shown her true colours. She speaks as a moderate, then votes consistently in line with Trump and his GOP. Enough, already.
11
We have no idea how Gail Collins votes or what her beliefs are, but we do see a little behind the curtain in the case of Senator Susan Collins of ME and it seems from past cases that she isn't sure what she believes.
As for Gail, we may not know how she votes but we know she stands firm on important issues for everyone today.
1
"anyone who calls herself a democratic socialist must ... be ignorant of the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century..."
Really, Bret? Which damage was that? Western Europe's? Oh, you must mean the facist governments like the USSR, Red China, and Nazi Germany that all called themselves Socialist, but never really were. The ones where democracy either failed or was never really tried. Or the later examples like in South America, Africa, Asia, or Eastern Europe where strongmen seized control from weak democracies, often with US help, like Chile, Iran under the Shah, or Vietnam ca. 1955.
If you are going to blithely misstate history, consider that some readers both remember and have studied it.
20
Bret states, "I’m just old enough to remember a time when Supreme Court nominations weren’t so bitter, and nominees could rally widespread bipartisan support. I suppose that ended with Robert Bork’s failed nomination in 1987." It might have ended earlier than that, Bret. President Nixon proposed two other nominations that were quite bitter and failed to obtain bipartisan support because of their civil rights records: Clement Haynsworth in 1969 and G. Harrold Carswell in 1970.
4
Gosh how horrid to have a court which requires congress to pass laws instead of just making up the rationale for unlimited Government power.
Real tearjerker here.
Bret, tell me what the damage was that socialism did. I'm looking at the Scandinavian countries and they look pretty good to me. Maybe you mean Communism. That's a different story. But socialism? Norwegians have a pretty good life and the Danes are the happiest in the world, despite no sun for half the year.
7
Count me among the ignorant of the "immense damage that socialism did in the 20th century." I'd like to hear more about this from Stephens. I suspect the admirable Stephens has a different vision of socialism (a totalitarian one) than I do (Sweden)...neither of which accords to what socialism actually is.
7
I have been called a lot worse things than a Sandernista so let's be reminded that Bernie Sanders would no doubt be president today had he received the Democratic nomination. Donald Trump's own pollster Fabrizio acknowledges that.
Liberals are asking for trouble by calling for abolishing ICE, they should be calling for the resurrection of the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill, and putting the blame for any deficiency in border security squarely on the shoulders on the hardliners in the House who prevented it from being voted on after it overwhelmingly passed the Senate.
The piece on weaponizing free speech was substance free with a passing reference to some survey of court decisions and some random quotes from presumed subject matter experts, and predictably is being cited all over right wing media as yet another example of loony liberal hypocrisy (the Federalist went so far as to appropriate my use in the comments section of the word "beclown" in its headline).
4
Socialism is a spectrum. Americans are already on it if you believe in public education, libraries, standing armies and fire departments.
7
The immense damage done in the 20th century was by communism, not socialism. They are two different things, Bret, you should be aware of that. Democratic socialism is what you see in Sweden or Norway.
7
Bret says, " The Sanders-style instinct of treating the financial class in the United States as virtual criminals is an ugly form of class warfare this country doesn’t need."
Sorry, Bret. We already have class warfare in the United States. It's mostly the wealthy, political-patron class (Koch bros, et al) warring on the rest of us. The Trump administration's dismantling of Obama care and the recent, misguided anti-union decision in SCOTUS are just two examples of Koch-financed war on us.
Who among the financial class went to jail for the crimes leading up to 2008, an event that destroyed opportunity for a decade?
When it comes to class warfare, it's high time the rest of us starting fighting back.
18
Bret, let me paraphrase you: "The working class in the United States as real moochers is an ugly form of class warfare this country doesn’t need." How about that?
And agree on the 40 yard comment. But if you are at 15, you play to go to your 15 and then consider staying in the middle. We now know that restraint does not work. That's is how we arrived to where we are now. Pushing hard right didn't work that bad for Republicans. And like it of not, Millenials grew up in a big crisis like the Greatest Generation. You think they are going to go all "Company person" now? Please...
2
Bret, if you think campaign-finance reform and action against the baleful influence of big money aren't necessary, please consider today's Gabriel Zucman's piece in today's Times. It uses the soccer star Ronaldo to highlight the growth of inequality and tax evasion worldwide. And yes, participants from "the financial class in the United States [act] as virtual criminals."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/opinion/ronaldo-world-cup-tax-evasion...
5
One quibble - it wasn't socialism that impacted the 20 Century, it was Communism under the Russians. Please understand the difference. They are not interchangeable and socialism is about making sure citizens have healthcare, education and financial security. It is NOT about state ownership of business etc. Pleae, please, please stop mixing them up!
7
I'm a lifelong Democrat but I see our Leadership as a group of Forrest Gumps. They'll run but are clueless and somehow believe their adversaries will come around and are really kind and fair and will be nice to them. And I'm tired of people like Megan McCain talking about the "true" conservatives who disagree with Trump's fascist behavior but still vote Republican. I wonder what the Whigs are doing these days?
4
I look forward to the Bret and Gail conversations. They are a small bright beacon of hope and sanity.
Media is certainly one key. We have never had a president who like Putin has his own propaganda media conglomerate.
I would not be happy about a judge who believed presidents were exempt from lawsuits and investigations. Maybe my thinking is too simple but I believe nobody is above the law.
I hope you are correct, Bret, that Roe and Casey are safe. I thought the gerrymandering cases were sure things, too.
Given Kennedy's son's relationship to Mr. Trump, shouldn't he have recused himself from anything having to do with this administration? I say that based on some troubling recent news.
It is now looking possible that Kennedy's son funneled Russian money to Trump via Deutsche Bank.
Though a majority of Americans wants what Ms. Ocasio-Cortez wants, they won't vote for somebody with the word "socialist" next to their name.
Why don't we just set aside the terminology?
In the present context, Ocasio-Cortez, Conor Lamb, and the rest of them (like Sec. Clinton) represent the party of "sane, skeptical, decent Americans."
3
I have been thinking of the qualifications of an ideal candidate for occupying a seat on the supreme court.
1. He/She should not belong to any political party, or renounce such affiliation after being sworn in.
2. He/She should be an independent thinker, able to evaluate pros and cons of an issue, unfettered by the Constitution, which in my opinion is so thin and minimalist on social issues that it offers practically no guidelines for fairness. Fairness is a human construct which is constantly evolving.
2. He/She should be neither a conservative nor a liberal. He should think in terms of what most benefits the people, especially the common people, the proverbial 99 percent.
3. He/She should pay attention to what is fair and equitable rather than to what is legally correct, which unfortunately is defined directly or indirectly by the Constitution or some legal precedence set in the past.
4. He/She should always keep in mind the symbol of the Scales of Justice, the most ancient and the universal symbol of law.
6
Socialism did damage? Has he noticed what capitalism is doing to this country?
17
Right on. I read Stephens and weep. Where is his humanity and knowledge of history.
4
"the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century..."
Please Mr. Stephens when you blow a dog-whistle that loud it hurts my ears.Let's try just saying what you mean....now use your words....
"Commie Atheist!"
Now, doesn't saying what you really mean make you feel better?
14
Sandernista is a clever term, but the allusion suffers from bad timing. Peaceful protesters are being killed and Ortega's government is under investigation for its role in human rights violations.
5
Trump will get his pick. Then in 2020 the Democrats will get the Presidency, the House and the Senate. They will pass a bill increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices to 13. Then they will add four new liberal justices that will dominate the court with an eight to five majority.
I am impressed by the analysis of columnists (sarcasm).
6
Mr. Stevens, you of all writers know what a straw man is: making obvious if vague allusions to WWII-era fascism is an egregious and deliberate obfuscation, and you are doing precisely what the right has done for decades; refuse to debate issues on their merits, using specific examples of policy to inform such arguments; rather, you make spurious links to atrocities and blackguard ideas based on non-arguments.
Socialist policies have guaranteed a high quality of life and stability to citizens in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, England, and elsewhere, in different way, and all with measurable costs/outcomes. Debate that. Don't be an intellectual sluggard, using an effigy as an argument. Socialism isn't dangerous. It works.
10
The financial class declared war on the rest of us a long time ago, why is it "class warfare" only when we fight back?
15
It does not matter that Brett does not like a class war between the rich and the rest of us. The war has been going on at least since Eisenhower and will continue.
Conservatives like Brett Stevens do not like to acknowledge it since it serves their goal of covering up their abuse of those who suffer under the yoke of rich oppressors. The rich of course want to continue their advantage at the expense of everyone else meanwhile continuing the myth that everything is as should be. It is our modern day version of the divine right of kings.
5
The big takeaway for me:
When Conservatives evolve, they become more liberal.
6
I agree with Bret that we are likely to see sharply divided opinions on First Amendment questions in the coming Supreme Court term--but not because "liberals [have] soured on free speech."
The looming issues before the Court center on the concerted efforts of the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and others of their ilk to use the First Amendment as an engine of deregulation. By bringing "commercial speech" into the ambit of the First Amendment, they can not only invalidate regulatory disclosures (such as those required on food and drug labeling), but also invalidate virtually all other business regulation since virtually anything a business does can be cast as "speech." While some may find it difficult to believe, these bastions of conservatism are going so far as to contend that the First Amendment protects not just advertising puffery, but blatant lies, outright fraud and even employment discrimination.
Since there is no limiting principle to the application of the First Amendment in this context, progressive academics, far from "souring on free speech," believe the protection of the First Amendment does not and was never meant to extend to commercial speech at all since it would effectively destroy our system of self-government. One would hope that the "originalists" on the Court would agree. But given the recent willingness of the conservative justices to put partisan politics over principle, I wouldn't be so sure.
8
We can argue about Supreme Court candidates, but what requires scrutiny from the public is the process by which our Senate goes about "questioning" the nominee. For decades this has become a show in which the nominee says nothing, disavows any bias in prior decisions or writings, claims respect for the law of the land and then continues down the path that he or she was on prior to the hearing. The first basis for an affirmative vote must be candor from the nominee. Without it--and we won't get it this time around--checks and balances are simply bark without the bite.
5
I disagree with Stephens on plenty, but his description of politics as "a game played within the 40 yard lines" is really eloquent in its simplicity.
2
Bret- "Someone needs to stay sane in this country. The ball is in your hands.". Excuse my ignorance, but we were the sane ones and we did have the ball, then the Electoral College weighed in and blew up the field, proving the Leo Durocher line "Nice Guys Finish Last". It is time to start doing the things needed to improve the lives and conditions of the Public, not worrying if we're going to offend. For all the fears about a coming class warfare, how many CEO's went to jail for tanking your 401K? They and their political benefactors, starting in the WH will never need worry about medical issues - they've got it made, they're covered. You? Me? Gail?, not so much. Honestly, could anyone not named "Mike Pence" screw up immigration and human rights any more than it is today? After seeing the human botch job now sleeping in 1600, I'm not convinced Bernie, Elizabeth and others don't have it right, we need to shuffle the deck and from this angle, electing a "Democratic Socialists" look like a great place to start.
5
As the New Deal progressed through the 1930s the Supreme Court overturn several key pieces of FDR's legislation. Most of the justices had been appointed by Republican presidents. FDR famously tried and failed to pack the court by adding a Justice for each one who reached age 70. After that effort failed, steps were taken to prevent cases from reaching the Supreme Court.
One can foresee in years to come the possibility that parties with legitimate grievances may be forced to avoid taking cases on appeal to the Supreme Court deliberately to avoid negative decisions by an aggressively conservative Court. Our court system cannot fulfill its constitutional role if judges are corrupt, biased, or beholden to political powers. That is why the founders gave judges lifetime tenure.
If Mitch McConnell and his party continued to abuse the court appointment process for their own political gains they will be putting the country at risk long term of the consequences of a court system that regularly fails We the People.
Vote as if your family depended on it, because they very well may.
8
A football game that went back and forth between the 15 yard lines would be exciting but we've had quite enough excitement recently. In any case the problem is that the team currently on the 15 yard line is busily replacing the officials, to make sure they stay there.
4
Actually, I think Trump took the right to the 5-yard line.
2
Republicans keep lamenting that the Democrats need to uphold moderation. "The Center" cannot be upheld by one party alone. Republicans refused to support Hillary Clinton, a Democratic moderate and a national security hawk. By refusing to cross party lines, they reinforced the claim on the left that "America" rejects moderation. "The Center" requires the participation of both parties, but Republicans preferred to take a chance with Donald Trump rather than vote for "The Center."
8
This is a serious request for enlightenment from the commentators who object to Mr. Stephens' disapproval of "socialism" -- a term I admit I find confusing.
I admire Ms. Ocasio's campaign and understand that she and the DSA are pro-democracy and anti-totalitarian. But when I went to the DSA's website, I saw that it is in favor of public ownership of the means of production and of centralized economic planning. This sounds to me more like the old USSocialistR's approach to economics, and not like what Norway, Sweden, and other European "socialist" countries have been doing. What am I missing?
1
As Democrats, we can't put nominees on the national stage who want to do away with all Customs and Immigration enforcement. I think that claim will probably come back to haunt her. No one who holds that position will win a national election--at least not in this current climate.
I agree with Gail that Medicare for all is more than likely the future - and having spent a lot of time in Denmark, I've seen the benefits (and challenges) of a more inclusive form of social programs. But HRC was right (whether you like it or not): we're not Denmark. So there's stil a dance that has to occur to change the national mindset.
5
To Bret: The “financial class” are, many if not mostly, not “virtual” criminals but actual criminals. Not convicted of course, due to their ability to hide. To quote a cliche, Citizens United, whatever it is, is not an individual and so not to be considered one for purposes of strengthening the influence of corporations on elections. Class, indeed.
7
I rather wish Ms Ocasio would drop the word "socialist" as an identifying adjective. Americans in general haven't the foggiest notion of the meanings of Socialism. As a consequence they seem to hold an unwarranted bias against any and all who proudly bear that label. (The tyrannical excesses of Russian communism had little, if any, relationship to a true Socialist system.) I remember with some amusement the opinion expressed by an ellderly lady at a Tea Party Rally some years ago in Buffalo. "They (the government?) better not touch my Medicare", she said, completely unaware that Medicare is a form of Socialized (gasp!) Mediciine. It would seem from what I have read that the happiest, most popular and successful states in the world today are the "socialist" nations of Scandinavia. In view of the far-right, ultra-conservative threats to the welbeing of our nation today I can only echo the Buffalo lady's plaint, "they better not touch my Medicare."
11
Read the history of Supreme Court nominations. Years before Bork Republicans were stopped in attempts to put racists on the Court. And Bork was anything but “judicious “
19
The article says, "Social media tends to empower the loudest and most extreme voices over the more sensible ones." Since the public can choose which media they read and hear, why not blame the public instead of blaming the media?
10
The two of you are the perfect (opinion writing) couple. Brett is, mostly, a common sense conservative that avoids the Kool Aid. And Gail, you camouflage a razor sharp intellect most charmingly with tales of puppies, wayward politicians and just plain weirdos. Please, NYT: Keep THIS couple together, it's a winner, and worth the subscription price alone.
Seriously. Happy July 4th. Hurry back, Gail. Please.
21
Excellent discussion: true for you both about yelling from the internet (guilty as charged).
The lovely Alexandria is smart and will evolve as she meets the honing force of opposition. The ICE abolition thing is too sloganeering for me, and I hope that evolves quickly before it becomes a ball and chain for Democrats. Immigration is pretty fraught: compassion and humanity not so much. Each of those children is a human being, and we seem not to notice that fetus worship doesn't work unless you are also for living babies and families. And I'd best not start about Republicans making it hard to get birth control at home and abroad: real problems with migrations and overpopulation and famine and militarism and what have you (oh well, I did start).
Let's not forget that Kennedy's son was Trump's Deutschebank loan officer, and therefore a like conduit for T's fortune and ties to Russian mob/oligarchy/money laundering stuff. Though I'm confused as to why that would put K in T's debt: quite the reverse, I would have thought. Still ...
One more: one of my all time favorite authors, Masha Gessen (she challenges us all to think harder about things*) has come out with this: "A Better Way To Protest Trump’s War On Immigrants"
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/a-better-way-to-protest-tr...
*Oddly, as a gay immigrant from Russia, you'd think she'd check all the liberal/progressive/anti-Putin boxes, but she's intelligent and complicated and well worth a look!
5
Older folk should be pleased with the prospect of young people saving our failing democracy from hateful politicians led by Mr. Trump and the right-wing propaganda machine. The task will be long and difficult, but the enthusiastic strength of youth has a chance to prevail.
11
But the enthusiasm of youth soon gives way to the disallusionment of middle age followed by the bitterness of old age.Today's liberal activist becomes tomorrow's resistor of change.
Brett: "First, I think anyone who calls herself a democratic socialist must either be ignorant of the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century or, more frighteningly, cognizant of it."
Oh dear, I was hoping Brett would not go down the right-wing disinformation road, as did some of Gail's previous dialogue partners.
There is a big difference between democratic socialism and communism. Europe has a tradition of democratic socialism, with democratic socialist parties in a number of European countries. Here is a list of European nations categorized as democratic socialist countries:
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium
These nations do not have the world's largest military, but their political system has worked quite well for its citizens, with a pretty good balance between a healthy economy, civil society, and government support for health care, education, child care, retirement, public transportation, environment, people with disabilities and nursing home care.
And when it comes to quality of life for the citizenry in a nation, a number of these democratic socialist countries ranked highest on the OECD Better Life Index, which includes a number of indicators related to quality of life in nations. At the top of the national rankings were:
Norway #1
Denmark#2
Australia#3
Sweden#4
Canada#5
The the U.S., ranks #8, in quality of life for citizens.
Find out why: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111
28
New Zealand belongs on the list but sadly it is not European :-)
Dear PB,
You also forgot to put Venezuela on the list.
Amy Coney Barrett has great heir, but she also has this rabbit thing happening. A coney is a rabbit. Barrett is an anagram of rabbit. And Amy is definitely the name of a rabbit. Wasn't there an Amy in Watership Down? Maybe she's a pooka. Where's Alex Jones when you need him?
1
We celebrated Canada Day on Sunday and tomorrow we mourn the loss of my wife's country. There is nothing as oxymoronish as United. When McConnell refused to hear Merrick Garland dialogue ended. Why does America pretend it is still a country when engaging with the opposition is a crime?
19
Roe v Wade was on The ballot. Trump won. Time to put that old constitutional canard in history's trash can. Get over it.
1
And the vote was for Roe vs Wade before the Electoral college nullified over 3 million votes (and not all of those were illegals, double voting or dead people in spite of what some networks will tell you)
4
Why does Mr. Stephens, who I like reading, continue to confuse socialist democrats with the likes of Stalin and Mao?
23
Such a classy conversation. Why can’t we all engage like this?
Mark H Haimann
Bloomfield, MI
2
Trump took the right past the end line, out of bounds, and into the cheap seats. It is typical right-wing hypocrisy to once again ask the left to be the moderate adult in the room and come to the center to repair the excesses of the right. Whether it's the deficit, immigration, the economy, human rights, you name it, every time the GOP gets into power they blow up the country, and the Democrats are left spending their time in charge cleaning up the Republican mess while that same GOP sabotages every effort at repair. Every European country has a socialist democratic party of some kind, and many of them have first-hand knowledge of the "damage of socialism". The USA has never even had a brush with "socialism", so telling us to be afraid of a label is typical conservative irrational fear-mongering, what the right does best these days. Maybe if the GOP got serious about Russian socialists hacking our democracy and watching their tainted administration suck up to the socialists at every opportunity, that scare might get a ride out of me. When the second of Trump's illegal SCOTUS nominations goes sailing through with a rubber stamp from a feckless, reckless, backwards Republican Congress the word they'll have to fear is revolution, not socialism.
7
Bret complains, legitimately, about Trump and conservatives playing from the 15 yard line, whilst lighting his hair on fire and running around waving his arms all over, screaming about SOCIALISM from the end zone.
Way to go Bret.
Democratic Socialist Countries, now rank better for business, start-ups, entrepreneurship, income equality,trade, healthcare, longevity, and happiness.
Lord know, 'Merica wont allow that.
Blinders on everyone! Don't look.
Muffs on ears everyone. Don't listen.
Now give all your money to the rich an Corp., so they can trickle some back to you and chant USA! USA! USA!
Good little sheeple!
Remember! Jesus was a capitalist.
Socialism BAD~!
24
Well done, Dobby!
2
Dear Dobby's sock,
And Venezuela is a democratic socialist paradise.
Pickard, you keep saying VZ is a democratic socialist state, but its not. Its a petro-autocracy.
1
Barack Obama tried playing ball on the 49-yeard line and the GOP treated him like he was Castro. We are through trying to be ‘reasonable’ with a right wing that is immune to reason. We are done following the pundits and the wall streeters into oblivion. We are going to lead the country back to sanity, kicking and screaming into the end zone. No more punting.
15
Brothels aside, the honest truth is whoever Putin's stooge sitting in the White House chooses, that person will lie through his or her teeth and say they will honor past Court decisions, then, when on the Court, do a Clarence Thomas and be an appendage of the Republican High Command.
The lie will let Susan Collins and others pretend they are protecting Roe v. Wade, while all the while vote to take away women's reproductive rights.
As the poor lose health care, food, housing, and medical care, the Republican Party will have to come to terms with its fascist base, just as the NYTimes has come to terms with its own Republicans.
Remember "The Sound of Music"? It wasn't a musical about prancing about in the mountains, it was a true story of the rise of murderous fascism and the choices people had to make. We, in America, are in that same place.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
14
Mr. Stephens: Some on the left do castigate the rich as criminals. However, most save their ire for politicians who kowtow to the rich and their campaign contributions at the expense of the interests of the vast majority of US citizens. Do we really want unlimited campaign funding by a few ultrarich folks so that the pols won't have to spend their time fund-raising for smaller donations? We need legislation to force pols to identify all their contributors. That would be a first step toward reviving our democracy.
19
The turnout in the Crowley race was less than 13%. That is hardly a representative sample of the views of Democrats. All other mainstream Democratic candidates won handily, some by landslides.
1
Well, Gail, that's right there never was a "blue dress" found convicting Grover in the court of public opinion.
I'm sure you understand, given Grover's anti-union bias,pro establishment pragmatism (so Obama-like) that he might be considered the original NEO-LIB democrat.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
2
I’d hasard a guess that there is a relatively small number of well traveled and well educated Americans who truly understand the difference between the totalitarian/collectivist communist regimes of the past and the socialist democracies of the present, which have delivered a quality of life to Western Europe and Scandinavia i.e. universal health care, generous paid vacation and maternity leave, affordable childcare, worker protections etc. , which average Americans can only dream of.
However, I feel quite sure that Bret Stephens does know the difference, and by continuing to demonize the word “socialism” as referenced by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez he is being disingenuous in the extreme.
25
Dear Susan,
I am pretty well traveled and you are correct the European forms of Socialism are acceptable; however the Latin American forms - Venezuela - are not so nice at all.
So why do you think we'll emulate Venezuela, when there are better role models? Just because not every democratic socialist country is a success doesn't negate the possibilities of that form of government.
What former Soviet Union called socialism was just a name for oppressive state with centrally planned inefficient economy. Equating that "socialism" with modern social programs in Germany or Sweden or Social Security in the US is disingenuous. I can't believe Bret does not know the difference. Or, maybe he does not?
10
Bret said "The Sanders-style instinct of treating the financial class in the United States as virtual criminals is an ugly form of class warfare this country doesn’t need."
But isn't class warfare the Republican M-O? Take from the poor, give to the financial class? Republicans have been waging a war against the poor and working class for decades.
When you are in a war and do not fight back, Trump happens. Supreme Court justice seats get stolen. Corporations become "people." And the Affordable Care Act gets torn apart.
This ugly class warfare that Bret speaks of will not stop until Democrats change course. It's time for the Democrats to step it up and fight back so that we can end this war against the working class and poor.
18
Socialism...my 91 year old father died in 2016...glad he isn't here to see what is happening in America today. He used to tell me of his father using his mule team and farm equipment to take his turn grading local roads in their rural county in Oklahoma. To all Republicans who denigrate democratic socialism or the presence of government I would like to ask, how would you like to see these public functions be done? Are you ready to get out into the community a weekend a month to fill potholes...how about work on the garbage truck in your community? I get that you want everything to be privatized for profit, but at the same time you don't want to actually pay for anything...so, you want the 90% to pay for it? Is that not a form of socialism? And pay with what? You don't want to pay decent wages. To think about how much progress we made since the middle of the last century (in just three generations of my family) and how much of that progress has been undone in the last four decades...how long will it take for all our water to be completely undrinkable, our air unbreathable, our bridges to collapse, and airplanes to begin falling from the sky once all the regulations are removed and the common person unable to bring a lawsuit against a corporation? Can they really think it won't matter because they will own water & air purification systems and live in gated communities where they are driven around in armored limousines by body guards? What a world!
11
Mr. Stephens in his arrogance and twisted paternal morality represents all the right wing since Bork. Even though he looks like a nice respectable fellow in the picture.
Handmaids Tale folks.
3
So sick of the old "politics should be played between the 40 yard lines" trope - almost always invoked by the right and their hapless, shrugging, neo-liberal counterparts. We've had decades of centrist policies and they haven't worked for anyone in America outside of Wall Street and K Street. (hence Trump, duh!)
A more apt football analogy would be Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the the field goal kick. Every time we take a swing at a broadly popular left-of-center policy (such as single-payer health care or a $15 an hour minimum wage) the ball gets snatched away and we are chastised for our naivete.
Both Republicans and Democrats are to blame for this. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is an example of progressives taking the ball back in to their own hands. I don't expect we're likely to settle for a field goal this time.
6
"The Sanders-style instinct of treating the financial class in the United States as virtual criminals is an ugly form of class warfare this country doesn’t need."
Are you kidding me? In what country are you living, Mr. Stephens, because it surely cannot be this one?
The wealthy financial class has been waging class warfare against the rest of us for decades. Their colossal failure in the 1929 crash opened the door to reforms that created a middle class that was the envy of the world in the mid-20th century. Ever since then, they have done everything they possibly can to return the nation to their pre-1929 heyday of industrial feudalism.
Equating free speech with money; tax laws that favor wealth over earned income and have driven money into the hands of fewer and fewer people; ensuring that healthcare remains a privilege of the privileged rather than a right of citizens---this is what class warfare looks like.
All the rest of us can do is try to engage in some class defense, and ignore when aggressors (or their apologists) try to paint us as too aggressive.
18
Gail Collins: Bret, I have a theory that American politics tends to reflect the structure of the American media.
Me: Blind Narcism.
You look down from the Ivory Bubble that doesn't have windows into the world, but mirrors.
In those windows/mirrors, you can see what you think is the center of the universe. Yourself.
1
If socialism's so bad, Bret, why's the GOP grabbing Trump's coattails on MAGA's endorsement that Andrew Jackson coulda precluded the Civil War? Without sustaining Jacksonian advocacy of slavery as our 1st form of an ACA or genocide (per his 'final solution' re the Seminole Nation), I can't see how Trump could touch Old Hickory w/ a ten-foot mini hand.
1
The Trumpublicans control all three branches of government, and the ball is in the Democrats hands? That's weird, Bret.
24
Nah, Bret, Trump did not take the ball to the 15 yard line. He is making an honest effort to score an own goal. That way Russia will have two opportunities to win the "World" Cup.
3
Democrats prefer to legislate from the Supreme Court. They did so for a generation, and now are unhappy that Republicans like to do so as well. Don't make rules for everyone else you are not willing to live with yourself!
1
The Supreme Court has been under Republican control since well before issuing its ruling installing George W. Bush in the White House.
10
No. Legislating from the bench to support the rich and powerful is a Republican specialty.
10
Did Brett suggest a Congress paid for by the Mercers, Koch bros, Wilks bros, Uihleins, etc etc - a few bonkers billionaires, has “improved” Congress because they don’t have to do so much fund raising?? Because now they don’t have to do anything except what they’re told to do if they want the backing of the bilious Bible thumping propaganda machine of these retrograde richies??
22
Gail - Seriously? You're blaming the media for the lack of gentlepersonlyness? Gee, I think that Ronald Reagan's speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, Mitch McConnell's vow to block anything proposed by Barack Obama, and Donald Trump's racism have more to do with it than the internet.
8
Bret seems to be a little under-informed about what "democratic socialist" means, and certainly ignorant of what Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's campaign was all about.
Fortunately, younger people are much less frightened of the S-word these days.
10
The financial class arent criminals. But members of its class committed fraud, gutted the economy and threw millions of people into unemployment and despair.
The malfeasance in the financial industry has been widespread and persistent (mortgage backed securities, interest rate tampering, money laundering etc) and yet despited causing so much harm almost no one in the industry has gone to jail and the Banks themselves get charged 0.1% of annual revenue for misbehaving...you dont have to be a socialist to see that this is wrong and unjust. Conservatives who value personal responsibility and accountability should be as up in arms as liberals....socialists be damned..
5
The overall tone of these articles reminds me of those Country Crock commercials from the 80’s and 90’s...but in a good way.
Still, our country really is becoming a crock.
1
History Comes Knocking for Trump Again when he is indicted for loan fraud and money laundering among many other RICO law violations.
From available evidence Trump is doomed. He will serve out his term because Republicans in the senate are terrified of offending his base voters, but prosecutors can delay filling charges (while continuing to investigate) until the day after Trump leaves office in January 2021.
Trump cannot pardon someone, including himself, when no charges have not been formally been filed in court. Once he is out of office he is on his own.
3
Bret, you worry about the rich being treated like criminals. But some of them are criminals. Many more are greedy, reckless and foolish. The 2008 financial crisis was brought to us by the financial class, which is still embraced by the GOP. Trump and his Congress talk the populist game, but they are doing everything they can to peel away the regulations that would reduce the chances of a repeat performance.
5
Got it Bret! "Republicans play hard right on the 15 years line and so it's up to Democrats to play on the 40 so we have sanity." Why, sir, that's known as Trump's Art of the Deal! Not happening. Trump makes me want to bring a gun to knife fight. And hey, I DO have 2nd Amendment right to do so. YOU said so.
5
Meanwhile Trump is aiming for his very own SCOTUS appointment to be seated by October. Does he hope to hide from Mueller behind the robes of the justices?
2
Brett confuses socialism with communism - or actually totalitarianism. A stop sign is socialist. A gulag is totalitarian, autocratic, dictatorial, etc.
In America it's arguable that, in the form of everything from the Depression to acid rain, capitalism did the most damage in the 20th century.
7
Bret Stephens thinks a Court dominated by 5 hardcore right wing radical extremists won’t overturn “Roe v. Wade” and “Oberfell”? He’s living in a fantasy world.
This is what will occur in both decisions. They’ll not expressly overturn either, but rubberstamp all state requests to gut the rulings. For example, Iowa passed a bill outlawing abortions after 6 weeks. It’ll reach the Court and the law will be upheld by the 5 extremists. That effectively kills “Roe v. Wade”, since few pregnancies are detected by 6 weeks. “Roe v. Wade” would technically survive, but rendered a nullity in GOP controlled states.
Freedoms will be gradually destroyed, one decision at a time.
7
Interesting conversation. However, Bret, I read your comments regarding "socialism" and the viewing of financially wealthy class as criminals and come away with the same thought as when you and other conservatives make these statements - if the liberal and social mentality is disdainful, then what's the answer??!! How many times do people have to throw in the face of the GOP / conservatives that those that have the gold have very little desire to improve society for all. To me much of the debate is a moral one and many many conservatives are just fine with letting the destitute and disenfranchised suffer - so if you hold disdain for those who treat the plutocrats as criminals, maybe it's because many take actions like immoral criminals.
7
I love your conversations Gail & Bret. It shows the more sane approach to not only politics, but life itself. Seldom is any side 100% pure. Notice I didn’t say Right? Years ago, I wrote a song called The Sound. I was a former member of The New Christy Minstrels in the 60’s. Here are the Lyrics.
Look around, here the sound, here the sound of today.
Black or White, Left or Right, who do we obey
Tell me why we are at war, Mr. Hawk and Senator
Is Killing, RIGHT?
(Back to bridge)
2. Is it not against the rule, to keep one from going to school,
Is Theft way, LEFT?
(Back to bridge)
3. Why can’t we just realize, LEFT and RIGHT will blind our eyes,
To one way...LOVE
©Copyright by Eric Cosh. 1969.
1
I'm old enough to remember Jackie Kennedy abandoning this country because it had, for her, become unlivable. Here's an exercise for you. Spend the next seven days watching Fox News during prime time. Force yourself to do it. Now, imagine millions of Americans watching that nonsense and believing it. At the end of that seven days, you'll yearn to marry a Greek shipping tycoon old enough to be your father and get away from this American madness. Happy Independence Day? Yeah, right.
12
Wow! I'm clinging to Bret's remarks on Roe & Obergefell! Maybe there's hope! But yes, please, schedule the fight on Citizens United: given what has resulted, I can't believe there're any sane people who continue to endorse it & I really thought even Kennedy would have rued it by now but his gerrymander decisions have put paid to that idea.
@alan white: the fact that Stephens “overlooks” the achievements of socialism and social democracy and the achievements of northern, Western Europe, Canada, Australia and others is so typical of who he is. A privileged and arrogant man. If he ever ends up on the wrong side of the tracks, he will unfortunately see who will help him out.
4
"First, I think anyone who calls herself a democratic socialist must either be ignorant of the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century or, more frighteningly, cognizant of it. "
Please, wake up. What your are calling socialism is USSR communism. For the rest, what's she is really proud of being is a European-like (Canadian?) socialist. Health care fo all. Cheap education. Do you know how many US children would avoid death if the US had the child mortality rate of socialist Europe?
5
Julia Dent Grant, recommended to her husband President Grant, that he place Roscoe Conklin on the Supreme Court, because his golden curls would look so handsome in judicial robes. Trump world is similarly quaint.
1
I wish I could be so glib as to call this a game.
6
Trump took the right to the 15 yard line? He's not even on the playing field. He took the right outside the stadium into a bar filled with white supremacists yelling "lock her up!", laughing at the disabled guy in the corner and telling the Mexican bartender, "Go back where you came from."
5
I’m sorry but this piece reminds me of two first class strangers betting on what time the titanic will slip beneath the waves while rowing off into the night in disguise. The Supreme Court has rendered itself illegitimate and irrelevant. Facism is now the law of our land. Write what you will, it’s dark days ahead and icebergs be lurking
4
"I think anyone who calls herself a democratic socialist must either be ignorant of the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century or, more frighteningly, cognizant of it."
The immense damage done in the 20th century was far more the result of anti-immigrant, racist, blood-and-soil nativism than socialism, and that's where we are now.
4
That was a cheap and rather patronizing shot taken at the female democratic socialist–suggesting that she doesn't know her history. It demonstrates how little Mr. Stephens is interested in exploring the meaning of "socialist" and would rather sit comfortably in his pundit-comfort zone lobbing false equivalencies and taking no responsibility for the state of our union. Perhaps we can now hear from Arthur Brooks bragging about how he used to be a cool musician until he saw the light of white privilege and got himself a genius grant. He makes it all look so easy.
...
Gail. Peacemaker. Your schtick is getting thin. Quit laughing off all the atrocities. Quit sparring and take a shot. Mix it up a little. These "conversations" are supposed to be interesting. Instead they are friendly elevator talk. Frogs swimming in water on the stove either boil or jump out. The water is getting pretty hot. Quit pretending that it is still luke warm.
3
Millennial lefty here. I'm constantly reading, in publications like Jacobin and Current Affairs, about how the New York Times is a bastion of centrist conservatism that makes no attempt to represent the views of the left. I've always thought these criticisms were overblown. I love the NYT and Gail Collins is the funniest op-ed writer around.
But I'm shocked at how blithely Ocasio-Cortez is dismissed here. Are we really still criticizing people for starting a class war? I think most Americans know that we've been in one for at least thirty years now. And I'm depressed at the cynical view that Ocasio-Cortez just needs time to realize that her deeply held convictions about economic justice have to be watered down. A lot of young people I know were thrilled by her win precisely because Ocasio-Cortez seems so principled and authentic that a retreat from her convictions is unlikely.
1
Kavanagh got the look Trump loves, and he does seem to be a tiny bit sycophantic.
1
You think this is a game, Brett? Where the Republican controlled Congress stole a Supreme Court justice from a majority elected president and gave it to this dictator-worshiping, democracy-hating clown who lost the popular vote and could be in his position due to his Russian connections? And you want the Democrats to see it as all in good fun? I'm tired of my party all sitting around and singing Kumbaya. We need the younger people in this country to give us a thorough housecleaning.
6
The dye has been cast. It's all over; we just have to sit back and watch it play out. Thanks to Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, we're about to turn the clock back a hundred years with the "Christian" Supreme Court appointments. Abortions will again be performed in back alleys; gays will become second-class citizens. SAD!
See: RevolutionOfReason.com
4
No comment from either whether Trump will demand a loyalty pledge from every Supreme Court interviewee? Come on Gail!
2
I write this with some trepidation, and it probably
won't be published, but these sort of smug,
pontificating dialogues can get a little ,no ,very
annoying after a while.each interlocutor seems
so convinced of their own brilliance that
they treat serious issues like an opportunity
to show how quickly they can fire off one
liners like,well,fourth of July fireworks. I,for one,
prefer their individual columns where they can
write seriously about crucial issues and not
compete to show how witty they really are.
5
The response to Trump may very well go so far left that we won’t recognize what America actually is, a land full of those striving to increase their lot in life through incentivized hard work. Those who think that everyone should be given unlimited handouts are almost as foolish as those who think that Trump actually cares about anyone but himself.
There is a difference between being compassionate and killing the golden goose (Capitalism and the freedom to come here and pursue your dreams) that made America the great nation that it is. A like kind leftist response to Trump is akin to “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.
This sort of zero-sum-game thinking ignores the fact that our nations one-time embrace of Democratic-Socialist principles created the largest and wealthiest middle class ever seen at the time.
The real irony is that it even made more millionaires than there were beforehand.
People who have even modest means create markets that lead to more wealth creation with plenty of opportunity for enterprise to flourish. The subsection of the wealthy class that either doesn’t understand this or, worse, doesn’t care needs the hand of government to restrain them from killing the golden goose of a strong, growing middle class.
Your argument is hollow and just plain wrong.
2
Not to worry. CNN, MSNBC, this rag, and the Washington Post, will be all about Nato in a few days. Nafta which is too complex for the media to report on , will get relief soon. Trump wisely put Nafta on hold until post mid terms. If Muller is successful prompting treason proceedings, all is lost for years.
Medicare for ALL: is the future, and THE winning issue for 2020. The GOP Healthcare " Plan ": Pay up, or Die. Or better yet : just pay everything you have, THEN Die. Seriously.
12
If Ms Collins and Mr Stephens and their colleagues are serious about restoring sane, moderate and civil dialogue, they should look carefully at the way Times writers habitually twist words and logic on certain hot-button issues near and dear to Manhattan elites.
A good example is Adam Liptak's use of "weaponizing," a clumsy left-academic term of scorn for behavior one doesn't like, to describe how one party views free speech. Of course words are weapons - cf. pen, sword etc.
Another example of Orwellian word-twisting is the absurd phrase, "undocumented immigrants." This is like calling Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, and their ilk _unpermissioned partners_.
No such thing exists in law or in reality, yet the Times insists on substituting this made-up nonsense phrase for the precise and correct, universally understood phrase encoded in our statutes and used by judges and lawyers: _illegal alien_. There's weaponizing for you: the nonsense term is a convenient way of shutting down debate before it starts.
It's also ironic, given that close to a million or so illegal aliens actually do have documents in the form of fake or stolen social security cards pilfered from US citizens.
Tom Stoppard wrote that the wonderful thing about words is that they have "sharp edges. They mean this and stand for that. But when you knock the corners off of them, they're no good anymore."
A proposal to Stephens and Collins: Reject Timespeak.
Stand for real words that mean real things.
I have very little faith in Susan Collins.
She talks a good game trying to appear reasonable and more middle of the road than her GOP brethren.
However, when it coms down to it, she usually votes with her party with one recent notable exception to her credit.
I would hope she seriously considers not to confirm any of Trump's nominees for a myriad of reasons- including all choices named so far are all anti-abortion which Collins reportedly takes issue with.
If Collins grows a spine, I will sing her praises. I very much doubt I will need to practice my scales. I hope she proves me wrong.
5
So these two say there is no need to panic about the overturning of Roe V. Wade. I am panicking. There have been so many assaults on a woman's right to abortion in red states (weeks of gestation, closing of clinics, the rights of pregnancy care centers to pretend they are health clinics) that perhaps a full on assault on roe v. wade is not necessary. But if the court is concerned with only abortion cases for 4 or 8 years, what about the other cases that need to be adjudicated? Let's all join together to protect a women's right to choose what's right for her and her family.
Right after Harry Blackmun was confirmed to the Supreme Court I met a friend of his at a Village Voice party. His friend, gray haired, pleasant, very distinguished looking, said to me I would be very surprised how good a justice he would be. How could he be any good if Nixon chose him? The friend said to me that Blackmun was an extremely serious person. That he took to heart the responsibility that the Supreme Court was the final place that people without power could turn to. He said this with such profound conviction that it made me question my own assumptions. He turned out to be right. This made me trust my instincts about David Souter who struck me as someone who very well turn out much better than people I knew were expecting. And fortunately for the rest of us he did.
This new crop of right wing judges all seem to be the real deal. Heartless, logic chopping and mean.
As for evolving. His comments about Democratic Socialism seem more silly than pernicious. Like a bad habit he still can't break. He has quite a few. Still being an old fuddy duddy is a great evolutionary leap from being a right wing hack
7
Brett,
You are extremely naive to believe that campaign contributions from Corporations free the Representative's from dialing for dollars. They continue to seek funding because being a Representative in America becomes a lifetime role and elections in America are very expensive in money and time. Which takes us to the inconvenient truth, that monies empower the donor, this explains the role of lobbyists in American politics. McCain Feingold was a very good beginning, too good for the control of politics via the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches. Politics is all about total control.
5
"Look, I think politics is a game best played within the 40-yard lines. Trump took the right to the 15-yard line, and I’d hate to see the left go the same way. Someone needs to stay sane in this country. The ball is in your hands."
Brett, just when has the Republican party played within the 40-yard lines? They have pulled the center so far to the right that folks think the 35-yard line is now the new the 50th. Instead of saying you would hate to see the left go the same way, you could have admonished your party to change it's ways and move to the center. But no, you can't do that because that is all they know.
Bret, just to clue you in but yes many of the financial predators are virtually criminals engaged in class warfare, against the rest of us! Sanders may be mistaken on some things but about the people who gave us the Great Recession, fund politicians like Trump and for whom there is never enough 0’s attached to their net worth or enough bling in their lives, he gets that pretty much spot on.
5
Stop stigmatizing the word "socialist" and stop equating socialism with communism. In Europe, socialism usually means shared responsibility for improving the life of the citizenry, not a bad thing at all.
18
Dear Christy,
The problem is that socialism also has some very nasty examples as well. Venezuela, a "democratic socialist" country that despite its wealth is starving its citizens.
Pleasing as always to eves-drop on this informed, witty, and civil conversation. I love this feature. However, one comment from Bret was rather jarring.
"[A] democratic socialist must either be ignorant of the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century or, more frighteningly, cognizant of it."
Gee Bret, have you visited Sweden lately? I have, and the "immense damage" looked pretty good. The Netherlands is not exactly a wasteland either.
There is plenty to criticize about social democracies around the world, but they have consistently delivered a level of prosperity and security to their citizens that is sadly unknown in the USA. A hard-right court will implacably oppose laws that promote broad social well-being.
Trump says he wants to appoint a hard-right court that will last 40 years. This might mean that SCOTUS will be very isolated 25 years from now, when President Ocasio-Cortez and a truly progressive Congress are trying to pass legislation to clean up the Trump wasteland.
13
I agree with this comment but want to point out the more sinister portion of the same quote, namely: "or, more frighteningly, cognizant of it." Mr Stephens categorizes a (any) democratic socialist as someone who should be suspected of knowingly wanting to undermine the workings of our socio-economic structure.
The issue Brett refers to is her calling herself a Socialist, which has a terribly negative meaning due to history, and provides ammunition against her from the far right. Bernie Sanders was a recipient of that ammunition for the same reason. Older voters have a different reaction to the word "Socialist", and are a large voting block. Even many who support her would like her to call herself a Social democrat instead of a democratic Socialist.
Brett sees too much time spent in Congress on fund raising. Brett says: “I’d rather have a system where politicians stick mostly to politics rather than fund-raising; and in which money isn’t limited but transparency is mandated.”
Where does Brett live? In the USA the GIP Congress doesn’t spend time on such things - their attention is to their billionaire backers that run the narrow-minded right-wing propaganda and disinformation machine. Don’t think, do what you’re told.
4
Good column, but... "The Sanders-style instinct of treating the financial class in the United States as virtual criminals is an ugly form of class warfare this country doesn’t need."
Mr. Stephens' denial of the class warfare that Wall St. has been practicing on the middle class and the poor for decades now is amazing. Remember all the banks and investment firms that caused the 2008 economic meltdown? How many of those actors went to prison for their activities? I'm still waiting. Rather, they all got bailed out, a slap on the wrist, at best and Congress has been working to dismantle the regulations put in place to hopefully avoid a repeat.
So the class warfare is very much in place. It's just been so one-sided for now, and for so long, that it's become invisible to those like Mr.Stephens.
3
Bret: My side has already shredded the social contract and promoted hyper-partisanship over civil comity.
Let's hope that your side, Gail, doesn't do anything similar. No one will forgive you if you do.
Remember, the role of Democrats is that of the straight man in Marx Brothers movies.
Trump is Zeppo, but he thinks he's Groucho.
4
It is interesting the two did not parlay their discussion of fewer media outlets into comments about attacks on journalists. The recent attack is fueled by Trumps to go back to the days where JFK could do what he wanted and the media would say nothing. In Trump's world, and thus of the GOP, the US needs to back to the age of dial TV's where we got our news for a half hour at 5:30 and could barely see it through the lines on the screen. Trump has called for attacks on the media as have other so-called conservatives. Conservatives consider themselves elite and are offended that they are not protected. We cannot go back in time. Social media has changed the landscape and we will never go back. For that matter, CNN changed the landscape a long time ago with the 24 hour news cycle. The GOP is fighting a fight against progress that it will ultimately lose, but all I see it do, and progressives for that matter, is fight the other side. Even Senators get in the act on Twitter and bash the other party. It is ridiculous. Why can't politicians rise above the fray and seek common ground like adults? Maybe not Trump because he is not a true politician, but what about others. Can they not act like adults and stop yelling at each other through Twitter and stop yelling at journalists? What if the press secretary for Trump actually acted like an adult. What if NRA officials and other special interests stopped demonizing the other? We would have a nice little country at that point.
Two things.
Bret: "The Sanders-style instinct of treating the financial class in the United States as virtual criminals is an ugly form of class warfare this country doesn’t need." But it's okay in this country to treat the poor as actual criminals, locking them up for minor drug offenses or when they can't pay their bail for petty crimes, and adding fee upon fee that they cannot afford for minor infractions? Give me a break.
To reform politics in this country, we should raise taxes on the rich and corporations (who currently fund politics in massive amounts), re-institute limits on private funding of campaigns including self-funding (SCOTUS was wrong), and give a set amount from government coffers to all people running for office (federal, state, and local with different limits for each) to spend on their campaigns. Otherwise there is too much influence peddling and buying of favors. If anything kills our republic, besides possibly trump, it will be SCOTUS's overturning of limits on campaign donations by individuals and corporations.
9
"I think anyone who calls herself a democratic socialist must either be ignorant of the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century..."
Immense damage like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? The man doth protest too much, methinks. Of course, this is the same guy who recently said that if it were up to him, he'd double the size of our military budget.
And where would that money come from, Mr. Stephens? Oh, right--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, for starters.
Let the games begin.
7
For those who confuse "socialism" with "social good," note that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a self-described Democratic Socialist and was supported and aided in her campaign by various Democratic Socialist groups.
The stated goals of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are highly unlikely to appeal to most Democrats, let alone Republicans or swing voters; here are just two of several: (https://www.dsausa.org/where_we_stand#global )
1. "Economic democracy means...the direct ownership and/or control of much of the economic resources of society by the great majority of wage and income earners." This is basic Marxism/Communism, under which workers own or control the means of production; it hasn't worked elsewhere, and is not likely to appeal to US voters.
2. "Social redistribution--the shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society--will require...massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs, income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation...." This concept is unlikely to appeal to most voters, even Democrats.
As a life-long Democrat I am sad to see Democratic Party leaders so ossified and out of touch with reality that they are hailing these young socialists as the future of our party. Socialism (Bernie) lost us the 2016 election, and can only divide the party and cost us victories in 2018 and 2020.
2
If the Court were to overturn Roe or Obergefell, and the Dems took back control, would they consider increasing the amount of justices on the bench and packing them with liberals like Roosevelt floated in '37? With the thought of Trump altering the makeup of the Court for potentially decades, it's at least a small comfort to know that there is a way to change it, at least in principle.
2
Dianne Feinstein's remarks about Judge Barret may have been politically foolish, but in her case, hardly an unreasonable point to raise.
4
I grew up hearing about the threat from International Communism. That threat created some problems and exacerbated others.
During those years Social Democracy was seen as a kind of middle way that could balance social needs and resist the threats from totalitarian rule. After the triumph of capitalism and the breakup of the USSR, that morphed into a presentation of anything socialist as a danger to liberty.
Where has "socialism" been so dangerous? Venezuela? To me, that represents what happens when a refusal to address social and economic injustices pushes people to revolution.
The Taliban came to power in Afghanistan partly on promises to end corruption and improve the lives of people. Same thing in Iran. They attracted support because people were miserable.
You could say the same thing propelled Donald Trump to his accidental victory here in the USA. Anxious people are susceptible to exploitation.
6
"The Democratic party should remain moderate because one side needs to stay sane." Ugh.
This idea that it's out of character for Democrats to show passion in the streets or have big, socialist ideas, is ludicrous. Moderate columnists are not going to lead the Democrat's opposition to Trump. These writers, though seemingly kind, sensible, and soothing, like a lullaby, are simply backseat drivers. They are not steering the ship.
It resembles parents trying to calm a schoolyard brawl. Except that the students are grown up and don't have to listen to the parents anymore. And they won't listen, because the parents were the ones who allowed the bully to begin bullying in the first place.
If you think Medicare for all and the revamping of ICE are radical ideas, then you really won't be prepared for 2020, when the new generation of Democrats begins to surface.
It's not enough to simply not do bad. Sometimes, you have to fight for good.
4
Trump is governing according to the wishes, prejudices, anxieties and delusions of a relatively small but committed minority, as if the rest of us don't exist or are the enemy. Suddenly America has become Rwanda in 1993 and we all know how that turned out.
Get the vote out! It is the only defence.
4
So Stephens believes there’s a “ finance class” which needs protection from the likes of a 28-year-old Queens House nominee. Poor Babies-of-Wall Street! As John Bolton says, no one should have the vapors over an upstart’s challenge to the sector of most powerful lobbyists sitting in our government (Mnuchin) who have trimmed back Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Protection Agency so that banks can get imaginative with our money. There are profits to make!
8
I am appalled at the adulation suddenly bestowed upon Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, an avowed socialist.
For reasons I can't fathom, she is lauded in the media as the new look and savior of the Democratic party, which in the 2016 election showed pretty clearly that socialism and Democrats just don't mix. Here is Ms. O-C's platform from a printed handout:
- Medicare for all
- Universal jobs guarantee
- Tax Wall Street to support tuition-free higher/vocational education
- Paid family/sick leave
- End war on drugs
- Demilitarize police
- Abolish for-profit prisons
- Protect DREAMERs and TPS recipients, simplify paths to citizenship, and abolish ICE
- Invest in 100% renewable green industry
- End corporate finance in public elections
Unfunded pie in the sky, for sure, though I do hope her win will wake up the ossified Democrats.
We know how Democrats and Trumpers will vote, so we should focus on undecideds and moderates, who will likely control the outcome of most of the mid-terms. Calling Ivanka Trump a vile name, saying that Barron Trump should be locked up with pedophiles, and tossing a senior White House staffer out of a restaurant can only convince the undecideds and moderates to vote for Trump and Republicans because Democrats seem so wacky and disgusting.
No need to slither into the muck with the Trumpers; we can win in November (and 2020) if we offer strong candidates and a positive platform that meets the needs of the many voters who felt ignored in 2016.
2
I'm sure many moderates were absolutely appalled that Ms. Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant merely because she is a mouthpiece for child abuse.
I mean, if you can't advocate for child abuse, then what's happened to free speech in this country?
3
Are you seriously advocating that White House staff be harassed in restaurants or other public venues? Would you advocate that Republicans do the same to Democratic members of Congress, Democratic governors et al.? If so, shame on you.
Which ignored voters? The rich right-wingers who never voted for a Democrat and never will, the die hard right-wingers who never voted for a Democrat and never will, or the racist right-wingers who never voted for a Democrat and never will? They myth of the misunderstood middle American working class Trump voter has been disproved. No need to keep repeating it. We need to motivate the disinterested stay at home voter, making him understand how much he, and especially she, loses under GOP rule.
1
If you want to find out what caused the great divide in America, look no further than the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which turned the Party of Lincoln into the Party of Jefferson Davis. Southern politics became nationalized. And this has now become a split on almost every issue.
The only question is whether Trump is the last gasp of a democratic white America or the start of an apartheid white America.
2
The historical difference between conservative evangelical Republican Party "family values" and liberal secular Democratic Party "family values" is that Republicans do not practice what they preach.
From Reagan to McCain to Trump you have serial adultery and marriages. While from FDR to JFK to LBJ to WJC you have serial adultery but only one wife.
Trump knows no history. And Trump's present arises from his history role playing President of the United States. All of which Trump owes as the gift of his director, producer and writer Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
4
Bret, Feinstein questions and objections to Barrett had nothing to do with Catholic beliefs. The woman belonged to a cult that pretended to be Catholic and required its female members to swear fealty to their husbands in all matters. The objections to her appointment were real and deserved debate.
26
Mr Stephens: it may be news to you but Democratic Socialism has given us humans most of what we call equality, fairness, justice, welfare and happiness as a society and not as the very top of its wealth and income distribution. Labor unions, free education, universal healthcare, less unequal gender pay, women rights to their bodies, welfare for the less the lest fortunate among us.... All achieved with tremendous input from Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats. You are a son of privilege and are not ashamed of it. Good for you and I hope you or your offspring don’t end up in the wrong side of the tracks one day. If you and/or you do, you will see who will stand up for you.
3
Government redistribution programs are always better for those receiving the largesse in the immediate moment, i.e. short term. What progressives fail to take note of is the deleterious effect they have in the long term, both on the person and the greater society as a whole. What's better, to give a hungry man a fish or to teach him to fish?
If you lose your wealth you lose nothing. If you lose your health you've lost something. If you lose your character you've lost everything.
Government redistributiin goes on all the time, via goverment expenditure, and what is being complained about in FGH's comment is actually the attempt to orient the redistribution more toward fishing instruction. Let's agree that short term assistance via immediate provision of nutrition is indeed more valuable to a starving individual than anything else. And let's also agree that acceptance of emergency food aid causes the recipient to irretrievably lose their character. This tends to happen only when we allow it to be associated with stigma. When we do that *then* our character is endangered.
2
Check that:
I meant to say "let's also agree that acceptance of emergency food aid *does*not* cause the recipient to irretrievably lose their character"
Sorry about that.
Me. Collins writes: "American politics tends to reflect the structure of the American media". If her theory is right, then it is a sad state of a society being driven by the media. When the media (present excluded) are a nest of teenage and twenty-something icon-clicking scribblers, who invent news to suit their -- mostly -- leftist radical political views, the society is on the way to intellectual fossilization and spiritual decay.
Bret seems to have forgotten that the person nominated to fill the seat denied Bork was Kennedy who was confirmed 97-0. Bork was just another in the long line of nominees unfit for the post and rejected not only by the Senate, but by the American people.
Even the notorious RBG was confirmed 96 - 3.
The closest confirmation vote was Clarence Thomas who was not only shown to be unfit at his hearing (see https://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/12/fellow_conservatives_its_ti..., but has proved to be a terrible Justice. Just read any of his opinions. I suggest Brumfield v. McCain in which the petitioner, a death-penalty defendant, argued that the lower court used deficient procedures to determine whether he was intellectually disabled. Thomas’s opinion wandered into a discussion of the murder victim’s son’s National Football League career! Besides the dreadful opinions, their is his refusal to recuse himself on case his wife had a clear interets.
And, of course, the clearly unethical if not unconstitutional confirmation of Gorsuch has taken the bitterness to new levels.
Admit it Bret, most of this descent into madness was caused by your fellow conservatives.
8
"The Sanders-style instinct of treating the financial class in the United States. as virtual criminals is an ugly form of class warfare this country doesn’t need."
No uglier than the Mcconnell instinct of treating everyone who isn't in the 1% as a taker.
4
Knocking for Trump? or for the Reps and Senators who approve his obviously politicized choice? and then for the people who elect them (us)....
I am not a "Sandernista". Bret's dismissal of Sander's portrayal of the financial class as "virtual criminals" purposely ignores the fact that many in the financial class were actual criminals in the lead up to 2008. And, since BIG MONEY rules, all but a few low level members of the financial class never faced any legal consequences for their reprehensible behavior. Let's hear it for unrestrained capitalism.
2
The prospects will be fashionable, ostensibly decent, well-educated at the finest universities and probably attractive. Good family folks, role models, patriotic Americans. Hopefully, at least one journalist will peel off the veneer and see what's there. Has even one of them ever really been in a courtroom before, representing a private citizen before a jury? What kind of grass-roots experience do they really have? There's a huge difference between clerking for a powerful federal judge and fighting for justice in a real-life court contest. Do they have any idea what Habeas Corpus entails, it's usefulness and its history? Have they ever done any meaningful legal work for an individual as opposed to a corporation? Or, have they been carefully groomed for advancement to the Supreme Court by organizations like The Federalist Society?
Senators should avoid shameless showboating and inquire about their knowledge of juvenile crime and punishment, rights of the disabled and handicapped, the threats of continuing Gerrymandering and more. Trump & Co. are laughing at you because they have you talking only about Roe v. Wade. Danger lurks.
2
Great comment doc. Could I suggest you add the media to your list of culprits involved in this dereliction. They too are currently engaged in a frenzied moral panic over Roe v Wade.. truly after everything that has happened they still don’t get it. As you say, Trump and Co just laugh.
2
"The Sanders-style instinct of treating the financial class in the United States as virtual criminals is an ugly form of class warfare this country doesn’t need."
The growing income gap is what's ugly, Mr. Stephens. Suggested easy reading for you: "Our Broken Economy, in One Simple Chart."
https://nyti.ms/2MEFMbG
1
No, Roe and Casey will not be overturned, and no nominee will advocate for such. However, state laws that eviscerate the availability of abortion and women’s health will come before the Supreme Court and the Trump nominees, as well as Chief Justice Roberts, will be only too happy to uphold them — while praising themselves for respecting the principle of stare decisis.
3
The main criteria for Court appointments should be integrity and intelligence - not political opinions, and not diversity.
2
How about morality? Could a moral person do the bidding's of McConnell, Trump, Koch?
Some things are better left to the capitalists, but the Preamble to the Constitution does say that one of the responsibilities of government is to "promote the general welfare." Universal health care would be one of the greatest boons to businesses ever. Larger businesses would not have to hire whole staffs dedicated to understanding insurance. Smaller businesses would not have the burden either. Those who have good ideas for small businesses would not have to remain in jobs simply because they are afraid of losing their health care, but could take a risk. Yes, we should be able to earn more if we work harder, take on more responsibility, and accept investment risk. But there are some things that should be paid for by all of us, with the cost and the risk spread appropriately, and should not be for profit: prisons, schools, and health care are among those. These should be the solid middle class jobs that in rural areas have sustained the small businesses. By the way, I enjoy reading these conversations. I am a centrist to left (an FDR Democrat--let's all build something and put people to work--rather than a Johnson send a check one), and I agree much more with Gail than Bret, but wouldn't it be wonderful if our politicians could talk like they do (and we would let them)? I voted for Bernie because I knew he wouldn't get everything, but maybe halfway.
11
Your vote for Bernie did not get us halfway to equality but all the way to Trump. Thanks.
1
Simply want to say thank you to Gail and Bret. I always look forward to The Conversation. I very much appreciate and value both of your perspectives and - even more importantly - your active engagement in a, what shall we call it, conversation. Thank you...
4
I'll agree we could do without the Sanders-style rhetoric defaming class elites. However, Bret displays that annoying tendency on the right to drop the "democratic" part of "democratic socialist" whenever discussing the DSA. Socialism has done a great deal of harm but the record for democratic socialism is much more mixed. From Robert Owen on forward, there's been both good and bad. Many modern western allies happily display elements of democratic socialism without being socialist.
Bret Stephens either doesn't know what he's talking about or he's trying to sell you a specific narrative about a political philosophy hostile to his own unfounded world view. We should mention American capitalism and the resulting paranoia directed at global socialism has caused more than a few human atrocities itself. Bret is the pot calling the kettle black.
For those who don't know, the DSA's platform has been nicely summarized like this:
"The DSA supports reforms that would decrease the influence of money in politics, empower ordinary people in workplaces and the economy, and restructure gender and cultural relationships to be more equitable."
You might not appreciate those goals but we're not exactly talking about Stalinist Russia here. Bret is being disingenuous.
13
Stalinist Russia didn't freely admit to murdering 20 million people. Venezuela did not admit that it was going to do what it has done. Honduras, El Salvador and many of the countries people are fleeing from are "socialists". Socialism is good in theory only. It is against human nature.
1
Funny Matthew. You dropped the "democratic" part of "democratic socialism" just like Bret. Democratic socialism works just fine in practice. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland to name only the explicitly democratic socialist countries. Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Britain, Canada, even Australia all display democratic socialist policies to a limited and varying degree.
More practically though, every co-operative business is a democratically socialist organization. The employees are the owners and vice versa.
Greenstar co-op in Ithaca, NY has been humming along just fine for decades. If you wan't a more commercial example, consider WinCo Foods. They a grocery store chain employing 18,000 workers in 122 stores stretching from Texas to Washington. The shopping experience is an interesting hybrid between bulk and non-bulk shopping. Employee owned.
Very entertaining exchange.
Mr. Stephens might want to check out a copy of Samuelson's economics 101 textbook. Any economist not in the employ of the Right Wing oligarchs will tell you that our 20th century economy was ruined by Saint Ronnie's selling of supply side economics to the regressive base. That is the hole in our economy - the feeding of the wealthy by starving the middle class.
Socialism? How about paid vacations, medicare, Medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, food stamps?
We Americans like to refer to these benefits as civilized society taking care of those in need.
29
Absolutely correct on the damage of RR on our nation.
3
I have a dream that someday, ALL of the Justices will be moderates. Four Democrats, four Republicans and one Independent. Then maybe we can avoid the shame of knowing in advance how the Court will rule on some cases. Only in America.
5
And I have a dream that someday parties will disappear or become so splintered and numerous as to be less important, all elected and appointed officials will not have to conform to one of two comprehensive platforms, and people will not look to government to manage society and solve all problems.
1
Gail says that "the country has moved so far on inclusion that it’s very unlikely any [Supreme Court] nominee would be an proponent of pushing back." A little strong on the hubris here perhaps, Ms. Collins.
The margin for inclusion is razor-thin and getting thinner with each passing day of the Trump administration and the McConnell-Ryan Congress. The progress made to date going as far back as FDR is anything but secure. Watch the Supreme Court moving forward if there's any doubt about this.
Brett talks about "the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century," Here, he must be talking about Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, Canada, New Zealand and a basket of repressively similar failed states that nevertheless produced the highest living standards known to humanity.
Stephens could even be talking about our own FDR. If he is discussing the former USSR or Mao's China, then he is not discussing socialism, but a wholly corrupted Marxism that became nothing more than vessels for the megalomaniac aggregation of power in nation states that had no better purpose than absolute personal dominion over other human beings.
This isn't socialism, Mr Stephens; it's rule by cult-of-personality that matters little whether it rules under the banner of the right or the left. We're not far from such a condition in America, here and now.
22
We the People of the United States have no problem with the socialism of Social Security or Medicare.
Democratic socialism means a strong social safety net. It does not mean authoritarianism or totalitarianism. We the People are not afraid of a word.
146
This is a very thought provoking dialog. Medicare for all? Well in one sense that is what we have: pay insurance premiums for 50 and get the benefit at age 65. What many seem to believe is that it means no more insurance payments, get free government paid insurance.
And the socialism rap is sligtly over drawn, Nordic countries have done well for a long time with more social insurarnces (education, health, floor of income, etc) so some forms seem to work. However I would note that since WWII we have been the main bulwark against Russia taking over again and the Nation pledges are routinely ignored.
On Roe, I think Stephens is right, it will not be over turned. The last thing this court with the increasingly Left leaning Judge Roberts is to re-ignite the social issue debate. Of course that issue will be touted loudly to keep the heat on to get a more liberal leaning judge but it is not an issue anymore for this court.
1
Actually Bret, conservative Republicans (which is just about all of them) a while ago moved the 50 yard line rightward to the 20. FDR would be sitting in the stands. today.
And you should educate yourself as to the difference between a pure SOCIALIST who wants to nationalize industries and a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST who wants to provide efficient health care for everyone.
68
And who might stand up for unions who perhaps are the only protection ordniary workers have against the 1% making the economy only about themselves.
33
Right Laryy, but I only had 1500 characters and if I tried to list all the good stuff a Democratic Socialist wanted to do, I would quickly run out. So I decided to just pick one.
As with all else that is disturbingly wrong with Washington today, the Supreme Court's lifetime appointment term limit is in dire need of rejection and replacement with some form of earlier, but still lengthy, termination, possibly including a provision for voter approval of any extension.
Trump's choice, regardless of who that will be, will prevent that from happening during lifetime of 90+% of those who read the Times.
17
Brett: "I’d rather have a system where politicians stick mostly to politics rather than fund-raising; and in which money isn’t limited but transparency is mandated." Even with transparency, wouldn't candidates still feel they owe their big-money supporters something? It's certainly possible to slide through business or donor-friendly legislation that's not highly visible to the majority of voters.
13
I love Mr. Stephens comment on the damage socialists have done in last few decades. Their damage cannot compare to the damage capitalists--the 1%--have done to this country is the last decade. Any issue you look at--climate, health care, family care, wages, 2008---on and on--the capitalists class have made worse while enriching themselves at the end of the day. And to make matters worse, no matter how much pain they inflict on those of us not in their tax bracket or zip code, they have enough money and political power to walk away unscathed by their predatory behavior.
153
ACJ you are correct, just not in the way you think - the 1% have done vastly less damage than Socialism in the 20th Century or indeed in the 21st (Venezuela, once a rich country, has mass starvation thanks to socialism and we are nowhere near that).
Could the 1% do that much damage - Absolutely and the Trump tax cuts are moving in that direction but we still have a long way to go.
4
Demonstrably false. But look at Venezuela if you need a more recent example.
3
We are not Venezuela, yet. Americans have seen no damage from "socialism", yet suffer from the winner take all hypocrisy of crony corporate capitalism every day.
3
Bret Stephens reveals that he is unable to overcome the conservative brain washing about socialism, equating it to the terror reigns of Stalin, Mao and the North Korean Kim family, add to that Fidel Castro and Chavez for ruining their countries economies. Yet most of Western Europe has pursued what can only be called socialist policies and Democratic Socialism is pretty much what has been practiced in the Scandinavian countries, which by all measures have taken good care of their populations without running their economies nor preventing enterprising people from becoming moderately wealthy. All programs enacted by the government that ensures universal good health coverage, protection of workers against exploitation, preventing people from living in abject poverty are socialist programs by definition. Controlling the means of production and not allowing private business to thrive is communism, not socialism and certainly not Democratic Socialism. It is disingenous to raise an alarm about politicians calling themselves Democratic Socialists by invoking the specter of failed tyrannical regimes and ignoring that successful Democratic Socialist countries exist.
179
Sorry, I missed the part where he said anything even vaguely like this. Not a huge fan of Mr. Stevens, but I believe his point is more along the lines that democratic socialism doesn't approach majority support in most American political circles, regardless of where it works or how much you like it. Sorry, sounds like your issue is with people far more right than he.
1
But I think the REASON for such lack of public support is the democratic socialism is all too easily equated with what we remember of Soviet-style communism.
And this bogus equation is a centerpiece of free-market propaganda, which is working too well in this country as income and wealth inequality are adversely affecting the needs of more and more of our population.
2
trudds, did you blink and miss this parapraph?
"Still, it worries me, for a few reasons. First, I think anyone who calls herself a democratic socialist must either be ignorant of the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century or, more frighteningly, cognizant of it. The Sanders-style instinct of treating the financial class in the United States as virtual criminals is an ugly form of class warfare this country doesn’t need."
Seems to me Bret is saying almost exactly what our friend serban interprets from his words.
I enjoyed Mr Stevens's football field metaphor for the relative positions of political argument, and I agree with his characterization of the right moving to the 15 yard line.
What he does not say is the left - the actual political left - not the "progressives and democratic socialists" who have no power at all - is playing on their 45 yard line.
This means the actual game gets played on the 35 yard line of the right, which is why we have rising and harmful levels of inequality, the middle class has been hollowed out, and life is increasingly difficult for everyone but the very rich.
I don't see the right moving toward the center any time soon. So maybe we need the left to move left so the game gets played at the fifty.
47
There seems to be some confusion amongst the commenters as to the meaning of socialism. The dictionary definition is that the government controls the means of production, distribution, and exchange. That definition, in its entirety, applies to no Western country I'm aware of; even the so-called socialist Scandinavian countries have lots of private enterprise (someone has to create the wealth). It is also a fact of history that the more socialism a country had, the worse off it was/is, in almost all senses; certainly in terms of economics and the environment.
Russia and China were both mentioned; the different trajectory each economy is on is illuminating. Putin is busy gathering, to date, 70% of Russia's economy back under state control, while China is going the other way, slowly reducing the role of state-owned enterprises in the economy. No prizes for guessing which economy is doing better, and also does better during economic downturns.
So Bret Stephens is right when he bemoans the historical damage done by socialism, and the damage it could do to the Democratic party now.
8
Yes. I wish Ms Ocasio-Cortez the best, and I admire the way she ran her campaign. But the DSA's website says that it supports public ownership of the means of production and centralized economic planning. That isn't the social-welfare recipe used by the Scandinavian countries (which I agree we could use more of).
2
" It is also a fact of history that the more socialism a country had, the worse off it was/is, in almost all senses; certainly in terms of economics and the environment."
A more relevant comparison is that between the US which has LESS socialism than the Scandinavian countries and it certainly NOT obviously better off in terms of economics and the environment. The curve may be a bell curve, not a straight line.
10
Yes, that statement should be removed from the platform.
Politicians have always paid attention to what constituents say, whether in letters, phone calls, emails or internet posts. With dedicated news and opinion channels and internet, they have more to pay attention to. But ultimately, they still have to raise campaign funds. So the big donors get the most attention. And democracy suffers.
10
Bret, I defy you to show me one strong and economically solvent capitalist country in the world today that has not signifcantly improved life for the vast majority of its citizens without healthy doses of socialist policy and programs.
To say socialism did so much "damage" during the 20th century as you do also ignores so much "good" that it has done precisely in democratic countries. Democratic socialism represents the best of the mixed economy, and arguably, the best quality of life on earth as evinced by countries, such as German, Sweden, France, and Japan.
103
When Sandra Day O'Connor's name comes up, I always feel a deep sadness. Nobody can make everyone happy, but she tried to follow the law as written without turning it into a weapon or personal torch.
One has to note that with our ever-increasing lifespans, we could eventually end up with centenarian justices. Or presidents. Is this a good thing? Just a thought.
15
Except in Bush v. Gore.
1
When Sandra Day O'Connor's name comes up, I feel sadness too. She was responsible for giving us GWBush.
5
So Bret says, "the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century " and Gail lets it go. What is the damage caused by the "socialism" that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mentions? Social Security, Medicare? Is Bret equating her socialism with Stalinism? And Bret wants to be reasonable?
And by the way, most of us find that democracy is truly challenged when a few control the message and control the politicians, and the politicians do their bidding. What's good for Exxon is good for America?
81
Dear JustThinkin,
I suspect Bret is referring to those not so successful socialistic regimes like Venezuela.
1
To gpickard:
But surely that is not what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez means by socialism. And Bret knows that. It is just a cheap shop. It would be like saying that Bret's support of capitalism meant he favored reinstating child labor in sweat shops.
"Susan Collins may say she’s worried about abortion rights, but I don’t see her actually deciding to stand up to her party and torpedo a nomination unless he jumps up and down at the senate hearing and yells “I hate Roe vs. Wade!”"
Susan Collins is a pain in the you know what. She likes to appear open-minded, centrist, and thoughtful, but in the end, she always backs her party. Pinning one's hopes on her oblique statements putting trust in views expressed by any SCOTUS nominee (read=Gorsuch) she spoke with in her chambers before the confirmation vote, is a lose-lose.
As for Bret's attack on the "socialists" who sound like launching class warfare, I need to remind him that this paper carried a sobering statistic about the massive divide between the super rich and the rest of us: 10% of Americans control 90% of the nation's wealth.
This country is always asking ordinary Americans to "pay their fair share." I would posit that the country needs to do the same of those in that 10%.
257
Absolutely right on concerning two faced Collins and the socialism nonsense, a republican "buzz" word. Valueless 45ism, the crueler the better.
1
And let us NOT forget McConnell's promise to Collins about not screwing the ABA that won her vote on tax reform. Oh, he didnt mean it. Shocking, no?! Do not fall for equivicating. She is completely untrustworthy.
1
Yes! Thomas Picketty in his book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, proposes a wealth tax to keep capital, which grows faster than economies' GDP.
We need that. Maybe a jubilee tax on wealth that comes up every 7 years, you know, sort of uh, Biblical?
Maybe the top 10% gets taxed on their real estate, cash, and securities even if they have them in off-shore accounts? Like, you know a 2% tax on their net worth every 7 years, based on your ability to pay without a change in lifestyle?
1
Nice column. Only one quibble.
"the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century" is a figment of Bret's imagination. There was damage done by totalitarian governments who called themselves socialist but had no actual relation to socialism.
Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more aligned with socialism and they are doing fine.
454
Thank you for saving me the effort of pointing this out - and doing it more succinctly than I could.
I'll only add that I'm never sure with B Stephens whether things are legit figments of his imagination, or if he knows they're canards but willfully repeats them anyway.
3
What an interesting column. Politics aside, having a nearly balanced SC is necessary in order for both sides of arguments to be heard, regardless of the reigning party. All that considered, I would prefer to see term limits for the Justices.
Moving to the Democratic Party, I am uncertain how many Dems favor the Socialist tag being affixed. Sanders split the Party and that is why we have Trump in office. Will he do it again? That is my worst fear. If the DNC can offer a one-size-fits-all candidate list we would at least have a direction to follow. The elections in 2018 and 2020 need a solid foundation and we need to get to work on it!
16
We do not have Trump because of Sanders. Hilary did herself in, with the help of her friends on the DNC. Not to mention the fact that the only reason Trump is President is because of the Electoral College.
It is time to stop blaming Bernie Sanders for Hilary's loss.
He spoke truth to power and if it weren't for the machinations of the DNC he would have been the candidate. And all of his money was raised, not by Wall Street or other large, wealthy donors, but by everyday citizens, who only want a fair shake.
Instead of blasting Sanders, perhaps all of us can figure out how to get a Democratic Congress and President elected and stop wringing our hands over Hilary's loss.
She has served her country well, just not in the way we might have wanted her too.
1
Maybe it was the DNC that split the party by pushing a candidate that left a lot to be desired.
We do not have Trump because of Sanders, we have Trump because of Sanders voters. Thank you.
1
Bret, Bret, Bret. It is never the economic system that fails the people, it is always the political system. A socialist or communist democracy would do just fine. An autocratic capitalist system would be a nightmare. Just look at Russia and China.
It is Democracy that makes America great. A little more democracy in our economic system would be a good thing.
98
How can you have a fully socialist democracy when the person currently in charge directly controls whether you have food to eat and a roof over your head? What kind of opposition can you have then? It's not easy, they have found in Venezuela.
1
"Much as the right hates those decisions on moral and legal grounds, "
I'm not on the right, but I hate the decision on democratic grounds. The Court can make voters' rights meaningless by continually removing issues from democratic control, and nobody even seems to be talking about it.
36
I am a retired white male who enthusiastically voted for Ms Ocasio-Cortez and her platform. Mr Stephens may call it socialist. I saw it as the most humane and practical platform I’ve encountered in over 40 years of voting.
386
It has nothing to do with the news industry. The Supreme Court showed their power in 1973 by removing an issue from democratic control, which made it important for both parties to pack it with their sympathizers.
1
Human rights should not depend on the whims of the voters.
3
Gail and Bret, unless the Rolling Trumpster Fire picks someone not on the list he's been provided by the Federalist Society/Heritage Foundation screening committee, there's no mystery as to what his SCOTUS pick thinks or what they'll do - the public is just going to be treated to a few more episodes of Congressional Theatre in the daily broadcasts of President 45.
And Gail is correct to say about Joe Crowley's opponent:
"I know you’ll want to object to her platform but “Medicare for all” is the future."
which we'll gladly vote for, and support every step of the way until that day comes.
The question is: In the meantime will Progressives stick together to keep train wrecks like the current administration from seizing power and wantonly destroying much of what America stands for, OR will Progressives continue shooting themselves in the foot as we did in 2000 in Florida by throwing away votes on Ralph Nader, and (again) in 2016 when 130,000 voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania pulled the lever for Jill Stein, knowing full well she could not win even their state - much less the national election.
Progressives winning local or state elections is easier than winning national contests where the conservative-biased Electoral College has to be dragged along, and any more of 2016's Progressives 'protest' voting will allow GOP'ers to destroy much of the social safety net, harming adults as well as kids, on the way to Medicare for all.
115
Waters’ (D-Los Angeles) most valuable asset was a home valued between $1 million and $5 million in the Windsor Square neighborhood of Los Angeles near Hancock Park. Los Angeles County assessor records valued the property at $2.4 million. Her husband also had a number of investments and collected a pension from the National Football League.
2
@mark - Off topic, and so what ?
10
mark. I am curious. How does your reply pertain to Mr. Law's comment?
I'm getting tired of right wing commentators telling me that if Democrats return to the principles of FDR it will hurt them and strengthen the Republicans. the Tea Party didn't seem to hurt the Republican party too much at the ballot box.
149
Hmm, no speculation as to whether Trump will be challenged on his ability to name a Supreme Court Justice while Trump is under investigation? I can’t see anyone not named Trump going along with this.
36
Well, I can't see anyone with integrity going along with this, but that doesn't increase the number of challengers by much.
8
You're delusional. The President has the full powers of his office until he is impeached by the House and then found guilty by the Senate. Being "under investigation" is a political status, not a legal one. Only the people who didn't go along with Trump at the election in 2016 will be not going along with a Trump Supreme Court nomination, i.e. the same people that would object to any Republican nomination. Did Clinton stop exercising the power of the presidency when he was indicted? No.
1
Funny, Tom, being "under investigation" was Emolument Man's rationale for keeping his tax returns, with all those ties to Russian money and porn-star payoffs, secret. So dial back the hypocritical right-wing rhetoric. We get enough of that drivel from Trump, McConnell, and Ryan.
1
Stephens: "... the immense damage socialism did in the 20th century ...."
Socialism? What is he referring to? Social Security? Medicare? Rural electrification? I can't believe Collins let this pass. She must have found it too absurd to address.
So what about the damage capitalism did, starting with the Gilded Age and culminating with the Great Depression?
Nah, we don't talk about that. It's too much like the 21st century's neo-Gilded Age and Great Recession which have set the stage for many more surprises to come, I'm sure.
508
Yes, I’m curious what Brent meant by that statement. Sometimes people confuse communism and socialism, and attribute the ills of communism to socialism. Is he really thinking of the Soviet Union with this statement? That’s just incorrect.
23
@Michael - Agreed. Such unsupported bon mots are just right wing tripe that require more specifics.
Coming from a guy born in NYC, Bret needs to tell us all if it's the socialism that builds/maintains the subways, or the socialism that pays for fire/police protection, or the socialism that builds streets, or the socialism that collects trash, distributes water, builds schools - just exactly which part of socialism was so awful, compared to the economic and stock market crash/burns under GOP'er trickle-downism ?
77
Thank you for framing socialism from an American perspective.
Bret was conflating that with various mispractices of socialism by ultimately corrupt(ed) governments in other parts of the world.
Trump took the right to the goal line, and is threatening the end zone.
Stephens needs to refresh his understanding of history by relearning the difference between social democracy and totalitarian communism.
Happy almost 4th.
373
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a self-described Democratic Socialist. The avowed goals of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are highly unlikely to appeal to most Democrats, let alone Republicans; here are just two of several that will turn off many voters: (see https://www.dsausa.org/where_we_stand#global )
1. "Economic democracy means...the direct ownership and/or control of much of the economic resources of society by the great majority of wage and income earners." This is basic Marxism/Communism, under which workers own or control the means of production; it hasn't worked elsewhere, and is not likely to appeal to US voters.
2. "Social redistribution--the shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society--will require...massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs, income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation...." This concept is unlikely to appeal to most voters, even Democrats.
I am a life-long Democrat, and it is disheartening to me that Democratic Party leadership is so ossified and out of touch with reality that some of its members are hailing these young socialists as the future of our party. For the mid-terms and 2020 we need strong leaders and a strong platform that will appeal to a wide range of voters.
4
Mon Ray, Skepticrat –
Basic Marxism/Communism is NOT Socialism. Please read the whole thing. It may be idealistic, but it's not scary. Note that that link was posted 20 years ago.
In my ideal world, we would be a country that maintains balance between capitalism and socialism, between management and labor, a society that limits the wealth gap via taxes and regulations.
Scandinavian countries that appear to follow this model seem to be doing better than we are.
Utopia? No – we would still have our racial divide to address, but we had been making progress on that front (which probably at least partly contributed to DT now being in the WH).
Imho anyway.
Mr Stephens' brief aside about wanting "transparency" in political funding is an important point. The wrongheaded decision that determined that money equals speech is sowing inequity and incivility. But, the right to freedom of speech does not equal the right to anonymous speech. I wish the Dems would embrace the need for full disclosure of political spending as one of their prominent crusades.
153
I thought that the basic concept of our Supreme Court was to be the last and highest court to render critical unbiased legal decisions. What we have is a group of political Justices using their lifetime appointments and their political alliances to make what are often very political decisions. So from my viewpoint, filling a Supreme Court position currently, is simply a biased political act by the Supreme Ruler of our country, Donald Trump. Perhaps we should rethink this Supreme Court idea along with basic requirements for a President. Can't hurt, might help.
151
@Paul RAffeld.....as you write:
"What we have is a group of political Justices using their lifetime appointments and their political alliances to make what are often very political decisions".
I agree with you. Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer and Ginsberg vote in complete solidarity--in lock-step progressive uniformity. There is nothing more "political" than that.
5
No, they are in lock step judicial and legal unity. Look to the conservatives for hypocrisy and rationalization outside legality. In the same week they asserted that a few comments of a Colorado state official allowed them to vote blatantly for discrimination, while they purposely ignored Trump's racist comments in allowing him to discriminate. The end result was applying the opposite "legal" rationale in two cases in which they ruled n favor of discrimination. It is a sad time in our democracy when conservatives are such tortured pro-discrimination rulings in a positive light. We need to remove the GOP and their Russian enablers from office before it gets any worse.
8
Caligula famously tried appointing his horse, Incitatus, to be a consul (one of a number of chief magistrates). Now we have a man of similar appetites, proclivities and constitution leading our nation and I've no doubt he'd appoint a pig, with our without lipstick, to the SC in a heartbeat. Whoever it is, count on them being singularly unqualified, woefully inadequate to the task and diametrically opposed to the basic tenets of American jurisprudence. This appointment will make DeVos at Education and Zinke at Interior look like Toody and Muldoon by comparison, a hapless pair of incompetent slapstick "B" actors. This one will be a doozy. This selection will be made with an eye for maximum damage, an ear for far right ideology and a taste for revenge for all the slights large and small that America has heaped upon poor little donny. He probably knows he couldn't get a Sarah Palin ratified (or could he?), but there are any number of sleepers out there from which to choose. Think of any name that constitutes maximum insult to our intelligence and integrity, then put it on the short list. Given the coordination between the white house, congress, Heritage and the Kremlin, there's little chance the final pick won't ascend. Soon we'll start seeing a raft of even more bizarre rulings than some of the gems like Citizen United and the notion that actual innocence isn't grounds for an appeal, and they'll be published on twitter. Maybe Incitatus wouldn't be such a bad idea after all.
4
I must say, it is a great time to be a Conservative in America. Republicans hold the House, the Senate, the presidency, and the vast majority of state houses and governorships. And now--we are one confirmation away from a decades-long Conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
Finally... our laws and statutes will be interpreted according to the Constitution--and not the progressive sensitivities of liberal judges who believe social justice is their calling.
Finally...5 decades of destructive liberal policies are being rolled back, one-by-one, and America will finally be restored to its promise--as a land of freedom, individual initiative and responsibility, free markets, and prosperity.
This had to happen folks. Donald Trump was inevitable. We could not continue on the path we were on--over-taxed, over-regulated, being stomped on by political correctness in an economic morass feeding on eternal malaise.
America is back--and for those of us who are not liberal, we expect this to be the best time of our lives. You can either join the party--or bask in self-immolating resentment and envy as the good times roll on. Thank god, we dodged Hillary.
19
@Jesse - Umm, look around. The precious Dow Jones has had its worst Jan.-June performace since 2010, and is down for the year so far.
N. Korea is busily expanding its nuke capacity.
Canada is organizing boycotts of U.S. products as well as imposing tariffs.
Agent Orange from KAOS is slaving away at achieving Putin's dream of taking apart NATO, the E.U., the WTO, and the entire alliance of Western Democracies that has existed for 80 years.
And none of this is "creative destruction", since there is no plan to replace what is being taking apart - it's simply bedlam being exalted, to distract from Mueller and is compounded by the Sociopath-in-Chief lying to the American people from the aisle of Air Force One about hush payments to a porn star.
None of it would be o.k. if you saw a Progressive doing it, and it's not o.k. because this guy is a GOP'er.
299
Oh, Jesse, I hope that you are kidding but fear that you are not. It would be great if the conservative domination of all forms of government meant more freedom, more individual initiative, more personal responsibility, more free markets and more prosperity. It would be great if it meant a return to the old-fashioned values to Truth, Justice and the American Way, of honor, decency and integrity, and meant the Eisenhower Republican days of yore. But it doesn't. Those days are gone. Because what it really means is that a few very enterprising people will have more freedom, will show more personal initiative, will be able to afford the exploit free markets and will get healthier, richer and more powerful, but the rest of us won't. It means that, left unchecked, we will slide back into feudalism and slavery and be the kind of country that our ancestors fled in droves. If we could count on the conservatives to care about the "little people" and be the caretakers of the earth, we might stand a chance, but I have seen very little over the past thirty-plus years to indicate that conservatives care about anything but social Darwinism and hoarding health, wealth and power for themselves.
219
Jesse,
Yes, you are RIGHT, a minority of Americans have it over the majority-now.
The Constitution ensures the rights of Americans, not the privilege of a few.
Someone YOU know and live among is better off and contributing to America due to these "liberal policies" or as the rest of America calls dignity.
Like it or not, our nation is evolving and growing to responsibly meet the challenges of a nation and world undergoing enormous change.
America has stepped backwards for the moment, caught in that indecisive time of fear, challenge, and difficulty. However, courageous Americans will again face these problems and take forward and patriotic steps to the real present and future.
Enjoy your party now, Mom and Dad will soon be home.
37
Gail: Rather than reflecting the structure of the American media, American politics is a reflection of the weakening of social connections in our society and the lack of interest in the greater good. Today, in a rejection of JFK's 1961 exhortation, voters ask what this country can do for them, not what they can do for this country. The internet merely is a trough with an endless buffet from which they can feed their basic self-interest.
38
Fascism is not inevitable. Most voters vote with their hearts and not, unfortunately, with their heads. Most voters in red states vote against their self interests.
Rise up! We have to stop fascism.
1
About Amy Coney Barrett, only 46, and who has less than a year serving as a judge.
Bret says that "Dianne Feinstein foolishly decided to suggest that her Catholic convictions might make her unfit for a judgeship after Trump nominated her..."
Shouldn't he know as a journalist that Coney Barrett just 20 years ago co-authored a paper, "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases," with John H Garvey (currently President of the Catholic University of America, and dream leader of Gilead) that concluded Catholic judges are too greatly torn by their faith to judge certain cases?
The 2nd paragraph:
"The legal system has a solution for this dilemma-it allows (indeed it
requires) the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing
their job. This is a good solution. But it is harder than you think to determine when a judge must recuse himself and when he may stay on the
job. Catholic judges will not want to shirk their judicial obligations.
They will want to sit whenever they can without acting immorally. So
they need to know what the church teaches, and its effect on them. On
the other hand litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial
justice, and that may be something that a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. We need to know whether
judges are sometimes legally disqualified from hearing cases that their
consciences would let them decide."
Judge Amy should recuse herself from this job search.
152
We do not need another Catholic on the Court. Period. No offense to Catholics, but like so many other things these days, a little more religious diversity would be good.
3
I agree with you heartily and I'm a Catholic!
Two distinct paths clearly mentioned in this article, with one that is easy to defend and the other easy to disavow: "medicare for all" is simply a necessity; it is the simplest, and most rational process to get healthcare to all of our citizens. My fear is that it is so reasonable and easy as an answer, that politicians won't accept it. But I see it as an inevitable force, and will ease a lot of tension for so many.
The other path mentioned is monetary donations; saying as Bret does that the amount doesn't matter just doesn't ring true. And the issue seems to be that we aren't looking for the solution in the right way - rather than trying to determine "proper limits", we should be working to remove excessive spending entirely by having a set amount of free airtime for candidates, and absolutely a very shortened political "season". Get the playing field leveled in a sensible manner.
Finally, our new "political hero"...or at least mine and a few million others, from NYC is the new face of politics. The overworked term "socialism" is going to die out, at least I hope so. What better popular government could we have that is democratic and committed to social good? People are too tied down to semantics on this; get over the old terminology and work on what's real and necessary...or you will be left behind. I'm nearing 70, and refuse to be in the dust...until I am dust!
117
Medicare requires the payment of premiums for an entire career before benefits begin. There's no such thing as "Medicare for all" if you remove the age requirement, because you eliminated the period of accumulating resources without paying benefits.
What you are actually advocating is "Medicaid for all." That is, last resort medicine from a subset of providers willing to work for below market rates. We have that already for the lowest income families, you just want to expand it to the middle class as well. Thanks for nothing.
1
My intent was in using the term as a descriptive phrase, as many others have done as well. Most people seem to be able to understand that concept. Of course there would be changes in the actual administration for this program; you have added nothing to the conversation.
Mr. Dantes, you misunderstand. Medicare for All means that those not yet eligible for "regular" Medicare, can buy in - just as they would buy any other insurance. Except with such a large pool, it would be a lot cheaper. And it would eliminate health insurance companies, whose only interest is the bottom line and not your well-being.
My additions to the conversation:
1. This is the true definition of an activist judge: a judge who renders a decision that one opposes. Justice Scalia, for instance, was was every bit as activist a justice as any liberal on the Court. Few, no matter what their politics, object to a judge on the grounds of "activism," if they like the decisions he or she makes.
2. The comments here have revealed the latest meme regarding the Supreme Court that has been foisted on us by conservative ideologues waging the culture wars - that they remove issues like a woman' right to chose from democratic control.
This is rich, since they are perfectly willing to trash democratic principles, norms, and practices to impose their anti-government, anti-choice, etc., agenda on the country, using political tricks to pack the Supreme Court with right wing ideologues who will vote the way they want them to.
There are some rights in this existence that must remain with the individual, and not subject to the whims of dictators or majority rule. Some decisions that must remain private. A person's control over their own body, over their right to choose whether or not to get pregnant or carry a pregnancy to term, is one of them.
If we give the state the right to control a woman's body by forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term, we give the state the power to control a woman's body by preventing her from carrying a pregnancy to term.
How is that not a form of slavery?
81
Teg Laer, thank you for this. I have often pointed that out the anti-abortion activists are just the flip side of a coin, when in China, not too long ago, couples were not allowed more than one child. Women were forced to abort, sometimes even first pregnancies if the fetus was female. Also, many female babies who weren't lucky enough to be put up for adoption were left to die.
That a legislative body, especially one made up overwhelmingly of males, thinks they should have ANY say in this matter is completely repugnant.
1
Collins isn't going to do anything but vote to approve the nominee. She is paralyzed by fear of the Trump attack machine and, while she likes talking like she still has independent thoughts, ultimately does not have the courage to exercise any independence. She will listen to the nominee say he/she has respect for precedent and has not prejudged any issue that might come before the Court and pronounce herself satisfied. She loves her Senate seat too much to risk standing up to the Trump party.
105
Likely true, but as Stephens says, John Roberts while chipping away at reproductive rights with alacrity, is not about to overturn Roe vs Wade. Professional Republicans - and they do exist - know that such a decision would be tantamount to political suicide for their party. Even Lindsey Graham spoke against it on Sunday.
Agree on Collins. Ignore what the republicans say at the mike and watch what the DO/vote.
1
No, my prediction is that Collins, Murkowski, Manchin, Heitkamp, and Donnelly are going to make a deal among themselves. Murkowski ans Colin’s will vote against the nominee, the Dems will vote for him (her). Collins/Murkowski get to tell their constituents they voted to save Roe, but don’t take heat from the party because the nominee gets confirmed, and the Dems don’t take any heat because they can argue they had to do what their constituents wanted.
The Citizens United case was not about free speech, despite the Roberts Court decision. It was about keeping power in the hands of the few. Since when does money equate with Free Speech?
In addition, there is no transparency because of the Citizens United decision. Special PACS were formed in order to hide who or what Corporation was giving.
As far as making it easier to raise funds, as much as you both don't like Bernie Sanders, he proved that you can raise a lot of money with small donations. So that argument about politicians spending less time raising money by accepting huge donations from a few donors does not fly.
Whether or not you are a Conservative, Moderate or Liberal, government and its employees are there to serve all of the people in this country, not just the lobbyists,, the Cabinet members, the Senators or House members or the media, for that matter.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, it has become another political domain. Common sense and justice should prevail, not just ideology and precedents.
Maybe it is time for another look at how the Judges are appointed.
Regarding issues in political races, that is what running for office is supposed to be about. The fact that Joe Crowley could not even show up for a debate tells me he was not interested in his constituents issues, hence his defeat.
86
I'd love to see the Supreme Court appointees get a 10 or 12 year term and that's it.
And let's not forget, no matter what, Mitch McConnell stole a seat on the SCOTUS and every decision on which Gorsuch votes is tainted by that theft.
3
I don't think the media has considered the fact that Trump's power to select another Supreme Court Justice represents somewhat of a vindication for Hillary...and a very real reckoning for all women.
Young women who believed their rights were "handled," and/or who devalued or dismissed the feminist work of older women, women who just didn't "like" Hillary - or give her the respect she rightly, if imperfectly, earned; the respect every woman has a right to from her fellow women - or the women who hid behind their husband's votes...reality has come calling.
The reality of how women are valued in our society, and the fragility of our rights, is becoming quite clear now. I'll bet even women who would not choose abortion for themselves, want choice for their daughters and granddaughters.
At the same time that #metoo is happening, women are having their lack of responsibility for our society, for our gender shown to them in no uncertain terms.
The sword of freedom always cuts both ways.
96
1. I'm sick of hearing such pablum as "Roe is safe" when everybody, especially republicans, know it will be overturned. The next justice has been pre-vetted to vote that way and I don't believe Roberts will stand in the way of it either. It's the standard Republican soothing nonsense to put the other side to sleep.
2. By "socialist" you know the goal is to be like Sweden, France, even Germany or Switzerland, which you conservatives think would be a disaster. Nobody wants, or is even proposing, anything more radical than that. The only thing "dangerous" about is that rich people will definitely have to pay more in taxes. Upper middle class people too, but at least they'd get something for it besides alot more tanks.
3. The reason we "fight" so much is because the Republicans are a minority party with all the power, and their goals are extreme. There are no Fords, Doles, Eisenhowers etc. left in the republican party. When I was a kid in the 70's, what republicans wanted wasn't horrifying to me. I might not have agreed with it, but it wasn't horrifying. Now, virtually everything they want is absolutely, totally horrifying. THAT, not the media, is why the fight is so vitriolic. Don't try to deny the obvious.
429
Conesnail,
There's a word for "trying to deny the obvious." It's "gaslighting."
Who the heck are you writing to? "You conservatives?!"
I'm one of the more Republican of commenters in this forum, I strongly support Roe v. Wade, and almost ALL the REST of the active commenters in this klatch of aging-hipsters have legitimate credentials as avatars of the unchained, potted liberati.
You, like Stephens, are Republican hypocrites. If you backed Roe vs Wade you would not be a Republican, just like those two sorry women last week who after a generation of futility finally gave up on the GOP representing women. All so-called reasonable conservatives are oxymoronic hypocrites if they support Trump, as you do. So let's not be so indignant when we call you and your ilk out on your blatant hypocrisy.
5