Trump, Sanders and the Revolt Against Decadence

by Ross Douthat

Jan. 30, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/campaign-stops/trump-sanders-and-the-revolt-against-decadence.html?comments#permid=17401833

America, the US, is bumping up against the limits most other countries have had to learn to live with for a long time - our resources, both natural and human, which in the past seemed limitless and lead to our hubris of "exceptionalism", are reaching their limit, we are no longer the "best" and "greatest", instead by most measures that count, we are middling and often at the tail end.

This is frustrating and difficult for Americans to deal with. In response, both extremes of the political spectrum are responding to simplistic "solutions" in expressing their frustration. Trump appeals to the ignorance and fear of those left behind with slogans like "Make America Great Again", while Sanders appeals to the equally simplistic notion that all our ills are the fault of the 0.1% and their greed.

Trump is an opportunist in using these fears.

But Sanders, too, is being disingenuous by claiming everything can be solved by simply breaking up the banks and taxing the super-rich. Sanders' notion of "Socialism" is stuck in the 50's and 60's of Europe. Today's Social Democracies of Europe are much more defined by "social market economy", where corporations are held responsible not only to their share-holders, but also to their employees and to society at large.

"Corporations are people, too", and thus they have a responsibility not just to maximize profits, but to be "good citizens" and show concern for their employees and society at large.

Friends and Refugees in Need

by Thomas L. Friedman

Dec. 27, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/opinion/friends-and-refugees-in-need.html?comments&_r=0#permid=17359467:17359555

I take issue with many of the statements in Mr. Friedman's column - as pointed out by @craig geary, the US is indeed largely responsible for the current catastrophic mess in the Middle East, starting with the CIA operation in Iran in the 50's, all the way to the criminal invasion of Iraq under W, which Mr, Friedman wholeheartedly supported.

Now we have another half-baked "solution" from Mr. Friedman - a "safe zone" in Syria. How would a safe zone INSIDE Syria be any better than the huge refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey? The people would still be refugees, displaced and living in extreme depravation and poverty. But these existing "safe zones" have the distinct advantage of not requiring a huge military effort on the ground in order to establish and protect the safe zone.

It is certainly true that the refugee crisis from Syria has brought to a head the general flow of displaced people from the Middle East and Africa into Europe, and that today the grad vision of a open Europe is in danger of collapsing from the refugee strain. As someone originally from Germany, who has lived and worked in Europe for many years, I have experience first hand the immense benefits which the EU has brought, not only to Europe but to the world - an example of what can be achieved with a vision and the political will to implement that vision.

I do not see how this simplistic solution of a safe zone in Syria, which by the way will effectively require another US ground war in the Middle East and an occupation lasting decades, will have any impact on the refugee crisis in Europe. On the contrary, the military effort required will only serve to worsen the destruction in Syria and the outflow of more refugees.

Sarah Palin, Rage Whisperer

by Nicolle Wallace

Jan 25, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/sarah-palin-rage-whisperer.html?comments&_r=0#permid=17340017

As a GOP campaign adviser, you not only should have seen the conservative rage coming, but you are complicit in generating that irrational rage. Rage is most often based on fear and resentment, and Conservative campaign strategies have long been based on accentuating, magnifying, and if necessary creating new and unfounded fears and resentments among American voters.

The GOP is now reaping what it has been sowing for decades. The Conservative voter has now fully internalized the GOP rhetoric that "government is the problem", and they are coming back with a vengeance to punish the "establishment", that is ALL the people, not just Democrats, who are part of that establishment, part of the government. 

Sarah Palin is an ideal shill for that any, vengeful voice against "the establishment" as she is not hampered in her speeches by facts, rationality, intelligence, or even an intelligible English sentence - as long as the correct trigger words are spouted, the crowds will roar.

Donald Trump, being the very smart, intelligent person that he is, recognizes already, I think, that, like McCain, he may have let loose a very destructive genie inside his campaign. I'm betting that we won't see too much more of Palin at the side of Trump.

My Sarah Palin Romance

by Ross Douthat

Jan 20, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/opinion/campaign-stops/my-sarah-palin-romance.html?comments&_r=0#permid=17287069

I do not mean to be blasphemous, but the Bible verse occurs to me - "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" - when Ross and Co. do not appreciate their pivotal role in creating the monsters of Trump and Cruz and Palin and Huckabee with books like “Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream”, which espouse a populism based on fear, distrust, prejudice, and simplistic solutions.

In general, the GOP today is reaping the dysfunction it has been diligently sowing for the last many decades, ever since they first discovered that spreading fear and distrust as part of their "Southern Strategy" could actually win elections for them. Once you let that genie out of the bottle, it is hard to get her back in...

What If?

by Thomas L. Friedman

Jan 20, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/opinion/what-if.html?comments#permid=17283809

Sheer ignorance on the part of Mr. Friedman...

"What if our 2016 election ends up being between a socialist and a borderline fascist — ideas that died in 1989 and 1945 respectively?"

Bernie Sanders is a Social Democrat, like the social democrats who have influenced Europe - for the better, for the most part - ever since 1945. And the demise of the Soviet Union has NOTHING to do with a failure of socialist ideas. 1989 was the demise of Soviet Communism, which has NOTHING to do with social democratic ideas!

To the other "what if's", as they pertain to the 2016 elections, Americans are, by and large (willfully) ignorant of the world outside. Mr. Friedman's comments about socialism attest that only too well, as does "W"'s "Axis of Evil" simplistic view of the world. But at some level Americans recognize that a lot of "stuff" is going on in the world, which they do not understand, and thus, puts fear into them. And having been brainwashed into believing that there are simple answers, not requiring much though or effort, to all their personal ills (instant diets, pills for everything real or imagined which ailes them, etc.), they are easy pray to demagogues on the right and left who promise easy answers - build a wall and have Mexico pay for it, carpet bomb ISIS, miraculously implement a single payer health system.

But there is hope. The successful negotiations with Iran, carried out with infinite patience and intelligent mistrust, is a positive sign that not all is lost.

Health Reform Is Hard

by Paul Krugman

Jan 18, 2016

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/18/health-reform-is-hard/?comments#permid=17260636

As someone who became politically conscious during high school in Germany, I have always considered myself a Social Democrat in the European tradition. So I tend to agree with most of Bernie's criticisms of the extreme laissez fairs market economy practiced in the US, including the free market emphasis of the US health care system.

Where I part ways with Bernie Sanders is his almost exclusive reliance on a "huge social revolution" when he is asked for policy specifics on how he will implement his ideas - that just is not going to happen; quite the contrary, the Congress will most likely remain unde GOP control.

When finally pushed to actually come up with specifics on how he would fund "Medicare for all", his numbers are complete fantasy. His promise of $500-$600 total annual out of pocket cost for health care for the average American family is completely disingenuous. In typical politician fashion he also obfuscates the true cost for health care by combining various taxes in a completely non-transparent way. Just like Medicare (and like many European single payer systems) the taxes for healthcare should be explicitly and transparently collected through a payroll tax, separate from income tax.

Hillary is right - given the political reality of US politics, trying to replace ObamaCare with a single payer system would endanger the very precarious gains that have been made in the US health care system under Obama.

Ten Theses on Immigration

by Ross Douthat

Jan 13, 2016

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/ten-theses-on-immigration/?comments#permid=17216856:17216924

This article shows that anti-immigrant, and in many ways racist views are not restricted to the nut-cases in the GOP, like Trump and Cruz.

The argument by Mr. Douthat starts with the completely false premise that the "nation states" existing today constitute a racially, religiously and culturally homogeneous grouping of peoples going back to the beginning of history. Virtually every nation state in existence today is made up of very diverse ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds, many of which exhibiting themselves in intra-nation-state ethnic, religious, cultural, and thus political conflicts. The US itself is a prime example of such a nation state of very recent origin with a very diverse mixture of ethnic, religious and and cultural groups - and for the most part these diverse groups get along quite well - but for the purposeful, politically motivated fear-, distrust- and hate-mongering by "conservatives", many of whom claim to be devout Christians, of the catholic or evangelical variety.

In European nation-states this intermixing of ethnicity, religion and culture is, for the most part, further in the past, but such "mixing", integration and assimilation has been going on for 1000's of years.

If Spain is a homogeneous "nation-state", as Mr Douthat implicitly postulates, forming a bulwark for stability and national identity, then how do we understand the Catalan separatist movement?

Similarly, if Great Britain is a cohesive nation-state, with a cohesive ethnic, religious and cultural identity, what does the Scottish separatist movement tell us about the homogeneous nations-states so immutable and important to Mr Douthat.

Germany's history as a nations-state is in some ways even more recent than that of the US. Italy is a relatively recent addition to nation-states as well, and its history is testament to a huge melting of different ethnicities, religions and cultures.

It is certainly true that a large, uncontrolled influx of "foreigners" can cause huge strains on existing nations, and Germany specifically, and Europe more generally, is testament to that. The large influx into Germany of first Italian, then Greek, and most recently Turkish "guest workers", who ended up staying, have been integrated quite well - the Italians and Greeks have assimilated very well, to the point that German cities today would not be complete without their popular Italian and Greek restaurants; Turkish assimilation is still incomplete, but making progress, to the point where a number of prominent German MP's are of Turkish decent.

In Germany the primary opposition to "foreigners" is from the nationalistic, right-wing fanatics of PEGIDA and the constantly morphing and rightward drifting AfD. In the US this role is played by the Tea Party wing-nuts, for whom Mr. Douthat has now chosen to be a spokesperson and propagandist.

Germany on the Brink

by Ross Douthat

Jan 9, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/sunday/germany-on-the-brink.html?comments#permid=17173940

It seems Ross Douthat is auditioning for a cabinet position with Donald Trump - his nutty "Merkel must go" fits right in with the craziness of The Donald.

To be sure, Germany has probably bitten off more that it can comfortably digest. Although 1.2 million refugees is a very large number, one needs to keep in mind that a fair number of refugees are being sent back, especially from some of the Balkan areas, which are not consider war zones. Also, the large numbers that flooded in during the second half of 2015 will not continue for a number of reasons - the path through the Balkans is being increasingly shut down, and negotiation with Turkey are starting the slow down the flow through that country.

The assimilation/integration process will be extremely difficult - Germany, and Europe in general, do not have a good record for integration, especially of Muslim immigrants and refugees. Many of the apocalyptical scenarios painted by Douthat are certainly possible. But instead of reacting in the Trump/Cruz and general GOP hysterical fear-mongering fashion, it would be good to encourage Germany in its attempts to deal with this huge issue.

It is interesting to speculate about the holier-than-thou column Douthat might have written had Germany closed its borders and we would have had to watch on TV the chaos and misery of starving refugees at the borders, or, for that matter, if Germany now chose the follow the "Trump Doctrine" and shipped all 1.2 million refugees back to Syria.

Germany’s Post-Cologne Hysteria

By Anna Sauerbrey

Jan 8, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/opinion/germanys-post-cologne-hysteria.html?comments#permid=17165825

I left Germany in 1963 to become, ultimately, an American Citizen, I have spent many years living and working in Germany with my (American) family, in the 80's and 90's. I am thus an (interested) outside observer of events in Germany.

In general, I am very impressed with the way Germany has developed since I left, not just economically (everyone knows that), but, more interestingly, socially. In that context, I think Germany deserves a lot of credit for the way it has dealt with previous waves of "immigration", the Italian, Greek and Turkish "guest workers", European integration, the strains of reunification, and now the refugee crisis.

It is true, that "integration" is not a strong suit in Germany, or in Europe - even people there in the second generation are still often referred to as "foreigners". True integration of new arrivals has been one of the great success stories of the US - with notable exceptions (African Americans).
But while Americans seem to be getting increasingly paranoid about the "outside world", Germany is showing an amazing openness, both for European integration and accepting refugees.

The hysteria after the Cologne events are disturbing, but to be expected, and not at all pervasive. By contrast, given a similar event in the US today, I would hate to see the reaction of the current batch of Republican candidates, in their haste to claim positions on the farthest right, fanning hysterical paranoia and fear.

How Donald Trump Loses

By Ross Douthat

Jan 7, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/opinion/campaign-stops/how-donald-trump-loses.html?comments&_r=0#permid=17149708:17149928

There are two main reasons for the continued high poll standings for Trump:

First and foremost, Trump's success is the logical conclusion of a decades long strategy by Republicans to ruthlessly use fear, fueled by outright mis-information and propagandistic fear-mongering, to energize subgroups of the population to vote based on their worst instincts. This started with the Nixon "Southern Strategy" and has now culminated with the under-educated, economically despondent and hopeless middle-aged whites, who, with the exit of most manufacturing jobs, see no hope for the future.

There is some "divine justice" in seeing the hapless and increasingly desparate hand-wringing of the "Republican Establishment" trying to figure out a way to stop the floodwaters of the raging tea-party element they themselves heedlessly fostered for all these years. Their brainless slogans, like "The Government is the problem" are now coming home to roost.

Donald Trumps continued success also lies with the (news) media itself. Focused as they are on the sensational rather than the substantive and factual, they ignore the fact that virtually all of Trump's policy proposals, like building a wall and having Mexico pay for it, are complete nonsense - they merely obliquely refer to "fact checkers" and the none-sense "pants-on-fire" ratings, rather than engage in what used to be known as "journalism", by pinning Mr Trump down during the endless interviews with "facts".

Every time Trump makes a nonsense statement (Cruz is not a natural born citizen), instead of just reporting it (which, I suppose they must), followed by an embarrassed (because this nit-with is actually a "serious" candidate for Preident of the US) silence, each such statement is followed by hours of "analysis" and "expert panel discussions", giving Trump exactly what he wants - free media exposure.

Trump has recognized that the Madison Avenue adage that "any publicity is good publicity" applies not only to crappy products and Hollywood personalities, but, in his case, also to politicians.