https://weingarten.substack.com/p/whistleblower-docs-reveal-deep-state of course, when the company willingly bends to the fascists because they are on the same side, it might be a bit different. this is the stuff that gets conservatives up in arms. if they played it straight, no problem. they don't.
CNN has Reich on right now. Pushing antitrust, drug price controls, and oil company windfall profits taxes. I guess he could be a GOP consultant soon. At least they've been interviewing neoliberal Summers a fair amount recently too.
This is a classical economics and conservative approach. That is who I am.
It doesn't work.
I'm increasingly skeptical that anything with a "light touch" works with these people (the Left). The problem is that when we let our ideology of freedom guide our approach to regulation, the Left steps in to fill the gap (and ruin it). With the exception of a few pet issues, the Left wants to absolutely control everything. It is who they are. So we conservatives are left trying to chase after all the damage with deregulation and an entirely defensive posture.
We never go on offense.
I don't see conservatives regulating companies like Big Tech simply because we "disagree" but because we have to make Corporate America fear us, too. Because these companies only fear the Left, they push ever leftward, and our culture and economy start to look alien to us.
So I see the regulation as a means to wield a stick and say, "hey, we can do it too, so knock it off." I think this has to continue until large companies get back in line with an ideologically neutral positioning. Then we can go back to being defenders of big business capitalism.
But until then, we use our power to explain to them that if you silence us, shame us and work against our interests, then we will punish you just like the Left does.
I think that ideological impurity is a small price to pay in order to defend the longer-term arc of trying to get back to a free market economy. Because we are not a free market economy anymore.
I think you can go on offense without upsetting the whole apple cart. It's about decentralizing power. School choice is a great example-give power to the parents and money to the parents.
School choice is great. Our family is doing it. Yet most people like their public schools. Even in Chicago (including the upper-middle class neighborhoods). Especially in the New Trier district. Would more choice make a positive difference? I think so. But not nearly as much as some people believe. So the issue ends up not moving the electoral needle very much, unfortunately.
Yes. We need school choice. New Trier parents aren't exactly happy. https://www.newtrierneighbors.org/. School choice is a massive issue for people that don't have access to good schools. Youngkin won on it.
There's some good information on instructional methods that work well, especially for those with below average teachers. This doesn't sell well either, as it makes teachers more like assembly line workers.
I'm pretty sure most parents are pretty happy with the New Trier district. It's still a popular destination for Chicago parents who don't want to pay extra - which is itself a form of school choice. Most does not mean all. And I'm pretty sure I'd agree with some of the dissenters' points. As I said in my original reply, there's no major schools in the Chicago area that aren't ideologically left of center other than maybe some parochial schools. That's the world we live in. I can accept that even if it's not ideal. My largest issue is about accepting viewpoint diversity. That's where some schools, even if fairly lefty, can actually be OK. Does New Trier do that well? I don't know.
I think Youngkin has some good ideas on choice. It would be nice if IL GOP had a candidate as good as him. But IL is not in the same place. Most Chicago residents support the CTU and an elected school board. For worse, not better, unfortunately. VA has the advantage of being a business and residential destination. IL/Chicago doesn't. Chicago might as well be Olney for many of the most productive people who are willing to change locations. And that makes me sad.
We're on the same side, but this is going to be a friendly debate where I will play Devil's Advocate.
Can you name one policy or cultural issue in which our country has moved right in the past 20 years?
As for your example of school choice, I absolutely agree with you. But who is winning on this issue? Not us, even though the vast majority of parents, students and people in both parties want it. So why aren't we winning? Because teacher's unions wield government power effectively, and we don't. We shrink back and allow politicians to not be afraid of us, because of our hands-off approach (libertarian) to politics.
We have to take the approach that to oppose us is to invite punishment via any means. It is how the Left functions, and we have to start to emulate them. That means that we have to use the power of government to instill fear in these people and put them on their heels. Sometimes that means upsetting the apple cart.
Otherwise we will continue the long leftward march, giving up ground every couple years or so, until there is nothing conservative or libertarian about anything in our society.
By the way, Betsy Devos spent millions trying to get school choice into government policy. She became the Education department head.
She now needs private security -- to this day -- because Leftists and unions threaten her.
So how, exactly, are supposed to win with your example of school choice? How does it become policy? You already have the backing of parents and people in both parties, so it's not messaging. What are we to do, without "upsetting the apple cart?"
In Texas this last weekend: Dan Crenshaw was assaulted and called "Eye Patch McCain". Reminder that he lost his eye during a mission as a Seal. Ted Cruz was called a RINO. Cornyn was shouted down. To top it off a plank stating Biden was not legitimately elected was passed.
In Missouri a LARPing convicted sexual predator is in the lead and out hunting for RINOs:
While more benignly the IL GOP base is set to nominate an unelectable candidate for governor. But at least he's not a RINO! It seems to me that a Hogan or Sununu type governor would be better the another Pritzker term, but what do I know.
The idea that nationally the GOP never goes on the offense is weird. The country is about 50/50 and the Rs are about to re-take congress. In the past 5 years there were 3 SC justices confirmed. Not to mention a few other reasonable pieces of legislation.
The vast middle wants neither left nuts nor right nuts in power. But the nuts are in control of both parties, so you see this see-sawing back and forth as people quickly tire of the BS of whichever set of nuts is in power. Hopefully the oncoming recession can reset some of the craziness.
"the problem with socialism is socialism. the problem with capitalism is capitalists." There is too much power concentrated it too few hands in our private economy. When companies like Blackrock and Vanguard and big banks can start telling publicly traded companies to make decisions based on environmental views held by the leadership of Blackrock etc something is really wrong. It would be like 19th century railroad monopolies telling farmers what crops they are willing and not willing to haul to market. You can grow whatever you want, but . . . Regulation doesn't change that, it only strengthens the relationship between the too few and the regulators. Hate to sound like a commie, but it would be better to let a thousand flowers bloom than have so much power concentrated in so few hands.
I don't disagree that decentralization is key. Changing who votes the shares takes away a lot of power from Blackrock but still lets them engage in creating return for money placed there.
https://weingarten.substack.com/p/whistleblower-docs-reveal-deep-state of course, when the company willingly bends to the fascists because they are on the same side, it might be a bit different. this is the stuff that gets conservatives up in arms. if they played it straight, no problem. they don't.
Populism, once unleashed, takes on a life of its own. To think that people who call themselves "Republicans" buy onto increased ambulance chasing and venue chasing should make one shake their head. https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/policy/antitrust-senate-venue-coalition
Read Matt Stoller. A hard left winger. He wants all social media to be broken up
CNN has Reich on right now. Pushing antitrust, drug price controls, and oil company windfall profits taxes. I guess he could be a GOP consultant soon. At least they've been interviewing neoliberal Summers a fair amount recently too.
Social media is a free entry market. Hard to see how monopoly has anything to do with the real issues of social media.
This is a classical economics and conservative approach. That is who I am.
It doesn't work.
I'm increasingly skeptical that anything with a "light touch" works with these people (the Left). The problem is that when we let our ideology of freedom guide our approach to regulation, the Left steps in to fill the gap (and ruin it). With the exception of a few pet issues, the Left wants to absolutely control everything. It is who they are. So we conservatives are left trying to chase after all the damage with deregulation and an entirely defensive posture.
We never go on offense.
I don't see conservatives regulating companies like Big Tech simply because we "disagree" but because we have to make Corporate America fear us, too. Because these companies only fear the Left, they push ever leftward, and our culture and economy start to look alien to us.
So I see the regulation as a means to wield a stick and say, "hey, we can do it too, so knock it off." I think this has to continue until large companies get back in line with an ideologically neutral positioning. Then we can go back to being defenders of big business capitalism.
But until then, we use our power to explain to them that if you silence us, shame us and work against our interests, then we will punish you just like the Left does.
I think that ideological impurity is a small price to pay in order to defend the longer-term arc of trying to get back to a free market economy. Because we are not a free market economy anymore.
I think you can go on offense without upsetting the whole apple cart. It's about decentralizing power. School choice is a great example-give power to the parents and money to the parents.
School choice is great. Our family is doing it. Yet most people like their public schools. Even in Chicago (including the upper-middle class neighborhoods). Especially in the New Trier district. Would more choice make a positive difference? I think so. But not nearly as much as some people believe. So the issue ends up not moving the electoral needle very much, unfortunately.
As I replied on your last school choice thread:
https://jeffreycarter.substack.com/p/interesting-election-results-from/comment/7035116
DeVos was one of the previous admin's very good cabinet heads, maybe the best.
Yes. We need school choice. New Trier parents aren't exactly happy. https://www.newtrierneighbors.org/. School choice is a massive issue for people that don't have access to good schools. Youngkin won on it.
There's some good information on instructional methods that work well, especially for those with below average teachers. This doesn't sell well either, as it makes teachers more like assembly line workers.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/06/direct-instruction-works-in-kenya.html
I think more choice is good. It's just not magic.
I'm pretty sure most parents are pretty happy with the New Trier district. It's still a popular destination for Chicago parents who don't want to pay extra - which is itself a form of school choice. Most does not mean all. And I'm pretty sure I'd agree with some of the dissenters' points. As I said in my original reply, there's no major schools in the Chicago area that aren't ideologically left of center other than maybe some parochial schools. That's the world we live in. I can accept that even if it's not ideal. My largest issue is about accepting viewpoint diversity. That's where some schools, even if fairly lefty, can actually be OK. Does New Trier do that well? I don't know.
I think Youngkin has some good ideas on choice. It would be nice if IL GOP had a candidate as good as him. But IL is not in the same place. Most Chicago residents support the CTU and an elected school board. For worse, not better, unfortunately. VA has the advantage of being a business and residential destination. IL/Chicago doesn't. Chicago might as well be Olney for many of the most productive people who are willing to change locations. And that makes me sad.
We're on the same side, but this is going to be a friendly debate where I will play Devil's Advocate.
Can you name one policy or cultural issue in which our country has moved right in the past 20 years?
As for your example of school choice, I absolutely agree with you. But who is winning on this issue? Not us, even though the vast majority of parents, students and people in both parties want it. So why aren't we winning? Because teacher's unions wield government power effectively, and we don't. We shrink back and allow politicians to not be afraid of us, because of our hands-off approach (libertarian) to politics.
We have to take the approach that to oppose us is to invite punishment via any means. It is how the Left functions, and we have to start to emulate them. That means that we have to use the power of government to instill fear in these people and put them on their heels. Sometimes that means upsetting the apple cart.
Otherwise we will continue the long leftward march, giving up ground every couple years or so, until there is nothing conservative or libertarian about anything in our society.
By the way, Betsy Devos spent millions trying to get school choice into government policy. She became the Education department head.
She now needs private security -- to this day -- because Leftists and unions threaten her.
So how, exactly, are supposed to win with your example of school choice? How does it become policy? You already have the backing of parents and people in both parties, so it's not messaging. What are we to do, without "upsetting the apple cart?"
Who's going to do the "punishing"? In too many cases it is the people with the "purist" of views. They're just not economic purists. (Speaking of purity, this is a good article: https://vpostrel.substack.com/p/purity-sorcery-and-cancel-culture)
In Texas this last weekend: Dan Crenshaw was assaulted and called "Eye Patch McCain". Reminder that he lost his eye during a mission as a Seal. Ted Cruz was called a RINO. Cornyn was shouted down. To top it off a plank stating Biden was not legitimately elected was passed.
In Missouri a LARPing convicted sexual predator is in the lead and out hunting for RINOs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r156NzlHmJ4
Closer to home the right nuts are hunting the Kinzinger family:
https://www.businessinsider.com/kinzinger-received-threat-execute-him-his-wife-5-month-old-2022-6
While more benignly the IL GOP base is set to nominate an unelectable candidate for governor. But at least he's not a RINO! It seems to me that a Hogan or Sununu type governor would be better the another Pritzker term, but what do I know.
The idea that nationally the GOP never goes on the offense is weird. The country is about 50/50 and the Rs are about to re-take congress. In the past 5 years there were 3 SC justices confirmed. Not to mention a few other reasonable pieces of legislation.
The vast middle wants neither left nuts nor right nuts in power. But the nuts are in control of both parties, so you see this see-sawing back and forth as people quickly tire of the BS of whichever set of nuts is in power. Hopefully the oncoming recession can reset some of the craziness.
"the problem with socialism is socialism. the problem with capitalism is capitalists." There is too much power concentrated it too few hands in our private economy. When companies like Blackrock and Vanguard and big banks can start telling publicly traded companies to make decisions based on environmental views held by the leadership of Blackrock etc something is really wrong. It would be like 19th century railroad monopolies telling farmers what crops they are willing and not willing to haul to market. You can grow whatever you want, but . . . Regulation doesn't change that, it only strengthens the relationship between the too few and the regulators. Hate to sound like a commie, but it would be better to let a thousand flowers bloom than have so much power concentrated in so few hands.
I don't disagree that decentralization is key. Changing who votes the shares takes away a lot of power from Blackrock but still lets them engage in creating return for money placed there.