Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The smug style in American liberalism

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 435 posts

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#231

Post by Nursie »

foldr wrote: post #216
Nursie wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A last minute, failed attempt to do something a few months before a referendum that they comfortably and smugly assumed they would win easily. No plan was made because the people in a position to make one didn't want to and assumed victory. All this after AFAICT two decades of ignoring or belittling people for their deeply held views. That doesn't really cut it and so we get the result we got. Personally I neither th…

>No plan was made because the people in a position to make one didn't want to and assumed victory. No plan was made by long-term Brexit supporters either. Where is Nigel Farage's plan? What useful suggestions has Boris Johnson made? >And even if I did I would try to recognise that I share a country with such folk and have a duty to take their views into account. We did take their views into account, as I said. The Co…

Why is any plan Farage might have come up with of the slightest interest? Are you suffering from the misapprehension that the referendum was an election for the leave campaign?

Boris? Who knows.

I'm not really defending Brexit here. My argument is that something along these lines was inevitable due to decades of ignoring people.

The conservative government wanted to put a lid back on this and make it go away, their strategy was to show it up for what they assumed was the obviously stupid, minority viewpoint it was. They failed, but they were just the latest in a line of governments suffering from the smugness identified in the article.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#232

Post by curun1r »

mikeash wrote: post #205
jessaustin wrote: post #94

On November 6, 2000, during his final pre-election stump speech, Bush explained his history of political triumph thusly: "They misunderesimated me." What an idiot. American liberals made fun of him for that one for years. It is worth considering that he didn't misspeak. He did, however, deliberately cultivate the confusion. He understood the smug style. W's was perhaps a more subtle dominating response to the Smug, b…

I think Democrats just need to nominate better candidates. Al Gore was so boring that his Secret Service nickname was "Al Gore." (A joke, but one he told himself.) Clinton was a terrible candidate who only had a chance because she was running against another terrible candidate. (And to clarify, I think Clinton was a decent candidate in terms of her policies and her ability to do the job. But she was a terrible candid…

The Democrats had a good candidate and they were scared he wasn't centrist enough.

If there's a lesson from this election, it's that when a candidate inspires a populist movement, the parties should just let it play out instead of trying to stop it in favor of an establishment candidate. Both parties tried to stop it, but only the Democrats succeeded. The general election was their punishment.

Bernie would have beaten Trump. The crucial "rust belt" states that Clinton lost were states where Bernie beat her too. They're states that want to vote Democratic but felt that the Democrat didn't care about their struggles. His platform was completely targeted at helping the lower- and middle-class. Oh, and he probably has no idea what an email server is, let alone how to run his own.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#233

Post by iainmerrick »

xupybd wrote: post #97
gozur88 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, because anyone can afford $2500/month. It's practically free.

Why is healthcare so expensive in the states? People seem to focus on private Heath insurance vs Obama care. But neither should be so expensive. Why are other countries able to provide way cheaper care?

It seems to me that the system is just very inefficient. There's a huge amount of bureaucracy, and not a lot of serious competition between healthcare and insurance providers. It's hard to switch providers and the pricing structures are very confusing.

Similar to broadband and mobile phone services, the free market hasn't been able to drive prices down as effectively as it theoretically should. I think it's because the incumbent providers have successfully lobbied for a network of regulations that protect their monopolies. What's actually needed is better regulations (a la net neutrality) to level the playing field.

Or alternatively, just run it as a free public service like many other countries do. That approach works pretty well.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#234

Post by talmand »

andrewvc wrote: post #196
clifanatic wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember my Facebook feed from 8 years ago - my liberal friends were celebrating, and my conservative friends were disappointed, but trying to be (somewhat) conciliatory. Now, my conservative friends are celebrating but my liberal friends attitude is "screw America, I hope you choke in your own vomit, you racist bastards".

Oh please. There's been 8 years of racist conservative commentary about Obama. Trump was leading the racist 'birther' movement charge. Don't act like its a double standard.

I'm forgetting the details; can you explain how the birther movement, no matter how stupid, was about race?

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#235

Post by Nursie »

foldr wrote: post #216
Nursie wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A last minute, failed attempt to do something a few months before a referendum that they comfortably and smugly assumed they would win easily. No plan was made because the people in a position to make one didn't want to and assumed victory. All this after AFAICT two decades of ignoring or belittling people for their deeply held views. That doesn't really cut it and so we get the result we got. Personally I neither th…

>No plan was made because the people in a position to make one didn't want to and assumed victory. No plan was made by long-term Brexit supporters either. Where is Nigel Farage's plan? What useful suggestions has Boris Johnson made? >And even if I did I would try to recognise that I share a country with such folk and have a duty to take their views into account. We did take their views into account, as I said. The Co…

Once again - please don't think I'm defending the outcomes.

The attitude that anyone disagreeing with you is insane is the problem. The fact you call leaving a political union 'insane' is part of the problem.

And if the views on restricting migration hadn't been dismissed as insane for years, we might not be here.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#236

Post by pron »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #229
pron wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apparently in the privacy of a voting booth, people are willing to express their true beliefs. It appears that Trump won because of working-class people in the Rust Belt, who repeatedly got the short end of the stick by the neoliberal policy of both parties. Democrats should have had their backs, but they'd abandoned them, instead, serving the "professional meritocracy". He did not win because of spoiled, well-off…

> who repeatedly got the short end of the stick by the neoliberal policy of both parties. I agree with this assessment of voter outrage due to economic issues in the rust belt and elsewhere, but now what? Walmart isn't buying smartphones made domestically that cost 8x what the ones in China cost because Walmart can't sell them. I can see the complaint, but its a bit like voting against hurricanes and tornadoes. They'…

That Trump has misled them is obvious, but not because of any policy he may have suggested, but because he is too preoccupied with tweets, self-portraits, marking stuff with his name, gilded chairs and boobs to effectively enact any policy; it is reported that he is unable to read even short texts or engage in a conversation that isn't about him for more than ten minutes, for god's sake (although I am not yet sure if I'll be horrified or pleasantly surprised if he proves me wrong). But as to global trade, I don't understand your point. What, is there one god-given, "natural" policy and no other? I'd like to believe that societies can shape the economy -- if not fully, then at least in part -- to serve their chosen goals, rather than just serve it.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#237

Post by foldr »

Nursie wrote: post #235
foldr wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No plan was made because the people in a position to make one didn't want to and assumed victory. No plan was made by long-term Brexit supporters either. Where is Nigel Farage's plan? What useful suggestions has Boris Johnson made? >And even if I did I would try to recognise that I share a country with such folk and have a duty to take their views into account. We did take their views into account, as I said. The Co…

Once again - please don't think I'm defending the outcomes. The attitude that anyone disagreeing with you is insane is the problem. The fact you call leaving a political union 'insane' is part of the problem. And if the views on restricting migration hadn't been dismissed as insane for years, we might not be here.

But what if a large number of people actually have done something insane? You seem to refuse to accept this as a possibility.

To my mind, the view that migration should be severely restricted never was dismissed. The present Conservative government agreed, and imposed all kinds of overly draconian restrictions. (I ended up paying several thousand pounds to get my Canadian husband a visa to live here.)

Now the idea that immigration should be even further restricted is mainstream, even though it is mad.

I'm interested in any plans that Farage might have made because it would be evidence that someone on the Leave side of the issue perhaps has a clue.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#238

Post by rndmize »

privong wrote: post #118
triplesec wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's not that he didn't, but he couldn't, with the most obstructive Congress in modern history

> I think it's not that he didn't, but he couldn't, with the most obstructive Congress in modern history Ironically, some of that might have been his own doing, though. The healthcare reform was passed essentially without republican support; I think that's a very rare example of major [healthcare] legislation that was not passed with bi-partisan support. Not doing more to bring R's on board likely burned lots of poli…

Not even remotely close to true. Obama put in a ton of effort into crossing party lines, and was rejected, delayed, lied about - I remember how the discussion of the ACA was going on for months and month and MONTHS of stonewalling, how he went to the Republican retreat to discuss the issue and make some points after most of a summer and fall of obstructionism and demolished Republican arguments effectively enough that Fox cut away from the live broadcast after 20 minutes. I remember the supercommittee, and how the Republican absolutely refused to bend on any of their points, while the Democrats bent on theirs, over and over. The debt ceiling showdowns...

After his first year in office, Obama started getting shit from people on the left because a lot of them thought he was trying too hard to reach across the isle and unify the nation instead of ignoring the obstructionists and getting stuff done.

http://www.politico.com/story/2010/01/obama-rumbles-with-hou... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/ja...

> Consider that Obama's $787bn stimulus bill of last spring was heavily weighted toward tax cuts, against the advice of many economists, in an effort to win some Republican support. In the end, the bill received not a single Republican vote.

> Consider that he nominated a moderate, pro-prosecution Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor, only to see her tagged as a racist over some rather innocuous remarks she made about being a "wise Latina".

> Consider, too, that healthcare reform became bogged down in such a compromise-ridden mess because Obama ruled out a single-payer system ahead of time and never strongly backed a government-owned insurance alternative (the "public option") to compete with private insurance companies.

> As with the stimulus bill, the idea was to bring along a few Republican senators thought to hold reasonable views on the subject, such as Charles Grassley of Iowa and Olympia Snowe of Maine. And again, no Republican support was forthcoming, forcing Senate leaders to cut outrageous deals with recalcitrant Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

> Obama's attempts to find compromise solutions did not stop Republicans from labelling him as a radical – or their nutty tea-party allies from calling him a "socialist" and worse. And, in retrospect, that was going to happen no matter what he did. His real problem has been that, to his supporters, he looked as though he'd been sucked into the very system he was elected to reform. Thus an Obama ally like Martha Coakley, a loyal Democratic apparatchik who'd long been criticised for her reluctance to take on political corruption in Massachusetts, became the perfect foil. (Coakley is best known for prosecuting Louise Woodward, a British nanny accused of killing a baby in her care.)

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#239

Post by foldr »

aninhumer wrote: post #226
foldr wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean that the public insisted that we leave the EU by voting to leave the EU. Just because someone asks a silly question doesn't mean that you have to give a silly answer.

People voted in the way that best expressed their beliefs given the choice as presented. If they'd voted remain, the government wouldn't have said "Oh I guess that was a poorly defined referendum, let's work out a proper plan and have another." they'd have used it as an excuse to ignore the issue.

>People voted in the way that best expressed their beliefs given the choice as presented.

That is true of any election, no?

>If they'd voted remain, the government wouldn't have said "Oh I guess that was a poorly defined referendum, let's work out a proper plan and have another." they'd have used it as an excuse to ignore the issue.

Quite possibly, but I don't see how that is relevant. We seem to be in agreement?

Post reply on HN