1. Bernie Sanders is asked by Ezra Klein about the case for immigration as a tool to reduce international poverty. His response?
Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.
Sanders manages to appeal to xenophobia on two levels. For people who hate outsiders of color, he is offering policy support. For people who pride themselves on not hating outsiders of color, he appeals to hatred of wealthy capitalists associated with the political right.
2. As a commenter suggested, hatred of lower-middle-class whites, particular of religious southerners, keeps many affluent hipsters in the Democratic fold.
3. At dinner last night, a political scientist said that studies indicate that increased polarization has not been driven by greater positive attachment to the party people support but to greater hostility toward the party that they oppose.
4. Donald Trump. Paul Krugman. Whatever their accomplishments in other fields might be, their political talent is expressing hatred for others in a way that many people find appealing.
I would hardly be the first person to suggest that there seems to be a deep human need for designated villain-groups. Look at tribalism, religious wars, mechanized warfare, Nazism, modern genocides.
Observing heated political conflict in the U.S. today, one does not know whether to shake one’s head in sadness or to be thankful that it provides a relatively non-violent outlet for group hatred.
“As a commenter suggested, **hatred** of lower-middle-class whites, particular of religious southerners, keeps many affluent hipsters in the Democratic fold.” [**supplied]
To add to, and perhaps modify some of those observations:
What we are observing make be closer to “despite” or despising than “hatred.”
As “despising” rather than “hating” it can be as essential to reinforcement of one’s own condition, opinions, beliefs, motives and actions, as much as (or more so than) opposition to those of others.
Despising does become a form of intellectual (and spiritual) xenophobia; generating the them and us differentiations to levels of hostilities and destruction. But, that comes not from pure hatred of other humans like us. It comes from levels of despite at which the others are not humans like us.
Again, I propose that nobody takes Trump seriously.
When asked about immigration as a form of foreign aid the response is free college.
Arnold, you are making this hard again!
Yes, to quote F. A. Hayek —
“The contrast between the “we” and the “they,” the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action. It is consequently always employed by those who seek, not merely support of a policy, but the unreserved allegiance of huge masses.”
Rather it is that people hate politics and select out the positions they dislike most about it. Dislike of the lower class motivates conservatives, 47% and all. Dislike of insiders motivates all.
You discredit yourself when you write things like this.
The 47% is,probably a math error, but I am starting to lose patience with non-producers. Especially to the extent they want ever more freebies. The error is I don’t feel united with any of these clowns. Least of all really poor candidates like Romney.
About that math error: I don’t think it is.
In 2008 Robert Rector and Christine Kim of the Heritage Foundation authored an analysis called “How the Wealth is Spread: The Distribution of Government Benefits, Services, and Taxes by Income Quintile in the United States.” They divided US households into quintiles. This is not the same as dividing the population by quintiles, because poorer households – many consisting of singles – average fewer members. They then allocated all 2004 federal, state, and local taxes and spending to the quintiles, making a best estimate of the “incidence” of indirect taxes (who pays) and of indirect spending (who benefits). They categorized the flows of money as follows:
1. Taxes paid, including indirect taxes
2. Benefits received
(a) Direct government benefits (e.g. welfare, Medicare, subsidized housing)
(b) Cost of government services (roads, police) received
3. Government spending on “pure public goods” (diplomacy, medical research)
Based on my analysis of Rector’s and Kim’s figures, here are the outcomes by quintile:
Lowest quintile (14% of population): Received $17,279 per family in direct benefits, net of taxes paid, and consumed $7480 in government services, all paid for by others. Taxes, net of benefits: -$24,759.
Second quintile (18%): Received $6765 in direct benefits, net of taxes paid, and consumed $8419 in government services, all paid for by others. Taxes, net of benefits: -$15,185.
Middle quintile (21%): Consumed $10,028 in government services, of which they paid $5898 themselves and $4130 was paid for by others. Taxes, net of benefits: -$4130.
Fourth quintile (23%): Consumed and paid for $11,794 in government services, paid $2317 in taxes to pay for pure public goods, and paid $7432 in taxes to subsidize others. Taxes, net of benefits: $9749
Top quintile (25%): Consumed and paid for $15,910 in government services, paid $11,453 to pay for pure public goods, and paid $36,734 in taxes to subsidize others. Taxes, net of benefits: $48,188.
Based on these numbers, the cross-over point between households that paid net taxes and those that didn’t appears to be between the 50th and 60th percentiles of households, or about the 43rd and 53rd percentiles of population. So Romney’s 47% seems to be pretty near right.
Ken
Not exactly what Romney said, but sincetely thanks for the analysis.
If we’re trying to divide the population into contributors and takers, wouldn’t it be more sound to consider lifetime taxes paid versus government benefits received?
Romney’s 47% would presumably include, for instance, a retiree who earned a whopping salary and was taxed ferociously from ages 25-65, but who’s currently earning only Social Security income, so receiving more in benefits than paying in taxes.
I agree with Romney’s point that a non-trivial fraction of the population is sponging off the rest—consider, for instance, that close to half of the births in the US are covered by Medicaid. However, a figure based on a single year’s comparison of taxes vs. benefits gives a result that’s unrealistically high. Romney might have had an easier time justifying his statement if his numbers had been more realistic.
Thank you, Judy, for your excellent criticism. Almost everyone starts out as a young adult in the bottom quintile and then has a household income arc that peaks at some higher quintile before dropping near the end of life. So Romney’s 47% is a high estimate of the proportion of people whose lifetime relationship with government results in being a net recipient of government services and benefits. I wish I had the data that would allow me to estimate this number better, in light of your observation. It’s still too high for most net taxpayers’ tastes, as I think you, Andrew, and I agree.
Ken
As much as we all like to pat ourselves on the back for being good little Hansonians, it’s important to remember that these folks do have some pretty severe policy disagreements. It isn’t all just status-jockeying. The urbanist hipster position on abortion seems monstrous to the religious right and likewise, the religious right’s positions on issues of homosexuality seem monstrous to the urbanist hipsters, just to name two quick examples.
The funny thing about that Bernie Sanders response is that his immigration and trade positions are basically exactly the same as Trump’s.
I also noticed an item on his economic platform. The “Employ Young Americans Now Act”, which explicitly calls for government payments directly to employers for hiring people under 24 years old. I kid you not. I frequently see Bernie’s supporters complain that welfare support for low wage workers is a corporate subsidy. Except for EITC, this is unlikely. But, it’s pretty humorous that Sanders explicitly creates that subsidy on his platform.
You can support any policy as long as rhetorically you hate the right people.
Well, it isn’t that a government subsidy entices anyone to work lower paying jobs. It is only that the Koch invented the sub-living wage.
Bernie seems to be the opposite of a libertarian.
The widespread prevalence of hatred in all spheres of life is attributable to the fact that hating is enjoyable, and the pleasure it gives is positive reinforcement to hate more. This afternoon, I spent about 45 minutes going about my business while heartily hating that dentist who shot the lion, feeling quite good about myself, and not really realizing that I was in the middle of a hate episode. Later, while shopping on the way home from work, I suddenly recognized the ugliness of what I was thinking (imagining gruesome punishments for the guilty hunter). I resolved to shelve any further thoughts about the matter and move on to something else. Avoiding hatred in our news-saturated environment requires constant vigilance, and the active exercise of something I can only think of calling virtue.
That reminds me of an Ah Ha moment I had back during the Benghazi episode. I initially thought, “What kind of monsters are these people that they would start killing people over a stupid little movie.” Then, it occurred to me that I had no reason to believe that this is what they had done. In fact, I was the monster for assuming, on so little evidence, that they were capable of doing that. And, Obama and his staff were so confident (rightly) that we are all such monsters that they could spread that story knowing it would give them cover.
Lions eat things. Hate dentists for X rays.
(Lions are, quite literally, monsters)
I find that whole episode amusing. What kind of society slaughters cows, pigs and chickens by the millions and goes into hysterics because someone shot a lion?
It’s a pretty animal. So what?
Hate and mood affiliation and what Peter Thiel said about scapegoats and a lot of other stuff that illustrates Arnold’s Point.
And it is now thoroughly oliticized. So should the fact that people are worked up over meaningless things comfort or terrify us?
Are lions pretty? The males don’t even do anything other than kill other males, their cubs, and rape their harems.
+1. It’s such a luxurious feeling to wallow in hate.
This might sound contradictory, but Sanders strikes me as being very conservative in a lot of respects.
Across the board his policies have very high levels of loss aversion, promote strong in-group thinking, and he mostly wants to double down on institutions that are already there: social security, medicare/medicaid, public school infrastructure, etc.
I don’t see him as an agent of reform at all, even though that’s what he’s being billed as.
The idea that Trump is expressing hatred is wrong. In fact, the borders are out of control and criminals are coming in and committing crimes in the US (the one in SF was particularly egregious). Since the Obama administration wants uncontrolled borders (assuming that will get them more Democrat voters) and the Republican leadership and the Chamber of Commerce also wants more immigrants to fill low-skill jobs, there is no voice in national politics that expresses a majority desire for control of flow across the borders. Once the border is under control, a debate can proceed about how to handle those who are in the country illegally and how much immigration should be allowed.
Trump is not the ideal candidate (who is?) but he has two very valuable attributes: he is expressing what many would like expressed and he has not folded in the face of the media pressure which is designed to stamp out any expression other than that approved by our ruling classes.
Finally, AK’s three-axis approach, while having some value in understanding how groups align themselves in disputes, creates a sense of relativism, rather than a quest for truth.
Since the Obama administration wants uncontrolled borders…
Patently false: I don’t see a single Obama administration official proposing open borders or greatly liberalized immigration.
the Republican leadership and the Chamber of Commerce also wants more immigrants…
Patently false: I don’t see a single Republican leader proposing open borders or greatly liberalized immigration.
…there is no voice in national politics that expresses a majority desire for control of flow across the borders.
Patently false: Since 1924, highly controlled flow across the borders has been the majoritarian position and, indeed, the Congressionally imposed law of the land.
…a quest for truth.
You might want to work on that.
Well, you may have forgotten about Obama’s executive amnesty “program” which attempted to keep up to 4 million illegal immigrants in the US, but which was halted by the courts -http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texas-judge-injunction-immigration-20150216-story.html#page=1
You may have also forgotten Arizona’s effort to enforce border security, which was also opposed by the administration, and which was stopped by the courts -http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/10/arizona.border.countersuit/
Of course, AZ was trying to spend money to fix a problem that really didn’t exist.
I could find more, but I am sure you would find anything I found “patently false”. As far as the Republicans go, they keep pushing for “comprehensive immigration reform”, but their voters are firmly in opposition. The donor class wants it, Obama wants, why hasn’t it passed? The voters don’t want it.
Your examples here are not patently false. Suggesting that these meager motions mean anyone in power wants wants uncontrolled borders or significantly more immigrants is.
The current Diversity Visa lottery has almost 10 million applicants. 50,000 people will be selected to receive immigrant visas. I’d say that prohibiting the free migration of 99.5% of prospective immigrants, for just this one visa, is significant control of flow across the border.
You might not appreciate those who flout, or allow to be flouted, immigration law. But someone who considers the current immigration regime to be an egregious abrogation of unalienable rights of individuals based on a condition of birth doesn’t really see much light between your position and the position of the ruling classes.
Rich Berger: …the Republican leadership and the Chamber of Commerce also wants more immigrants…
MikeP: Patently false: I don’t see a single Republican leader proposing open borders or greatly liberalized immigration.
Ted Cruz proposes that we double legal immigration, including a 5x increase of H-1B visas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa2FU69HSag&feature=youtu.be&t=208
Fair point.
Interesting, however, that the evidence you found is an old video posted by someone who, to put it mildly, disagrees with that position. Must not be something candidate Cruz brings up too often.
“Observing heated political conflict in the U.S. today, one does not know whether to shake one’s head in sadness or to be thankful that it provides a relatively non-violent outlet for group hatred.”
The implicit assumption here is that all ‘hatred’ is irrational — or to put it another way, all differences between groups are irrelevant. But what if that isn’t true? What if certain group differences are important and worthy of discussion and even policy consideration? Then we might have to do the hard work of figuring out whether or not, to use one example, poor Latin American immigrants with low average IQs really will assimilate into Anglo-American culture the same way a German immigrant in the 19th Century was able to assimilate.
The actual matters being debated have high stakes and rational reasons to hate, but since debating the reality is too hot potato we generally debate proxies. Those proxies often do sound silly.
It’s not much different then when people in Justinian’s Rome would debate and riot over the nature of Jesus (divine, man, or both) or over the Blue’s or the Green’s at chariot races. If you study the era you’ll find that these different teams often represented real hard interests (economic and political classes, regions of the empire) and that the emperor endorsing one was seen as a subtle way of showing favor to that side. People rioting over the nature of Jesus seems crazy, but not if you think its a proxy for your class interest.
Using the proxies makes some sense because proxies cool down the conflict a bit. One can “back down” over a proxy dispute without having to admit publicly that one has backed down over the real dispute. It allows one to preserve Schelling credibility even though the Schelling point has moved, which is important because what is at stake in many Schelling points is the credibility build up around them. Changing the equilibrium may not be lethal, but losing the credibility to defend the new equilibrium is. You are no longer debating that point, but all future possible points. Consensus is almost possible in such a situation. So you didn’t give on your class interest, you gave on the Orthodox nature of Jesus, and you’ll be back to defend your class interest at the new point tomorrow.