It's economical wild west in China right now, everyone for himself. After decades of starvation mentally and physically, their appetite is enormous. Those who glorify Mao and Cultural Revolution should read more about the person and why he started the CR - to consolidate Mao's personal power. Millions died to clear off his rivals or just anyone who disagreed with him. Mao would be turning in his grave astonished how his successors able to go beyond his wildest dream.Thanks for those who see a parallel here. How many high officals here do not use their influence and connection to benefit themselves and their families?. NYT should do an article detailing their wealth and how they got it.One party, two parites, corruption is the same result except that with one party you don't have anyone critizes the other but can somehow get things done!
To whatever extent this column was autobiographical, confessional or part of a 12 step program, David should be congratulated for it. Maybe he was actually poking fun at himself? Maybe he was channeling Maureen Dowd and putting down Ross Douthat at the same time? Or maybe he's been visited by the spirit of Bob Marley and has been smoking too much Ganja? Maybe he's worried he's just another debutante at the arrogance cotillion when he really wants to be queen of the prom. Perhaps it's escaped him that those living in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks, because the idea that "a man's gotta know his limitations" doesn't apply to him? But let's give the Devil his due, I can't remember ever seeing Brooks so tongue in cheek, especially while knowing it will be, to some large extent, at his own expense. Doubt and self-deprecation are not the currency of thought leaders, so he wouldn't wallow in them, it would be a waste of philosophical capital. I suspect he hears an an ominous ring to the progression of meaninglessness he describes.I can only conclude this is his last best attempt to show the Yale students in his course on Humility the shining path, though it sounds to me a lot like "No, but I slept at a Holiday Inn last night".
Uncontrolled, the top money class always wins--regardless of the prevailing economic system. I call it evolutionary economics, with money inevitability moving upward creating inequality as it rises. A fair minded political system can combat this situation through taxing the wealthy, but that will not happen in the United States where one political party, the GOP, protects the wealthy by maintaining the status quo. In short, the Republican Party makes certain that nothing happens to dent the power of the top 1% to approximately 20%.
Good analysis. It would also be interesting to know the effect of negative campaigns in which the candidate slams her opponent, the opposing party or the opposition party's leadership without explaining her own record and policies. As political campaigns become increasingly pugilistic instead of policy-driven, the winning candidate, having knocked out her opponent, withdraws to her corner and readies herself for the next fight. "Reaching across the aisle" now means tossing a bomb at the folks on the other side instead of trying to work with them for the common good.
All he's done is compromise, but he accomplished nothing while his party controlled both houses of congress? If he couldn't accomplish anything when his party had complete control of all three branches, how could anyone expect him to accomplish anything when the DNC only controls the White House? By your own definition, Mr Obama himself is the primary reason nothing has been accomplished, and everything he does through executive action can be reversed the day he leaves office with the stroke of a pen. His legacy will be a deeply divided country that's lost it's way on the global stage and views it's own citizens with disdain and suspicion. He's accomplished a great deal, almost all of it bad for the nation nd it's citizenry.
so, what is the relationship between "republicanism" and a pro-torture attitude?i suggest it's simply echo-chamber induced ignorance, like so many other views held by fox-watchers. they believe "torture works", because fox and talk radio say it does.the republican party is not inherently the "torture party". it's just that bush and cheney promoted torture (while hiding or denying it, at least originally), and repubs tend to be lock-step team players.of course, it's true that opposing torture but not saying much about obama's drone program--in which thousands have been killed--makes dems a bit hypocritical.
I am wondering two things having read this article:1) pundits regularly state the US is a "conservative"-leaning country, but is that because of more successful gerrymandering than actual votes for right-leaning policies?2) the 2010 tea party takeover of the House was called "historic," but I wonder if this wave was easier because of the prior gerrymandering done in the 2000 redistricting? Could this, would this same analysis show the same level of party-bias for that period as well?In any case, it's great to hear directly from the political scientist cum neuroscientist directly in the NY times!
No matter how one puts words to it ; The republican party is the party who condones a greater separation of wealth, lower wages for workers, benefits denied, all the while saying the people are unable to achieve the American dream.The people have been called takers, lazy, undereducated or untrained for positions.Unemployment while dropping to 7% is still actually higher, but headway is being made but ever so slowly due to what will now go down in the History Books as The Greatest Do Nothing Congress in our history.People who are republicans who defend the political position of that party, are not fine Americans by any stretch. The are the epitome of what not to be or want to ascend to, the very worst we have to offer. Corporatists , oligarchs, plutocrats.The republicans had better remember the poor working class they screw so often are the ones with the most guns, they are white and poor, south and Midwest, home to the RED States. So ya say ya wanna revolution, we all wanna change the world.Hey GOP you might just bring it on, and it will be former republicans carrying the guns.
Another essay by Brooks decrying a situation brought about by the party he shills for. How did we get this way? What changed between 1960 and today?The Republican party, that's what. Under Lee Atwater and Newt Gingrich, the GOP moved to wage political warfare on the Democrats. Liberals were not well-meaning compatriots with whom you disagreed, but America-hating enemies of freedom. Every divisive wedge issue has been milked for maximum political pay-out. Unsurprisingly, partisan and polarization rancor have reached new heights, and compromise is a pejorative. And that's not surprising: how do you compromise with the enemies of America? All of this is a product Republican political strategies.And does it really have to be pointed out that you can't chose your race, but you do chose your party? Your race says nothing whatsoever about your character, your worldview, your values. But your party affiliation does. To be a modern Republican you have to embrace the anti-science ignorance, bigotry, selfishness, greed, hypocrisy, and orchestrated resentment of the less-well-off that are the central planks of its vision of society. It speaks volumes about someone that they see the world this way and that they share these outlooks. It is a perfectly rational choice to decide you'd rather not associate with people who hold such vile views. That is not akin to racism in any way.If "partyism" is wrong, then, as with so many ills in today's America, look to the right for its source.
Well, color me disgusted, yet again by Mr. Friedman.It is unbelievable that The Times does not intervene -- it's like you've hired the town drunk to lecture people about sobriety. In 2002, when millions of us said in one voice: "Do not attack under any circumstances attack the thuggish, yet most secular Arab state in the Middle East -- the one with a cigar smoking, Christian right hand man (Tariq Aziz)." Yet, we did. And not only that we "wiselY" dismantled the Baath Party --- the most secular organization in the Middle East --- might I add that Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites, and Christians were all member sod this party --- and Lo and behold --- ISIS has appeared where? Well, exactly where we managed to undermine and destroy the Baath Party (Syria and Iraq). Friedman stood there for years with his ridiculous faux John Wayne talk telling all of us ignorant Peaceniks about how great it was to invade Iraq. And now the Arabs have to come to terms with THEIR problem, that THEYVE created?" OMG. Talk about projection...