Here’s how Stoermer describes Liberal Nationalism and the role it plays in american politics:
There’s a belief system that combines two things — first, that change must happen through official channels (voting, courts, proper debate), and second, that this procedural faith is wrapped in American exceptionalism. The system isn’t just legitimate. It is sacred because America itself is exceptional.
Now here’s where it gets complicated. Klein says the project is “the American experiment.” Newsom builds on that. Kirk said the same things, but meant something completely different. Kirk’s American experiment would destroy Klein’s and Newsom’s — he wanted to dismantle multiracial democracy, restrict voting, and return to what he called the real Founders’ vision. That would end everything Klein and Newsom claim to value.
Yet Klein’s nationalism enables Kirk’s. By treating Kirk’s anti-democratic project as legitimate discourse within the American experiment, by claiming they share common ground, Klein validates extremism as just another voice in the great American conversation.
And I keep wondering: Does the white Christian nationalist movement understand something about liberal nationalism that we don’t? Do they realize that as long as they frame their goals in terms of the Constitution, the Founders, and the American experiment, individuals like Klein will always find common ground with them?
I found other notable liberal figures saying similar things while perusing twitter. Notably senator John Fetterman recently insisted that americans (sorry, I refuse to capitalize demonyms. Sue me) should stop calling Trump an autocrat and pleaded for toning down the anti-Trump rhetoric. To me this attitude plays right into MAGA’s hands. This is the kind of stuff that whitewashes bigotry and helps reactionaries move the Overton window further right.
I would venture that in a similar situation, on this side of the pond we would be out on the streets, striking the economy to a screeching halt. But in the US, there seems to be this nationalist bootlicking mentality that prevents people from even considering direct action, simply because they believe the system will somehow fix itself and everything will be honky dory in the end.
I can’t help but think the US of A was never truly the haven of freedom we were told it was. And as much as I appreciate the comparably stronger fighting spirit of the working class here, I’m not sure it will be enough to resist the rise of the far right here in Europe either, propped up by the ever influential american politics. I’m a pessimist, so please give me hope, or don’t. Thoughts, please?
colewd:
I’m asking exactly the right question: is the OBBBA good policy? That’s the question that Trump and the members of Congress faced. Trump had a choice: push the bill, or not. Representatives and senators had a choice: vote for the bill, or not.
Imagine you are a member of Congress. You are faced with that question. How do you decide? If you are actually serving your constituents and the country at large, you ask: Will Americans be better off if this bill passes, or not? How will the provisions of this bill affect them? Who benefits, and who loses? Would this bill leave the country in a better place?
The question isn’t “Am I worried about the national debt?” It isn’t “What is my vision for healthcare reform?” The question is “Should I vote for this bill?”
Did Congress do the right thing? Let’s test it against your concerns:
1. You’re concerned about the large national debt. The OBBBA adds $4 trillion to it. Is more debt good, or bad? Does the OBBBA align with your debt concerns? Is it good to increase the national debt in order to make the rich richer?
2. You’d like to see healthcare reform. You’re concerned about life expectancy vs expenditures. The OBBBA will kick 17 million people off health insurance. It will double, on average, the health insurance premiums of 24 million people. It will slash $1 trillion from the Medicaid program. All of those will cause people to be less healthy because they will have to forego healthcare except in emergencies. That will result in more cost-ineffective ER visits. Will those policies increase life expectancy and make healthcare more efficient?
3. You say that the main goal of policy should be to improve the quality of life for everyone. I’ve shown you that the OBBBA transfers a huge amount of money from the poor, who are struggling and desperately need it, to the rich, who are doing fine and don’t need it at all. I’ve also shown you that across the entire income spectrum, money is flowing from poorer groups to wealthier ones, and that the top 1% are gaining more from the tax cuts than the bottom 60% combined. Do those policies improve the quality of life for everyone?
The OBBBA is antithetical to all three of the things you (supposedly) care about. You support it anyway. Why? Because your Dear Leader wanted it to pass, and his desires take precedence over everything else, including your own (former) values.
keiths,
This is closer to the right question.
Given the question let’s review all the OBBBA policies and weigh them against the debt problem and the overall quality of life issues for all Americans.
Like all policy related bills we will most likely see strengths and weaknesses to the bill.
keith:
colewd:
Closer to the right question? What is the right question, if not “is the OBBBA good policy?”
That’s what I’ve been doing for the entirety of the discussion. I presented a chart showing the differential effects of the tax cuts. I presented a chart showing the overall impact of the bill on various income groups. I explained that health care premiums will double for Obamacare enrollees, and that 17 million people are going to become uninsured as a result of the OBBBA. I informed you that the bill increases the national debt by $4 trillion.
What have I left out that can turn this frog of a bill into a prince? I’m all ears.
Also, keep in mind that it was Trump’s and the Republicans’ choice what to include and exclude from the bill. It wasn’t all or nothing. The final vote was up or down, but amendments were possible the entire time the bill was being considered.
keiths,
All you want to do is through money at the problem and not fix it. Here is a benchmark discussion with comparing US and Japan. Health care cost per person Government contribution and living expediency. Japan is doing a lot more than we are with dramatically less money. Why?
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ%3D%3D_88fed348-afc5-4027-9ace-d753e0caf4c8
colewd:
You’re changing the subject again. Why? I thought we agreed that the question is “is the OBBBA good policy?” You yourself said we should examine the provisions of the bill and “weigh them against the debt problem and the overall quality of life issues for all Americans.” I’m all for it, and that’s exactly what I’ve been doing for this entire discussion. Why are you bailing out now?
You say you’re concerned about the debt. Why then do you support a bill that adds $4 trillion to the debt in order to throw money at the rich? Please explain. How does that address the debt problem?
You say you want healthcare reform. Why then do you support a bill that worsens the health of Americans, decreases life expectancy, and makes healthcare less efficient? Does worsening the healthcare system count as reform in your view?
You say you’re concerned about “the overall quality of life issues for all Americans. Why then do you support a bill that worsens the quality of life of struggling Americans in order to benefit wealthier people who aren’t struggling at all? That gives more in tax cuts to the top 1% than to the bottom 60% combined? How does that improve the quality of life of all Americans?
Why do you support the OBBBA, Bill?
Literally every country in the world (maybe except some countries in the Third World) does a lot more in healthcare with less money. As atrocious as American healthcare system is, OBBBA manages to provide even less healthcare with *more* money, yet you still defend OBBBA.
Well, I think I just got your point – you have no investment stakes in healthcare, so you do not care whether it works or not. You have no recommendation how it should work and you feel nothing if everybody dies when it doesn’t. You just spew random words, the lazy label Grok man that you are.
Setting aside Bill’s doubletalk, you raise an important issue. How does the US manage to spend more with worse results than nearly every other country? I’ve seen claims that Big Pharma and the insurance industry are defending the system because it is so profitable. Are these industries in other nations going broke? I’ve seen claims that US doctors are inferior (doubtful), that US medical technology is inferior (doubtful). That US doctors aren’t working as hard (absurd – doctors wear tennis shoes to race from room to room giving every patient a few seconds of distracted attention). Maybe the whole system is so complicated and lawyered up that it leaks money at all the many seams?
You would think US legislators and medical leaders and the like would simply pick some nation like Japan or Sweden or somewhere and simply copy what they are doing. Why doesn’t this happen?