Third Way Neoliberalism and The Sermon to the Sharks

Third way politics are dead. The left needs to be radical again; the incredibly costly belief that you can find a middle ground with fundamentalists, nihilists and robber barons needs to be put to bed.Democrats need to learn from Herman Melville´s Sermon to the Sharks
In Melville’s Moby Dick, Stubb, annoyed by the noise made by a group of sharks that are eating the carcass of a whale that is tied to the side of the boat, asks Fleece to preach to the sharks:
“tell ’em they are welcome to help themselves civilly, and in moderation, but they must keep quiet”
The point of the story, of course, is that it is pointless to preach to the sharks.
Third Way neoliberalism was proposed as a new way forward for the left after the resouding victories of rightwing neoliberals in Britain and the US (Thatcher and Reagan). The new left would keep the “values” of the old, but espouse free market economics. The goal would be a socially progressive society, with a decent social safety net, but also allowing for large concentrations of wealth (and therefore power) in the private sector. Third way neoliberalism can only work if the moneyed elites are somehow restrained; if , for some reason, they resist the temptation of using their wealth to control democracy (by using media to further the agenda, and funding politicians directly), in order to further increase their own power and wealth. As an example, Third Way politicians would like a booming and low-taxed private sector and also a modest social safety net; as if the power of the private sector would not be used to destroy the safety net (in order to lower taxes for, and increase the power of, the private sector). In essence, Third Way politics hinges on tolerating the sharks, and hoping they behave: “tell ’em they are welcome to help themselves civilly, and in moderation, but they must keep quiet”
In 2016, the failure of Third Way politics showed itself to be absolute, irredeemable and complete. The lesson to be learned (and it was foreshadowed by the work of T .Picketty) is that is impossible for democratic, progressive societies to coexist with elites that concentrate enormous amounts of wealth. Third Way politics is a conceptual impossibility; the only possible way forward for the left is to attack the high concentrations of wealth that are a cancer on democracy.

For many hypotheses, experiments under laboratory conditions are impossible in the social sciences. The best a historian or sociologist can hope for, then, is a so-called “natural experiment”, where conditions spontaneouslty approximate those of an experiment. For the social scientist, it is therefore rather fortunate that Barack Obama was such a great politician (eloquent, charismatic, intelligent), and Donald Trump such a transparently disgusting human being. In these near-perfect conditions, third-way neoliberalism failed spectacularly. This means that third way neoliberalism can never win again. Candidate Hillary Clinton was a victim of president Bill Clinton’s policies (much more so than his indiscretions): he aided the processes of capital mobility (globalization), the concetration of wealth, bank deregulation and the erosion of the fairness doctrine in the media. The first three caused the inequality and poor employment that fueled populist anger; the last made it possible for that populist anger to power a transparent con-man like Trump.

The only way forward for the left is true populism: nationalize fossil fuel industries and use them as a transitional energy source, tax financial speculation to the point that it becomes a marginal part of the economy; spend on job-intensive infrastructure to put money in the pockets of the working class; make the minimum wage a living wage, recognize health and education (including higher education), as human rights, de-privatize prisons and water utilities. And yes, the people who profit from all these moral affronts will fight every positive change; it is about time that the left fought back.

Is it time to work the body?

It seems to me that whatever gains are to be had from attacking Trump in this election have already come to fruition. Right now, it is quite set in stone that Trump is an erratic, incompetent bigot; and whoever still supports republicans is cool with that. I think it is time for democrats to shift to a generic attack on republicans: picture a series of ads that compare the performance of states with republican governors and legislatures with neighbouring states governed by democrats: republican states have less growth, more unemployment, more abortions, more drug use. End every ad with the tag line: “Republicans: the party of debt”, “Republicans: the party of unemployment”, and so on… I think traditional republicans have been put on the brink of changing sides, and a matter of fact campaign could tip them over

Bad Religion

 I have been staring aghast at the undilluted hateful pettyness of the american “religious right” (which is neither) and wondering how religious sentiment can be so perverted. Maybe modernity has something to do with it: when a ritual becomes empty, when a prayer is done just for show, performing it can only be an excercise in hypocrisy. If a religious dogma is no longer believable (because the advance of knowledge has made it ridiculous, or it no longer fits a changing world), many people will still hold on to it, but they will be unable to do so in an honest manner. At this point every prayer, every bending of the knee, will be a soul-corrupting excercise. And the most religious people will be the worst of all.

Veepin’ it real

Recently, there has been buzz about Trump picking Bob Corker for VP; and about Clinton picking Elizabeth Warren. Also, the Libertarian convention is coming up soon; so I think this is a good time to speculate on possible VP picks.
REPUBLICANS
There’s two ways to go speculate about this: either use strategic thinking to determine who would be a good choice (from the GOP point of view); or try to get into Donald Trump’s psyche and think who he would like: for example, Jim Webb could be a good strategic choice (if he got the delegates at the convention to swallow him), but maybe the Donald would not nominate someone who came off as more manly than him, or with longer fingers. Also, many high ranking republicans may not want to risk running as Donald’s VP. A good way of winnowing down the field is looking at people who would have nothing to lose by joining Il Douche: maybe Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee or John Bolton. My gut feeling is that he will go the classic authoritarian route and pick a right wing general or admiral: I don’t think Petraeus would go for it, but there is no shortage of dominionist kooks in the military.

DEMOCRATS
I think only a black swan event will prevent HRC from winning the white house. In that sense, the VP pick should rather help downticket democrats. In that sense, I think the veep should be latino, seeing as how 1) there are competitive senate races in NV, AZ, FL, CO and NC; and 2) there are possible house picks in TX and CA due to The Donald activating latino voters.  I very much respect Tom Perez’s work, but I don’t think he would make a skilled politician. I think Julian Castro is too green, and the fact that he doesn’t speak spanish would make him less effective in reaching out to latinos who don’t normally vote.  Raul Grijalva would make a great form of defense against impeachment for HRC (a la Spiro Agnew), but his radical past makes him too much of a liability.  I personally like Hilda Solis and Xavier Becerra, for similar reasons: although they are strong progressives, they are both a part of the democratic establishment as well; so they would make fine bridges between the Bernie and Clinton wings of the party.

LIBERTARIANS
I think this could eb a big year for libertarians, as there are many conservative never-trumpers who could be persuaded. I think Libertarians will see that and pick Gary Jhonson as their nominee, since he is their most credible candidate. I think Johnson could pick a republican and gain a lot of votes from anti-trumpers: it could be pro-choice Brian Sandoval, walk-the-walk libertarian Justin Amash (who is arab-american, and could credibly criticize Clinton on foreign policy), or Ben Sasse, a priviledged voice for anti-trumpers. I think Rand Paul is out of the running, because he is no longer credible as a libertarian

The Clinton Campaign can only die by suicide

Bernie Sanders’ campaign has been nothing short of amazing. Whatever else happens, it has forced Clinton to the left, activated a new generation of activists, given a boost of power to progressive democrats in the senate and congress, and shown that this is not 1972 anymore, and a progressive candidate for president is perfectly viable. However, the results of the past few primaries show that a Clinton victory in the primaries is by far the most likely outcome.
The Clinton campaign’s recourse to dirty campaigning and tricks that border the illegal (http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2016/03/01/bill-clinton-massachusetts-voting-laws/) does not seem consistent with the state of the campaign. I see it as an anachronism: voters today do not take kindly to these kinds of shenaninagans, but the Clinton machine seems stuck in a time before the internet.

I think the way in which Clinton can lose is through panic and overreach: if they get too negative against Sanders, or over-do their dirty, insidery, bullshit, this may turn voters off. If Sanders keeps the heat on Clinton, he may get her campaign to panic sufficiently to produce this result.

Trump: the last stop of the crazy train

The George W. Bush candidacy and presidency represented a shift to the right in republican politics, that caused people like Vermont senator Jim Jeffords to leave the republican party. As the GOP has marched further rightward, thoughtful conservatives and republicans have abandoned GOP orthodoxy, sometimes continuing to identify as conservatives (Bruce Bartlett), and sometimes changing sides altogether (David Brock). I think Donald Trump represents the last chance for conservatives to get off the crazy train.
Why did people leave the GOP? I would say the main reasons were disregard for truth (Brock, Bartlett), hateful speech (Charles Johnson, John Cole), and the prominence of “colorful” politicians such as Sarah Palin that showed little intelligence, competence and coherence (the Obama republicans who defected in 08 because of Sarah Palin).

Donald Trump has all three qualities in abundance. If Trump becomes the GOP nominee, it would be very hard for any remaining conservative to continue to pretend that the GOP is about lofty ideals such as limited government and strong national security. I think whoever sticks with Trump will have missed the last chance to return to sanity, and will go down the path of Glenn Beck