#talkingpointsmemo

"I don’t have a good answer here, or a suggestion of how to grapple with any of this. It’s certainly not to hire more TikTok consultants. It is more that it is clear to me that there is a whole symbolic and persuasive world of celebrity, reality TV and performative culture that is grabbing hold of our politics and that we need to understand much better."

This is a long and complex read--analysis by one of Josh Marshall's readers. It points to consequences of economic policies that have shaped our environment since the Great Financial Crisis of 2008.

I appreciate this person's take, because it cuts through a lot of the contorted rhetorical anguish I'm seeing in the folks who are 'analyzing' the defeat of Democrats (and democracy). So much of that is focused on TikTok atmospherics and the dark sorcery of identity politics, who to appear to be in order to get the electorate on your side. In contrast, this guy's read starts with economic history and draws compelling inferences that can potentially be communicated in very simple ways.

Hard to find a single quote to present here, but here's a chunk:

"Overnight, once results became clear, the market started discounting the effect of Trump’s stimulatory policies and the cost of credit began to spike.  It’s a good sign that higher rates are ahead.  In my mind, that higher cost of credit is likely to filter throughout the economy and cause a serious recession.  During his term, either Trump chooses to raise interest rates to quell inflation and economic growth craters, or he removes the independence of the Fed (à la Erdogan), keeps rates lower and inflation spirals out of control.  It’s one or the other; there’s no third option.  The mass deportations and tariffs on imports planned are also expected to have the effect of driving inflation much higher by raising the cost of labor (which is passed along to the consumer) and by acting as a tax on everyday items, respectively.  In short, I fully expect a serious economic meltdown in the next year or two, accelerated by Trump’s marquee policies.  Already we are seeing a very low volume of home sales and less than robust job growth due to the high cost of credit.

"It is essential that the Democratic Party tie any recession in the coming years to the Trump agenda, and remind the American people that Trump has sold himself as the person who promised to fix it.  To hold him completely responsible for any policy failures.  My guess is that he will have, by far, the worst economic performance of the past 15 years during his term.  If so, it would be in diametric opposition to voter expectations."

Leftist-troll-extroardinaire Amanda Marcotte has a new article in TPM Cafe in which she suggests that the recent controversy at Reddit proves that libertarianism is not good for people or freedom-enhancing. Marcotte concludes her article by analogizing libertarianism to a mafia-protection racket for bigots:  “The only thing libertarianism is good at, it appears, is running protection for the bigots of the world, but it doesn’t do anything to improve freedom—or markets—for the rest of us.” 

A charitable interpretation of Marcotte’s argument would be that Reddit proves libertarian systems do not always self-regulate without intervention. Reddit adopted a libertarian ethos, management did not regulate the awful sub-reddits, and sexism and racism remain pervasive at Reddit. And that seems like a pretty decent argument actually.  Marcotte’s concluding line, however, suggests that she thinks Reddit is really, really compelling evidence that libertarianism just does not work. And that is just insane. Libertarian policies have been tried in many forms, in many different places. Saying Reddit disproves Libertarianism is rather like the idiotic-inverse of saying Prohibition proves libertarianism correct. It’s a complex world, and libertarian policies will work in some contexts and not in others. Even scientific theories are rarely “disproved” by one piece of evidence; political theories are often even less subject to empirical critique because the content of the theory relies on ethical claims that cannot be tested.  Libertarianism describes a broad category of political thought, but at its core is the belief that “liberty” is intrinsically valuable. Many libertarians acknowledge that libertarian policies may generate undesirable consequences, but believe the “intrinsic” good of liberty outweighs the potential negative effects of libertarian practices. So even if there was some sort of pure natural experiment that proved libertarianism generated bad consequences, we still might have good reason to favor libertarianism: it enhances liberty, which is a good thing.  This is not some mere abstract consideration. Let’s take a concrete example. Some economists think that the economic actions of Pinochet in Chile benefitted people of Chile, outweighing even the negative effects of his repressive actions. They marshall economic evidence to make this claim. But even if their empirical case were very compelling, the stunning and complete loss of liberty in Chile under Pinochet could be viewed as just intrinsically bad, even apart from the adverse consequences that loss of political freedom generated.

Talking Points Memo is often enlightening, but it occasionally veers into smug-partisan banter, bankrupt of thought and care  - this was a low moment for a generally impressive publication. 

- BLN