When you realise how much of a giant cunt you were as a teenager. Especially to your parents.

First Things

In the wake of the unexpected insurgence of Sanders and Trump, it has become commonplace to pit “populism” against the “Establishment.” Supporters praise the uprising of popular politics against the shared interests of an entrenched patrician and business elite, while party leaders and pundits on both sides fear the rising tide of populist fervor. Their fear is outmatched only by a palpable disbelief in the success of these ‘outsider’ candidates.

The fear is not unwarranted. Trump’s campaign has unleashed passions that, however legitimate in origin, are arguably dangerous, not least because of the growing violence on display at his rallies.

But populism is not the problem. On the contrary, “populism,” as the late Christopher Lasch once said, “is the authentic voice of democracy.” And we are, after all, committed to that particular political experiment. No, the problem with Trumpism is not populism; the problem with our populism is Trumpism.

In a superficial sense, of course, Trump’s campaign is populism to a tee: plain speech, division of the country into a “silent majority” versus an elite minority, and a refusal to respect the social conventions of the latter. Trump has an almost preternatural ability to sense and to respond to the anxieties of the average citizen—or at least the average primary voter—rather than pandering to them reluctantly.

Even Trump’s refrain that the American people have gotten a “bad deal” recalls populist movements of the last century, from Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal to Theodore Roosevelt’s “square deal.” The latter is especially instructive.

In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, a wealthy New Yorker, broke with the Republican ‘establishment’ which he criticized for being in the pocket of big business, and formed the “Bull Moose” Party (which split the vote and paved the way for an otherwise unelectable Woodrow Wilson). Roosevelt was the quintessential “strong man” who did battle for the “common man”: he took on the corporations (“trusts”), defended worker’s rights, and exuded all manner of manly stereotypes.

Of course, the differences between the two men are also stark. The Bull Moose had a literary disposition, being an avaricious reader who penned numerous scholarly books and delivered some of our country’s best political speeches. His panoply of “manly” experiences included military service, ranching in the West, and hunting big game in Africa. Roosevelt was also a seasoned politician, having served on the United States Civil Service Commission, as a New York state assemblyman, police commissioner of New York City, assistant secretary of the U.S. navy, governor of New York, and vice president of the United States —all before becoming president of the United States.

Still, Trump has skillfully coopted the politics of populism. One might be forgiven for mistaking one for the other. Like popular movements of the past, Trumpism was made possible by a political climate in which—as Lasch put it over forty years ago—our “parties no longer represent the opinions and interests of ordinary people,” while the “political process is dominated by rival elites committed to irreconcilable ideologies.” What Lasch described in 1972 as “the familiar materials of popular discontent, quietly persisting through three decades of ‘affluence,’” are once again on the rise: “distrust of officials and official pronouncements; cynicism about the good faith of those in positions of great power; resentment of the rich; a conviction that most things in life are ‘fixed.’”

But while Trump’s popularity may be a response to a similar state of affairs, he’s no populist. He represents, rather, a demagogic perversion of populism.

Lasch spent much of his career resuscitating the legacy of a specifically American populism, which he thought was tarnished by a false association with rabble rousing and reactionary politics. For Lasch, true populism is rooted in mutual respect, which demands that we hold ourselves and our fellow citizens to shared standards of conduct and discourse—a necessary precondition for both civil disagreement and a healthy body politic. The erosion of such standards, Lasch worried in 1994, leads us to accept “second-rate workmanship, second-rate habits of thought, and second-rate standards of personal conduct. We put up with bad manners and with many kinds of bad language, ranging from the commonplace scatology that is now ubiquitous to elaborate academic evasion. We seldom bother to correct a mistake or to argue with opponents in the hope of changing their minds. Instead we . . . shout them down.”

In other words, Trumpism is precisely the kind of problem for which Lasch saw populism as the solution.

Consider Trump’s so-called political incorrectness, his widely-praised penchant for “saying it like it is.” Whether or not Trump means what he says, his speech is no more “plain” than his manners. Instead, his rhetoric signals a rejection of the very notion of politics. What politicians say and how they say it is essential, especially in a democracy. Democratic politics is the art of persuasion, which, however passionate, requires civility and diplomacy no less than rational debate. Even if Trump’s provocations reflected his true feelings or those of the average citizen, it is not the role of the statesman to give voice to feelings.

Trump knows this of course; that’s the key to his success: he rejects the very role of statesman. In this he is a masterful politician. It’s just that his political rhetoric is predicated on the incoherent and dangerous proposition that politics can only become populist when it is stripped of the political—when rhetoric becomes unrhetorical. It’s the emperor’s new politics.

It’s preposterous that a New York billionaire and media personality (much less a sitting Senator, Bernie Sanders) could be considered any sort of “outsider” to the elite political-media-business class. Perhaps, as some argue, Trump channels the anxieties of a class whose economic and social standing is in demonstrable decline as a cynical ploy to win popularity—this is a man who once called the poor “morons”—while winking at the ‘establishment,’ who can take comfort in knowing that this reality-television caricature of themselves actually shares their political opportunism, if not their economic values. If so, Trump adds Machiavellian insult to demagogic injury.

In fact, Trump’s reputation as an ‘outsider’ stems not from his sociological position so much as his anti-political posture, which is buttressed by his having never been “tainted” by political experience. His popularity is predicated on widespread distrust of our public institutions—and, paradoxically, an openness about his own complicity in their corruption—from which he would liberate us by destroying them.

But populism, to say nothing of our democratic republic, depends upon healthy institutions that provide the framework for our shared political projects. Lasch reminds us that the corrosion of our democratic way of life and especially our public discourse has its roots in widespread distrust of our institutions and the traditions around which they have developed and of which they are the expressions—whether the family, church, and local communities, or private enterprise and all the various levels of government.

It is for this reason that defending (not bashing) and reforming our form of government, which—quelle horreur—includes the federal government, is populist rather than elitist. For our constitutional heritage is one of limited powers, which is predicated on and was designed to ensure a civic life distinct from political life. Limited government provides a framework in which our other institutions and communities can flourish. Thus our national, partisan politics presupposes politics of another, classical sort: that we are by nature members of a community, bound together by what Cicero called the “ties of social affection, which originally united men in political associations for the sake of public interest,” of which our national politics is only one, albeit essential, part.

It was some such vision of our country that Lincoln—a true ‘outsider’—evoked with his “mystic chords of memory,” which, “stretching . . . all over this broad land, will swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” Trump, in stark contrast, enlivens our baser passions by blending mass entertainment and national politics into a discontented froth, promising to redress our ills through belligerent action. Thus does he pervert that populism at the heart of American civic life at its best.

Yahoo

Beijing (AFP) - Chinese state-run media lauded Donald Trump Tuesday after a phone call between him and President Xi Jinping, saying that the president-elect's emergence could mark a "reshaping" of Sino-American relations.

The pair spoke Monday, when Xi said that the two powers needed to co-operate and Trump's office said the leaders "established a clear sense of mutual respect for one another".

On the campaign trail Trump frequently demonised Beijing, but questions have been asked whether his conduct in the White House will match his promises as a candidate.

Monday's conversation was "diplomatically impeccable and has bolstered optimism over bilateral relations in the next four years", China's frequently nationalistic Global Times newspaper said in an editorial.

Barack Obama, whose foreign policy pivot to Asia alarmed Beijing, was "profoundly affected" by the Cold War-shaped outlook of American elites, the paper said, but Trump's views "have not been kidnapped by Washington's political elites".

"Trump is probably the very American leader who will make strides in reshaping major-power relations in a pragmatic manner," it added, saying his ideology and experience "match well with the new era".

It was a sharp contrast to the same newspaper's editorial the day before, which baldly warned the incoming president not to follow through on campaign-trail promises to levy steep tariffs on Chinese-made goods or Beijing would take a "tit-for-tat approach" and target US autos, aircraft, soybeans, and iPhones.

But the president-elect's ambiguous and sometimes contradictory views on key questions on the relationship between the world's two largest economies, including trade, the South China Sea and North Korea, have cast a pall of uncertainty over how he will manage it.

While campaigning, Trump went as far as calling the Asian giant America's "enemy", accused it of artificially lowering its currency to boost exports, threatened to impose tariffs of 45 percent, and pledged to stand up to a country he says views the US as a pushover.

But he also indicated he is not interested in getting involved in far-off squabbles, and decried the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade deal, which encompasses several other Asian countries and has been seen as an effort to bolster US influence, for costing American jobs.

TPP has been signed by the US but not ratified by the Senate, where its chances are seen as poor.

Tuesday's editorial in the government-published China Daily newspaper called the Xi-Trump chat "propitious", noting that Beijing is "understandably relieved that the exclusive, economically inefficient, politically antagonising TPP is looking ever less likely to materialise".

Instead, Washington should consider joining the China-backed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a free trade area encompassing the Southeast Asian grouping ASEAN, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

Something of a mirror image to the TPP, it includes six of the putative Washington-led grouping's 12 members.

BASED DONALD

President-elect Donald Trump has been blasted by the media and many on the left for being “racist, sexist and homophobic.” However, is the 45th President of the United States really the divisive figure that has been plastered on the television screen these past few months?

Looking back at Trump’s past interviews (pre-presidency), presidential campaign statements and purported cabinet short-list, it appears that the candidate may not only be an LGBT advocate, but the advocate that the Democrats have failed to give the LGBT community in the past. In fact, Trump’s LGBT stance seems to be by most accounts more liberal than conservative providing a gateway for the LGBT community into a more accepting Republican party.

To fully understand Trump’s stance on the LGBT community, we must look to his actions and interviews prior to throwing his hat into the presidential race. While many politicians on the left campaign on a platform of LGBT rights, many in the community have felt their voices have been marginalized as LGBT issues are placed on the back burner by the very party claiming to cater policy to their needs. Trump actually blasted politicians openly for their stance on LGBT issues and gave a very blunt interview to the Advocate magazine, a publication that caters to the LGBT community.

In the interview from 2000, Trump notes that he judges each person their “capability, honesty, and merit” and says that the lifestyle of those talented individuals is of no interest to him.

“I grew up in New York City, a town with different races, religions, and peoples. It breeds tolerance. In all truth, I don’t care whether or not a person is gay. I judge people based on their capability, honesty, and merit. Being in the entertainment business — that is, owning casinos and … several large beauty pageants — I’ve worked with many gay people. I have met some tough, talented, capable, terrific people. Their lifestyle is of no interest to me.”

He went on to say that he supports the amendment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. He goes on to show support for gays in the military noting that the “don’t ask don’t tell” doesn’t work and that we should follow the lead of other European countries in this regard.

“Gay people serve effectively in the military in a number of European countries. There is no reason why they can’t serve in the United States……I favor a total reorganization of all branches of our military, and I would address the gay question more forthrightly within that reorganization.”

Trump doubled-down on his assertion calling Bush a disappointment for not passing a hate-crime bill.
“This is one of my great disappointments with George W. Bush. He had the opportunity in Texas to show national leadership by passing a hate-crimes bill but didn’t — presumably from pressure from the Christian right. When somebody is victimized because of their ethnicity, the color of their skin, or their sexual orientation, that must carry a harsh penalty.”

The Advocate even asked Trump, if he were to ever become president, would a gay person be included the Trump Administration. The businessman stuck to his guns noting that he doesn’t care what the sexual orientation of an individual is, he picks the best and the brightest regardless of their personal lifestyle choices.

“I would want the best and brightest. Sexual orientation would be meaningless. I’m looking for brains and experience. If the best person for the job happens to be gay, I would certainly appoint them. One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace, good people don’t go into government. I’d want to change that.”

Though the interview was given 16 years ago, it seems Trump hasn’t changed his opinion on the hiring of people in the LGBT community. In fact, Trump has placed openly gay Richard Grenell on his short list of potential candidates for the position of UN Ambassador. If Trump brings Grenell on as U.N. Ambassador, the Gateway Pundit notes that he will become the first president to appoint an openly gay person to his cabinet, marking a huge milestone for LGBT rights in the United States.

Grenell has not been shy about his support of Trump and says that the media has ignored many of the LGBT milestones that took place this election because it didn’t “fit their narrative.” In an op-ed for the Washington Times, Grenell says that no other Republican candidate in history has embraced the LGBT community like Trump. Grenell notes that Trump proudly held a flag for gay equality at one of this rallies but that the media simply ignored it or refused to report it.

“On Sunday, at a rally in Colorado, Mr. Trump proudly held up a rainbow flag with the words ‘LGBT for Trump’ written on it to a cheering crowd of thousands. It was an historic moment for gay equality and the Party of Lincoln as the 2016 GOP nominee for President of the United States held high the flag for gay equality. No other Republican Presidential nominee in history has embraced the LGBT community in such a loud and proud way. And yet, the moment was barely reported by the media despite the fact it happened in front of the traveling press corps accompanying Mr. Trump. Political reporters, not unsurprising, largely failed to write on the moment where a Republican challenged their negative media stereotype.”

Trump’s campaign spokesman Jason Miller also confirmed that Trump doesn’t care about anyone’s sexual orientation, he wants to be a president for all Americans. He says Trump was proud to hold that flag and that he wants to help protect minorities, women and gays from the repressive regimes of the past.

“Mr. Trump is campaigning to be President for ALL Americans and was proud to carry the ‘LGBT for Trump’ rainbow flag on stage in Greeley, CO yesterday. He will protect all Americans from the radical Islamic extremists who perpetuate hate and violence around the world, unlike Hillary Clinton who dangerously plans for open borders and has accepted millions of dollars from repressive regimes with a history of violence, discrimination and oppression against women, gays and minorities.”

To further ensure representation of the gay community, Trump has added Peter Thiel to his presidential transition team. Therefore, it seems that the president-elect is at least paving the way for more LGBT involvement in the Republican Party moving forward.

Hahaha, fuck you Obama.

However Trump turns out domestically, so far the signs are positive for US-UK relations.

With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children,
England mourns for her dead across the sea.
Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,
Fallen in the cause of the free.

Solemn the drums thrill: Death august and royal
Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres.
There is music in the midst of desolation
And a glory that shines upon our tears.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;
They sit no more at familiar tables of home;
They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;
They sleep beyond England's foam.

But where our desires are and our hopes profound,
Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight,
To the innermost heart of their own land they are known
As the stars are known to the Night;

As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust,
Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain,
As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness,
To the end, to the end, they remain.

BEND THE KNEE

Banging match.

Full debate is here, but I always enjoyed Jacob Rees-Mogg as a speaker. Even if only for his gorgeous accent.

2012 Guardian article by Jon Haidt

Why on Earth would a working-class person ever vote for a conservative candidate? This question has obsessed the American left since Ronald Reagan first captured the votes of so many union members, farmers, urban Catholics and other relatively powerless people – the so-called "Reagan Democrats". Isn't the Republican party the party of big business? Don't the Democrats stand up for the little guy, and try to redistribute the wealth downwards?

Many commentators on the left have embraced some version of the duping hypothesis: the Republican party dupes people into voting against their economic interests by triggering outrage on cultural issues. "Vote for us and we'll protect the American flag!" say the Republicans. "We'll make English the official language of the United States! And most importantly, we'll prevent gay people from threatening your marriage when they … marry! Along the way we'll cut taxes on the rich, cut benefits for the poor, and allow industries to dump their waste into your drinking water, but never mind that. Only we can protect you from gay, Spanish-speaking flag-burners!"

One of the most robust findings in social psychology is that people find ways to believe whatever they want to believe. And the left really want to believe the duping hypothesis. It absolves them from blame and protects them from the need to look in the mirror or figure out what they stand for in the 21st century.

Here's a more painful but ultimately constructive diagnosis, from the point of view of moral psychology: politics at the national level is more like religion than it is like shopping. It's more about a moral vision that unifies a nation and calls it to greatness than it is about self-interest or specific policies. In most countries, the right tends to see that more clearly than the left. In America the Republicans did the hard work of drafting their moral vision in the 1970s, and Ronald Reagan was their eloquent spokesman. Patriotism, social order, strong families, personal responsibility (not government safety nets) and free enterprise. Those are values, not government programmes.

The Democrats, in contrast, have tried to win voters' hearts by promising to protect or expand programmes for elderly people, young people, students, poor people and the middle class. Vote for us and we'll use government to take care of everyone! But most Americans don't want to live in a nation based primarily on caring. That's what families are for.

One reason the left has such difficulty forging a lasting connection with voters is that the right has a built-in advantage – conservatives have a broader moral palate than the liberals (as we call leftists in the US). Think about it this way: our tongues have taste buds that are responsive to five classes of chemicals, which we perceive as sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and savoury. Sweetness is generally the most appealing of the five tastes, but when it comes to a serious meal, most people want more than that.

In the same way, you can think of the moral mind as being like a tongue that is sensitive to a variety of moral flavours. In my research with colleagues at YourMorals.org, we have identified six moral concerns as the best candidates for being the innate "taste buds" of the moral sense: care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Across many kinds of surveys, in the UK as well as in the USA, we find that people who self-identify as being on the left score higher on questions about care/harm. For example, how much would someone have to pay you to kick a dog in the head? Nobody wants to do this, but liberals say they would require more money than conservatives to cause harm to an innocent creature.

But on matters relating to group loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity (treating things as sacred and untouchable, not only in the context of religion), it sometimes seems that liberals lack the moral taste buds, or at least, their moral "cuisine" makes less use of them. For example, according to our data, if you want to hire someone to criticise your nation on a radio show in another nation (loyalty), give the finger to his boss (authority), or sign a piece of paper stating one's willingness to sell his soul (sanctity), you can save a lot of money by posting a sign: "Conservatives need not apply."

In America, it is these three moral foundations that underlie most of the "cultural" issues that, according to duping theorists, are used to distract voters from their self-interest. But are voters really voting against their self-interest when they vote for candidates who share their values? Loyalty, respect for authority and some degree of sanctification create a more binding social order that places some limits on individualism and egoism. As marriage rates plummet, and globalisation and rising diversity erodes the sense of common heritage within each nation, a lot of voters in many western nations find themselves hungering for conservative moral cuisine.

Despite being in the wake of a financial crisis that – if the duping theorists were correct – should have buried the cultural issues and pulled most voters to the left, we are finding in America and many European nations a stronger shift to the right. When people fear the collapse of their society, they want order and national greatness, not a more nurturing government.

Even on the two moral taste buds that both sides claim – fairness and liberty – the right can often outcook the left. The left typically thinks of equality as being central to fairness, and leftists are extremely sensitive about gross inequalities of outcome – particularly when they correspond along racial or ethnic lines. But the broader meaning of fairness is really proportionality – are people getting rewarded in proportion to the work they put into a common project? Equality of outcomes is only seen as fair by most people in the special case in which everyone has made equal contributions. The conservative media (such as the Daily Mail, or Fox News in the US) is much more sensitive to the presence of slackers and benefit cheats. They are very effective at stirring up outrage at the government for condoning cheating.

Similarly for liberty. Americans and Britons all love liberty, yet when liberty and care conflict, the left is more likely to choose care. This is the crux of the US's monumental battle over Obama's healthcare plan. Can the federal government compel some people to buy a product (health insurance) in order to make a plan work that extends care to 30 million other people? The derogatory term "nanny state" is rarely used against the right (pastygate being perhaps an exception). Conservatives are more cautious about infringing on individual liberties (eg of gun owners in the US and small businessmen) in order to protect vulnerable populations (such as children, animals and immigrants).

In sum, the left has a tendency to place caring for the weak, sick and vulnerable above all other moral concerns. It is admirable and necessary that some political party stands up for victims of injustice, racism or bad luck. But in focusing so much on the needy, the left often fails to address – and sometimes violates – other moral needs, hopes and concerns. When working-class people vote conservative, as most do in the US, they are not voting against their self-interest; they are voting for their moral interest. They are voting for the party that serves to them a more satisfying moral cuisine. The left in the UK and USA should think hard about their recipe for success in the 21st century.

fucking kill me lads

end it

end it now

As a Brit, all too aware of the Shy Tory Factor which gave the Conservatives unexpected majorities in 1992 and 2015, I have to wonder to what extent the existence of shy Trump supporters might skew the polls. . .

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150170746191/measuring-the-shy-trump-supporters

It’s hard to count people who are intentionally hiding. But just for fun, let’s see if we can deduce how many so-called Shy Trump Supporters are out there.

For starters, we can say with certainty that they exist. I have a better ear for that than most of you because of my Trump blogging and my public endorsement of Clinton for my personal safety. People feel comfortable telling me privately, and also anonymously online, that they hide their Trump support from their spouse and coworkers. So we know they exist. We just don’t know how many.

We know that sometimes robocall surveys and online surveys show more Trump support than human-to-human polling. So that might be an indicator, but we don’t know what other variables are in play.

In a recent Reuters poll, 7% of respondents “refused” to vote for either Trump or Clinton. I’m guessing some Shy Trump Supporters “park” their votes with Gary Johnson (polling at 9.3%) or Jill Stein (polling at 3.3%).

But I wonder if the Shy Trump supporters are mostly parked with Johnson because of gender (consciously or unconsciously), whereas Stein is more of a real protest vote against Clinton. Anecdotally, Shy Trump Supporters tell me they do park their pre-vote preferences with Johnson. So far, none have told me they are parking their vote with Stein. (This is anecdotal, and a small sample of perhaps a dozen.)

Then you also have the question of turnout. Trump is clearly generating the most enthusiasm in public appearances. I would think that translates into more new voters.

Most of my predictions so far this election cycle have been based on what I call the Master Persuader Hypothesis. I’ll depart from that model for this prediction because this one is based on a gut feel – which I understand in my rational mind to feel identical to confirmation bias. Therefore, you should place zero confidence in my prediction.

I predict that 3% of voters are Shy Trump Supporters. As polls continue to tighten, especially in battleground states, that will be enough for an electoral landslide for Trump.

Just for fun, ask ten of your closest friends – the ones who you can trust to tell you their secrets – if any are Shy Trump Supporters. I’ll bet you find one in that group. And that would extrapolate to three-times more hidden support than Trump needs for a landslide.

Anything can change between now and election day. If one of the candidates does something awesome or terrible, all bets are off. But the way the zeitgeist feels to me, the ending of this movie has already been written.

Again, I urge you to put no credibility in this non-scientific blog post. I do this for entertainment.

But keep in mind that I got rich by consistently reading the zeitgeist right. That isn’t nothing.