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?
There is also no evidence that you know what evidence is and what truth is. At least we both know that you do not know what tariffs are, what the correct immigration numbers are, what “illegal” means, what “undocumented” means, whether the border is open and so on.
keiths,
The issue is debt to GDP ratio. If GDP grows faster then debt is added then the ratio shrinks. At less than 2% per year this ration will most likely shrink. All this being said I would prefer a bill that reduces debt and does not raise taxes but goes after spending.
Erik,
These are bald assertions. I really have no confidence you understand the US political system as your claims are rarely supported.
colewd:
No, the question is whether the OBBBA worsens the debt problem, and the answer is an unequivocal yes. If you pour water into the tub, the water rises. If you add to the debt, the debt increases. The OBBBA adds $4 trillion to the debt. That means the debt increases. If the OBBBA hadn’t passed, it would have added nothing to the debt. Which is better, more debt or less?
Yes, and that has nothing to do with the OBBBA debt question. Adding debt makes the debt bigger, and the OBBBA adds debt. If you’re concerned about the debt problem, why do you support the OBBBA? How does increasing the debt help us?
You’re misunderstanding the math. The roughly 2% that you’re quoting is the annual increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio. It’s a positive number, which means the ratio is getting bigger, not shrinking. It’s at 100% now and is expected to rise to 156% over the next 30 years. For the ratio to shrink, that 2% number would have to be negative. It isn’t.
Even if the number were negative, that wouldn’t excuse the OBBBA, because the OBBBA would still add debt and move the number in the positive direction. We don’t want that. Negative is good, because negative means that the ratio is decreasing.
I know you’re scouring the internet in hopes of finding some way to argue that the OBBBA actually improves the debt situation. Give up. It doesn’t.
The math is simple: adding debt increases the debt. If you have a debt problem, you want less debt, not more.
colewd,
You said earlier:
Trump and his Congressional accomplices are increasing the debt by a whopping $4 trillion. By your standard, they are fiscally incompetent.
Can you bring yourself to say that?
I struggle to visualize progressive sales taxes. Are you favoring, for example, higher taxes on more expensive items? You deny you’re talking about income taxes, but what other taxes can be progressive? I suppose a wealth tax could be – the richer you are, the more taxes you pay even if you are a rentier.
According to Google, the current US debt to GDP ratio is 142.8%, which strikes me as larger than 2%. Maybe you’re intending to say that the OBBBA increases this ratio from 140.8% to 142.8% which maybe doesn’t sound that bad to you, though you carefully misrepresent the actual ratio.
According to polls, citizens of most European nations (the first world) are among the happiest people, who are apparently content with very high taxes combined with very high spending (on social things like education and health). It has been a Republican position for many decades that the US should both tax and spend less. As keiths keeps trying to tell you, this happy condition applies to the wealthy because they pay the taxes, but don’t get the food stamps. The problem with reducing spending is, so much of the spending happens to help people who are not wealthy. You know, the Great Unwashed. Republicans are happy to starve such people.
Flint:
I’m not advocating any particular form of taxation as long as the overall system is progressive and fair. We need a system where the wealthier you are, the more you pay when all forms of taxation are taken into account.
But yes, a luxury tax is one possibility for making the sales tax progressive. You could certainly justify a higher tax rate for someone buying a Ferrari vs someone buying a Civic, for example. There could even be different rates for different tiers of luxuriousness. But there would be an administrative cost in establishing and enforcing the rules, and someone would have to decide what goods count as luxuries.
Right. Wealth taxes can be progressive, and so can estate taxes and property taxes. You can also arrange deductions, exemptions and credits so that they are progressive in effect.