I rather liked this comment by Robert Reich, a former US Labour Secretary under Bill Clinton, who said in his Substack newsletter of US Republican presidential candidate and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis:
DeSantis is not exactly a libertarian …, unless you define a libertarian as someone who bans books, forces women to give birth, threatens to take trans youth away from parents who approve of their getting gender-affirming care, prohibits teachers from mentioning gender identity or sexual orientation, bars teachers from talking about America's history of racism, and wreaks vengeance even on Mickey Mouse for opposing his authoritarian policies.
And he is supposedly the better choice for Republican candidate.
The US is also facing a moment when democracy is under threat. DeSantis is undoubtedly a part of that threat.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
These Gonzo republicans (or Tories for that matter) would not be allowed in world that had truly learnt the lessons of WWII concerning fascism.
The fact is we just didn’t learn and were told to be wary of other things instead.
I look forward to the day when the politic science of division is outlawed. And it is closely aligned I think with FPTP systems.
“I look forward to the day when the politic science of division is outlawed.”
As in banned? PSR, you have lost me.
“I look forward to the day when the political science of division is outlawed.”
Banned.
Made illegal, made ‘anti-social’, made ‘unacceptable’, seen as dangerous and destabilising and all on the statute book as a crime against society/humanity.
Really, it should be a rule imposed on politicians, the media and the rest of society. Those employing it, advocating it should be censured, fined and put in prison if necessary and I don’t care what your politics or issues are – it is unacceptable.
And more than anything Mr Warren the politics of division is anti-political if one accepts or alludes to that real politics is about compromise and a win/win outcome.
“…. real politics is about compromise and a win/win outcome”.
Well I can easily second compromise and win/win, and that often works best; but that is easy to do; more difficult for me, there isn’t much compromise in your comment; more important, I don’t know what you mean by ‘real politics’: while compromise and win/win doesn’t look much like a representation of the nature of any “real politics” that I have seen over the last forty years (or would likely have survived your severe restrictions); or any real politics I am likely to see, or would expect to see in any realistic hypothesised future politics in the messy, somewhat soiled world in which we actually live – and always have lived.
Democracy is the solution that offers everyone the prospect of a foothold in a world where politics and power creates stress and lives on the edge of division; but it cannot enforce perfectability to achieve it.
Ironically, I might add that the demand to outlaw the idea of “division” is exactly the argument that dogmatic Unionists assert in Scotland against the advocacy of independence.
When we throw a net into the water, it doesn’t discriminate very effectively between the fish it captures.
The politics we have is not ‘real politics’ when it resorts to encouraging a society riven with inequality to beat itself up whilst enabling those more fortunate to essentially do what they like. And also create false enemies and division in societies that don’t then ‘look up’ to see where the real problem is – it’s negative politics if it is politics at all.
That is not politics in my view. A true progressive positive politics get society to see the benefits of policy for all as much as possible otherwise where do the new ideas come from? How do you create a demand for new ideas when you encourage society to fall out with each other as you make them poorer and poorer? It’s disgusting.
Do I have to spell it out to you John? Or are your sensibilities more neo-liberal than you let on? I have to say, you seem a little over sensitive on the issue of setting boundaries for acceptable behaviour?
But then again that is the inherent weakness of liberalism isn’t it?
Liberals wringing their hands at the edges of democracy about inequality is all very well it seems, and all too common. But when it comes to drawing lines on certain behaviours – ooh – well liberal notions of personal freedom just get in the way don’t they? Caged by their own unrealistic view of human nature and desperate need to put ‘personal freedom’ first – it seems at any cost.
Finally – thank God – it’s not division itself that it the problem is it? Is it not obvious to you (maybe because of your over sensitivity) that the issue is how that division is expressed – not that it/or they exist. Think about the how the Daily Mail works or the Sun. Is that acceptable? And then look how the Left apes it. And then think about how the internet works. Ouch!
You’re telling me that we can’t do better than that?
Well, if so, we might as well pack up now and go home.
There a limits to ALL power John and there should be. But after 40 + years it seems to me that there are some powers/rights that need limiting more than others? Or does that upset you? If so, please accept my apologies, but I do think that what I’m talking about is worth thinking about.
Well PSR, you have now managed to turn your own authoritarian turn into my supposed neoliberalism. Easily done; avoidable only by agreeing with you. That is how authortarianism is done. You can easily persuade yourself from there, that I should be banned. Do you see where this is going?
You comment speaks of your rage. My comment does not. Rage, I propose is not a good starting point for considered policy. On a practical level (I do not think you have given any thought to practicality); frankly, I think your form of argument is over-emotional. Whatever you ban, your opponents are not going anywhere. They remain part of the polity, like it or not. They will not like it, and will not forget. What does banning their opinion (not just behaviour), wholesale actually do (even if you could manage to pass, or even draft the legislation – that I want to see)? They will nurse their grievance, and then I suspect, when they can turn public opinion (so easily manipulated). In power they would use your legislation against you. You confuse banning with fixing a problem; the rule of authoritarians throughout the centuries. Fixing the problem is much harder. You are a believer in quick fixes. They rarely work, and more often create greater problems than they solve.
I hold my opinion here, eve if in a minority of one. So be it. This is the nature of politics; over and over again.
On “forces women to give birth”, I heard a fascinating breakdown on one of the podcasts I listen to (maybe Deconstructed? But I can’t find it now) about the political conundrum DeSantis is in. He’s been dragging his heels (from the hard-right GOP perspective) on anti-abortion drives in Florida because, as he’s well aware, abortion rights are very important to Floridans. But he’s got a lot of pressure from the GOP where his base is clearly hard-right and abortion is the issue of the day, and it’s basically an impossible circle for him to square.
I’m really fascinated by how Republicans can possibly hope to survive pushing so very many fantastically unpopular positions. I know they want to restrict information and voting rights so they can win without actually being popular, but it really doesn’t look to me like the numbers stack up. Surely that have to be headed for a long time in the wilderness with this political strategy don’t they?