“I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”
Tony Campolo
Behind much discussion…there hover two propositions that I think much less admissible than the new morality
1: That if a book is literature it cannot corrupt. But there is no evidence for this, and some against it…
2: That if a book is a great work of art it does not matter if it corrupts or not, because art matters more than behaviour. In other words art matters more than life; comment on life, the mirroring of life, matters more than life itself. This sounds very like nonsense
C.S Lewis
THIS ESSAY CONTAINS ONE USE OF A VERY STRONG RACIAL SLUR
ONE
Please tick all that apply:
▢ I am not going to read [x]
▢ I don't think you should read [x]
▢ I don't think anyone should read [x]
▢I don't think anyone should be allowed to read [x]
▢ I think that anyone who reads [x] should be killed
Where [x] =
A: Cerebus the Aardvark,
B: Charlie Hebdo Cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed,
C: Monty Python's Life Of Brian,
D: the Satanic Verses,
E: the Talons of Weng Chiang
Pete Seeger sings a funny song about a bigoted American politician named Mr Bilbo. It contains the stanza:
When the king of England started pushing Yankies around
We taught him a lesson down in Boston town
A very brave negro, Crispus Attucks was the man
Was the first to fall when the fighting began.
When I first heard the song, I was very surprised that he used the word “negro”. I thought that sounded quite racist: only slightly better than that other word beginning with the same letter.
I now know that when Seeger sang the song, "negro" was the preferred term: Martin Luther King used it too. "Black" would have been regarded as rather demeaning; "coloured" as quite patronising. “Person of colour” wasn’t current.
When Pete Seeger sang the song, he didn’t mean it to be racist; and when his first listeners heard it, they didn’t understand it to be racist. But if you sang it tomorrow, you might well be considered racist. When Peter, Paul & Mary recorded the song, they changed “negro” to “black man”. They also changed “Puerto Ricans” to “Hispanics”, and the title of the song to Mr Bigot, because no-one would have heard of Theodore G Bilbo.
It is highly unlikely that J.R.R Tolkien had heard of either the song or the politician.
We had a little book containing some American folk songs at school: Casey Jones and Johnny Appleseed and Coming Round The Mountain. Miss Griffiths told us plainly that there was nothing funny about the song in which the burly little tramp traveled a long a lonesome road looking for his liking. That, of course, made it even funnier. An elderly bespectacled spinster was talking to a class of nine year olds about bums. That no-one in a 1928 hobo jungle would have seen the joke is neither here nor there. In the end she redacted the song book with a jar of tip-ex.
The Al Jolson movie was retitled Hallelujah I'm a Tramp for the UK release.
While we are on the subject of bottoms: I saw the National Theatre's production of Cat On a Hot Tin Roof the other week. I thought it was very good. So did most of the critics. But, notably, the only thing that the man in the Daily Telegraph had to say was that the production contained some nudity: a rear view of a naked man taking a shower. This was literally the only thing he could see in the production: a man's bottom dominated the text and blotted out everything else in the show. This was doubtless a puerile response to a serious piece of drama; but the producer knew very well that bums draw attention to themselves: put an arse in a play and the play becomes about arses. It doesn't follow that you should never do it and it certainly doesn't follow that you should never be allowed to do it. But you can't pretend that you don’t know what the reaction to it is likely to be.
Eric Bogle wrote a song called I Hate Wogs. Anyone can tell from 40 paces that the song is a not particularly subtle piss-take of racist attitudes. It has stanzas like:
I was queuing down the registry a picking up my dole
In front of me was a Yugoslav, in front of him a Pole
Behind me an Italian, behind him was a Turk
Those lazy migrant bastards they never bloody work!
But some people can't see beyond the title. "Wog" is a racist word, the song contains the line "I hate wogs" so the song is a racist song. Other people say "I love it that you are coming right out and saying the word Wog in order to stick it to the PC libtards, ha-ha!” So probably the song was a bad idea, even though Eric Bogle's intentions were good. Miss Griffiths would have been more concerned that he said "bastard" and "bloody'.
The Band Played Waltzing Matilda and the Green Fields of France are two of the best and saddest songs ever written.
Yoko Ono’s Woman Is the Very Strong Racial Slur of The World was also probably a well-intentioned mistake. I think we can probably still sing De Camptown Races, Doo Dah provided we get rid of de silly phonetic spelling.
There is a very old, very lost and very black and white Doctor Who story called The Celestial Toymaker, about a baddie putting lethal twists on toys and children's games. In the first episode someone recites the eennie-meenie-mini-mo rhyme. This is about as innocent and harmless a use of the most offensive word in the English language as it is possible to imagine. There is no racial context. There is no malicious intent. The word in the poem doesn't refer to a black person, or anything else: it's just a jingle. But it’s still the most offensive word in the English language.
Now I have told you that someone once said "nigger" in Doctor Who, you have to decide what to do with that information. If you discretely remove the story from BritBox, that says something about how you regard racial slurs. If you let it go out in its original form, that says something too. You could bleep it out, which draws attention to it. You could cut the whole scene, which is the same as pretending that racism doesn’t exist. You could dub a different word over the top, which smacks of Miss Griffith’s tippex. Or you could put a disclaimer at the front: "This episode contains one use of a very strong racial slur." What you do tells us something about how you feel about race, language, and very bad 1960s Doctor Who stories.
The one thing you cannot do is nothing. Or, rather: doing nothing is still a choice.
TWO
"Reading [x] makes me feel uncomfortable."
"That's fine. Don't read it, then."
"Yes, but YOU reading [x] makes me feel uncomfortable."
"Why do your feelings of discomfort override my right to consume media?"
"Why does your right to consume media override my feelings?"
We can no longer talk about offence or offensiveness. The word “offence” has been rendered unusable by Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry, Ricky Gervais, Jimmy Carr, and other cunts.
Many years ago, I responded to the assertion that it doesn't matter whether something is offensive or not -- that claims of offence are literally without meaning and that I shouldn't give a shit which wanker my words offend -- by quoting a certain passage from a certain novel by Robert Heinlein. If nothing is offensive, I insinuated, then this passage is not offensive. If this is offensive, then offensiveness exists.
We have already established what kind of a woman you are: we are now merely haggling about the price.
This went down about as well as you’d expect. One of my friends directly accused me of being a fascist. One of them stopped reading my blog. One of them claimed that I had gone mad and hasn't spoken to me since.
I now understand that "offend" in this context only ever meant "offend Muslims"; or just possibly “offend Muslims and Christians". Either "offence" means specifically "how a religious person feels if a holy person in their faith is defamed" or else it means "to feel bad unreasonably; to feel bad without a good cause". If a bad joke about Jesus upsets me, I have taken offence, because it is not reasonable of me to be upset by bad jokes about Jesus. If a bad joke about gang rape upsets you, you have not taken offence because being upset about rape jokes is perfectly reasonable.
Even the very lowest kind of gammon is not quite prepared to come right out and say "black people are not human" and "trans people do not exist". So instead they say "There are sinister forces which will not allow people to say that black people are not human and that trans people do not exist; it is those sinister forces that we should be worried about. Free speech uber alles! ” And then they say "People who say that they believe that black people are human and trans people exist are only doing so as a pretext to take away your right to free speech, and all your other rights."
We are not told that we are wrong to think that slavery was a bit out of order and that it would have been better if 1970s television had been a bit less racist. We are told that people who think that slavery and blackface minstrels are regrettable have a quality called "wokeness" and that the existence of this quality will shortly precipitate the fall of western civilisation.
But we do have to drop the term offence. It is, if nothing else, too subjective. You say "I was offended" and I say "I was not offended" and you say "You ought to have been offended" and I say "You ought not to have been offended" and you say “Who gets to decide” and we both say “Well, me, obviously” and so between the two of us we lick the platter clean.
We could theoretically come up with a legal definition which would infallibly divide all literature into the "decent" and the "indecent".
Tits = decent.
Cocks = indecent.
Floppy cocks = decent.
Stiff cocks = indecent.
I believe that British police used to operate a rule of thumb that said that artwork became indecent if a penis was at an angle of greater than 45 degrees: ingenious erotic artists came up with scenarios in which male models were, for some reason, upside down. And of course, anything can magically transition from "indecent" to "decent" by the judicious application of some pixels, or a bleep sound, even though we all know perfectly well what is being hidden. But our criteria of “decency” and “indecency” would come down to “what I am offended by, and what I think you ought to be offended by.”
I forget who said that the legal definition of pornography was “whatever gives the judge an erection”. Gut feelings are not a very good guide to anything.
The only sequence in Game of Thrones which honestly made me feel uncomfortable was the Walk of Shame at the end of Season 5. I felt I was being made to watch the actress, rather than the character, being humiliated. Truthfully, it was the (presumably simulated) shit she was being pelted with that disgusted me, rather than her forced disrobing. But then I'm very immature about this stuff. Most of the nude scenes didn't make me go "hubba hubba porno" so much as "snigger snigger I've seen his BUM". (Or, in deference to Miss Griffiths, his tramp.) But my reaction isn't a good way of judging what is artistically valid, or morally permissible, or politically useful.
THREE
"This did not offend me"
"Well it should have done."
"This did offend me but I watched it anyway"
"Well you shouldn't have done"
“Some parts of this offended me but other parts did not."
"The good parts are no excuse for the offensive parts."
"This cannot be good art because it was offensive."
"This cannot be offensive because it is good art."
"Because this is good art it does not matter whether it is offensive or not"
"Because this is offensive it doesn't matter whether or not it is good art"
And then of course someone will say “You can’t judge the past by the standards of the present.”
This is a moronic thing to say and it is very frequently said by morons.
But it may be that some of the people who say it are struggling towards the thought that texts have multiple contexts: what the Big Rock Candy Mountains meant to Harry McClintock is different from what it meant to Miss Griffiths. You can't judge art from the past exclusively by the standards of the present. I am entirely on board with the idea that the Gospel of Mark does not only mean what it meant to the sandal-wearing children to whom the disciple first narrated the story in October or November of the seventieth year of the common era. It also means what N.T Wright says that John Wesley said that Martin Luther said that Saint Paul said it meant. And a great many other things as well. Othello isn’t just what Shakespeare meant; it’s what Sir Lawrence Olivier thought that Shakespeare meant, and what F.R Leavis thought that Shakespeare meant and (especially) what Mrs Blaine who taught me O Level English thought (wrongly) that Shakespeare meant.
Some people call this approach post-modernism. They define post-modernism as the belief that books mean anything you want them to mean; and affect to believe that this theory has been put about by Jewish communists in Frankfurt as part of a plot to destroy western civilisation. But they probably don’t read my articles, or indeed, anything else.
When I was around fourteen, some boys in my school got into one of the science labs at break time and started fooling around with expensive and possibly dangerous equipment. The physics teacher punished them by hitting them, as hard as he could, repeatedly, with a running shoe he presumably had to borrow from someone for the occasion. It is not true that times were different and that it hadn't occurred to anyone that spanking teenaged boys was a bad idea. But it is true that the Overton window was in a different place: that kind of punishment was on the radar as the kind of thing which might happen in a school. If it had happened last week the physics teacher would presumably have been escorted off the premises in a straitjacket. If you are my age, you probably think "Teachers are not allowed to slipper boys any more, and that's a damn good thing"; but if you are in you 20s, you are probably literally unable to believe that such a thing could ever have happened: that the teachers did it, and that the boys acquiesced to it. But if I were to say "Actually, he was a pretty nice teacher: I don't suppose he hit more than ten boys the whole time I was at school" you would know what I meant. The present is only one of the standards according to which you can judge the past.
FOUR
Tick all that apply:
▢ White people ought not to watch 1970s Doctor Who stories.
▢ White people may watch 1970s Doctor Who stories but should omit Talons of Weng Chiang.
▢ White people may watch Talons of Weng Chiang on condition they don’t enjoy it.
▢ White people may watch 1970s Doctor Who stories but ought not to write about them.
▢ White people may write about 1970s Doctor Who stories, but ought not to write about Talons of Weng Chiang.
▢ White people may write about Talons of Weng Chiang, provided they acknowledge that it is racist.
▢ White people may write about Talons of Weng Chiang provided they concentrate exclusively on its racism.
▢ White people who comment on the racism in Talons of Weng Chiang are virtue signal millennial snowflake PC SJW woke.
I got right through an O level, an A level, a Degree and a Masters in English literature writing essays that said that race wasn’t really that big a part of Shakespeare’s Othello, that he was probably an Arab rather than a negro, and certainly there was nothing racist in the text. And that if you allow Paul Robeson or Lenny Henry to play the part it follows that only fat people can play Falstaff and only native Danish speakers can play Hamlet and only murderers can play Macbeth. Private Eye sneered at Russell T Davies' decision to cast a gay actor to play a gay actor in a TV series about a gay actor because that implied that from now on he would only be able to cast actual Daleks as Daleks in Doctor Who.
And then a year or so ago I saw the National Theatre production of Othello, and there were some black guys I knew from work in the audience, and I sat there cringing, thinking, my god, this is a racist play, why have I never admitted that this is a racist play before? This is a play which only makes sense on the assumption that you can take the black man out of the jungle but you cannot take the jungle out of the black man. This is a play that says that dark-skinned people can acquire a thin veneer of civilisation but the teeniest little push will crack all that and leave them foaming at the mouth screaming about handkerchiefs. Coloured johnnies are dashed excitable, what? Not their fault, of course, but what do you expect, they come from hot countries.
It is still a fantastic play. And say awhile that in Aleppo once a most malignant and a turbaned turk beat a Venetian and traduced the state I took by the throat the circumcised dog and smote him thus; I was with the Philippine Army on the final advance on Reykjavik. It is probably a better play now I have admitted that it is a racist play because now I am engaged with what Shakespeare actually wrote, not a fantasy version dreamed up for me by Mrs Blaine.
And yes, at this very moment, people are rushing to Twitter to say that by engaging with the actual text of Othello I have called our National Poet a racist, insulted every English man, every English woman and every English schoolboy, and if something isn’t done about me I'll be rampaging through the streets of Stratford cancelling statues.
And others are saying that as a white person I have no business talking about Othello at all.
I am not saying we shouldn't stage Othello. I am not even saying that white actors shouldn't be allowed to essay the role. Theatre is largely colour blind. Judy Dench can do Prospero and Stephanie Cole can do Lear so I don't see why we shouldn't hear Patrick Stewart saying all my fond love thus do I blow to heaven if he ever wants to. Although there are so many good black Shakespearean actors and so few good black Shakespearean roles that we can probably live without it. I am just saying that racism is one of things about Othello.
In the 1970s, flag days were still relatively common. On most Saturday afternoons some charitable soul would be standing on the street corner asking for loose change, and shoppers would pin a small paper badge on their coat to show their support for the cause. Lifeboatmen was a popular one; cancer research was another. We still called disabled children "spastics" and nasty children still used "spastic" as a term of abuse. Poppy Day was one flag day among many.
There followed a very subtle game of “I said you said she said I said”. Some people circulated a deliberate untruth, that They, the Political Corrects, had BANNED the sale of Muslims in case it offends Poppies. This was never true, and the Royal British Legion kept on saying that it wasn't true. But because some people thought that They wouldn’t let you wear poppies, it became more and more important for right thinking folk to wear poppies, in order to show that they weren’t caving in to the people who don’t want other people to wear poppies. The poppies got physically bigger and more absurd, and people started to wear them earlier and earlier in the year. There is a pub near me festooned with ten foot tall paintings of poppies. At least one far-right nutter named their daughter Poppy. Poppy-wearing became increasingly compulsory and increasingly a signifier of your opposition to the left-wing poppy-banning forces of political correctness gone mad. Which meant, of course, that many of us moderately liberal types, who were quite happy to pin poppies on our lapels when they just represented a few pence contributed to the care of disabled veterans, felt that we couldn't wear the now obligatory and politicised symbol.
The same thing happened to That Statue. And I am very much afraid that the same thing is happening to some of the movies, TV shows and comic books that I used to love.
FIVE
"This thing is incredibly racist."
"Yes, but it was based on a different incredibly racist thing."
"Oh, well, that’s all right then."
"This thing is incredibly racist."
"Yes, but there are other incredibly racist things"
"Oh well, that’s all right then."
"This statue celebrates a slave trader."
"Yes, but there were other slave traders."
"Oh, well, that’s all right then."
I am old enough to remember when Mr Potato Head was an actual potato. The whole point of her was that you stuck eyes, noses and mouths into vegetables. Then someone spotted that it wasn't that great an idea to encourage children to stick pins into things you might eat afterwards. There is something mildly surreal about continuing to market a potato-themed toy with a plastic potato but the toy is still quite popular. I don't think I was particularly aware that there was more than one character: I thought you just got a selection of body parts and stuck them on the potato and created a funny face. I knew there was a Star Wars figure called Darth Tater.
We all care very much about the symbols of our childhood. I still think occasionally about an old comic book character called Spider-Man: I doubt if anyone else remembers him.
Of course The Left affected to be very amused when The Right affected to be very cross because Mister Potato Head had been rebranded as "Potato Head". Har-har we all said how can you possibly be getting so cross about the gender of a toy vegetable. Har-har we said you can't even get your facts straight: they aren’t saying Mr Potato Head is a girl, they are just saying that Mr Potato Head and Mrs Potato Head will be two iterations of a toy simply called Potato Head.
In the 1950s, it seemed natural for Mrs Potato Head and Wee Jimmie Potato Head to be two special cases under the Mr Potato Head umbrella; because men and white people were the norm from which women and black people were an eccentric deviation. In 2021 that way of thinking seems a little bit less natural. The toy manufacturer is, in fact, taking a tiny, meaningless, not very important, almost imperceptible, baby step towards a world where gender is a very very tiny bit less important than it was before. They are, in fact, saying "The old branding was slightly sexist; the new branding is a slight improvement." And the people who grew up with the old branding, the people who grew up playing with vegetables, the people whose core identity is Mr Potato Head, the ones who saw the movie eight times in 1978 are hurt. Honestly hurt. Because that tiny change says “The thing you used to like, when you were little, maybe the last time in your whole life you felt happy, was a tiny little bit sexist” and if you admit that, you have to say “Somewhere at the core of my being in those happy little Saturday evenings with my TV set and my action figures and my plastic vegetable, at some level, there is a little bit of me that is sexist”. And so we deny and make up words like woke and SJW and PC gone mad and say that if you are going to say Potato Head rather than MISTER Potato head it logically follows that you will have to surgically neuter all males at birth and set fire to the Houses of Parliament.
And we are the same. We have allowed our identity to become tangled up with what is basically a quite disposable piece of old-fashioned kids TV.
Some of us are able to hold both ideas in our heads: to invest Doctor Who with a level of importance that it doesn't deserve -- which nothing in the world could possibly deserve -- while recognising the absurdity of what we are doing.
Increased leisure time; new ways of accessing and consuming media; the collapse of most churches and community groups and the utter vacuity of 1970s comprehensive education means that some of us have allowed something which should only ever have been peripheral to become central to our lives.
We stopped just being people who liked particular TV shows and particular movies: we became Doctor Who fans or Star Wars fans or Gamers. So we experience a change of direction, a disappointing sequel, a negative review, or an accusation of racism as a personal attack on our very identity.
Many of us can understand that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were felt by some Muslims as personal attacks on their very identity. Some Christians were honestly and personally hurt by Jerry Springer the Opera. Some silly people are currently saying some very silly things about Union Jack but I am prepared to accept that some sensible people find disrespect for national symbols genuinely painful. Some of us would regard it merely as a nuisance if the grave of one of our relatives were vandalised: we'd pay a mason a few hundred quid to fix it and carry on. But some of us would feel the same way we would have felt if our living father or grandfather had actually been harmed.
If somethings are sacred, then there is such a thing as desecration.
I remember being rather shocked by a 1992 BBC documentary called Resistance is Useless which for the first time said on air that Doctor Who was silly and repetitive and sexist and badly put-together. (It also coined the word "anorak" to refer to an obsessive fan.) We knew that other people -- mundanes -- sometimes said this about us, but to hear it going out over the BBC, through, as it were, official channels felt like a slap in the face.
Every informed Christian knows that the stories of Jesus's resurrection in the Bible are contradictory and very probably symbolic rather than documentary, but it was viscerally shocking in 1984 to hear this said by a bishop.
Jesus and Mohammed and the Union Jack are one thing: but Doctor Who is really odd place to put your identity.
SIX
"Yes, as I was saying, they're a mysterious lot, the Chinese. Enigmatic."
"You mean to say the celestial Chang was involved in all these Machiavellian machinations? "
"Yes, up to his epicanthic eyebrows."
"Now I've got a couple of inscrutable Chinks and a poor perisher who was chewed by a giant rat"
"That's how you might see it, Mister Ching-ching, but as far as I'm concerned all I want is a pair of smoked kippers, a cup of rosie and put me plates up for a few hours, savvy?"
You can, as a matter of fact, sometimes do a small, sensible thing without doing a big, silly thing as well. If a librarian chooses to move Huckleberry Finn from the children's section to the adult's section, it does not follow that he must also make a bonfire of every Jane Austen novel in existence. If a streaming service adds a comment to a puppet show mentioning that it sometimes makes fun of foreign people in a way we probably wouldn't do nowadays, it does not follow that every copy of Winnie the Pooh should be locked in a vault an sealed for a thousand years. It is in fact a very big step from letting The Cat’s Quizzer fall out of print and burning the Bible. It was never the case that Bristol council could only have put a contextualising sign alongside the statue of the slave trader on condition that the Greek government also raze the Acropolis to the ground.
It is much easier to focus on individual words or symbols than it is to engage in actual literary criticism. It is highly probable that some very proper Mills and Boon romances have a terrible attitude to Christian chastity; and it is equally probable that Lady Chatterly's Lover ultimately came down strongly on the side of the sanctity of marriage. Huckleberry Finn, considered as a text, might be racist, or it might not be. To find out, you would have to read it, and, even worse, think about it. Much easier to count the number of f-words and n-words and c-words and assume that the point is proved.
It is widely agreed that the sinophobic elements in Talons of Weng-Chiang were drawn from the Hammer versions of Sax Rohmer's yellow peril novels. (I am not quite sure what a 1960s version of a 1920s pulp novel was doing in a Victorian pastiche.) Similarly, it is agreed that Jar Jar Binks was based on a stereotyped West Indian fool who was rather common in 1930s movies. It isn't clear how this is a defence. One incredibly racist thing was apparently based on another incredibly racist thing. I rather liked Jar Jar Binks.
It is widely agreed that Robert Holmes himself had no particular objection to Chinese people. It is further conceded that he did not film Talons of Weng-Chiang with the intention of stirring up anti-Chinese feeling. I am also prepared to accept that George Mitchell, maestro of the Black and White Minstrel Show, would not have particularly disliked any individual black person if he had met one. Everyone, up to an including Donald Trump has examined their own skeleton and discovered that none of the individual bones are racist. There do exist people who have a strong and overt theory that dark-skinned people are inferior to light-skinned people, but that kind of racism is relatively rare. And there are cruel people who like to make fun of people who are different from them, who think that childishly calling people "chocolate" or "fattie" or "four eyes" is a great joke.
A text can still be racist even though the person who created the text can truthfully absolve himself of racism in those senses.
Doctor Who sometimes included white actors with silly yellow make up pretending they couldn't say their Rs. This is a fact. I accept that you may perceive this as an attack on the ludicrously overvalued TV show and therefore an attack on you personally. You can deny it. God put the dinosaur bones there to test our faith and the SJW scientists created the covid hoax to make us all wear muzzles. You can embrace it. It is okay to make fun of Asians because Asians really are funny. You can minimize it and say that it's just a bit of fun and they don't really mind. You can shift the burden of proof and say that you only think that making fun of Asians is wrong because the wokes have got to you; that old fashioned racist science fiction is the purest kind and you are prepared to stuff the Hugo ballots to prove it. Or you can process it. This thing we like has got some bad things in it.
What you can't do is ignore it. Or, rather: ignoring it is a choice as well.
Doctor Who exists in its original context -- 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, Basil Brush, Jim'll Fix It, Sugar Puffs, TV Comic. But if Doctor Who does not also exist in a contemporary context then it is dead art, ephemera, as interesting as a page of advertisements in a 1952 edition of the News Chronicle. Outside of the academy, we don't care what regency ladies thought of Jane Austen, or what Tudor gentlemen thought of Shakespeare. Those texts are still alive: what matters is what they mean to a young person reading them for the first time, tomorrow. On the other hand very much the only thing which matters about Chaucer is what his works meant in the fifteenth century. Those texts exist only as dead artefacts.
Perhaps I watch Doctor Who too much in its original context. Perhaps I am too hung up on recreating those mythical Saturday tea times before Daddy got sick and before the bullying became serious. Perhaps I am too inclined to look at Talons of Weng Chiang as part of a process which had Robots of Death in front of it, Horror of Fang Rock behind it -- and not incidentally, the Lively Arts to the left of it, the Blue Peter Make Your Own Theatre leaflet to the right of it, and Jesus of Nazareth on the other side.
Talons of Weng Chiang is a component of the Who-text as well as a way into 1970s cultural history. You hardly need to watch Doctor Who to find out that the 1970s were as racist as fuck.
There are people who look at this preposterously racist artefact and say “This artefact is not racist”. There are people who say that if you look at this preposterously racist artefact and see anything apart from its racism then you are aligning yourself with the first group.
This is an old TV show.
It contains racial stereotypes and language that may course offence, and violence. And other things.
Meanwhile, every day on twitter mentally damaged pseudo-fans call the present show “woke” because two out of the four main characters are non-white, and the lead is non-male.
Next week’s story is set on a lighthouse. The one after that involves a robot dog and a sentient prawn.
A period of silence would be welcome.
Bum.
476 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 476 Newer› Newest»I’m not sure I’d see more prescription drugs as an improvement per se.
The life expectancy of Type 1 diabetics has improved dramatically in my lifetime (my older brother died at 51 as a consequence of his Type 1 diabetes because the improvements were too late for him) due to better prescription drugs. I also hope you won't be turning down a Covid-19 vaccine.
"For most Americans, real wages have barely budged in decades."
‘This is false since there are many fewer people in non-management private sector positions and they are not a majority.’
You sure? Pew Research says 71% of all nonfarm payroll employees work in private service-providing industries (of course, farmworkers might comprise a much larger percentage of the American workforce than I realise; that said, I doubt if they’re better paid).
Your link suggests a dramatic drop in middle-income households’ earning power? And by extension an ever-increasing wealth divide? There was more movement up out of this particular bracket than down (albeit only by around 1%) - but from 1970 to 2018, the share of aggregate income going to middle-class households fell from 62% to 43%. ‘We know home ownership has increased since 2015.’
Rented accommodation has been increasing steadily since 1975 (from around 26 million to 43 million today). Sure, the population has increased as well, but the number of people renting is still proportionately greater (and as I said in my last post, seems to constitute an older demographic).
' Now you're talking about cross-country comparisons in health care, which is different from health care costs paid by Americans.’
Well, I wasn’t talking about the health care costs paid by Americans. Rather, why they’re so high. You cited doctors’ salaries, but this is a constant in comparison with other countries (where healthcare is much cheaper) - what distinguishes American healthcare is the dominance of prescription drugs.
‘Certainly, the reason why the U.S. pays more in health care than other countries is because we subsidize the world's medical research. I don't think anyone denies that.’
I guess it depends what you mean by ‘subsidize’? Even disregarding how the money spent on R&D is relatively small in comparison to their investment in other areas, for every billion invested, American Healthcare recoup that investment seven-fold. So your average American isn’t just covering the cost of research, put paying multiples of that amount.
You sure? Pew Research says 71% of all nonfarm payroll employees work in private service-providing industries
Yes. The figures that they use exclude public sector workers, retirees, all income from investments, private sector management, farm workers, and (for that matter) the unemployed.
Again, that real median individual income has gone up is not actually in doubt. See this graph.
Your link suggests a dramatic drop in middle-income households’ earning power?
You're going to have to point that out to me.
the share of aggregate income going to middle-class households fell from 62% to 43%
So what? I don't deny that inequality has increased. What I do deny, because it is clearly false, is that the middle class (or the poor, for that matter) are worse off than they were 40 years ago. They plainly are not.
Rented accommodation has been increasing steadily since 1975 (from around 26 million to 43 million today). Sure, the population has increased as well, but the number of people renting is still proportionately greater
No, homeownership rates are slightly up since 1975 (but both are about 65%), but again it is pretty constant through that entire period. Absolute numbers of owners/renters has stayed proportional to population growth. I see what Pew Research Center article you're reading, but it also specifically looks at 2006-2016, when homeownership rates were decreasing. They increased from 1975-2006 and increased again from 2016-now. (I think this is the sort of thing you mean by being able to prove "anything" with statistics. If you cherry-pick what data you look at and/or the period you look at, you can show declines or at least stagnation even during periods of extremely obvious growth, such as 1980-2020.)
I guess it depends what you mean by ‘subsidize’? Even disregarding how the money spent on R&D is relatively small in comparison to their investment in other areas, for every billion invested, American Healthcare recoup that investment seven-fold. So your average American isn’t just covering the cost of research, put paying multiples of that amount.
American consumers pay for virtually all research costs more or less worldwide (except perhaps for Cuba's). Our market is the one that pays for it and why R&D still gets done. You are correct that this raises U.S. medical costs relative to the rest of the world.
We can bring this back to Doctor Who actually. In the same way, Australia paid the costs for export of Doctor Who to other countries. Then the rest of the Commonwealth was allowed to free-ride on them and pay much cheaper costs. It is, actually, an interesting model. Personally, I don't really object to the U.S. paying the costs of medical R&D. We are "the rich," globally speaking. That the fixed costs of R&D are paid for by the U.S. and the rest of the world only has to pay the marginal costs doesn't actually bother me much.
If you really want to understand this stuff, I also recommend this.
Although you could have picked a more favorable time period for your argument. It is about as obvious that the average American is better off in 2020 compared to 1980 as it is that 1980 average Americans were better off than 1940 Americans. On the other hand, it isn't nearly as obvious that the average American has improved in the last 20 years (2000-2020). The large majority of gains in the last 40 years came in the first 20 (which didn't stop the doom-mongers, of course, who were complaining bitterly even then how much worse off people were getting, even when this was clearly not the case).
‘Yes. The figures that they use exclude public sector workers, retirees, all income from investments, private sector management, farm workers, and (for that matter) the unemployed.’
Well, I think that’s understandable in terms of the unemployed and revenue from investments - the article was talking about wages rather than income, right?
‘Again, that real median individual income has gone up is not actually in doubt.’
I don’t think anybody is disputing that; the issue is its value in real terms. The median salary given on the graph for 1980 was $22,000. The current median salary is $31,000. However - to use a very simple yardstick - a $100 in 1980 is worth $240 dollars today.
Simply put, salaries would have to have increased by 2.4 to keep pace with inflation, and they clearly haven’t done so.
‘Our market is the one that pays for it and why R&D still gets done. You are correct that this raises U.S. medical costs relative to the rest of the world.’
Healthcare only covers 5% of R&D, and then only at a later stage - ie, they have a peripheral role in the actual development of new drugs (they let the NIH do all the heavy lifting) their investment is largely focussed on bringing that drug to market.
I don’t think anybody is disputing that; the issue is its value in real terms. The median salary given on the graph for 1980 was $22,000. The current median salary is $31,000. However - to use a very simple yardstick - a $100 in 1980 is worth $240 dollars today.
Again, the $22,000 (less than $11,000 per year in 1980 dollars) and $31,000 figures are already inflation adjusted. Inflation has already been included in those figures. This is the second time I've had to point that out and all the graphs and figures have been clearly labeled.
I generally try to avoid these conversations for this reason. People are so hung up on a narrative they've had stuck in their head that they can't even hear the truth any more, even when the truth is very obvious. No American who was alive in 1980 and today could possibly deny that the average person is materially way better off today than they were in 1980 without serious levels of delusion.
Healthcare only covers 5% of R&D, and then only at a later stage - ie, they have a peripheral role in the actual development of new drugs (they let the NIH do all the heavy lifting)
R&D is about 5% of U.S. healthcare spending. If you think that's a small number, check out other countries. It's hard for me to get good figures on the UK and I'm hardly an expert, but I believe the number in the UK is less than 1%. That last part about the NIH used to be true, but is no longer true. See this.
My bad! I did actually notice it said ‘adjusted’ but didn’t realise that meant inflations adjusted.
Even so. Your figures for house prices suggest the ratio between income and house prices has stayed pretty much a constant (as opposed to - say - houses getting more affordable). Plus a quick google re education suggests that the cost (and I’m just going by real dollars) has gone up around 1500% between 1980 and the present - way faster than income (and putting a college education beyond the reach of most people). Health Insurance is another case in point - it increased by around 54% between 2009 and 2019 alone (at least according to the Kaiser Family Foundation) which is significantly more than incomes did (although I appreciate health insurance is not as expensive an outlay as a college education).
All these things may be better than they were, but people are paying a significantly larger percentage of their income for them, and that trend is growing more pronounced rather than less so.
My point about healthcare and R&D is that a seven-fold return on an investment would be seen as profiteering on this side of the pond. It would make far more economic sense if the US government were to manage the entire process (ie, leave Healthcare industry out of R&D entirely) and pass any savings onto the ordinary citizen.
My bad!
No worries, mate. I have had foreigners tell me that there are at least parts of the U.S. which don't teach evolution or sex education. I get where people get these ideas from. It's our own media. As an American, you just get used to having your own country mansplained to you on the internet.
Plus a quick google re education suggests that the cost (and I’m just going by real dollars) has gone up around 1500% between 1980 and the present - way faster than income (and putting a college education beyond the reach of most people)
Yes, education and health care have what is known as "cost disease," probably caused by the Baumol effect. This is true throughout the Western world, though more obscured from the public in those countries with purely socialist measures of delivering health care or education of course.
You are mistaken about its putting a college education beyond the reach of most people or health care for that matter. I'll let you in on a little secret. Almost no one in the U.S. pays the sticker price for either. College tuition and health care sticker prices are only for the rich (and, in the case of health care, only the uninsured rich). Virtually nobody actually pays it.
and that trend is growing more pronounced rather than less so
Actually, I think it is getting less so. In any case, when a trend can't continue, it won't. I'm not terribly worried about education or health care growing much bigger. Health care is nearly 18% of U.S. GDP and education is 6.2% (and education, unlike healthcare, is not typically lifelong). Wealthy as we are, I think those are pretty close to the caps. (Hell, the only reason they have taken over as much as they have is because everything else has gotten so much cheaper - in real dollars.)
It would make far more economic sense if the US government were to manage the entire process (ie, leave Healthcare industry out of R&D entirely) and pass any savings onto the ordinary citizen.
No, it wouldn't, for a few reasons. 1) Competition is vastly more efficient (on net) and productive than monopoly, 2) almost all governments cut out R&D as much as they can when they take over the health industry (or at least they all have so far) - it's an easy way to cut costs since the citizens never even notice they're doing it, and 3) the U.S. federal government sucks at everything. It's because of the government that R&D is as expensive as it is. The FDA kept thalidomide out of the U.S., virtually its only success, and they learned from that a very different risk/reward ratio than is actually in the public interest.
My point about healthcare and R&D is that a seven-fold return on an investment
I am hugely skeptical of this, but haven't had the energy to research where you're getting it from. (My guess is that it is ignoring failed R&D, and focusing entirely on successful drugs, but the industry has to pay for their failures and wash-outs too.)
I suppose the Swedes probably get tired of that too. Personally I have nothing against Sweden; it seems like a lovely country and they all seem very happy with their one-party state, Law of Jante and all. (I only ever point out that Swedish-Americans are twice as rich and even happier than the famously happy Swedes and leave it at that. Also, that economically they are far less regulated than the U.S. and have been since the '90s.)
A quick U.S. history lesson on the American media. Yellow journalism and partisan journalism was a real problem in the U.S. throughout its history until the Lindbergh kidnapping case. After the media hounded an innocent woman to her death, they all sobered up and became much more responsible (probably also due to consolidation within the industry, so big cities no longer had six newspapers all vying for attention). About the mid-nineties, this broke down. Whether it was caused by O.J. Simpson, Bill Clinton, or changes in the market (possibly driven by Fox News), I don't know. What I do know is that the media has become more and more shrill and irresponsible and partisan and we have seen the return of yellow journalism.
E.g. we used to have a consensus against tariffs in this country. It was a very rare victory for economists, who always lose on this issue and always have. The media was responsible for that consensus through simple honest reporting. That consensus has now completely broken down.
(The sobering up, by the way, was probably literal as well as figurative. Journalists at the beginning of the 20th century were famous for their alcohol consumption.)
If only there was a word for saying of a particular group or website "they only think that because....".
If only there was a word for saying of a particular group or website "they only think that because....".
As you know, I agree with Lewis about Bulverism, though I am sure you're right that lots of people use it inaccurately. (E.g. like accusing me of Bulverism here would be.)
The origin of the media's irresponsibility is quite obvious and it's the public's fault. The public loves bad news and doesn't care for good news. (The origin of this I take to be human nature, though it still puzzles me. Hyper-sensitivity to danger was useful evolutionarily speaking?) That the media is wrong on a given issue, I am always happy to demonstrate, of course. (And obviously it isn't always wrong.)
Oh, I should also say that there is one group of Americans whose wages have genuinely stagnated - white men without college degrees have seen very few gains in the last 40 years due to increased competition from women and minorities. White men without a high school diploma may even have genuinely stagnated even when you take benefits, etc. into account (though there are many fewer of them now than there were 40 years ago).
Oh, and I've never responded to the point about older people being more likely to rent now. That seems to be true in ages 45-64 though the changes seem fairly marginal to me. Were I to guess at the origin of this, my null hypothesis would be the decline of marriage. I have a friend my age, who never married, but is probably roughly as wealthy as I am. He rents half of a duplex rather than bothering to buy a house and do all the upkeep. Since the slack has been picked up by younger age groups, presumably this has been helpful in keeping bidding of home prices lower than they otherwise would be.
All very informative! Thanks, Andrew!
To be honest, my concerns about health insurance were ameliorated by how - in Ireland - we don't pay a great deal less (if not around the same). Houses, rents and education aren't very different, either. Or maybe we're in as much trouble as you?
From my perspective, US healthcare is orientated towards profitability rather than effectiveness
While this is true, we hardly have a leg to stand on here, as the NHS is orientated towards hitting arbitrary government targets rather than effectiveness.
To be honest, my concerns about health insurance were ameliorated by how - in Ireland - we don't pay a great deal less (if not around the same). Houses, rents and education aren't very different, either. Or maybe we're in as much trouble as you?
The Baumol effect, in my opinion, explains education and health care. Productivity has gone up everywhere else in the economy. People who want to be teachers or doctors have options which pay more, but teachers and doctors have become only minimally more productive. They can only see so many patients or teach so many students per hour.
(Baumol's original example was orchestra players. They are no more productive than they were in 1800, but are paid very considerably more now than then.) This is also true of, for example, plumbers. Some professions, like TV repairmen, have gone extinct because it's just not worth paying someone what they would demand to fix a TV anymore. Cheaper to buy a new one.
Housing is different. Those parts of the U.S. which still have room to expand easily are not seeing the housing inflation that you see in big cities (and possibly in the entire UK, for all I know). The rise in housing costs are A) usually caused by restrictive zoning laws which makes it impossible to build, for example, multiple family dwellings (the house I grew up in, built in 1876 and falling apart the whole time I lived there, is now a two-family house - but my old hometown is not one which has seen a very significant housing price rise), B) exacerbated by wealthy people bidding against each other for the remaining limited housing stock, and C) apparently during the Covid epidemic, even more exacerbated by inflation bidding up asset values (though, very interestingly, not affecting the prices of most other goods and services, just housing, financial instruments, etc.).
Profits, in my opinion, are just signals. If an industry gets too profitable, that's a signal that it needs more competition, encouraging people to get into it to try to get a cut of those fat profits (by underselling the incumbents). Profits are also an incentive toward economic efficiency, an incentive government tends not to have. I realize that most people do not trust capitalist institutions because they have a profit motive. I do not trust governmental institutions precisely because they don't.
E.g. I love my local public library. Having looked at their budget, I'm pretty sure I could provide essentially the same services for about a third of the price. I am not an expert; I could be wrong, but the number of salaries they pay astonished me.
(I theorize that the idea that living standards have declined in the U.S. in the past 40 years, even though I find this a rather incredible belief, must simply be because people are comparing today's poor to 1980's upper middle class.)
'The public loves bad news and doesn't care for good news. (The origin of this I take to be human nature...)"
'Human nature' is of course never a material explanation for anything.
News reporting is now treated, by both broadcasters and public, as a form of entertainment. Even with supposedly 'public service' institutions such as the BBC. So like any soap opera it's the thrilling plotlines that get pushed, the better to bring in ratings.
Your average Fox viewer is comfortably off, so can thrill to supposed existential threats from the safety of their suburban home. However, outside of Fox, that doesn't seem universally true. There may be an unconscious division made between 'the news' and 'regular life', however inaccurate that actually is.
But more importantly, Fox viewers will routinely disregard genuinely serious problems, such as climate change or the coronavirus, to fixate upon entirely imaginary ones., such as white replacement. We've just had the furore over Biden supposedly saying he was going to ration red meat.
So it's not just panic porn like you're suggesting, it's only certain things which push the button. Climate change doesn't do it if you identify against those hippy tree-huggers. White replacement does, for people who strongly identify as being white.
'Human nature' is of course never a material explanation for anything.
I have it on good authority from biologists that foxes have absolutely nothing in common with each other either.
Everything else you have to say is true. Media outlets push the narratives that seem like bad news to their audiences and push them out of all recognition with reality - be that climate change, Covid, "white replacement," the supposed decline in material circumstances since 1973, or banning red meat.
Your average Fox viewer is comfortably off
True, though not surprisingly, they make somewhat less income (median: $61,000) than CNN (median: $63,000) and MSNBC (median: $66,000) viewers. This is in keeping with the usual finding that Democrats are somewhat better off than Republicans financially.
(To put it in class terms, the Democrats are the party of the aristocracy and the proletariat and the Republicans are the party of the peasantry and the petite bourgeoisie.)
I'm going to steal "panic porn" from you, by the way. It is now the media's default as near as I can tell.
Isn't the actual usual finding that (1) richer states are more Democratic but (2) in any given state, richer people are more Republican? See e.g. these slides from statistician Andrew Gelman, author of a book on the subject, which give plenty more nuance.
The term "aristocracy" doesn't have a super-clear meaning in the US class system. My impression is that if you super-crudely divide people-who-could-be-called-aristocracy into "cultural elite" and "financial elite" (of course in fact there's plenty of overlap), the former tend to be Democrats and the latter tend to be Republicans.
That data is more than 10 years old now and is changing. Trump was the first Republican presidential candidate (ever?) to lose white people with college degrees. (It used to just be people with college degrees which, yes, even Goldwater won. However, that changed with, I believe Bill Clinton, due to the much greater number of minorities with college degrees.)
As for the financial elite, it depends on the industry. Big business used to be pretty split, but since Trump, it has moved strongly to the Democrats. (Investment banking and tech were always Democratic though.) The "cultural elite," of course, have always been Democrats, be that entertainment (other than sports), media, or academia.
Small business owners were and remain Republican stalwarts though.
To give another example, New England politics used to be dominated by old money political Republican families: the Cabots, the Lodges, the Chafees, the Weickers, the Jeffordses, etc. All of those families have pretty much shifted to the Democrats over the last 20 years except the Bushes.
Or, for that matter, you can just look at me. I voted for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Since I will not vote for a crook, I voted third party in 2016. In 2020, I was happy to vote for Biden.
"Panic porn" shall be my gift to humanity. Like Tim Berners-Lee and the Web, only panic porn.
"I have it on good authority from biologists that foxes have absolutely nothing in common with each other either."
I'm not sure that even works for foxes, let alone applies to human beings. Human nature arguments are essentially circular. What people are seen to be doing is attributed to some intrinsic 'nature'. We know why they do that because it's in their nature, and we know it's in the nature because we see them doing it. It takes you nowhere.
Conversely there is a history of 'whiteness', how it came to be historically constructed, how some took it up as their identity and others didn't, and so on. And that affects how people respond to 'Talons of Weng Chiang'.
I would be reluctant to make any claims about voting patterns since Trump; DJT was (I hope) something of an outlier and if the GOP returns to some semblance of normality -- which of course is not a given -- I would expect previous patterns to reestablish themselves.
So it might well be true that Clinton voters were on average better off (even within each state) than Trump voters, or that Biden voters were on average better off (even within each state) than Trump voters -- though I'd be interested to see the actual data, should you have some -- but before saying that that's the "usual finding" I'd want to see what happens in 2024.
Human nature arguments are essentially circular. What people are seen to be doing is attributed to some intrinsic 'nature'. We know why they do that because it's in their nature, and we know it's in the nature because we see them doing it. It takes you nowhere.
What is gravity? The propensity of masses to attract. Why do masses attract? Gravity. Circular arguments are not, in fact, a fallacy. The Pyrrhonians argued 2500 years ago that they found them unsatisfying, but that does not make them false, invalid, or unsound.
The Pyrrhonian skeptical philosophy is actually just self-refuting and it's still very popular 2500 years later.
I would be reluctant to make any claims about voting patterns since Trump; DJT was (I hope) something of an outlier and if the GOP returns to some semblance of normality -- which of course is not a given -- I would expect previous patterns to reestablish themselves.
Trump simply accelerated a trend which was already going on. The GOP is now a populist party, more populist than the Democrats (who have also gotten more populist). I see no evidence so far this is going to shift back.
"Conversely there is a history of 'whiteness', how it came to be historically constructed, how some took it up as their identity and others didn't, and so on. And that affects how people respond to 'Talons of Weng Chiang'."
Gavin, I don't see why you have to drag "Talong of Weng Chiang" into this discussion. Can we please keep it on topic?
Trump simply accelerated a trend which was already going on.
I dunno about the Yanks, but this sounds to me like the way people misunderstand the realignment in Britain as being about 'Brexit' when actually the shift in Labour from being a party of the working class to being a party of the managerialist university-educated middle class (or would-be middle class, like those poor PhD-clutching victims of elite overproduction asking plaintively if you would like fries with that) and public sector has in fact been going on for decades (and also shows no signs of stopping, let alone reversing).
It's basically the same here. I am fully as contemptuous of the American elite as anyone else. They are insufficiently competent. Unfortunately the populist "solution" is to elect people who have no competence whatsoever.
"The Pyrrhonians argued 2500 years ago that they found them unsatisfying, but that does not make them false, invalid, or unsound."
Yes but they all died off when the Doctor triggered Vesuvius to erupt.
"Gavin, I don't see why you have to drag "Talons of Weng Chiang" into this discussion."
I just felt like doing something left-field.
The Doctor gave Pyrrho the idea for skepticism! (See The Sensorites.) So really it's all his fault anyway.
"See The Sensorites."
I should at least get a trial first.
"Trump simply accelerated a trend which was already going on. The GOP is now a populist party"
First part, yes. It's a bizarre sequence of events. He staged what was effectively a hostile takeover of the Republicans. But once in place his effect was to let out a cat already in the bag.
Second part? Not so sure.
Now I am glad, honest I am, when people say they wouldn't vote for the Orange Abhorrence. But the story of the last election isn't a sudden surge of Biden Republicans, like there'd been Reagan Democrats. Trump increased his vote. The Democrats just increased their vote by more.
And really, there's just two reasons. One, deciding to run a unifying rather than a divisive candidate when you're against a divisive candidate. (Duh.) And challenging voter suppression. (Also duh.)
But, even after being shown how to win, the Republicans haven't decided to tack centre, but the reverse. It's Brecht's dictum about dissolving the people and electing another. If most Americans won't vote for us, then we'll stop 'em voting. They'll do this with or without Trump.
So what's meant by "populist"? If popular with their base, then yes. If with the American people, definitely not.
What’s your perspective on median net worth per individual, Andrew? This is substantially lower in the US (65,904) in comparison to the UK (97,452) and Ireland (104,842).
To Gavin's last paragraph: I don't think "populist" means any sort of "popular", though obviously populists hope to be popular, as all politicians do. A populist politician is one who tries to appeal to The Common People in ways that can be readily understood by The Common People. They aren't necessarily trying to appeal to all of The Common People without exception; the point is the contrast between TCP and one or another sort of "elite"; between simple (or simplistic) and sophisticated (or sophistical); that sort of thing.
"Populist" is how the upper middle class describe politicians and policies that try to appeal to people further down the social scale. It's how university graduates describe politicians and policies that try to appeal to people with less education. It's how intellectuals describe politicians and policies that try to appeal to people with no intellectual pretensions. (Full disclosure: I am a highly educated upper-middle-class intellectual.) It's how scrupulous people describe politicians and policies that try to appeal to feelings that many have but scrupulous people are scrupulous about, such as envy and fear.
Mr Trump was a populist not because he was popular (he was rather less popular overall than most presidents), but because of who he aimed to be popular with, and how. He aimed for "middle Americans", for the white-men-without-degrees demographic, for people who felt left behind by the disappearance of manufacturing jobs, or the rise of Social Justice, or increasing emphasis on the environment. Those concerns are all kinda low-status; on the whole, highly educated upper-middle-class intellectuals are fine with those things. So appealing to them is "populist". Not quite regardless of how popular or unpopular it is, but popularity alone is neither necessary nor sufficient; what makes something populist is emphasis (honest or not) on things that ordinary people care about, or admit caring about, more than high-status people do.
My understanding is that every state is entitled to elect and send a similar number of senators to the senate? Regardless of differences in the population per state? Also that Trump focussed on five states with relatively small populations (and by extension, demographically narrow) as part of his strategy?
If this is true,I wouldn't see his victory as a triumph for populism so much as a red flag re the election criteria - Ireland, for example, fields more candidates in areas where populations are denser.
Sorry - I think the above post is a bit confusing. Each state has a specific number of votes (for electing the US president), regardless of population size - the famous ‘electoral college’. A quick google suggests a wide variation in the number of presidential votes per state, but that the number of votes still wouldn’t reflect changing demographics. Arizona has a population of seven million, but 11 electoral votes. California has a population of forty million - 7-8 times as many people as Arizona - but 55 votes. So it’s a numbers game.
I think another critical factor in the election was the choice facing the electorate - they could have a known quantity in Hilary Clinton (who was seen as cold, venal and controlling) or Trump, who at that time was an unknown quantity and a potential breath of fresh air.
Not that this wasn’t compounded by racist and classist elements, inasmuch as Trump’s election was a reaction against the Obama presidency. Things might have turned out very differently for the democrats if (a) the previous incumbent hadn’t been black & (b) if they’d chosen a candidate which didn’t evoke a visceral dislike in the electorate.
What’s your perspective on median net worth per individual, Andrew? This is substantially lower in the US (65,904) in comparison to the UK (97,452) and Ireland (104,842).
That's a good question. It seems to come down to two things: 1) propensity to spend/save (propensity to spend is higher in the U.S.) and 2) asset values, particularly home prices. The median house value in the U.S. is considerably lower than in the UK. This doesn't necessarily mean the British are enjoying their net worth more than the Americans, but might only mean that you get less bang for your housing buck in Britain. But honestly I don't know which is true. Perhaps the median home in Britain is nicer than the median home in the U.S.
On the first point, I am quite intensely disappointed at the state of personal finance education in the U.S. Perhaps you folks are superior to us in that regard?
Oh, the UK is slightly older than the U.S. in terms of median age, but not a lot lower. And Ireland is actually very slightly younger. (This sort of thing does matter when you're comparing two very different groups of people. E.g. Jews are quite a lot older on average than African-Americans in the U.S. They do beat them in wealth even if you adjust for that, but you still have to do it when you're talking about a median age of 50+ compared to a median age of low 30s.)
(I meant to say the UK is not a lot older, not "lower.")
As for the whole "is Trump a populist?" question, I believe g did an excellent job of explaining my view on it. Bernie Sanders is a populist as well, but he's certainly not popular in the sense of being able to appeal to a majority.
Yes, yes, for anybody who is now quite angry with me, I gladly plead guilty to being an "elitist." Now go play with your dolls.
(Indeed, even when forced to choose between a corrupt and insufficiently competent elite versus populist know-nothings, I will side with the elite nearly every time. Hillary Clinton was a rare exception for me since she was just too corrupt.)
As for the Electoral College, just to clear up a common misunderstanding: due to the winner-takes-all nature of how states apportion electoral votes, California voters are still a priori the most powerful voters in the system, considerably more powerful than voters in Arizona. See this article.
What has happened recently is the Democrats have become so disproportionately powerful in California compared to everywhere else, that their votes are inefficiently allocated. California is very powerful a priori, the most powerful state by far. But winning it 62-32, as Hillary Clinton did, wastes a huge amount of votes, particularly when you're losing everywhere else in the country (as she did).
A similar thing happened with the Solid South back in the mid-1800s. You can unite all the anti-Lincoln votes against him and Lincoln still wins the Electoral College in 1860 even though he didn't even win 40% of the vote overall (since he got almost no votes at all in the South). Hell, you could even have given all the slaves a vote in 1860 and assume they would all vote for Lincoln and Lincoln would still have lost the popular vote - and won the Electoral College. The anti-Lincoln forces were just inefficiently allocated. My own opinion is that this is the system working as it was designed.
In any event, assuming that the campaigns would have been conducted in the same way and would have had the same popular vote result if we had been under a popular vote regime rather than an Electoral College regime is a particularly silly assumption. The popular vote is perhaps an interesting statistic, but winning it is a game no one is currently playing.
(To give one example, if you eliminate the Electoral College, all campaigning would occur in the big cities. It's the most economically efficient way to pick up votes.)
My point about populism is that it’s like ‘identity politics’. People use it in wildly varying ways, not to mention those who us it then find they can’t define it themselves. (One of which is simply “being popular’.) With g’s definition, I struggle to think of a politician it wouldn’t apply to. Not many run on a ‘more organic cheese in Waitrose’ ticket. I suppose the opposing term would be ‘technocrat’, but even politicians who might be called technocrats usually try to act like something else. And besides, we haven’t exactly had a whole load of technocrats lately.
The Electoral College thing is something we’ve had in Andrew’s comments section before. And the defence always comes down to a long-winded way of saying “but without this, the majority would get to decide.” To which the only response is “yeah, ahead of you.”
And it seems to have subsumed any discussion of voter suppression, which isn’t necessarily the same thing. It may be true the Republicans today are a consequence rather than cause of the Electoral College system, though I never understand why that’s supposed to be a defence. But they are quite clearly a cause of voter suppression. And as they become less popular they are leaning deeper and deeper into it.
Well, politics is a popularity contest. I guess the sort of popularity a particular candidate might enjoy is the issue? There’s definitely a niche for candidates in the US who want to appeal to regressive racists, just as there’s a niche for people like Bernie Saunders. (Somebody pointed out recently that most Americans prefer the narrative of outside interference in the last election - ie, the Chinese or the Russians - rather than confront the fact that 50% of the electorate are bigots).
Voter suppression is an issue, but I think there’s also pushback? For example the MLB moved the All Star Game out of Georgia due to the enactment of laws effectively facilitating voter suppression.
Plus I think the Republican Party is behaving very much like a party in its death throes, rather than one that’s increasing its power base - every time they have an identity crisis and try to rebrand, they end up looking that bit crazier. First they flirted with the Tea Party crowd (clearly forgetting the old adage of lying down with dogs) then they let some passing huckster hijack the party (easily done as they had very little to offer their voting base and therefore no clear message) and now they’re resorting to voter suppression.
All the bears in the wood like honey.
There isn't enough honey to go around.
The Wise Old Bear thinks that the the bears are eating so much honey that there is a shortage; and that because they tear down everyone honeycomb they find, the bees are leaving the forest and going elsewhere.
He proposes a careful honey management programme.
The majority of bears have heard quite enough from the so-called honey experts. They know full well that the honey shortages are caused by heffalumps that come into the forest and steal it while they are asleep.
So Silly Old Bear proposes an extensive heffalump trap programme. If there are enough deep holes around the forest, the heffalumps will fall in and be trapped before they have a chance to get to the honey trees. That way there will be enough honey for everyone.
Silly Old Bear is the populist candidate: he is doing exactly what the people want, even though it won't work.
The Wise Old Bear is the old fashioned patrician expert, doing the unpopular thing because it will work.
On one possible definition.
I don't think it's true that my definition applies to all politicians, and it certainly isn't true that it applies equally to all politicians. The point isn't that anyone's campaigning on a Keep Waitrose Organic platform. But e.g. consider Brexit. The arguments against Brexit were things like "Brexit will be bad for the economy" (rather abstract, and assessing the claim means doing some amount of economic modelling in your head), "European culture is glorious and we want to be part of it" (that's an emotional appeal, which is a populist sort of thing, but the people who have those emotions are mostly the highly educated upper-middle-class ones), "we want to be able to travel freely in Europe" (you'd think this would be an appeal to both affluent cultured types who want to be able to spend their summer holidays touring French cathedrals or whatever, and to not-so-affluent retirees on the Costa del Sol, but for whatever reason it seemed to be the first that was emphasized), "yay for European unity" (again an emotional appeal, but again it seems that most of the people to whom it appeals are towards the highly-educated-upper-middle-class side of things). The arguments for it were things like "we'll have an extra £350M per week to spend on the NHS" ("populist" in the sense that the intellectual types all immediately recognized that this was bullshit), "our country is out of our control and we need to Take It Back" (an appeal to sentiments felt more by the lower social classes, not least because those people's lives are more out of their control, even though of course Europe was never the actual problem there), "we're being flooded with immigrants" (ditto, and also an appeal to sentiments that Respectable Serious People mostly prefer to avoid feeling).
Of course there were also (e.g.) very rich people who benefited from Brexit because their hedge funds stood to make a ton of money when it happened, and contrarian intellectuals who genuinely thought Brexit would be economically good for the country, and so forth. And there were (e.g.) working-class people who love Europe every bit as much as any of us toffs. None of this is black-and-white. And "if we do this, you will all be poorer" (which was a key anti-Brexit argument) is a populist sort of thing to say. But on the whole the pro-Brexit campaigners were more aimed at The Masses, at simple slogans with an emotional punch like "Take Back Control", at less-respectable feelings like resentment towards immigrants; and the anti-Brexit campaigners were more aimed at the highly educated, the well-off, the intellectuals. Even when what they were saying was e.g. that Brexit would be especially bad for people in the poorest parts of the UK, or that it would make almost everyone poorer, their arguments were (deliberately or not) not very well adapted for maximum impact on the average Brit.
I agree that "technocrat" is approximately the opposite of "populist". And I agree that there haven't been a lot of those lately; in the UK the technocrats mostly seem to be Liberal Democrats, who for a variety of reasons are not in a good position to win general elections. In the US, I think the last two Democratic presidential candidates have been more or less technocrats. (Clinton more than Biden.)
I think it's all actually very easy. Even when I disagreed with Bill Clinton, there was no doubt in my mind that he was grappling with the issue. There was, for example, never any chance that Bill Clinton was going to get on board with a $15 per hour minimum wage, since that's insane. Donald Trump says any old thing that comes into his head and tries to appeal to people's base emotions. Do I think "populist" = "idiot"? Well, yeah.
Joe Biden, like a lot of politicians, is somewhere in between. He is very much not a smart man, particularly for a member of the political elite, but he is a professional. In fact, he's the first seasoned professional we've had as President since Bill Clinton (who, despite his youth when elected, had been Governor of Arkansas for ten years). Prior to Bill Clinton, of course, seasoned political professionals were commonplace, though we did have Jimmy Carter, John F. Kennedy, and Dwight Eisenhower. (Though it turns out Eisenhower's military career was not bad training for politics.)
The Electoral College thing is something we’ve had in Andrew’s comments section before. And the defence always comes down to a long-winded way of saying “but without this, the majority would get to decide.” To which the only response is “yeah, ahead of you.”
Which leads me to this comment. There are a lot of anti-majoritarian measures in the U.S. Constitution. James Madison had thought very deeply about the problems with direct democracy, as exemplified by ancient Athens. They were thinking about how to stop the rise of demagogues. As for voter suppression, there will always be one party who believes voter suppression is to its advantage. To eliminate this, I advocate Australian style mandatory voting. This would not, actually, help the Democrats anywhere near as much as they think it would nor hurt the Republicans as much as they think it would (see "insufficient competence"), but it would take that particular problem completely off the table.
By the by, "voter suppression" stories are a particularly obvious example of "panic porn." I mostly favor mandatory voting to get rid of the stories, not because I'm particularly worried about voter suppression.
For example the MLB moved the All Star Game out of Georgia due to the enactment of laws effectively facilitating voter suppression.
I would, for example, very much like somebody to explain to me how the new laws in Georgia effectively facilitate voter suppression. All the measures people complained about are much more stringent in New York.
My point about Lincoln was that Lincoln deserved to win. He dominated the North where the bulk of the population was at the time. That he didn't get a single vote in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas and therefore lost the popular vote by a big margin doesn't sway me.
Whoops, missed Tennessee. He also got barely any in Kentucky, Maryland, and Virginia.
Speaking of anti-majoritarian measures and institutions, I am also greatly amused at the recent Democratic attempt to abolish the filibuster. Nobody seems to remember that in 2017, this was what Trump wanted and Mitch McConnell said no. It's weird how Democrats are able to convince themselves, against all reason and evidence, that they are going to be some sort of permanent majority any day now.
'I would, for example, very much like somebody to explain to me how the new laws in Georgia effectively facilitate voter suppression. All the measures people complained about are much more stringent in New York.'
As I understand it, Georgia is invalidating any provisional vote cast at the wrong precinct during working hours. I can see this making sense in New York State (where no doubt every precinct has its own polling site) but not so much in Georgia (where multiple precincts are sometimes represented at the same polling site) - ie, in Georgia you can arrive at the right polling station but if you cast your vote at the wrong table, your vote is considered spoiled. Plus rumour has it that polling site are being closed in black neighbourhoods without any clarity as to where they should go instead.
There are at least three states which do not allow provisional ballots at all - Idaho, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. As for the rumors, I'm sure you're right that they exist and there is probably even some truth to them. Polling sites get opened and closed all the time as populations shift. Georgia, of course, famously had the race when Kemp defeated Abrams by a convincing margin though he was constantly accused of "voter suppression" for extremely normal actions, like purging the voter rolls of people ineligible to vote. That election, of course, had the highest black turnout and Democratic turnout Georgia had ever seen.
By the by, thinking about our cross-country comparisons, if you take median income post-taxes and transfers and add back for median government services received, there are three countries which defeat the United States on a per capita basis. Those three are Norway, which is basically a petro-state, Luxembourg, which is a banking city pretending to be a country, and Switzerland.
Switzerland also has the highest median net worth of any nation on earth. They even have more mean wealth per adult than any other nation (the U.S. is third after Switzerland and Hong Kong, if we count Hong Kong as a separate nation still). Also, looking through the stats, it is odd to me that Norway has the same problem with low median net worth (compared to income) as the U.S. has. That might be an interesting thing to investigate.
In the U.S., unfortunately we still have a cultural "keeping up with the Joneses" ethic, which I wish we didn't have. But this is why I say that the improvement in living standards from 1980 to 2020 is very obvious. Even quite poor families tend to have cars, houses, etc., that my mother could never have even thought of affording in 1980.
Switzerland is also one of the very few countries where the natives actually come close to their corresponding ethnic Americans. (E.g. Swedish-Americans do way better than Swedes in Sweden, etc. The largest gap being Indian-Americans who are the most successful ethnic group in the U.S. and obviously just mop the floor with India. Of course, with India, unlike with Sweden, the reason is "brain drain" to the U.S., same as with Filipinos, South Africans, Indonesians, Pakistani, Russians, Chinese, Nigerians, etc.)
Andrew, do you have a reference for Indian-Americans being the most successful ethnic group in the US? (There are at least three other groups I'd have guessed would be ahead of them.)
Here. I haven't vetted it all personally, but I have no reason to distrust the American Community Survey.
One of the few groups which trails their original home is "Appalachian Americans" who have been here for a very long time (not quite as long as my ancestors, but pretty long). I believe most of them were originally Scots-Irish.
I suspect that might also be a "brain drain" effect. The smart ones have left Appalachia for greener pastures and no longer consider themselves Appalachian Americans.
Interesting -- thanks!
”All the bears in the wood like honey…”
Oh the heffalumps, I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.
But who would be a real-life example of a Wise Old Bear? The most recent credible example of a technocrat politician I can think of is Brown, and even he was in a double-act with the more populist Blair most of the time.
”Donald Trump says any old thing that comes into his head and tries to appeal to people's base emotions.”
Signs point to yes. But how does your Sanders comparison work? Trump would say one lie one day and another contradictory lie the next. He often seemed to be lying just because it was easier than looking something up. Did Sanders also do this?
G, your Brexit example is based around the notion that the middle classes voted Remain and the working classes Leave. Yes, I know a lot of people say that. A lot of people are wrong.
” "voter suppression" stories are a particularly obvious example of "panic porn.” “
Andrew you may remember not so long ago when you said there was no evidence for these. Right under me pointing out that they had admitted it in North Carolina, in an open hearing. So you’re going to have to forgive me if, when you say “seen no evidence”, I hear “I had temporarily lost my glasses”.
”Georgia… he was constantly accused of "voter suppression" for extremely normal actions, like purging the voter rolls of people ineligible to vote.”
If only there was someone who’d look into this for us…
https://www.gregpalast.com/aclu-releases-palast-fund-georgia-voter-purge-errors-report/
Or, should your glasses have gone missing again, there’s a simpler way of looking at it. There’s about one tenth of black Americans and one third of Hispanics who will vote Republican, numbers which seem quite consistent over time. Which leaves them with a straight choice between appealing more to those groups or suppressing their vote. What signs do you see of the first one?
(NB With mandatory voting but without voter suppression being removed, there’d still be the same blocks on the black vote and a fine at the end of it. Voting would become a black tax. There are already plenty of black taxes in America.)
”I think the Republican Party is behaving very much like a party in its death throes”
Be wary of thinking something is happening because you would like to see it, Aonghus. Remember Trump’s candidacy was originally seen as evidence of this. “Look at the crazy guy they’ve got now, they’ve lost the plot!” And he went on to win his first election. In Britain for much of the New Labour era people were confidently saying the Tories were in their death throes. We now have our very own Donald Trump in charge, only the British version where he spouts a bit of pig Latin now and then so we can feel classy.
”Voter suppression is an issue, but I think there’s also pushback?”
Yes, and one of the main reasons why Trump lost last time. But it all depends on that pushback continuing. The Republicans aren’t going to lose just because they’re cheating.
Did Sanders also do this?
No, Sanders is simply the stupidest man in the Senate. I don't doubt he's honest. (Sort of. Though his sudden affection for multiple large houses now that he's finally become a millionaire does give me qualms.)
Andrew you may remember not so long ago when you said there was no evidence for these. Right under me pointing out that they had admitted it in North Carolina, in an open hearing.
I was entirely unimpressed with this example. Did I not elaborate on that? I can't remember. Anyway, the argument was to remove special privileges that had been put in place by the previous Democratic regime. Personally I am not for the removal of those special privileges (Sunday voting, but only for black voters), but I don't see how that amounts to voter suppression.
If only there was someone who’d look into this for us…
This is, at least, interesting. Georgia used a list from Total Data Technologies of Nebraska which may, in fact, be more inaccurate (or more accurate) than the USPS list. It will be interesting to see what the findings of fact by the court is.
Which leaves them with a straight choice between appealing more to those groups or suppressing their vote. What signs do you see of the first one?
Oh, plenty. Bush tried a lot of outreach to African-Americans, though it didn't really go anywhere. McCain and Romney were up against a brick wall in Barack Obama with African-American voters. In 2020, there was of course this, to give Trump his due. It's better than anything the Democrats have offered in 50 years. Though I imagine Trump offered it in a deal with Tim Scott to gain his 2020 endorsement at the GOP convention.
With mandatory voting but without voter suppression being removed, there’d still be the same blocks on the black vote and a fine at the end of it. Voting would become a black tax. There are already plenty of black taxes in America.
This is a fair point. My understanding is that Australia doesn't really enforce its fines. On the one hand, this seems like a good plan to me, but on the other, I am generally against having laws on the books that you never plan to enforce. Too much temptation to selective enforcement.
There’s about one tenth of black Americans and one third of Hispanics who will vote Republican, numbers which seem quite consistent over time.
It's not that consistent. Bush won about 40% of Hispanics in 2004 (and 35% in 2000) while Dole won only 21% in 1996. The movement of the working class to the GOP is occurring among black and Latino voters as well (more easily seen in non-presidential results), just more slowly.
Be wary of thinking something is happening because you would like to see it, Aonghus. Remember Trump’s candidacy was originally seen as evidence of this. “Look at the crazy guy they’ve got now, they’ve lost the plot!” And he went on to win his first election. In Britain for much of the New Labour era people were confidently saying the Tories were in their death throes. We now have our very own Donald Trump in charge, only the British version where he spouts a bit of pig Latin now and then so we can feel classy.
I agree with you here. I have no reason to think the GOP is a dying party or even close to it. I expect them to take back the House in 2022, though they might lose ground in the Senate. There is a changing of the guard, which has been occurring since 2016 with the retirement of nearly everyone in the Old Guard.
‘Remember Trump’s candidacy was originally seen as evidence of this.’
I think in both cases - the Tea Party and Trump - there was a brief surge in Republican support (Trump won the election, not the GOP) but that both phenomena quickly went out of fashion (the Tea Party because they were genuinely crazy, Trump due to his sheer incompetence) - ie, the Republicans tried to appropriate a populist movement, then a popular figure (or, more accurately, he appropriated them) to help win over the public, and doing so only left their brand even more damaged than before. Who are they without Trump? What do they stand for?
The issue is that you have two right-wing parties, with one right-wing party trying to establish it’s more rightwing than its counterpart. I genuinely think that the Republican Party (while enjoying some support from the Hispanic community) is the party of the old and the rich and is facing a shift in demographics which will sound its death knell. Also, that they realise this. This is possibly compounded by how old money is usually invested in old ways of making money (e.g. oil) which means they’re out of step with current trends as well (re fossil fuels etc).
In terms of Johnson and Trump. They’re both a product of their times, specifically the internet. You need a look and a message. Funny hair definitely helps! I could lament how the great traditionn of British journalism has been supplanted by internet conspiracy theorists, but then I think of how papers like the Star and the Sun behaved back in the Seventies and Eighties (e.g. Hillsborough) and am not so sure.
Your theory is basically this, though their analysis was more racial than class-based or age-based. I think it has already been falsified. In their case, "Latino" isn't really a thing. Like the Italians and Irish, they will become "white."
I don't see how your demographic trends help the Democrats and hurt the Republicans, even if you're right. America is getting older and richer, not the reverse. Though I do believe the Democrats are swiftly becoming the party of the rich, so America's getting richer might help them.
But, of course, who knows? The Trumpers and the Sandersistas may eventually realize that they have a lot more in common with each other than with the "neoliberals" of both parties. Economic populism, foreign policy isolationism, etc. That might eventually cause a full-scale realignment.
I think the smart money is switching over to the Democrats so that the Republicans are increasingly the party of the rich and the dumb. Are there any freshly-minted American billionaires who are Republican party supporters? I'm guessing there must be some...
Re Johnson. The cult of personality would also apply to Johnson. What are the Conservative party without him? There’s also a context, as he does resemble Churchill in one respect; Churchill was elected as a wartime prime minister; Johnson was elected as a Brexit prime minister. Both were single-issue candidates, both held in generally low regard other than the expectation that they might actually fulfil their brief.
Plus Johnson was elected in reaction to Theresa May (and frankly, after watching May flounder about, I’d have voted for Johnson too).
I had total sympathy for Theresa May, but her inability to persuade her own caucus obviously made her a failure. As I have often stated, the best leaders are moderate conservatives, but nobody likes them. The left doesn't like them, the right doesn't like them and it always seals their downfall. See George H.W. Bush.
By the by, this is a must-read for anyone interested in U.S. politics (and it always astonishes me how many foreigners are - makes no real sense to me, but hobbies are hobbies, I suppose).
"It always astonishes me how many foreigners are [interested in U.S. politics] - makes no real sense to me, but hobbies are hobbies, I suppose)."
Really? When the USA sneezes, the world catches a cold. Of course everyone's interested.
U.S. politics has very little practical consequences on my life and most of that is just level of taxation. It's hard for me to imagine that it has much in the way of practical consequences on the average French person's. Don't get me wrong, there are exceptions. E.g. British military personnel.
Are there any freshly-minted American billionaires who are Republican party supporters?
If you mean multi-billionaires, like $30 billion or more, then, no, I can't think of any.
I used to wonder how Bernie Sanders and his wife could have such a low net worth, given their very high income. I used to theorize that perhaps he just gave all his money to charity or something. Turns out, nope.
"U.S. politics has very little practical consequences on my life ... It's hard for me to imagine that it has much in the way of practical consequences on the average French person's."
This seems an extraordinarily short-sighted position. Off the top of my head, the last administration along has given us:
* Significant immediate damage to the environment
* Long term damage that will arise from withdrawal from the Paris accords (not just in terms of the USA's behaviour, but the escape-hatch that this gives other states).
* Inflammation of anti-western sentiment worldwide
* Normalization of nepotism and corruption which has led directly to the same things in the UK
* The very real possibility of a psychopath starting a war (maybe even a nuclear war) because he thinks it will make him look tough
* Catastrophic loss of US legitimacy as a peacekeeping influence
* Prolongation of the COVID-19 pandemic
”No, Sanders is simply the stupidest man in the Senate.”
Then I’m not getting how he’s so akin to Trump.
”I was entirely unimpressed with this example”
How ‘impressed’ you are is immaterial. The point is that they admitted to it! Why would they admit to something if they hadn’t actually done it? “Yes your honour, the gun was still smoking in his hand and the defendant did openly admit to the crime. Yet we in the defence remain unimpressed by this evidence, so we must ask you to acquit.”
There’s a graph on the link below on the black vote. Perhaps interestingly, it’s less strong for party affiliation than presidential vote. But on presidential vote it shows angrowing rejection of the Republicans.
https://blackdemographics.com/culture/black-politics/
”there was a brief surge in Republican support… but that both phenomena quickly went out of fashion”
Remember the Trump vote increased the second time round. While of course it doesn’t justify their “stop the steal” nonsense, it helps contextualise it.
’I could lament how the great traditionn of British journalism has been supplanted by internet conspiracy theorists”
Another thing to be wary of is coupling too closely together the internet and conspiracy theories. The latter have existed for a long time, and were often promulgated by print media in the past.
What has changed is the ‘social mediaisation’ of journalism. In a social media age, investigative journalism is now seen as avoidable cost. The local Brighton paper, The Argus, now does little more than say “a thing may have happened here today. Why not write about it on Twitter and send us the link?”
Coming back to populists, the only major issue that someone tried to handle in a technocratic way was Theresa May and Brexit. Her selling point was - after that divisive referendum, I will be a safe pair of hands to bring back the best result for all. And of course she crashed and burnt, while Johnson cleaned up just by brazenly continuing all the Leave lies after they had been disproven. Trump claimed to build a wall where he didn’t. Johnson claimed not to put a border where he did. Same difference.
Most of that list is, in my view, "panic porn." That would be a long conversation though.
I do agree with "catastrophic loss of US legitimacy as a peacekeeping influence." Indeed, my primary opposition to Trump was on foreign policy grounds. It turns out he wasn't nearly as bad as I feared he would be (though he was pretty bad), mostly because he primarily left the job to the existing foreign policy establishment with the exception of stupid PR stunts like his "summit" with North Korea.
'"for anyone interested in U.S. politics (and it always astonishes me how many foreigners are"
Some years ago, Chomsky said the most dangerous organisation on the face of the earth is the Republican Party. He's more right now than when he said it.
But on presidential vote it shows a growing rejection of the Republicans.
Obama and lingering effects from Obama (also, Trump did not help, obviously).
"Most of that list is, in my view, "panic porn"."
Well. If these are things that do not concern you much, than I suspect we don't have enough in common to conduct a meaningful discussion.
Also, 2020 had growth beyond where that graph ended. Trump was back up to 12% of the black vote.
Well. If these are things that do not concern you much, than I suspect we don't have enough in common to conduct a meaningful discussion.
Likely true. I don't think there is any solution to our current pollution dilemma. The West will continue to outsource its pollution to China and we will do nothing about that. I am, of course, opposed to nepotism and corruption, but then if that spreads to the rest of the world, that is the result of the rest of the world paying too much attention to us. My suggestion would be "knock it off."
As for "prolongation of the Covid-19 pandemic," it's not like Europe had great results either. Are all of those countries also run by people who screwed it all up? (Possible, but then electing Hillary would likely not have helped.) Or is it just that Europeans are culturally more vulnerable to pandemics precisely because we have grown unaccustomed to them?
As for "the very real possibility," I'm not saying it was unreasonable to think that. I did too! But that turned out to be a phantom fear. We know that for a fact.
Also, see this.
(Mostly fracking, of course.)
The U.S. ended up being out of the Paris Agreement for a little more than three months (November 2020-February 2021).
"The U.S. ended up being out of the Paris Agreement for a little more than three months"
This misses one of the worst effects of Trump. By being even worse, he stole attention away from how bad everybody else was behaving. The Paris Agreement set binding targets which, once they were out of the room, pretty much every country decided were suddenly vague aspirations. By loudly shitting on the floor, he took attention away from the others who were already quietly pissing over everything.
The UK and the U.S. are very likely to come out of the other end of the pandemic faster than any country in Europe. My read of the data is that the U.S. will be more or less done with it a couple of months from now, though we'll see how much genuine vaccine resistance there is (i.e. people who refuse to get vaccinated) and how much that matters to herd immunity. Michigan is the only remaining state whose spring surge has resulted in a death rate which I find very worrisome.
This misses one of the worst effects of Trump. By being even worse, he stole attention away from how bad everybody else was behaving. The Paris Agreement set binding targets which, once they were out of the room, pretty much every country decided were suddenly vague aspirations. By loudly shitting on the floor, he took attention away from the others who were already quietly pissing over everything.
That's a fair point, I grant. But again, I was talking about practical effects on day-to-day lives. I suppose my cynicism was helpful here since I never expected the Paris Agreement to have any practical effect anyway. The pollution problem is caused by too much wealth spread too equally among too many people and, despite decades of research, fossil fuels are still the most economically efficient way to produce energy. I'm not sure how we solve that problem since we don't actually A) want to reduce wealth, B) spread it less equally, or C) reduce the world's population.
We're definitely entering Gish Gallop territory here.
I don't have an eyeroll emoji here, I don't think.
As I believe I have explained before on this site, "Gish gallop" is just a pseudo-intellectual internet ad hominem.
Without getting into what could be lengthy derail... If I was in a building which had caught fire, and one group was suggesting putting the fire out, while a second alternated between saying there wasn't a fire and that it was too late anyway as the fire was so widespread, I would spend zero time considering any of it. I'd get up and side with the first group.
"As I believe I have explained before on this site, "Gish gallop" is just a pseudo-intellectual internet ad hominem."
If I had ever explained anything so very incorrectly, I would keep quiet about it and hope no-one noticed.
I believe the IPCC report. It does not suggest that the building has "caught fire." It suggests that the global population will face many challenges over the next century due to climate change. If you survey people about how much the temperature is going to increase over the next century, the people who agree with the IPCC are mostly people who don't believe climate change is happening at all or don't believe it is anthropogenic. Everybody else is way higher.
If I had ever explained anything so very incorrectly, I would keep quiet about it and hope no-one noticed.
It is entirely unfair to do this when you know I don't have an eyeroll emoji. (Insert smiley emoji here.) People use the term "Gish gallop" to simply claim victory in a debate; that's all it is. Pretending that arguments are "easily refutable" is simply not the same as actually refuting them.
I will also add that the last time someone accused me of this, he then wrote a quite long blog post about me and then locked the comments so I was unable to respond to it. He was depressed and upset at the time. I have no hard feelings about it. Everybody's human.
Of course there were also (e.g.) very rich people who benefited from Brexit because their hedge funds stood to make a ton of money when it happened
AAAAAARGH
People who say this are giving away that they have no effing idea how hedge funds work which is weird because thy key word is 'hedge' and it's right there.
AAAARGH
The cult of personality would also apply to Johnson. What are the Conservative party without him?
Well, it's in a much better state than the Labour Party without the block of wood currently standing across from the dispatch box on Wednesdays. Just look at the wide spread of candidates to be next PM once Johnson's doing finally catch up with him: Sunak, Truss, Javid, Hunt, Patel, etc, etc. Whereas name me one Labour MP with a shot at the leadership who isn't a Corbynite headbanger…
Blair and Brown basically hollowed out the talent of an entire generation of the Labour party by using them as cannon fodder in their eternal war against each other, and the party hasn't recovered. Whereas Cameron, how all I detest him, made it a priority to cultivate a wide spread of talent, and it's paying off (albeit not for him, oh delicious irony).
Normalization of nepotism and corruption
According to the global corruption index:
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020/index/nzl
The USA is the 25th least-corrupt country in the world (out of 180).
If the amount of nepotism and corruption in the USA were to be normalised across the world that would be for almost every country a significant reduction in nepotism and corruption.
(Though admittedly not for us, we're 11th).
"Obama and lingering effects from Obama (also, Trump did not help, obviously)"
8% Republican support in 2000. Did they just guess Obama would be standing?
"It does not suggest that the building has "caught fire."
Way back when, the Yippies said their mission was "to shout theatre in a crowded fire." Ours today is to shout fire in a crowded fire, which doesn't sound like an advance.
People who say this are giving away that they have no effing idea how hedge funds work which is weird because thy key word is 'hedge' and it's right there.
To be fair, hedge funds do all sorts of things, and a great many of them have very little to do with hedging. Though it might be different in the UK. In the U.S., I wouldn't expect your average hedge fund to be doing much hedging, to be perfectly frank.
However, this does show that UK hedge fund managers (in general) certainly didn't favor Brexit. 79% of British-based hedge funds said it would be bad for business compared to 14% who thought it would be good.
8% Republican support in 2000. Did they just guess Obama would be standing?
The 2000 result is a weird anomaly to me. Bush's school vouchers proposal was very popular with African-Americans, but they came down unusually heavily for Al Gore. I assume Gore did some really successful outreach which was just invisible to me? Or perhaps (given he was polling better than that with them prior to Election Day), the very late DUI story (a couple of days before the election, it was revealed that Bush had been arrested for a DUI in 1976) did him a lot of harm with African-American conservatives? I don't know.
I only just remembered the horrific murder of James Byrd Jr. in 1998 in Texas. That was made into a campaign issue in 2000 and it could have badly hurt Bush. According to Wikipedia, "Because two of the three murderers were sentenced to death and the third murderer was sentenced to life in prison (all three of them were charged with and convicted of capital murder, the highest felony level in Texas), Governor Bush maintained, 'we don't need tougher laws,'" which was, frankly, tone-deaf. (His successor, Rick Perry, signed the proposed hate crime laws. Both men sentenced to death have subsequently been executed.)
‘Well, it's in a much better state than the Labour Party.’
This is how the narrative looks from my side of the pond.
Labour are huge from the post-war period up to the early seventies, but then get too big for their boots.
The Conservatives - as an antidote to the excesses of Labour - enjoy an unprecedented run of power, but in the process reveal themselves to be ideologically bankrupt.
Labour re-brands as. ‘New Labour’ because - let’s face it - they were going to spend the rest of their lives in opposition otherwise. They actually do a pretty good job.
Blair turns out to be as consummate a liar as he is a politician. The Conservative Party return via a coalition but are pretty dull.
Things get interesting after Cameron screws up and Brexit kicks off.
Cameron was boring, Theresa May even more boring, so everybody votes in the court jester. I mean, why not?
I didn’t take Labour seriously, because this isn’t the 1960’s and because Corbyn was clearly pretty dim. I don’t take the Conservative Party seriously, either. I mean, Johnson’s PM. How can I? And if his cabinet are all so much smarter than he is, how come not one of them is prime minister? How come it’s Boris Johnson? I’m guessing because they’re all just as dim and as corrupt as he is (inasmuch as I care).
Gavin, while of course plenty of working-class people voted against Brexit and plenty of upper-middle-class people voted for it, take a look at https://www.statista.com/statistics/518395/brexit-votes-by-social-class/ which says that substantially more ABs voted Remain than Leave, that C1s were about equally split, and that C2DEs went 64:36 for Leave over Remain.
In any case, my point wasn't about who voted each way but about who the arguments on each side were aimed at.
SK, "hedge fund" in practice has two meanings. One is "fund that attempts to hedge against risks, possibly giving up expected gains in favour of reduced risk". Another is, to quote the Wikipedia page on hedge funds as an illustrative example, "a pooled investment fund that trades in relatively liquid assets and is able to make extensive use of more complex trading, portfolio-construction and risk management techniques in an attempt to improve performance, such as short selling, leverage, and derivatives".
Andrew, I was not at all claiming that all (or most) hedge-fund managers favoured Brexit or that all (or most) hedge funds stood to gain from Brexit. But some hedge funds bet on Brexit and did very well, and some hedge fund managers gave a big pile of money to Leave-campaigning organizations, and it's tempting to join the dots. (There are other ways to join those dots; e.g., they may have hoped that they'd be less regulated outside the EU. At any rate, it's certainly just true that some very rich people benefited from Brexit because their hedge funds made a lot of money betting it would happen.)
SK again, could you explain what you mean about Blair and Brown hollowing out a generation of Labour Party talent by using them as cannon fodder? What exactly did they do and how did it stop there being good potential leaders in the more centrist wing of the party?
Gavin and Andrew, I am confused by the discussion of Gish gallops because (1) in general it seems entirely untrue that "Gish gallop" is used the way Andrew says it is -- at any rate, other recent times when I've seen the term used it was being used to mean something pretty close to the original meaning -- but (2) in this particular case I don't understand what Gavin thought was Gish-gallop-y about what Andrew was saying. (If Gavin had complained that Andrew was repeatedly moving the goalposts then I'd understand, though I'm not sure I'd agree, but that isn't what "Gish gallop" means.)
Labour are huge from the post-war period up to the early seventies, but then get too big for their boots.
Post-war Prime Ministers:
Atlee 1945-51
Churchill 1951-55
Eden 1955-57
MacMillan 1957-63
Douglas-Home 1963-4
Wilson 1964-70
Heath 1970-4
But sure 'Labour are huge'. Whatever.
The Conservatives - as an antidote to the excesses of Labour - enjoy an unprecedented run of power, but in the process reveal themselves to be ideologically bankrupt.
Are you talking about Thatcher? Because if so you're wrong on every single count. It wasn't unprecedented, it wasn't an antidote to 'the excesses of Labour' so much as Butskellism, and far from being 'ideologically bankrupt' Thatcher arguably had the most coherent ideology of any post-war Prime Minister right up to the present day — you can tell by the ferociousness with which she was (and still is) hated by people who disagreed with her ideology.
Labour re-brands as. ‘New Labour’ because - let’s face it - they were going to spend the rest of their lives in opposition otherwise. They actually do a pretty good job.
If you call trashing the constitution, and establishing the Scottish Assembly that still could lead to the demise of the country 'a pretty good job'. But whatever.
Blair turns out to be as consummate a liar as he is a politician. The Conservative Party return via a coalition but are pretty dull.
Cameron was basically identical to Blair. So I guess that does count as dull, okay. Though they did manage an extra bit of constitutional vandalism on top of even that which Blair did, which will become important later.
Things get interesting after Cameron screws up and Brexit kicks off.
It seemed so when lviing through it but I suspect in retrospect it will come to be seen as just a transitional period.
Cameron was boring, Theresa May even more boring, so everybody votes in the court jester. I mean, why not?
Theresa May's problem wasn't that she was 'boring'. It was that she called a snap election, lost her majority, and as a result couldn't get her flagship policy through a House of Commons that was dead set against her (including much of her own party), but also she couldn't call a general election thanks to — were you paying attention earlier? — Cameron's constitutional vandalism. Result: total gridlock. Boris gets voted in because he is the only candidate (of the last two) with a plausible plan to break the gridlock and get the UK out of the EU.
I didn’t take Labour seriously, because this isn’t the 1960’s and because Corbyn was clearly pretty dim. I don’t take the Conservative Party seriously, either. I mean, Johnson’s PM. How can I? And if his cabinet are all so much smarter than he is, how come not one of them is prime minister? How come it’s Boris Johnson? I’m guessing because they’re all just as dim and as corrupt as he is (inasmuch as I care).
It's Boris Johnson because — as above — he was the only candidate with a convincing plan to break the gridlock that prevented all progress since the 2017 election, to whit:
1. get rid of all the Conservative Remainers who had been working to stop the UK leaving the EU
2. force a general election
3. get a majority
4. pass legislation (the thing that Theresa May so singularly failed to do).
NB this plan may not have been his, it may have been Dominic Cummings', but that hardly matters. The point is there was a plan and it was executed.
The Conservative and Unionist Party has been in power for forty-six of the last seventy-six years, and have won general elections under eight and a half different leaders (Labour have won majorities under three). They're currently pretty much guaranteed at least one more term. I don't really think they care whether you take them seriously.
But some hedge funds bet on Brexit and did very well, and some hedge fund managers gave a big pile of money to Leave-campaigning organizations, and it's tempting to join the dots.
Oh, fair enough. Actually it totally makes sense for some hedge funds to have bet on Brexit (i.e. actually act as a hedge since the conventional wisdom was that it would be a worse scenario economically than Remain) and, once you've done so, giving money to Leave-campaigning organizations might actually be a good use of funds. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some of them did that. (Though most of the investors in those hedge funds were probably still hoping Remain won due to the rest of their portfolio, though it appears Brexit economic fears were overblown by the economic community.)
Gavin and Andrew, I am confused by the discussion of Gish gallops
It was Mike Taylor, not Gavin. Gavin and I disagree ideologically about as much as two people can disagree (I put up the link to the interview with David Shor primarily for Gavin's benefit, since David Shor is a pretty close fit with him ideologically), but Gavin has always been very polite to me as far as I can ever recall.
By the by, Mike Taylor has always been very polite in the past as well. I suspect I accidentally poked a nerve on climate change or something. I'm not a fearless person by any means, but I have no phobias and am not prone to anxiety. I appear to be immune to moral panics. I do not worry about pedophiles or child abductors. I do not sit around fearing serial killers, spree killers, terrorists - foreign or domestic, or other things which have only a very slightly greater chance of killing me than witchcraft. I also don't worry about climate change or even coronavirus (which was at least, before I was fully vaccinated, a much more serious threat than any of these others I've listed). I am going to die of stroke (like my grandfather), heart disease (like my brother), colon or some other form of cancer (like my father), or Alzheimer's (like my mother). I don't even really fear climate change for my daughter's sake. It's possible my grandchildren may really struggle with it. Or perhaps they won't. Part of my job is to try to predict the future. I'm always wrong and it's not because I'm bad at it. In fact, I'm really good at it. But if I were to write a book on the things I've learned about climate change from reading the literature, etc., I would title it The Inevitability of Climate Change Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Global Warming.
But sure 'Labour are huge'. Whatever.
Good point! I’m genuinely surprised by how few Labour governments there were (my memories of British politics start with Callaghan). I guess it’s all a matter of context? They got into power a number of times during the period 1945 - 1979, so maybe ‘more popular than they’ve ever been, before or since’??? (I wouldn’t include New Labour, as it was so far removed from its idealogical roots as to be unrepresentative).
‘Are you talking about Thatcher?’
I’d see Thatcher as the last of the rightwing ideologues. When I say ‘idealogically bankrupt’, I mean that most of her economic theories turned out to be balderdash - remember how privatising British Rail was going to make it not only more efficient, but cheaper? New Labour was an idealogical halfway house between Thatcherism and Old Labout and tried to ameliorate some of her excesses. They weren’t brilliant, but they weren’t bad, either.
It probably reveals the full extent of my ignorance when I say I wasn’t even aware there was a constitution for New Labour to trash? I always thought constitutions were a characteristic of Republics.
‘Cameron was basically identical to Blair.’
I can’t see the resemblance myself. Love him or loathe him, Blair was a showman. Cameron’s entertainment value (for me, anyhow) was pretty limited. That other guy had even less personality.
‘A transitional period.’
Isn’t it interesting how politics change? And I’m saying this without a trace of irony. Thatcher preached the mantra of capitalism and the primacy of market forces. Johnson believes nationalism is more important than capitalism. Which is laudable in its own way.
My impression - re Johnson and Brexit - is that Johnson instigated the process (ie, Cameron asked the country to vote to shut up back benchers, of whom Johnson was the most voluble), he then sabotaged any chance of May getting a deal (although I’d argue that a more astute politician would have out-manoeuvred him) and then ended up with a deal which wasn’t vastly different from what May would have got anyway, the crucial difference being that he got elected PM in order to do so. Amoral and shallow he may be, but I don’t think he’s particularly stupid.
G, when a vote weighs very heavily along one axis, and that axis is age, I can only conclude that people are talking about class because they want to rather than because of the data. The second-biggest weighting would seem to be where you lived. Big cities tended to vote Remain, including those metropolitan elite strongholds of Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle. Leave cleaned up in small towns.
”The 2000 result is a weird anomaly to me.”
The same graph shows Republican support at 12% in 1996 and 11% in 2004, so it’s scarcely an anomaly. The underlying point is that ‘black Americans go Democrat because Obama’ falls. They were anti-Republican before Obama.
”Gavin has always been very polite to me as far as I can ever recall.”
I have? But I’ve been trying so hard!
”I have no phobias and am not prone to anxiety”
Economics has regularly been proved to be a rather inexact science, to the point where you could question whether it should be seen as a science. Climate science is a different matter. If you don’t believe climate science is a science, you are effectively saying science isn’t a science.
”..and then ended up with a deal which wasn’t vastly different from what May would have got anyway, the crucial difference being that he got elected PM in order to do so.”
Yes, to the point where he seriously considered reneging on the deal he’d signed himself. Proof as if we needed it that Brexit was all about sound-bites and symbols, not reality.
Andrew: Whoops, you're right: it was Mike, not Gavin, who accused you of Gish-galloping. This doesn't make me much less confused by the accusation, though.
I shall resist the temptation to get into a discussion of climate change. That would be almost as big a derail as, I dunno, suddenly talking about old Doctor Who episodes.
Gavin: Breaking down the Brexit vote by social class (AB / C1 / C2 / DE) gets you Leave percentages ranging from 43% to 64%. Breaking it down by age (breaks at 35, 45, 55, 65) gets you Leave percentages ranging from 40% to 61%. These don't seem to me drastically different from one another, certainly not so much so to accuse someone who points at one rather the other as doing so "because they want to rather than because of the data". Those are the first figures I found in each case; maybe adding a break between A and B or at age 20 would change the picture a bit?
The social class figures are the ones I mentioned before. I found the age figures in "Understanding the Leave vote" by the National Centre for Social Research, which also has the following: if you break down by income with breaks at £1200, £2200, £3700 per month you get a range from 38% to 66%, more variation than either of the breakdowns in the previous paragraph. If you break down by education (nothing, O-level, A-level or non-degree higher, degree) the range is from 26% to 78%.
No doubt all these things correlate with one another (e.g., more people go to university these days, so older people are less likely to have degrees). But these figures seem to me extremely consistent with the idea that Brexit was substantially more popular among people with less money, less education, and lower social status.
Again, I am not at all claiming that it's only those people who voted Leave, nor that it's only those people who were responsive to the Leave campaign's arguments. It's not like people of different social classes are different species. But (so I continue to maintain) Leave's arguments were aimed more at "ordinary people" than Remain's, and were more convincing to those people, and aligned more closely with what those people already thought, than Remain's, while Remain's arguments were aimed more at, let's say, "sophisticated people" than Leave's.
(It is difficult to avoid evaluative-sounding terms. If you say that something is aimed more at "ordinary people" it sounds as if you are praising it. If you say that something is aimed more at "less educated people" it sounds as if you are condemning it. Etc. I'm trying, probably not very successfully, to stick to facts and leave values alone, though of course I do have opinions on the merits of these policies, the advisability of appealing to various subgroups of the population, etc.)
Economics has regularly been proved to be a rather inexact science, to the point where you could question whether it should be seen as a science. Climate science is a different matter. If you don’t believe climate science is a science, you are effectively saying science isn’t a science.
There is so much wrong with this, I don't know where to begin. For one thing, it should be very clear that I do in fact believe in climate science, though your opinion of it is vastly inflated (it's not that great). The thing is that saying that is not enough to show tribal solidarity. I must also say things which are untrue such as A) climate change is an existential threat to the human species and B) there is a politically feasible solution to the problem which we can enact right now if we wanted to.
The same graph shows Republican support at 12% in 1996 and 11% in 2004, so it’s scarcely an anomaly. The underlying point is that ‘black Americans go Democrat because Obama’ falls. They were anti-Republican before Obama.
Of course they were. But you were arguing that black support for Republicans has fallen in recent years. It has not. (Again, this is easier to see in non-presidential elections since the sample size on presidential elections is so small and include confounders like Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and whatever happened in 2000.) If you didn't read it the first time I linked it, you ought. David Shor is even a fellow Marxist.
I mean that most of her economic theories turned out to be balderdash - remember how privatising British Rail was going to make it not only more efficient, but cheaper?
Typically that is what happens, though it probably shouldn't have come as a surprise that it didn't with rail in particular. I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the U.S., passenger rail cannot exist without government subsidies. There's no point in privatizing it since people will only use it if the taxpayer is footing much of the bill.
I remember attending a do in the north of England. A lot of people flew up from London, but one outlier decided to go by train. He arrived a day late, plus it cost four times as much.
"There is so much wrong with this, I don't know where to begin."
I'm not sure that shouldn't be my line.
"I must also say things which are untrue such as A) climate change is an existential threat to the human species and B) there is a politically feasible solution to the problem which we can enact right now if we wanted to."
Well, except I haven't said either of these things.
"But you were arguing that black support for Republicans has fallen in recent years."
Err, no. I said these were "numbers which seem quite consistent over time."
‘Climate change is an existential threat to the human species.’
I don’t think the human species will be under threat. Life will become vastly more difficult and unpleasant. Plus a lot of different species will die out - which would be a pity.
‘There is a politically feasible solution to the problem which we can enact right now if we wanted to.’
Given that this is hypothetical, how does one know that there isn’t? And surely it's defeatist to think otherwise?
Err, no. I said these were "numbers which seem quite consistent over time."
To be fair, I'm willing to call this a draw since we both misremembered. You said, "But on presidential vote it shows a growing rejection of the Republicans." This is only untrue because Trump again received 12% of the black vote in 2020. However, you did say "on presidential vote."
Given that this is hypothetical, how does one know that there isn’t? And surely it's defeatist to think otherwise?
Oh, feel free to keep trying! Let me know how that goes.
I don’t think the human species will be under threat. Life will become vastly more difficult and unpleasant. Plus a lot of different species will die out - which would be a pity.
The first is questionable. Sober scientific analysis of what is likely to happen is quite different from the typical media story about it. And one of the things you are not allowed to talk about are the benefits of a warming planet, short-term at least. Your second point is almost certainly true. Humans have been causing mass extinctions for as long as we've been around, especially the megafauna and I agree it's very sad.
"Trump again received 12% of the black vote in 2020."
Taking them back to the 1996 level. We are looking at the same chart, right? The one in which since 1964 they've not got above 15% of the black vote and since 1980 not above 12%? The underlying point is that the Republicans have a hefty motive for voter suppression, as black Americans vote (for them) the wrong way. This is pretty clearly borne out.
They got into power a number of times during the period 1945 - 1979, so maybe ‘more popular than they’ve ever been, before or since’??? (I wouldn’t include New Labour, as it was so far removed from its idealogical roots as to be unrepresentative).
Define 'Labour's ideological roots'. Corbynism was definitely farther removed from Labour's ideological roots, which were more Methodism than Marxism, than New Labour ever was.
I’d see Thatcher as the last of the rightwing ideologues. When I say ‘idealogically bankrupt’, I mean that most of her economic theories turned out to be balderdash
Interesting how she managed to turn the country from decline to success with 'economic theories [that] turned out to be balderdash'. Whihc theories were you thinking of in particular? Oh wel you gave one example…
- remember how privatising British Rail was going to make it not only more efficient, but cheaper?
… except Thatcher didn't privatise British Rail: that was under the Major government, and the fundamental problem with that was that the whole point of privatisation is (a) to align who pays for a service and who uses it and (b) to introduce competition in order to force providers to improve or die: something which didn't happen with rail privatisation at all.
The privatisations which did happen under Thatcher — British Airways, British Steel, British Gas, British Telecom, etc — universally resulted in industries which were leaner, more efficient, and, crucially, provided better service and value to the consumer: consumption, as the man said, being the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.
It probably reveals the full extent of my ignorance when I say I wasn’t even aware there was a constitution for New Labour to trash? I always thought constitutions were a characteristic of Republics.
The level of ignorance here is astounding. You weren't aware there was a constitution?You've never heard of A.V. Dicey?
‘Cameron was basically identical to Blair.’
I can’t see the resemblance myself. Love him or loathe him, Blair was a showman. Cameron’s entertainment value (for me, anyhow) was pretty limited. That other guy had even less personality.
I meant ideologically. Obviously presentationally Blair, though I loathe them both, was streets ahead of Cameron.
Isn’t it interesting how politics change? And I’m saying this without a trace of irony. Thatcher preached the mantra of capitalism and the primacy of market forces. Johnson believes nationalism is more important than capitalism. Which is laudable in its own way.
I don't think that Johnson believes any such thing. I don't think that Johnson 'believes' anything. He is an arch-pragmatist politician, willing to do whatever it takes to achieve his objectives. He has no ideology. There is no such thing as 'Johnsonianism'.
My impression - re Johnson and Brexit - is that Johnson instigated the process (ie, Cameron asked the country to vote to shut up back benchers, of whom Johnson was the most voluble),
No, he didn't. The process was instigated by grass-roots pressure via UKIP chipping away at the Conservative Party vote throughout the coalition years. Cameron made the referendum commitment (in 2013, at Bloomberg) not to shut up back benchers, who weren't really calling for it (and I'm not really sure how much you should be opining on this if you don't even know that Boris wasn't a back bencher at the time, as he was mayor of London from 2008-2016, and therefore left Parliament in 2008 and only re-entered it in 2015) but to stop the possibility of UKIP splitting the Conservative vote in the next (2015) election and therefore letting Labour back into power.
he then sabotaged any chance of May getting a deal (although I’d argue that a more astute politician would have out-manoeuvred him)
Again, I can't see how you can possibly be thinking you're qualified to opine on this in any way shape or form if you aren't aware the Boris voted for May's deal…
and then ended up with a deal which wasn’t vastly different from what May would have got anyway,
…or if you are not aware that the deal Boris ended up with was completely different to May's deal on the crucial question of whether the UK ended up inside or outside the EU customs union (May's deal would have had the UK inside, Boris's had it outside).
the crucial difference being that he got elected PM in order to do so. Amoral and shallow he may be, but I don’t think he’s particularly stupid.
No, he's not stupid; amoral, well, a libertine, he certainly is. He doesn't strike me as particularly shallow, though, as above, he has no ideological convictions whatsoever.
But really, you seem so ignorant of so many basic facts that could be checked with but a moment's research, like, for example, when Boris was a backbencher, which way he voted on the Withdrawal Acts, and how many years Labour was in government, that I honestly can't see how you can be writing any of this with a straight face.
'Define 'Labour's ideological roots'.'
At the time of their greatest success? Bevanism. New Labour probably had more in common with Gaitskill.
'Thatcher didn't privatise British Rail: that was under the Major government.'
No doubt. My point was about Thatcherism, rather than Thatcher per se.
'The interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.'
Indeed - but how is this accomplished by privatisation? Capitalism is about profit. Privatising a state company may enable you to get rid of any dead wood, but why pass those savings onto the consumer? The nature of the market is that you charge the maximum amount that people can/are willing to pay. All the better if you’re providing an essential service - because what are people going to do? The only difference is that profits are diverted away from the pockets of workers and into the pockets of the new company owners.
'The level of ignorance here is astounding. You weren't aware there was a constitution? You've never heard of A.V. Dicey?'
I stand corrected! I always thought Britain had an evolving body of legislation rather than a constitution - something which in Ireland, France and US is a document outlining the rights and obligations of citizens - but you lot have an unwritten constitution? What a novel idea! Sort of like an invisible unicorn, then?
'He is an arch-pragmatist politician, willing to do whatever it takes to achieve his objectives.'
Clearly Johnson believes nationalism is more important than capitalism. Why leave the EU otherwise? (A position which I would regard idealogical rather than pragmatic).
In relation to Brexit, Johnson endorsed Vote Leave (which was founded by Dominic Cummings, no less). The fact that he was mayor at the time is largely immaterial; he was a key player in instigating the process which subsequently became Brexit and supported May’s deal once - in March 2019 - knowing perfectly well it was going to be defeated and making it quite clear he regarded it as less than satisfactory - ie, he saw an opportunity to pitch his tent and did so.
'Completely different to May's deal.'
Surely an exaggeration? The UK is still committing economic Harakiri, right?
Indeed - but how is this accomplished by privatisation? Capitalism is about profit. Privatising a state company may enable you to get rid of any dead wood, but why pass those savings onto the consumer?
Because if you don't your competitors will undercut you and all your customers will leave and you'll go bust.
The nature of the market is that you charge the maximum amount that people can/are willing to pay.
No, the nature of the market is that you charge the minimum at which you can make a profit, because otherwise you lose all your customers to your lower-priced competitors.
In relation to Brexit, Johnson endorsed Vote Leave (which was founded by Dominic Cummings, no less). The fact that he was mayor at the time is largely immaterial; he was a key player in instigating the process which subsequently became Brexit and supported May’s deal once - in March 2019 - knowing perfectly well it was going to be defeated and making it quite clear he regarded it as less than satisfactory - ie, he saw an opportunity to pitch his tent and did so.
This is… I mean do you even know the timeline of events? Vote Leave, which Boris endorsed, didn't even exist until October 2015: after Boris had become an MP again, after Cameron won on a manifesto promising an EU referendum,, and long after Cameron had promised the referendum if the Conservatives won a majority at the next election which happened, as I noted above, in 2013.
How, exactly, please do explain, did Boris joining Vote Leave (which he announced on the 21st of February 2016) cause Cameron to promise a referendum in a speech in 2013? Was Boris's announcement so cosmically significant that it overrode causality and sent ripples back three years in the same-time continuum?
'Completely different to May's deal.'
Surely an exaggeration? The UK is still committing economic Harakiri, right?
If you really, honestly think that being inside a customs union is economically equivalent to being outside, then I don't think we can talk about economics, or indeed much else.
"Clearly Johnson believes nationalism is more important than capitalism. Why leave the EU otherwise? (A position which I would regard idealogical rather than pragmatic)."
I'm afraid we can't even say this about Johnson. He cares no more and no less for nationalism than he does for capitalism. He cares about being on the winning side; nothing more, nothing less. That's why he wrote the famous two columns: he wasn't sure which side was likely to be the winning one.
He cares about being on the winning side; nothing more, nothing less. That's why he wrote the famous two columns: he wasn't sure which side was likely to be the winning one.
I thought the traditional Remainer attack line on Boris wasn't that he wanted to be on the winning side, but that he wanted to be on the losing side, so that he could sell himself as a valiant solider for defeated Euroscepticism without actually having to go to the bother of leaving the EU; and that he was terrified when Leave actually won, because he had never intended that?
You lot really should keep your attacks straight, it doesn't at all make you look good when you keep flipping between various mutually exclusive ones. Especially when there are so many real attack lines on Boris without resorting to speculative conspiracy theories about his true motivations for supporting Leave.
‘Because if you don't your competitors will undercut you and all your customers will leave and you'll go bust.’
Unless you have a monopoly. A monopoly of an essential service is the ultimate holy grail of any self-respecting capitalist. Unfortunately many such services are controlled by the government precisely in order to prevent such monopolies. Still, a word in the right ear….
‘This is… I mean do you even know the timeline of events?’
The critical question is - do you? When I said ‘Johnson instigated the process (ie, Cameron asked the country to vote to shut up back benchers, of whom Johnson was the most voluble)’ - and I think it’s pretty clear I meant that Boris was a back-bencher when Cameron called the referendum - you said this was impossible, as ‘Johnson wasn’t a back-bencher at the time.’ I scratched my head, but gave you the benefit of the doubt. More fool me, eh?
Cameron’s promises - like any politician’s - were entirely provisional. He was only going to actually call a referendum if somebody stuck a gun to his head.
And if you really, honestly, think that being inside a customs union is economically better to being in the EU, then I don't think we can talk about economics, or indeed much else.
SK, it's lovely of you to attribute to me the sophistication of coming up with "attack lines", and also of having the organizational ability to work them out in concert with the rest of "you lot". Sadly, I must disabuse you: all I have to go on is my own observations of Johnson's behaviour. Lacking the cleverness that you charitably see in me, all I'm able to do is call 'em like I see 'em.
Unless you have a monopoly
Yes, and the whole point of privatisation is to dismantle monopolies. That is literally the only thing privatisation is for.
The critical question is - do you? When I said ‘Johnson instigated the process (ie, Cameron asked the country to vote to shut up back benchers, of whom Johnson was the most voluble)’ - and I think it’s pretty clear I meant that Boris was a back-bencher when Cameron called the referendum - you said this was impossible, as ‘Johnson wasn’t a back-bencher at the time.’ I scratched my head, but gave you the benefit of the doubt. More fool me, eh?
Except that Boris wasn't a back-bencher when Cameron committed to the referendum in 2013. And neither was Boris calling for a referendum, then or after he returned to the Commons — he only came out for Leave in February 2016, after the famous 'two columns' affair, and after the EU Referendum Act was passed in 2015 (which Boris voted for, but then so did every MP apart from those of the SNP).
So again please explain how something Boris did in 2016 caused Cameron to promise a referendum in 2013 and pass a referendum bill in 2015.
Cameron’s promises - like any politician’s - were entirely provisional. He was only going to actually call a referendum if somebody stuck a gun to his head.
Yes, and the gun was being held, not by Boris, but by the voters who had deserted the Conservative for UKIP during the coalition years, and who, if Cameron hadn't delivered the referendum he promised, would have split the conservative vote in the next general election (at that time scheduled for 2020) and quite likely cost Cameron (or his chosen successor) the small majority they had won in 2015.
And if you really, honestly, think that being inside a customs union is economically better to being in the EU, then I don't think we can talk about economics, or indeed much else.
That isn't the question. The question is whether Boris 'ended up with a deal which wasn’t vastly different from what May would have got anyway'.
Boris 'ended up' with a deal that has the UK outside the EU's customs union. May's deal would have had the UK inside the EU's customs union. These are clearly vastly different outcomes. You may think neither is as good, economically, as being inside the EU (we won't know the truth of that for a few years); but that doesn't change the fact that they are vastly different outcomes from each other.
SK, surely what Aonghus says about monopolies is entirely to the point. After the British Rail privatization we have Railtrack (which owns the infrastructure), some rolling stock companies (which own the trains), and some train operating companies (which pay Railtrack for the use of infrastructure and lease trains from the rolling stock companies).
So: 1. Suppose Railtrack charge 2x what they could get away with in some hypothetical perfectly efficient competitive market. What commercial pressure is going to make them lower their prices? No one else has train tracks. Probably no one else can even realistically build their own rival system of train tracks without Railtrack's cooperation, since they would need to service the existing train stations. (The actual answer, so far as there is one, is that there is a government regulator that may restrict what prices Railtrack can charge.)
2. I think there genuinely is competition between the rolling stock companies. So maybe the price of leasing a train is going to be subject to competition and kept reasonable. Though this feels like a situation where price-fixing might be pretty easy.
3. The train operating companies mostly correspond to regions of the country. Suppose one of them charges 2x what they could get away with in a perfectly competitive market. What commercial pressure is going to make them lower their prices? They hold the right to run trains on the lines they run them on; no one else can come in and do that. (That right is awarded by a government agency. I don't know exactly how they decide who gets it, but I expect it's mostly minimal cost / maximal revenue to the government, which is approximately the same thing as maximum profit for the train operating company.)
I should be more explicit about one important point. Even a monopolist can't raise prices without limit, because customers may simply choose to do without whatever it is the monopolist sells. If the train is too expensive, I can drive or fly or walk or something. But the profit-maximizing prices will be much higher for a monopolist than for a seller whose customers have the option of getting the same goods from another possibly-cheaper supplier, and that is what seems to be pretty much entirely lacking in the UK rail system.
And lo, train tickets are expensive. And lo, lots of people choose to drive or fly or whatever instead.
A lot of the point of having a good train system is that driving, while convenient and pretty cheap, has a lot of externalities -- pollution, noise, space taken up with roads, etc. -- and train travel is much more efficient overall. So (to whatever extent the government cares about reducing pollution, not allocating too much land to roads, etc.) the government should be subsidizing the train system. Add to that how difficult it is for a new competitor to enter the market, and how major parts of the system (in particular the infrastructure) are something close to natural monopolies, and it becomes clear that a national rail system is a terrible choice for privatization. I am pretty sure the only real reason it was done was to reduce the cost to the government, and I am pretty sure the overall result was substantially harmful on net.
As a rule I disagree with SK about pretty much everything, but it seems to me he's simply factually correct about the claim that "Cameron asked the country to vote to shut up back benchers, of whom Johnson was the most voluble": Johnson was not a backbencher, nor any sort of MP, either when the Conservatives made an EU referendum a manifesto commitment or when they passed the legislation making it happen. He was a backbencher at the point when the referendum actually happened, but that isn't relevant here.
Arguably Johnson did have an important role in bringing about the Brexit referendum: when working as a journalist, I understand that he wrote an awful lot of anti-EU columns, and maybe they had a big impact on public opinion (or Conservative backbencher opinion). But it just isn't true at all that Cameron made the referendum happen to shut up any group of backbenchers of whom Johnson was one, because he was not a backbencher at any relevant point.
SK, surely what Aonghus says about monopolies is entirely to the point. After the British Rail privatization
This is where I point out, as I did above, that the privatisation of the railways was botched because it utterly failed, as privatisation is supposed to do, to align 'who pays' for a service with 'who uses' it (which is what allows market competition to happen). This is unlike, for example, the privatisations of British Airways, British Gas, British Telecom, etc etc.
And that that can't be blamed on Thatcher, or Thatcherism, because it was not done by the Thatcher government but by the Major government, and Major was in no senses at all a Thatcherite.
Obviously I can't prove that Thatcher wouldn't have botched it in exactly the same way Major did; but I can point out that the fact Major botched it, and the fact that all the privatisations that actually occurred under Thatcher were runaway successes, does rather suggest something of the sort.
But it just isn't true at all that Cameron made the referendum happen to shut up any group of backbenchers of whom Johnson was one, because he was not a backbencher at any relevant point.
If you want to give credit to any Conservative backbenchers for the EU referendum it really has to be Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless, because they proved that it was possible for Conservative voters to transferred en bloc to UKIP. If they had not defected, or if they had defected but not won the ensuing by-elections, then Cameron would have felt safe in ignoring the calls for a referendum as he would have known that it was not an issue most voters cared about enough to switch their vote and therefore possibly lose the Conservatives an election.
‘Yes, and the whole point of privatisation is to dismantle monopolies. That is literally the only thing privatisation is for.’
Nope. Or at least, I haven’t come across any such definition online. It seems to be defined simply as moving something from the public sector to the private sector. I’m guessing there are myriad reasons why this would happen.
I am curious, though. Clearly your definition carries the implication that a monopoly is a public sector problem that can only be solved by exposure to the free market? So to you, the NHS - to cite one example - should be privatised? Just asking.
‘So again please explain how something Boris did in 2016 caused Cameron to promise a referendum in 2013 and pass a referendum bill in 2015.’
Well, Boris was pretty busy throughout 2015 as well - the two referendums controversy being only one case in point - and there’s no doubt in my mind that this put pressure on Cameron to call a referendum although he’d have much preferred not to. Not sure the bill itself constituted an obligation to have a referendum? Only that it made it possible? Nor did I get the impression the public had much appetite for it. The narrative was that this was a power struggle between Cameron and Johnson, with Johnson playing the Eurosceptic to Cameron’s Remainer; a gamble which paid off handsomely for Johnson in the long term.
I’ve already discounted the importance of 2013. I’ve heard similar guarantees made about carbon emissions in Ireland, none of which ever led anywhere.
"This is where I point out, as I did above, that the privatisation of the railways was botched because it utterly failed, as privatisation is supposed to do, to align 'who pays' for a service with 'who uses' it (which is what allows market competition to happen)."
Also, the implementation of communism in the Soviet Union was botched. If only people would do it right, it would work, for sure.
Also, the implementation of communism in the Soviet Union was botched. If only people would do it right, it would work, for sure
I'd believe that if communism hadn't been tried many times elsewhere, and failed in the same way every single time.
Whereas there have been lots of successful privatisations.
‘Yes, and the whole point of privatisation is to dismantle monopolies. That is literally the only thing privatisation is for.’
Nope. Or at least, I haven’t come across any such definition online. It seems to be defined simply as moving something from the public sector to the private sector. I’m guessing there are myriad reasons why this would happen.
No, there's only one reason to do move something from the public sector to the private sector: because if something is provided by the public sector then it is a monopoly (either de jure or de facto because a private company can't meaningfully compete with something that is underwritten by the state and therefore cannot go bust). And monopolies always fail their customers because there is no incentive for them to improve their service.
So if you want to improve the lives of, well, everyone who uses a service, the thing you do is you move provision from the public to the private sector.
I am curious, though. Clearly your definition carries the implication that a monopoly is a public sector problem that can only be solved by exposure to the free market? So to you, the NHS - to cite one example - should be privatised? Just asking.
I think there are a lot of health services that include a much larger private component than ours (not that ours is devoid of private elements: every GP's surgery is a private company, for example) that perform a lot better than the NHS and we should certainly look at whether we could learn lessons from them. Germany's health care system, for example, gets better results than ours for less per-capita expenditure and has a much bigger private sector involvement.
Well, Boris was pretty busy throughout 2015 as well - the two referendums controversy being only one case in point - and there’s no doubt in my mind that this put pressure on Cameron to call a referendum although he’d have much preferred not to.
Boris may have been busy in 2015 but he wasn't busy campaigning for an EU referendum. Other backbenchers were: David Davies, of course, and the ERG. But not Boris.
Not sure the bill itself constituted an obligation to have a referendum? Only that it made it possible?
Seriously, you're just embarrassing yourself. Go read the EU Referendum Act 2015 before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have.
Nor did I get the impression the public had much appetite for it.
Tell you what, while you're reading the EU Referendum Act 2015, why don't you check out who won the 2104 European Parliament elections.
The narrative was that this was a power struggle between Cameron and Johnson, with Johnson playing the Eurosceptic to Cameron’s Remainer; a gamble which paid off handsomely for Johnson in the long term.
That was what Remainers chose to make the narrative after Boris endorsed Vote Leave in February 2016, yes. But it wasn't before then.
I’ve already discounted the importance of 2013. I’ve heard similar guarantees made about carbon emissions in Ireland, none of which ever led anywhere.
Which is why the defections, and subsequent re-elections, of Carswell and Reckless were so important. Those are what proved to Cameron that a large part of his electoral base was 'soft' and perfectly willing to vote UKIP if he — as I'm sure he would have loved to do — went back on his promise and just forgot about holding an election once he'd won his majority.
‘So if you want to improve the lives of, well, everyone who uses a service, the thing you do is you move provision from the public to the private sector.’
Even disregarding British Rail, healthcare in the US would suggest otherwise. The issue isn’t so much monopolies as cartels - webs of intertwined business interests all determined to keep prices high in order to maximise profitability. I remember a publican in my nearest town - which boasted around six pubs - snorting at the idea that the government could stop price-fixing, as all it took was the six proprietors to meet on the street and informally decide what they were charging for a pint of Guinness.
At least when you’re dealing with a public sector body, there’s some degree of transparency re costs.
‘Seriously, you're just embarrassing yourself.’
Ouch! Reading it, what’s interesting is that - well, duh - it was never a vote to leave the EU.
In relation to Boris, I’ve already mentioned the two referendums, which suggests Boris was already pretty chummy with Cummings.
What I find interesting about your version of events - assuming you’re right - is that Cameron was completely blameless, which doesn’t explain his subsequent vilification. Over here, the consensus was that he made a bad decision by calling a referendum in the first place, but he was only fulfilling his obligations as a conservative PM, yeah?
Even disregarding British Rail, healthcare in the US would suggest otherwise.
I wasn't aware healthcare in the US have ever been nationalised.
The issue isn’t so much monopolies as cartels - webs of intertwined business interests all determined to keep prices high in order to maximise profitability. I remember a publican in my nearest town - which boasted around six pubs - snorting at the idea that the government could stop price-fixing, as all it took was the six proprietors to meet on the street and informally decide what they were charging for a pint of Guinness.
Cartels are not a real problem, because they are inherently unstable. Imagine that your publican and his friends all met up and decided that they would all charge, say, 4 punts for a price of Guinness. And they do and for a while all the Guinness in the village costs 4 punts a pint.
But then your publican friend realises something. If he reduced his prices to 3.90, then every drinker in the village is going to come to his pub, and the other five pubs will be empty. He'll sell six times as many pints — and therefore make a much bigger profit than he is currently making, easily far more than it would need to offset the slightly lower per-pint profit.
And what's more, he realises that every single one of his five friends is at that very moment having exactly the same thought. Maybe he can trust them all to stick to the agreement, even though they each know they could make much more money by breaking it. Maybe. But what he also realises is that whoever is the first to defect can reduce their prices to 3.90 and get all the custom in the village… and then to steal the customers back he'll have to do better, and cut his prices to 3.85. Now that's getting close to the point where the increased custom won't cover the smaller per-pint profit. So if he wants to survive, he better cut his prices first, before one of the others does.
Cartels never last, and this is why. There is simply too much pressure on each member to defect and make more money.
In relation to Boris, I’ve already mentioned the two referendums, which suggests Boris was already pretty chummy with Cummings.
I'm sorry, which two referendums was this? The Scottish Independence referendum? One of the metro mayor referendums?
What I find interesting about your version of events - assuming you’re right - is that Cameron was completely blameless, which doesn’t explain his subsequent vilification. Over here, the consensus was that he made a bad decision by calling a referendum in the first place, but he was only fulfilling his obligations as a conservative PM, yeah?
Define 'blameless'. I certainly don't think he deserves any credit for getting us out of the EU, no. He was forced into promising the referendum by popular pressure on the right flank of his party, and by the fact that the electorate had already had promises on referendums about EU matters made to them and broken several times (Brown promised one on the constitution, and never delivered; Cameron promised one on the Lisbon Treaty, and again never delivered). Had it been entirely up to Cameron he would never have promised the referendum, and had he ended up in coalition again in 2015 — as he probably expected — he would have ditched it immediately and blamed the Liberal Democrats.
‘I wasn't aware healthcare in the US have ever been nationalised.’
It hasn’t - and therein lies the problem. It’s infinitely more expensive (and inefficient) than the NHS. (You seem to associate monopolies entirely with the public sector, but they’re a common feature of the private sector too - hence anti-monopoly legislation).
‘I’m sorry, which two referendums was this? The Scottish Independence referendum? One of the metro mayor referendums?’
Johnson was supportive of a double referendum which was seen as a vote of support for eurosceptics, who were looking for a suitable figurehead (that was in June, 2015) - the relevant article by the Granuid is titled - ‘Boris Johnson warms to idea of voting no in EU referendum.’
Re the EU Referendum Act. We have referendums all the time in Ireland and the constitution is changed as a result. By extension, you have a very clear idea as to the importance of your vote. This bill is an interesting example of what happens when you don’t have a written constitution - the outcome is unclear to everybody involved. The public aren’t quite sure what they’re voting for, but then neither is the government. Does consulting the public mean you now have a mandate? Etc, etc.
‘I wasn't aware healthcare in the US have ever been nationalised.’
It hasn’t - and therein lies the problem.
Well, no. There are obvious problems in the US healthcare system, but it not being nationalised is not one of them, and there's no reason to believe that nationalising it would fix any of the problems. They'd be better off looking to one of the many non-nationalised healthcare systems the have better results than the NHS (like Germany's, say).
It’s infinitely more expensive (and inefficient) than the NHS. (You seem to associate monopolies entirely with the public sector, but they’re a common feature of the private sector too - hence anti-monopoly legislation).
They can happen in the private sector, but they are inevitable (for the reasons set out above) in the public sector. So moving something to the private sector is a necessary condition of dismantling a monopoly, though it may not be sufficient (but it often is).
Johnson was supportive of a double referendum which was seen as a vote of support for eurosceptics, who were looking for a suitable figurehead (that was in June, 2015) - the relevant article by the Granuid is titled - ‘Boris Johnson warms to idea of voting no in EU referendum.’
Right, which takes it for granted that an EU referendum is going to happen and is just discussing what form it should take. So again how is Boris exerting pressure to have an EU referendum? The idea that there was going to e one had already been accepted by that point, the only argument was over what the question should be, how many questions there should be, etc?
And I note that according to you Boris backed the idea of two referendums. In the event, as you may not be aware, there was one referendum. Boris did not, then, get his way. How does that slot into your narrative of Boris the arch-manipulator, driving events from the shadows?
Re the EU Referendum Act. We have referendums all the time in Ireland and the constitution is changed as a result. By extension, you have a very clear idea as to the importance of your vote. This bill is an interesting example of what happens when you don’t have a written constitution - the outcome is unclear to everybody involved. The public aren’t quite sure what they’re voting for, but then neither is the government. Does consulting the public mean you now have a mandate? Etc, etc.
Yes, it is an interesting example. I'm sure it will be studied for decades if not centuries. I'm not sure what your point is.
We have referendums all the time in Ireland and the constitution is changed as a result. By extension, you have a very clear idea as to the importance of your vote.
And yet still sometimes you vote the wrong way, like naughty children, and have to be made to do it again and again until you get the right answer, don't you? Bad Irish!
‘They can happen in the private sector, but they are inevitable (for the reasons set out above) in the public sector.’
Most government monopolies of a particular service are an attempt to stop monopolies of the same services by the private sector. They’re not profit-driven (although there’s no doubt you get bloat and government bodies are slow to adapt) - they’re driven by a concern that if certain sections of society control vital services and charge extortionate sums of money for providing those services, this will push the cost of living up overall, which in turn impacts negatively on economic ompetitiveness (ie driven by capitalist rather than socialist concerns - at one stage, healthcare in the US cost 17% of the GNP ).
Crucially, expenditure is subject to outside scrutiny - by the relevant government minister and by the public, something which wouldn’t be true of a business operating in the private sector.
‘Boris the arch-manipulator, driving events from the shadows?’
Hah! Boris is an opportunist. He was throwing shapes, seeing how the public reacted and modifying his campaign message accordingly. A strategic thinker he is not.
‘I’m not sure what your point is.'
Only that maybe this same lack of clarity influenced in the outcome. The referendum had no more legal weight than a survey. It’s entirely possible some people realised this and voted accordingly. There were stories about people who regretted doing so afterward s- ie, they were only voting no to wind up friends etc- but what if this was the correct approach? What if the government was wrong to assume they’d been given a mandate to leave the EU? In fact, the government (in my opinion, anyhow) was wrong to think so.
Most government monopolies of a particular service are an attempt to stop monopolies of the same services by the private sector.
No, they're not. Take the Thatcher privatisation: British Airways, British Gas, British Telecom, British Steel, British Leyland, etc. In every one of those industries the privatisation of the nationalised industry has not led to a private sector monopoly, but to a competitive market — to the benefit of consumers.
They’re not profit-driven (although there’s no doubt you get bloat and government bodies are slow to adapt) - they’re driven by a concern that if certain sections of society control vital services and charge extortionate sums of money for providing those services, this will push the cost of living up overall, which in turn impacts negatively on economic ompetitiveness (ie driven by capitalist rather than socialist concerns - at one stage, healthcare in the US cost 17% of the GNP ).
No, government monopolies are driven by civil servants trying to build their empires and status and who don't care about either efficiency or service delivery, because they are spending other people's money on other people and they never get fired for providing a bad service so they have no incentive to provide a good one.
Hah! Boris is an opportunist. He was throwing shapes, seeing how the public reacted and modifying his campaign message accordingly. A strategic thinker he is not.
I'm unsure how to square this with your assertion above that 'Johnson believes nationalism is more important than capitalism'.
Either Boris is an opportunist, 'throwing shapes', seeing which way the wind was blowing, following whatever would get him elected; or he has ideological beliefs such as that 'nationalism is more important than capitalism'. It can't be both.
‘I’m not sure what your point is.'
Only that maybe this same lack of clarity influenced in the outcome. The referendum had no more legal weight than a survey. It’s entirely possible some people realised this and voted accordingly. There were stories about people who regretted doing so afterward s- ie, they were only voting no to wind up friends etc- but what if this was the correct approach? What if the government was wrong to assume they’d been given a mandate to leave the EU? In fact, the government (in my opinion, anyhow) was wrong to think so.
The question was pretty clear. The campaign made it clear that the government would regard itself bound (not legally, but politically and morally) to implement the result. The media treated it as a serious question. No doubt there were some people who didn't take it seriously, but there are always people who don't take any vote seriously: that's why we have the MRLP. But that is just part of democracy. We don't throw out the results of general elections because some people vote for Count Binface.
There is no reason to think that the government had not, in fact, been given a mandate to leave the EU. It had been given exactly such a mandate. And, crucially, it is clear from the result of the 2019 general election that the British electorate believed that it had given such a mandate, and voted into government the only party which had promised to respect that mandate.
But out of interest, what do you think could have been changed so that you would think the government had been given a mandate to leave the EU? At least if you live in Ireland you won't come out with any nonsense about requiring a two-thirds majority, as you will be aware from experience with the Irish system that that no country in the world which has constitutional referendums requires anything other than a simple majority (albeit sometimes federal systems (which the UK isn't) require simple majorities in multiple territories).
Note that you can't say 'votng on a fully-worked out withdrawal plan', because the EU refused to start negotiating the withdrawal plan until it had received the Article 50 notification, so it would have been impossible to have a withdrawal plan before the vote.
But apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy The Talons of Weng-Chiang?
Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Weng-Chiang tonight.
Aonghus and Mike, let me tell you a tale of the trains round my way. Trains east out of Brighton are run by one provider, Southern. There was a strike not so long ago (caused by management scrimping on safety, but that's another story) in which several south coast towns had no trains at all till it was over.
For trains north you do have a choice, Southern or Thameslink. Because they're separate, if you get a valid ticket for one but get on the other's trains, even by mistake, they fine you. But at least that means there's competition, right? Wrong. They're both owned by the same company, Govia ThamesLink.
There being not many trains south from here (I forget the reason), you'd need to go west out of Brighton to get any real choice between companies.
And of course when water was privatised (in England and Wales), you get no choice whatsoever. You just need to shell up to the water provider for your area.
So, not entirely unsurprisingly, these two privatisations have proved massively unpopular. In polls, two-thirds or more of people say they'd like them to go into public hands. But when a political party stands on that ticket, it's written up in the media as "extremist".
Your suspicion that privatisation may not be about providing competition, I think you may be on to something.
It is striking indeed how quick free-market captialists are to leap from "if multiple companies make and sell chairs, they will have to compete on price" to "if the monopoly on rail is held by a private company instead of the state, everything will be better for some reason".
It is striking indeed how quick free-market captialists are to leap from "if multiple companies make and sell chairs, they will have to compete on price" to "if the monopoly on rail is held by a private company instead of the state, everything will be better for some reason".
If anyone has ever said that — and I'm not sure I believe anyone ever has — then they obviously aren't a free-market capitalist, are they?
When they say "everything will be better" the crucial question is "who for?"
In fairness, SK is probably right to say asset-stripping government resources probably saved Thatcher a few quid but only because of the historical context. Or so I’d speculate.
A acquaintance of mine got a summer job in Wapping just after it was mechanised many moons ago. I’m not quite sure what he did, but I remember him describing how they were transported via a reinforced van through the gates every morning and how he could still remember the thud of bricks off the van’s sides - he was a scab and they were crossing the picket line. I guess he needed the money? One thing that came up was how much the type-setters (who’d been made redundant by new technology) had been getting paid - a penny per word, a penny ha’pence for any world in italics and tuppence for a word that wasn’t in English - I’m guessing French phrases like ‘Tour de Force’ etc. This particular crowd had been doing the Sunday Times only (no weekly editions) and were still making, on average, about £700 a week - more than many of the senior staff. This was some time in the early Eighties. A lot of money now, even more money back then. So while I’d be a union man (with an inherent distrust of management) it’s quite clear that something had to give.
That said, how true would that be today?
One thing that the Free State got right, actually, was its referendum on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.
I'm pretty sure that the eventual exit of the UK from the EU was in large part because we never got to vote on that, and as a result it was perceived as lacking democratic legitimacy: a wound which festered through the multiple denied referendums on the EU constitution before eventually bursting in 2016.
If the Maastricht Treaty had been put to a referendum in the UK and been passed, I don't think Euroscepticism could have got nearly as strong grip in the UK over the past thirty years, as the Eu would have been seen as something we chose rather than something that was foisted on us in a sort of bait-and-switch after we thought in the seventies that we were joining a free trade association, not a political union project.
And if it had been put to a referendum and been rejected, then some 'Europe a la carte' solution would have had to be found with the UK as a sort of 'associate member' of the EU, and again, Euroscepticism would not have been able to get nearly so strong a grip.
Fundamentally it's all John Major's fault, is what I'm saying.
Despite being an Anglophile with an interest in British political history, I have no expertise, and therefore no comment, on most of these things. I would recommend this article on why the U.S. spends so much money on health care, compared to other OECD nations. E.g. the U.S. government actually spends more on health care than other nations (despite what people seem to think), but also has a lot of private spending. Drugs are more expensive, since the U.S. market is subsidizing the rest of the world (who get to pay marginal cost while the U.S. picks up the entire tab for fixed research costs, including for failed drug research), the U.S. spends much more on physician salaries than other nations (the Baumol effect is worse in the U.S. than elsewhere), the U.S. spends more on administration (likely due to onerous regulations plus bill collecting, which government systems get to ignore), the U.S. is wealthier and consumes more health care than other nations as a result, and the U.S. is unhealthier due to inferior (from a health point of view) lifestyle choices (e.g. I am a smoker; I would bet that I might be the only person in this comments section who is). But these unhealthy lifestyle choices do not lead to a tremendously shortened life span, which would be helpful in reducing health care costs (by significantly reducing the number of people who live to a ripe old age and who therefore consume the bulk of the nation's health care).
Also not mentioned in the article is that we have a very dispersed population compared to almost any European country (or Japan). This leads to a lot of extra facilities - rural hospitals and so forth.
I will say that, in life expectancy outcomes, unlike median incomes and such, the U.S. is not particularly being harmed by its diversity. E.g. you can compare just about any ethnic group in the U.S. to its own country and the U.S. ethnic group will outperform the home country in income. This is not true with life expectancy. Only some groups do - most startlingly Japanese-Americans outlive even the famously long-lived Japanese, Hispanic-Americans outdo Latin American countries by a very large margin, African-Americans outdo African countries by an even larger margin. However, I think my ethnic group (English-Americans) does worse than English people. Only in D.C. do white people do way better than Europeans. Mostly European-Americans trail Europeans by about a year. Suicide is probably a big cause as well as unhealthy lifestyle choices.
Circa the 1990s, there was an oft-asked question, "Why do Japan and Great Britain have great cellphone networks while the U.S. network sucks (which, at the time, it did)?" My response was, "Maybe because they live on tiny little islands which are cheap and easy to cover and the United States is enormous? Just a thought."
I'd believe that if communism hadn't been tried many times elsewhere, and failed in the same way every single time.
There were tons of communes in 19th and 20th century America. They all failed too.
Britain doesn't appear to separate life expectancy by race in government tables so the best we have are some less well-funded studies. But it does appear that black Americans defeat black Britishers in life expectancy by a couple of years. (Though again, our white population does worse. I think, even if you restrict it to just English-Americans.)
You get used to this sort of thing if you drill into data a lot. E.g. Iowa is well known for its high educational outcomes (measured via testing) compared to most of the U.S. and Texas is not. However, Texas's whites outperform Iowa's whites, Texas's Latinos outperform Iowa's Latinos, Texas's blacks outperform Iowa's blacks, and Texas's Asians outperform Iowa's Asians. Iowa has better overall results because they have a much lower percentage of blacks and Latinos.
Similarly, it is often stated that charter schools do not outperform public (i.e. government) schools on average, only roughly matching them (the difference is statistically insignificant). This is true. But charter schools in the U.S. are 92% black and Latino so what that really means is that charter schools have closed the racial educational gap.
I should clarify that I have no particular opinion on whether this would scale or not. Of course current charter schools are cherry-picking from black and Latino families where the parents are highly motivated to provide educational attainment for their children and perhaps that is the most significant factor. (I.e. those kids would likely have done well in public schools as well.) But I am sure the teacher's unions will continue to hammer charter schools with "they don't even do better than we do," even though this is not true from the evidence we have.
Yeah, but I'm still not sure that rat was really convincing.
There were tons of communes in 19th and 20th century America. They all failed too.
I warn you! He's a Fourierist!
Iowa is well known for its high educational outcomes (measured via testing) compared to most of the U.S. and Texas is not. However, Texas's whites outperform Iowa's whites, Texas's Latinos outperform Iowa's Latinos, Texas's blacks outperform Iowa's blacks, and Texas's Asians outperform Iowa's Asians.
At this point are you not subdividing so much any real difference risks being lost in random variation?
Similarly, it is often stated that charter schools do not outperform public (i.e. government) schools on average
You are who only person who knows what the Hell a 'charter school' is. Or why the other schools are less chart.
At this point are you not subdividing so much any real difference risks being lost in random variation?
Iowa is 85% non-Latino white, Texas is 45.3% non-Latino white. This appears to be the actual origin of Iowa's educational superiority to Texas. And non-Latino whites do better in Texas than they do in Iowa. In fact, every demographic group does better in Texas than they do in Iowa.
This happens when comparing the U.S. to European countries very frequently, at least in economic measures. Every subgroup will do better in the U.S. than in the European country and the U.S. "loses" overall (when it does) only because it has much larger minority populations.
Yeah, but I'm still not sure that rat was really convincing.
The rat is super cute. My eleven year old daughter and I enjoyed it immensely when we watched Talons. (Currently just started Destiny of the Daleks in our run through Doctor Who so I just had to explain Romana's regeneration, both why Douglas Adams wrote it that way and my favorite fan theory to rationalize it.)
Talking about the rat killed this thread dead.
Wasn't that the idea?
Some people certainly want to appear more clever than they actually are.
Some socialists are presumably hypocrites.
Some people spend more money than they need to on expensive wine they don't particularly enjoy.
However, words like "pretentious", "virtue signalling" and "pseudo-intellectual" insinuate that everyone who uses big words is faking it; no-one on a protest march really cares about the cause; and no-one really enjoys good wine.
If you aren't at all careful, "virtue signalling" ends up as a synonym for "liberal'; "pretentious" simply means "connoisseur" and "pseudo intellectual" is used interchangblably with "intellectual".
I recall when Paul Daniels (a stage magician) appeared on I've Never Seen Star Wars (a radio talk show.) Asked to read a feminist text book, he described The Female Eunuch as "pseudo intellectual".
"I think perhaps Professor Germain Greer is a real intellectual" said the host.
About half of what appears in Pseuds Corner (a column of supposedly pretentious press cuttings in the satirical magazine Private Eye) seem to simply be professional advertisements written in the jargon of the profession they are advertising. About half appear to be excerpts from perfectly interesting and essays. (The Guardian ran a very interesting essays on Boris Jonhnson's stage persona, drawing on a very extensive literature about the history and social function of clowns. It was duly quoted in Pseuds Corner.) But the remaining half include genuinely pretentious quotes in which some sports commentator has been caught comparing a pool player with Alexander the Great. But possibly I only find these pretentious because I don't really believe that anyone could take sport that seriously. My 500 page essay on Spider-Man will shortly be available in book form.
So my blogger-sense tingles when someone claims that a criticism of a particular rhetorical fallacy is "just pseudo intellectual internet ad hominen". (Or, rather, they don't claim it: they "explain" it. I hereby coin a new term: blogsplaining.)
I think former university professor Eugenie Scott counts as a real intellectual.
Maybe there are better terms than Gish Gallop. Maybe the term was used inexactly. Maybe Frankenstien is the name of the scientist and not the name of the monster itself. Some people are inclined to overwhelm opponents by bombarding them with a large number of consecutive data points, making it more or less impossible to respond or refute to all of them.
I grant that if Gish Gallop means "to present a large number of FALSE arguments" then to accuse someone of Gish Galloping is to beg the question. But if someone says, in effect, "you are trying to wear us down with hundreds of different facts" then "stop showing off" is not a great response.
In my opinion. I think I am a real intellectual, although admittedly an amateur one.
Sometimes in the 1970s when I was off school I saw a cookery show in which a man in a very cool tux cooked elaborate meals containing far too much cream and alcohol. It is credited with making it cool for men to be chefs. It was called the Galloping Gourmet. I also enjoyed Crown Court and Hickory House. He eventually recanted all the double cream and became a health food advocate.
When the comments on my blog have drifted a long way from the original point, and I want to reply to them, I sometimes have in the past created a new post for my comments; because it is my blog and I assume that people who come to my blog want to read what I have to say, and because it seems a shame to spend time writing something as long and brilliant as this and burying it in the comments. (continues)
(continued)
Some time ago I wrote about C.S Lewis's concept of Bulverism. I argued that it is a fallacy to claim that it is is fallacy; or at any rate that it is not a common fallacy, and certainly not one of the foundations of 20th century thought. (I also argued that Lewis didn't really think that it was.) I know that the essay was 100% correct in all respects and has put the concept of Bulverism together, because no-one refuted it. Indeed the essay was met with stunned and respectful silence.
Probably it was far too boring for anyone to actually read. I doubt if anyone reads very much of my bullshit. It is nice that 60 Patreons think that it is a good thing that I write it.
You may remember that I said that Lewis didn't really acknowledge the existence of ideology. He takes it for granted that Communists and Fascists (and Pacifists and Warriors) simply have an honest theoretical disagreement. One or both has honestly accepted a false premise; one or both has honestly made a logical error. Correct the premise or point out the logica flaw and the commie will join the Tory party and the Conservative will raise the red flag, or vice versa. I don't think politics is really like that. Religion definitely isn't. People are not, on the whole, Nazis or Anarchists or Monster Raving Loonies because they intellectually believe a set of propositions are true. Thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. Political beliefs are about outlook and background and gut feeling. I supported Jeremy because my guy tells me that trade unions and the welfare state and an ethnically diverse country and not torturing people or starting wars even if you want to very uch are Good Things.
It occurs to me that this is why Conservative and indeed conservative figures are such fans of the Bulverist fallacy fallacy and so inclined to gish gallop us with a lot of facts. The Left have an ideology: but we know we have an ideology. We know we believe the kinds of things a person of our class and background would be expected to believe. Things look a certain way from the hill we are standing on, and we realise that things would look different if we were standing on a different hill. But the Right, very often, with exceptions #notallconservatives think that their hill is the only hill, and that it is not a hill at all. To be a Conservative is to be value free and see the world the way it is. The Tories believe that the British Empire was an unmitigated and irreducible good; that this is simply a neutral true fact about history; and that any suggestion that maybe the Brit's motivations wasn't always entirely altruistic and that possibly some of the slaves didn't have a great time amounts to erasing the past, changing history, propaganda, cultural marxist, woke. Go bind your sons to exile to serve another's need. They literally said this in the houses of parliament. If I wasn';t writing this I'd be writing about that.
If there is anything in this, then it would explain why the right wing internet tends to agree with Jack about Bulverism. Bulverism is point out that you are sitting on a particular hill.
"Maybe you think that the British Empire was an unmitigated good because you are white, and prosperous and British, and because you were taught etiological myths about Columbus and the Pilgrim Fathers; and David Livingstone at your posh school from a very early age."
"Oh no" they say "You are not allowed to say that I believe in a thing for some reason. C.S Lewis said so. I believe that the British Empire was an unmitigated good because that is the true, irreducible, neutral, value free position. Do not Bulverise me."
And if that is the where you are coming from, then probably data-bombardment is a sensible technique to use. Because if The Right are right then facts are Right wing by definition.
If I had not written this and written a blog post instead, or if I had started a new thread and caused deep offensive, I would have been paid $141 dollars. If this makes you feel bad you could always put a few pence in the Jar of Tips.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/andrewrilstone
Or, even better, Patronise me
https://www.patreon.com/Rilstone
I did not say that any of you, Mike Taylor, or Eugenie Scott are pseudo-intellectuals. I said that the phrase "Gish Gallop" is a pseudo-intellectual phrase. It is an ad hominem which is pretending to have identified a new fallacy. Eugenie Scott did not, in fact, discover a new fallacy when he coined the term "Gish Gallop." He just discovered a new ad hominem.
And, yes, I agree with Lewis that we cannot simply search our feelings and determine what the proper public policy prescriptions are. I realize that you, Jeremy Corbyn, Boris Johnson, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump all disagree with Lewis and me on this. Lewis and I believe that you actually have to look at the empirical facts and see whether the policy prescription even works the way its proponents intended it to. Or does it end up doing something quite different? If, for example, we adopt pacifism, does that lead to peace on earth or does it lead to the conquest of the pacifists?
I will do you the courtesy of simply ignoring all the straw men, of course.
When Bill Gates began his Foundation, he was most concerned with the usual left-wing concern of overpopulation. He initially favored the usual left-wing nostrums of birth control, family planning, etc. Then he studied the issue and realized that the best thing to do was to save the children who were already alive - that having lots of children was a reaction to the very long-standing human condition of ferocious infant and child mortality. Reduce the infant and child mortality and people stop having so many children. Thus he turned to things like medicine, vaccination, etc. Bill Gates is a very smart man.
Bulverism is the claim that you are making. Not just that we are biased by our various stations in life, but that it is impossible for anyone to escape them. Bill Gates is just programmed to believe whatever he has been programmed to believe and cannot escape his status as a white American self-made billionaire which completely determines all of his views.
"I said that the phrase "Gish Gallop" is a pseudo-intellectual phrase. It is an ad hominem."
I let this go last time because I was tired, but I really can't let it pass again. The Gish Gallop is not an ad hominen — it's nothing like one. An ad hominem attack ("to the man") is an attack not on an argument but on the person bringing it. When I accused you of a Gish Gallop I was attacking your argumentative tactics, not you. An ad hominmen argument would have been something like "Of course, what Andrew Stevens says can be discounted in light of his long association with The Tea Party/The Communist Party/The Rotary/whatever".
See https://svpow.com/2013/09/04/what-is-an-ad-hominem-attack/
Because if The Right are right then facts are Right wing by definition.
Sort of? Most people on the American right nowadays accuse me of being an elitist left winger. (And, hell, I did vote for Biden, so maybe they have a point.) And, even before then, I would have been categorized as a "moderate" or a "squish." E.g., the statistics make it very clear that the U.S. has a policing problem today. Police homicides as a percentage of all homicides are, I am nearly sure (there is a paucity of historical data prior to a certain point, so I am making an educated guess to some extent), at an all-time high. This strikes me as a problem in need of reform and I have some trade-offs to offer if anyone is willing to listen. Until George Floyd, the entire American right was trying to evade this fact. After George Floyd, things have gotten better, but not as much as I hoped they would at one time.
On the other hand, the stats make it clear that the disproportionate burden that this problem (which is universal) places on black people is not due to the racism of the police. Of course, it may well be due to so-called systemic racism. In fact, I think it is. Black people in the U.S. have been historically under-policed and this means they are more often both the perpetrators and the suspects of violent crimes. Ergo, they are killed by police disproportionate to their numbers in the population, but proportionate to their numbers as suspects. Not nearly so disproportionate as it appears in the media. More than 50% of people killed by police in the U.S. are non-Latino white. And this is why rank-and-file black people in the U.S., when asked if we need more police or fewer, respond "more" by about 80-20.
Yes, yes, we only think black people commit more crimes in the U.S. because they are targeted by the police. I have heard that argument before. The problem with it is twofold: 1) witness statements agree with police records and 2) victim rates agree as well. On that latter, the U.S. is as segregated in crime as we are in everything else. Black-on-white crime and white-on-black crime are not really things. White people victimize white people, black people victimize black people, Latinos victimize other Latinos, the Mafia primarily victimized other Italians, etc. So how do we know that black people commit more homicides than white people? Because black people are the victims of homicide more often than white people. (We also can learn similar things about various sub-populations. E.g. the state with the highest crime rate in the nation is Alaska, which barely has any black people.)
I let this go last time because I was tired, but I really can't let it pass again. The Gish Gallop is not an ad hominen — it's nothing like one. An ad hominem attack ("to the man") is an attack not on an argument but on the person bringing it. When I accused you of a Gish Gallop I was attacking your argumentative tactics, not you.
I'll accept your correction. I think you are mistaken in ascribing to me "tactics" and there is a good reason why I view it as an attack on me personally (and an unfair one). This is just who I am. I neither expect nor care if I "win" the argument. I am not even trying to persuade anyone. I just think everyone is entitled to better arguments and facts than they currently have access to. In the U.S., and as near as I can tell across the West, our schools and churches are failing. We are exiting the Age of Reason and entering the Age of Entertainment. See Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. When I first read it, I had no idea that he was a prophet. I am fully aware that I am fighting a battle that I am inevitably going to lose. I accepted that years ago.
You may ask why I care about our churches given that I am an atheist. But the failure of religion is causing the entire system to break down. We are not replacing religion with rational morality; we are replacing it with nihilism. Politics has become a substitute religion for a great many people. Manners are disappearing. (Mr. Rilstone is quite correct that a great deal of "political correctness" is simply asking for good manners. No conservative should disapprove of that part of the politically correct agenda and yet at least some clearly do.)
I used to scoff at the "declinists" who saw educational and moral decline everywhere. I am not scoffing any more.
I am, for example, fully aware that I am facing a nearly universally hostile (but extremely intelligent) audience in Mr. Rilstone's comments section. I am here, not because I expect to convince anyone (confirmation bias is extremely powerful in human beings, even in me!), but because here I am least not simply casting pearls before swine.
So I'm the only one who likes the rat then?
An ad hominem attack ("to the man") is an attack not on an argument but on the person bringing it.
At the risk of being accused again of "Gish galloping," I suppose I will add that I could argue that Scott's naming it after someone he disagreed with (Duane Gish) instead of giving it a neutral name rather gave the game away on whether it was originally intended as an ad hominem or not. But I don't really care whether it is technically an ad hominem or not. I only insist that the accusation adds nothing to a debate other than an "argument by intimidation."
I do find the whole idea of categorising criminals according to ethnicity a bit peculiar. Ireland is pretty monocultural. We have entrenched criminal elements nonetheless. Their behaviour is pretty much identical to that of their black American counterparts. The common denominator is poverty. So - if I were to guess - I’d say the issues in the US are socio-economic?
By extension, I wonder if a lot of Americans are a bit uncomfortable acknowledging this, as it runs contrary to the notion of the American Dream etc, hence the need to couch a conversation about class in terms of ‘race’ (whatever that is).
We have entrenched criminal elements nonetheless. Their behaviour is pretty much identical to that of their black American counterparts. The common denominator is poverty.
Crime causes poverty. Poverty does not cause crime. All of my ancestors were very poor, much poorer than any modern people, and they weren't criminals. (My wife: You don't know that. Me: They were Puritans. My wife: Good point, well made.)
Drug addiction (a crime in most countries) causes poverty. There are also personality traits which lead to both poverty and crime, lack of impulse control for one. The African-American population in the U.S. are, in fact, much less prone to crime than white people were a century ago (compared to American whites for certain, probably in Europe as well). West Virginia is very poor, but does not in fact have high crime rates. Alaska is not particularly poor, but does have high crime rates, as indeed do all of the ex-Wild West states. The U.S. is wealthier than Europe and yet has higher crime rates. What do these things have in common? Length of established civilization. We are winning the war on crime through policing. It is taking longer among American whites than among Europeans (frontier culture, the Civil War). It is taking longer among Latinos (who come from frontier cultures which have, historically, been even less policed than the U.S.) and among African-Americans, the latter due to the U.S.'s terrible history of ignoring crime in African-American communities.
By extension, I wonder if a lot of Americans are a bit uncomfortable acknowledging this, as it runs contrary to the notion of the American Dream etc
No, I just don't think it's true.
See this link. Pew, as always, has an agenda, but their facts are very good.
Cross-generationally, 43% of Americans born in the bottom 20% stay there. We should expect to see 20% even in a world of absolutely perfect economic opportunity and mobility (and think what that entails - no inheritances, either genetic or economic, no ability to transfer success from oneself to one's children through education or other means, etc.). 40% of Americans born in the top 20% stay there. The other quintiles see very close to full mobility. (The furthest is that only 9% of people born in the lowest quintile make it to the second highest.) What we see then is an "excess" of about 1/5 in the top and bottom quintiles. In other words, 1/5 of all people in those quintiles are there because of some sort of inheritance (genetic, economic, opportunity) from their families. Everybody else "deserves" to be there. (I do not, of course, mean that in a pejorative or a flattering sense. Some people end up in the bottom 20% because they are disabled or something. Others end up in the top 20% because they win the lottery or something. Etc., etc. Luck is obviously always a factor. But keep in mind, that whatever we do, there will always be a bottom 20%.)
(Oh, for reference, I am referring to Figure 3 in the article. It's on page 6.)
By the way, do I think that the majority of the 23% stuck in the bottom quintile who don't "deserve" to be there are black? Yes I do.
Full disclosure: I am in the 8% of people born (well, nearly born, in fact we were six when my father lost his job which moved us down from the second to bottom 20%) in the bottom 20% who ended up in the top 20%. Make of that what you will. I certainly don't deny that I am a very lucky person, however.
Post a Comment