The reason I put "debate" in quotation marks is because there is very little disagreement among the Republican contenders: Pataki accepts that abortion is legal, Rand Paul does not want to build up the military the way the other candidates do, and that is about it for dissent from the party line: tax less, spend less (except for the military, where more needs to be spent), bomb the hell out of those who we think are out to get us. The candidates also don't like Hillary Clinton, who Bobby Jindal says "would take us down the road to socialism" (he didn't need to say he thought that would be a bad thing; he has been complaining about the left and socialists continuously). Ted Cruz at one point said that listening to the Democratic debate was like listening to a debate between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, though I wonder how much of the audience understood that remark.
Each candidate tried to emphasize either their experience in government ("I balanced the budget") or outside it ("I made difficult decisions"), while trying to portray themselves as tougher than any of the other candidates. Lindsey Graham did the most saber-rattling and each candidate had some voodoo economic scheme, most of which relied on dubious and disproven supply-side ideas. Everyone praised the working class, often giving their own personal histories of deprivation, but once again there was nobody to defend -- or even mention -- unions, collective bargaining being one of the most successful ways to raise wages.
Ted Cruz complained that the moderators would not let them discuss the issues. What issues? Everyone wants to be rid of Obamacare, for instance, but no one had any suggestions about how to make sure that the people who need healthcare get it. My favorite comment in the debate was from the self-styled populist Rick Santorum, who said that Obamacare was designed to drive small insurance companies out of business, demonizing large insurance companies and then insisting that that proved we need single-payer healthcare! Would that it were so. I think we started on the road to a single-payer system with Medicare and we will get there eventually, long after every other country has it.
With all the militarism in this debate I am only slightly surprised that none of the candidates suggested reinstituting the draft. That they are correctly afraid of the risk of doing this is, to me, an indication that most voters are not as fond of wars as the candidates, especially younger voters who would have to do the fighting.
The strangest question in the debate was asked of all the participants: do you think the day after the Super Bowl should be a national holiday? I did not understand that question at all, unless it was meant to suggest that everyone is hung over that day, which doesn't seem like a reason to have a holiday.
Friday, October 30, 2015
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Democratic Party Debate Oct 13,2015
I don't have too much to say about the Democratic debates. All of the candidates seem to be decent people, each one trying to emphasize at least one aspect that makes them unique: Webb with his military service, Chafee with the fact that he has never been associated with any scandal, O' Malley with his support of renewable energy, Clinton with being female (I also was annoyed by Clinton's constant references to the potential of every child's "God-given" talent. Suppose one does not believe in God?), Sanders with his anti-billionaire populism. My vote, on the issues, goes to Sanders. He is the only candidate advocating a single-payer healthcare system, free college tuition for public colleges, expanded social security and the importance of privacy. He was attacked for being a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, which is actually to his credit, and voted against the war in Iraq, i.e., he doesn't believe in useless,destructive and stupid wars. It was suggested that, as a senator from a rural state, he is not as much of a supporter of gun control as he should be but he did make an important point about that: many people who need to see mental health specialists do not do so because either they cannot afford it or their insurance will not pay for it.
I was slightly disappointed that with all the references to inequality there was no reference whatsoever to labor unions, whose shrinking size and power correlates with O'Malley's repeated statement that 70% of us are making the same or less than we were ten years ago. Nor was there any reference to art or books of any kind; Clinton repeatedly referred to experts but never identified them. Perhaps it is too much to expect busy politicians to read books or go to the opera and ballet performances, though I think they could benefit enormously by doing so.
I was slightly disappointed that with all the references to inequality there was no reference whatsoever to labor unions, whose shrinking size and power correlates with O'Malley's repeated statement that 70% of us are making the same or less than we were ten years ago. Nor was there any reference to art or books of any kind; Clinton repeatedly referred to experts but never identified them. Perhaps it is too much to expect busy politicians to read books or go to the opera and ballet performances, though I think they could benefit enormously by doing so.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Linda Chavez on Donald Trump
As an addendum to my comments on the Republican debates I want to recommend "Donald Trump's America" by Linda Chavez in the October issue of Commentary. Chavez gives us a much-needed history lesson, pointing out:
The anti-immigrant rancor that is fueling Trump's popularity is nothing new in American history. A populist backlash has accompanied every wave of large-scale immigration, whether we are talking about German and Irish immigrants in the 19th century or Jews, Italians, Poles, and other Southern and Eastern Europeans in the early 20th century.
The same concerns were directed at earlier immigrants --crime, stealing jobs, lack of assimilation --that are now directed at today's immigrants from Latin America. One reason for the rapid assimilation of these earlier groups, especially in the second generation, is that everyone born here is an American citizen, and now Trump wants to revoke that birthright!
Trump also wants to deport all illegal immigrants, something that would take up to twenty years to accomplish and would cost more than $400 billion dollars, not to mention the havoc it would wreak with families. Trump probably does not even know that this has been tried before: during the Great Depression more than 400,000 Mexicans were deported, using tyrannical and unconstitutional methods. What we most need to do is find a pathway to citizenship or legal status for illegal immigrants, nearly two-thirds of whom have lived here for more than ten years.
The anti-immigrant rancor that is fueling Trump's popularity is nothing new in American history. A populist backlash has accompanied every wave of large-scale immigration, whether we are talking about German and Irish immigrants in the 19th century or Jews, Italians, Poles, and other Southern and Eastern Europeans in the early 20th century.
The same concerns were directed at earlier immigrants --crime, stealing jobs, lack of assimilation --that are now directed at today's immigrants from Latin America. One reason for the rapid assimilation of these earlier groups, especially in the second generation, is that everyone born here is an American citizen, and now Trump wants to revoke that birthright!
Trump also wants to deport all illegal immigrants, something that would take up to twenty years to accomplish and would cost more than $400 billion dollars, not to mention the havoc it would wreak with families. Trump probably does not even know that this has been tried before: during the Great Depression more than 400,000 Mexicans were deported, using tyrannical and unconstitutional methods. What we most need to do is find a pathway to citizenship or legal status for illegal immigrants, nearly two-thirds of whom have lived here for more than ten years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)