USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›995 »

Mr Hootington: Jul 24, 2008; I'M HAVING A HOOT EATING CORNETTE THE LONG WAY

Hey, I'm looking for an article that was printed in the last few years that talked about how the language around social programs drastically changed in the 1960s in the news because african americans were given the right to use thebprograms. Anyone know the article I am talkijng about?

# ? Jan 11, 2018 19:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 09:16

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Boon posted:

You're on of those aforementioned "unable to critical think" individuals. Cannot form an argument other than along the most basic black/white lines.

I think it might even be worse to be the sort of person who tries to forcibly insert "nuance" into issues where something actually is clearly wrong or harmful.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 19:38

white sauce: Apr 29, 2012; by R. Guyovich

Trabisnikof posted:

If the term is useful, is Paul Ryan a RINO? Is Trump a RINO? What about Mitt Romney, he is a RINO?

Sure buddy.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 19:39

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Complaining about "DINO" or "RINO" is silly because it's really just a catch all term for "politician that doesn't support what I believe to be the correct values of the party." It elicits the position that person is a traitor to the ideals they are supposed to be standing for. If you are going to complain about it being technically not true or lacking in nuance you might as well start complaining that calling him a "sack of poo poo" isn't accurate since he actually only contains about half a pound of poo poo depending on how recently he's evacuated his colon which clearly isn't enough to be used as the prime description of his contents. At a certain point futilely fighting against terms and how they are used is really losing sight of what the real issues are (namely we have a Democrat that is supporting raising the price of medical supplies and hates minorities protesting state sanctioned murders).

# ? Jan 11, 2018 19:48

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

joepinetree posted:

No. It is far more specific than that, and the book I mentioned goes into detail (which is what makes JeffersonClay's objections obviously in bad faith).

Neoliberalism refers to the historical movement that emerged as a response to the system commonly called a"embedded liberalism" that existed from the end of the second world war to roughly the start of the 70s. It is not a clear cut definition because there was never anyone who claimed the mantle of "neoliberal," but it has a clear historical meaning. During that period between the end of WW2 and the early 70s, economic policy was marked by Keynesianism on the economic front and an attempt to decommodify services on the social front. Healthcare is a problem? Take the market element out of it and run it as a basic right offered by the government. Trains are running late? Nationalize them. The economy is doing poorly? Create a jobs program. So the embedded liberalism period included two different sets of ideas: Keynesian on the macro economic front and social democratic on the social policy front (but markets still existed everywhere). Note that keynesianism isn't necessarily social democratic, and welfare programs aren't necessarily keynesian. They just happened at the same time.

With the end of the Bretton Woods system, the embedded liberalism model starts to crumble. On the macroeconomic front, it involves replacing the sort of expansionist Keynesian policies of the era with more austerity driven ones, which can range from the sort of monetarist policy of a Milton Friedman or the open trade type of policy of a new Keynesian like Krugman. They are lumped together because at some of their most basic, they share key ideas with regards to macro policy: an independent monetary authority that is tasked with keeping inflation low, lack of capital account controls, and fluctuating exchange rates, which in turn means fiscal discipline (because you are hosed if you have to run high interest rates to cool down inflation). On the social front, it means that services that were previously decommodified are in turn turned over to the private sector. In other words: services that were previously not even on the market at all become part of the market. The key idea there is that the role of the government is no longer to provide the services directly as a basic right that citizens have, but to instead provide the regulatory apparatus that creates incentives so that that service operates more as a market. So instead of operating prisons directly, governments instead create a market with regulations so that private providers do that in an "efficient" manner. Instead of fixing schools directly, the government instead sets up a system where schools are competing with each other, so that market principles will take care of it. And, in healthcare, it means that instead of the government providing those services directly, it sets up a regulatory apparatus so that market incentives will take care of them (like, say, running a federal marketplace for private insurers to compete with each other that is regulated in a way that market incentives take care of problems people have with healthcare).

Now, in a number of areas, the United States never set up the sort of social democratic institutions that became the norm in the rest of the developed world. The main reason for that is basically racism. So the US never set up a comprehensive welfare state, never set up a universal healthcare system, etc. But that simply means that in a lot of areas the US institutions were just plain conservative. So Obamacare wasn't part of a dismantling of social democratic style universal healthcare. But it was most definitely an alternative to social democratic style universal healthcare. The fact that there wasn't a universal healthcare system to "dismantle" with Obamacare isn't what defines it as neoliberal or not. The fact that it is the model that is being pushed around the world as an alternative to the sort of social democratic universal healthcare system is.

So neoliberalism is not just "any type of capitalism" or "anything market related." It is specifically "making the things that the embedded liberalist (or social democratic) model took away from the market part of the market."

Edit: and for the record, if the whole thing with NeoKeynesian, new Keynesian, Keynesian and Post Keynesian confuses you, this is a good primer:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-main-difference-between-Keynesians-post-Keynesians-and-new-Keynesians

Edit 2: The reason most current neoliberals have a hard time understanding what neoliberalism is is because they cannot envision a world where the sorts of policies that were common for 4 decades are realistic now. If you think that the sorts of policies that were the norm for most of the period following WW2 are just plain old impossible nowadays, that that the full range of possible policies that you can imagine are the ones that you can find in the oped page of the ny times, then of course you are going to think that neoliberalism is just a made up word.

So, help me out here, but what you're describing sounds like third wayism that sits a bit to the right of social democracy, with neoliberal politics actually hanging out very far to the right. What an I getting wrong with respect to where third wayism fits into this, if at all?

# ? Jan 11, 2018 19:51

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Kilroy posted:

RINO and DINO are pejoratives you can use to describe pols you don't like, and while they're not very descriptive, the main intent, i.e. "I don't want this person in my party", is pretty clear. The fact that someone like Boon would rush to Manchin's defense on this is pretty laughable, since basically half his posts in D&D are focused who should and should not be allowed to post here, and boy howdy would things be different if only he could bbe a moderator.

Whoa, you really drew up a narrative. The world of Kilroy must be a fascinating place :allears:

Boon fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jan 11, 2018

# ? Jan 11, 2018 19:56

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

Kilroy posted:

Boon fancies himself some kind of forum cop, and repository of juicy gossip.

Don�t be fooled. They took away his badge and gun for being a maverick who doesn�t play by the rules.

Trabisnikof posted:

If the term is useful, is Paul Ryan a RINO? Is Trump a RINO? What about Mitt Romney, he is a RINO?

Yes, yes and yes.

Because very few Republicans actually give a poo poo about �conservative values�.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 20:00

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

I've come to understand third wayism as belief that "We can simulate most of the benefits of the strong social programs of the left by sufficiently rearchitecting and regulating service businesses." The ACA seems to fit that, or at least aspire to it. My mental picture of neoliberalism is basically "Libertarian, but trusts the power of policymaking" that differs from neocon only in paying lip service to civil rights.

What a lot of people have started calling neoliberalism, I've always kinda heard referred to as traditionally third way. If an appeal to authority helps, Bernie has described Bill Clinton as third way to high schoolers in Vermont for as long as I'd canvassed for him.

Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jan 11, 2018

# ? Jan 11, 2018 20:02

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

If I had to pick a bone with the way "neoliberal" has shifted, it's how it now captures the Dem center and the Dem right, where in the past it indicated a more specific slice of right of center Dems who overlap with compassionate conservativism in their fear of even conducing third way hybridized market solutions.

Like, calling the ACA neoliberal is mistaken, straight up. It's third way. Neoliberal would be straight deregulated healthcare.

I think perhaps there is a lot of people itt who don't appreciate how much right Dems and left GOP overpassed each other, especially before Fox News took information warfare that appeals to centrists to a whole new level. Neolib is right of center, period. If someone supported the ACA, they weren't neoliberal at least due to that alone. That's third way, the idea that you can co-opt non-nationalized business to achieve social justice. Neoliberalism doesn't do that. Neoliberalism is far more gross than the wet noodle spinelessness of the third way.

Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jan 11, 2018

# ? Jan 11, 2018 20:10

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Koalas March posted:

I want Musk's head on a pike. It better be the next one after the Trumps.

I'd prefer to just put him and Thiel by themselves on a generation spaceship to the nearest habitable system.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 20:17

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

Potato Salad posted:

I've come to understand third wayism as belief that "We can simulate most of the benefits of the strong social programs of the left by sufficiently rearchitecting and regulating service businesses." The ACA seems to fit that, or at least aspire to it. My mental picture of neoliberalism is basically "Libertarian, but trusts the power of policymaking" that differs from neocon only in paying lip service to civil rights.

It depends, because "Third Way" is/was an actual thing. For example, it's not really an insult to call Bill Clinton a "Third Way Democrat" since it's something that he literally self-identified as. In some cases it can mean adopting a right-wing agenda on social welfare or economic justice issues wholesale, since the whole point is to just agree with some of the what the other party is saying in order to undermine them.

Edit- To be clear, what I'm saying here is that Third Wayism isn't necessarily coherent in its policy goals because it was primarily a political tool and not an ideology. It was adopted because there was a sense that the right had won the war and capitulation was the only way forward. There are plenty of true believers now, but that wasn't really the initial point.

Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jan 11, 2018

# ? Jan 11, 2018 20:20

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

In that sense, it's worth maintaining the distinction between third way and the neoliberalism that occupies your TV set, presenting deregulation of the ACA as something even remotely worth entertaining as a means of improving the loves of the poor.

A neocon and a Republican say, literally, gently caress the poor because they didn't take advantage of (fake or highly asymmetric) opportunity everyone who is successful has. A neolib argues the poor are better served by deregulation. There's a lot of space between the third way and neoliberalism.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 20:26

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Speaking of pedantism, let us talk about what Neocon REALLY means :can:

# ? Jan 11, 2018 20:29

Mr Hootington: Jul 24, 2008; I'M HAVING A HOOT EATING CORNETTE THE LONG WAY

steinrokkan posted:

Speaking of pedantism, let us talk about what Neocon REALLY means

Who are you asking? It means different things to people on the left and right

# ? Jan 11, 2018 20:32

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Mr Hootington posted:

Who are you asking? It means different things to people on the left and right

Hahaha, yes, yes, go on

# ? Jan 11, 2018 20:41

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Potato Salad posted:

So, help me out here, but what you're describing sounds like third wayism that sits a bit to the right of social democracy, with neoliberal politics actually hanging out very far to the right. What an I getting wrong with respect to where third wayism fits into this, if at all?

There are far right neoliberals, but neoliberalism is not actually inherently far-right.

Traditional third way stuff is neoliberalism - a type of it anyway. Just like "leftism" encompasses social democrats and communists, or how anarchism has both "ancoms" and "ancaps", there are different breeds of neoliberal.

they still believe in the core neoliberal values - the primacy of "economic efficiency" at the expense of labour and the resulting mergers and monopolies that pour out from that mindset being a good thing, the belief that one of the government's primary role is growing the size of the economy without regard to how it's distributed, the privatization of public industry, austerity, deregulation (or at least certain types of deregulation - just like the conservative neoliberals have their regulations they would prefer to keep, like industry licensing that keeps out competitors).

GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jan 11, 2018

# ? Jan 11, 2018 20:46

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

The answer is third-way centrism is a "reformist" version of neoliberalism, but it is still neoliberalism since it relies on the same basic tenants (free market, deregulation, hard fiscal limits etc etc). Keynesianism (at least the classic version) isn't typically neoliberal but certainly still a form of reform capitalism, but is distinct from third-wayism.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 20:50

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

These are the Democratic reps who voted yes on that FISA reauthorization:

Sewell, Terri (AL 7th)
O�Halleran, Tom (AZ 1st)
Sinema, Kyrsten (AZ 9th)
Garamendi, John (CA 3rd)
Thompson, Mike (CA 5th)
Bera, Ami (CA 7th)
Pelosi, Nancy (CA 12th)
Swalwell, Eric (CA 15th)
Costa, Jim (CA 16th)
Panetta, Jimmy (CA 20th)
Brownley, Julia (CA 26th)
Schiff, Adam (CA 28th)
Aguilar, Pete (CA 31st)
Torres, Norma (CA 35th)
Ruiz, Raul (CA 36th)
Peters, Scott (CA 52nd)
Perlmutter, Ed (CO 7th)
Himes, James (CT 4th)
Blunt Rochester, Lisa (DE)
Lawson, Al (FL 5th)
Murphy, Stephanie (FL 7th)
Demings, Val (FL 10th)
Crist, Charlie (FL 13th)
Castor, Kathy (FL 14th)
Frankel, Lois (FL 21st)
Deutch, Theodore (FL 22nd)
Wasserman Schultz, Debbie (FL 23rd)
Bishop, Sanford (GA 2nd)
Scott, David (GA 13th)
Lipinski, Daniel (IL 3rd)
Quigley, Mike (IL 5th)
Krishnamoorthi, Raja (IL 8th)
Schneider, Bradley (IL 10th)
Foster, Bill (IL 11th)
Bustos, Cheri (IL 17th)
Carson, Andr� (IN 7th)
Loebsack, David (IA 2nd)
Ruppersberger, A. Dutch (MD 2nd)
Brown, Anthony (MD 4th)
Hoyer, Steny (MD 5th)
Delaney, John (MD 6th)
Moulton, Seth (MA 6th)
Keating, William (MA 9th)
Peterson, Collin (MN 7th)
Rosen, Jacky (NV 3rd)
Kuster, Ann (NH 2nd)
Norcross, Donald (NJ 1st)
Gottheimer, Josh (NJ 5th)
Sires, Albio (NJ 8th)
Lujan Grisham, Michelle (NM 1st)
Suozzi, Thomas (NY 3rd)
Rice, Kathleen (NY 4th)
Meeks, Gregory (NY 5th)
Lowey, Nita (NY 17th)
Maloney, Sean (NY 18th)
Slaughter, Louise (NY 25th)
Higgins, Brian (NY 26th)
Boyle, Brendan (PA 13th)
Cartwright, Matthew (PA 17th)
Langevin, Jim (RI 2nd)
Clyburn, Jim (SC 6th)
Cooper, Jim (TN 5th)
Cuellar, Henry (TX 28th)
Veasey, Marc (TX 33rd)
McEachin, Donald (VA 4th)

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:01

Nissin Cup Nudist: Sep 3, 2011; Sleep with one eye open

We're off to Gritty Gritty land

Instant Sunrise posted:

These are the Democratic reps who voted yes on that FISA reauthorization:

lmao gently caress you Boyle

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:10

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

I'm somewhat proud there's only one VA rep on that worthless list.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:11

TheScott2K: Oct 26, 2003; I'm just saying, there's a nonzero chance Trump has a really toad penis.

Radish posted:

I'm somewhat proud there's only one VA rep on that worthless list.

Me too. Bobby Scott is my man.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:11

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

Instant Sunrise posted:

These are the Democratic reps who voted yes on that FISA reauthorization:

Sewell, Terri (AL 7th)
O�Halleran, Tom (AZ 1st)
Sinema, Kyrsten (AZ 9th)
Garamendi, John (CA 3rd)
Thompson, Mike (CA 5th)
Bera, Ami (CA 7th)
Pelosi, Nancy (CA 12th)
Swalwell, Eric (CA 15th)
Costa, Jim (CA 16th)
Panetta, Jimmy (CA 20th)
Brownley, Julia (CA 26th)
Schiff, Adam (CA 28th)
Aguilar, Pete (CA 31st)
Torres, Norma (CA 35th)
Ruiz, Raul (CA 36th)
Peters, Scott (CA 52nd)
Perlmutter, Ed (CO 7th)
Himes, James (CT 4th)
Blunt Rochester, Lisa (DE)
Lawson, Al (FL 5th)
Murphy, Stephanie (FL 7th)
Demings, Val (FL 10th)
Crist, Charlie (FL 13th)
Castor, Kathy (FL 14th)
Frankel, Lois (FL 21st)
Deutch, Theodore (FL 22nd)
Wasserman Schultz, Debbie (FL 23rd)
Bishop, Sanford (GA 2nd)
Scott, David (GA 13th)
Lipinski, Daniel (IL 3rd)
Quigley, Mike (IL 5th)
Krishnamoorthi, Raja (IL 8th)
Schneider, Bradley (IL 10th)
Foster, Bill (IL 11th)
Bustos, Cheri (IL 17th)
Carson, Andr� (IN 7th)
Loebsack, David (IA 2nd)
Ruppersberger, A. Dutch (MD 2nd)
Brown, Anthony (MD 4th)
Hoyer, Steny (MD 5th)
Delaney, John (MD 6th)
Moulton, Seth (MA 6th)
Keating, William (MA 9th)
Peterson, Collin (MN 7th)
Rosen, Jacky (NV 3rd)
Kuster, Ann (NH 2nd)
Norcross, Donald (NJ 1st)
Gottheimer, Josh (NJ 5th)
Sires, Albio (NJ 8th)
Lujan Grisham, Michelle (NM 1st)
Suozzi, Thomas (NY 3rd)
Rice, Kathleen (NY 4th)
Meeks, Gregory (NY 5th)
Lowey, Nita (NY 17th)
Maloney, Sean (NY 18th)
Slaughter, Louise (NY 25th)
Higgins, Brian (NY 26th)
Boyle, Brendan (PA 13th)
Cartwright, Matthew (PA 17th)
Langevin, Jim (RI 2nd)
Clyburn, Jim (SC 6th)
Cooper, Jim (TN 5th)
Cuellar, Henry (TX 28th)
Veasey, Marc (TX 33rd)
McEachin, Donald (VA 4th)

LOL look at all those CA Dems.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:13

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

readingatwork posted:

LOL look at all those CA Dems.

California is truly a land of DINOs

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:14

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Ardennes posted:

The answer is third-way centrism is a "reformist" version of neoliberalism,

That's pretty compatible with my head cannon.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:16

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

GlyphGryph posted:

California is truly a land of DINOs

DINOs and hashtag resistance

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:18

ded redd: Aug 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

Instant Sunrise posted:

DINOs and hashtag resistance

Oh my god they�re really going to use Russia as their excuse for this aren�t they.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:20

InnercityGriot: Dec 31, 2008

As a Californian, gently caress California Dems, they are the worst. I think it's the safety of their positions, they need to get challenged.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:22

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Ytlaya posted:

I think it might even be worse to be the sort of person who tries to forcibly insert "nuance" into issues where something actually is clearly wrong or harmful.

This kind of thinking is really intellectually sloppy and willfully stupid. There is not a single issue where the discussion is not improved by nuance.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:29

Craptacular!: Jul 9, 2001; Fuck the DH

Instant Sunrise posted:

These are the Democratic reps who voted yes on that FISA reauthorization:

Rosen has one of the easiest Senate campaigns in recent state history. All she had to do was not discourage the party base voter and not appear too crazy to the libertarians that exist on Nevada�s right.

So she did something that accomplished both. Why :negative:

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:31

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

GlyphGryph posted:

California is truly a land of DINOs

And rockstars like Barbara Lee.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:31

Shimrra Jamaane: Aug 10, 2007; Obscure to all except those well-versed in Yuuzhan Vong lore.

Craptacular! posted:

Rosen has one of the easiest Senate campaigns in recent state history. All she had to do was not discourage the party base voter and not appear too crazy to the libertarians that exist on Nevada�s right.

So she did something that accomplished both. Why

No one will remember any of this in November. Its not even headline news this afternoon anymore.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:33

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Potato Salad posted:

So, help me out here, but what you're describing sounds like third wayism that sits a bit to the right of social democracy, with neoliberal politics actually hanging out very far to the right. What an I getting wrong with respect to where third wayism fits into this, if at all?

As I mentione, neoliberalism is a historical movement of dismantling the embedded liberalism that was the orthodoxy between WW2 and the end of Bretton Woods. As a result, and as mentioned, Third Way is a strand within neoliberalism. Neoliberalism can't be pinned down as the one thing because again, it is not a coherent movement, and instead it is a historical process of dismantling deeply embedded social democratic and keynesian paradigms that ruled the world for decades (The IMF was originally set up to help countries establish capital account controls, in part). And if anyone doubts that Third Way is neoliberal, all you have to do is remember that Thatcher claimed that her greatest achievement was "Tony Blair and New Labour."

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:39

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

This kind of thinking is really intellectually sloppy and willfully stupid. There is not a single issue where the discussion is not improved by nuance.

a subtle burn, but a good one. 10/10, would lol at again

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:41

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

This kind of thinking is really intellectually sloppy and willfully stupid. There is not a single issue where the discussion is not improved by nuance.

I would personally disagree, constantly trying to see reasons why people might believe or act in a certain way without doing stuff about it leads to naval gazing and calling it action.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:53

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

No one will remember any of this in November. Its not even headline news this afternoon anymore.

This has to be the most craven defense of immorality I've ever seen.

No wonder it broke your brain when Killary lost: who knew anyone would even remember Iraq, Haiti, eyc

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:55

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

VitalSigns posted:

This has to be the most craven defense of immorality I've ever seen.

No wonder it broke your brain when Killary lost: who knew anyone would even remember Iraq, Haiti, eyc

He's not defending it, he's suggesting that it might not cost her the upcoming election.

Also lol at the second bit.

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Jan 11, 2018

# ? Jan 11, 2018 21:57

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Nevvy Z posted:

He's not defending it, he's suggesting that it might not cost her the upcoming election.

That's defending it. "Voters are too stupid to remember what I did to them" is the standard defense for votes like this.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 22:00

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

VitalSigns posted:

That's defending it. "Voters are too stupid to remember what I did to them" is the standard defense for votes like this.

That's still not what SJ was doing.

here: craptacular expresses concern about a politician hurting themselves for the election

Craptacular! posted:

Rosen has one of the easiest Senate campaigns in recent state history. All she had to do was not discourage the party base voter and not appear too crazy to the libertarians that exist on Nevada�s right.

So she did something that accomplished both. Why

SJ was not defending the morality of the vote, only asserting that it would not hurt her in that election. Or not significantly.

Reading isn't hard.

An assertion that an action will not affect the result of an upcoming election is not an absolute value judgement of that action.

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jan 11, 2018

# ? Jan 11, 2018 22:01

Shimrra Jamaane: Aug 10, 2007; Obscure to all except those well-versed in Yuuzhan Vong lore.

Killary? Really? Do you use Obummer too?

# ? Jan 11, 2018 22:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 09:16

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

joepinetree posted:

As I mentione, neoliberalism is a historical movement of dismantling the embedded liberalism that was the orthodoxy between WW2 and the end of Bretton Woods. As a result, and as mentioned, Third Way is a strand within neoliberalism. Neoliberalism can't be pinned down as the one thing because again, it is not a coherent movement, and instead it is a historical process of dismantling deeply embedded social democratic and keynesian paradigms that ruled the world for decades (The IMF was originally set up to help countries establish capital account controls, in part). And if anyone doubts that Third Way is neoliberal, all you have to do is remember that Thatcher claimed that her greatest achievement was "Tony Blair and New Labour."

Just throwing in there as well for context, the end of Bretton Woods partly was due to the fact that the reconstruction of Western Europe just too successful for currency side of it to function, and the dollar was not only too strong but too rigid. The move to fiat also certainly needed to happen, even if it was also going to cause some inflation/devaluation. That said, what I really think led to the birth of neoliberalism in the mid-1970s was the oil crisis, and inevitable stagflation that came with it. This not only seriously eroded the faith in the economic sustainability of Keynesianism (fairly erroneously), but likely pressed business to urge for higher fed rates and union breaking to get around the wage increases that can increasingly had become necessary. Then you had the humiliation of pulling out of Vietnam on top of that, then Afganistan and the Iranian revolution on top of a second oil crisis.

By the late 1970s, Keynesian was extremely politically vulnerable, and you just needed opportunists to come in (like Thatcher/Reagan) to essentially turn the system over. Inflation was still sky high and over-taking wages, and Volcker was given credit for stopping it with a large increase in rates (it was the fact that the Saudis started to agree to pump again). After the Soviets started to crack in the late 1980s, there was really no resistance left from what had become the Washington Consensus.

# ? Jan 11, 2018 22:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›995 »