Bannon: economic nationalism crushes racial ID politics

[Cicada]

"The democrats, the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."

In his call to Robert Kushner at the American Prospect he said that we must wage economic war against China. He agrees with Chinese writings that one of us will rule the economic world 30 years from now. Bannon thinks we are on a path to losing against China so we must change that path. He says that everything else in politics is secondary to that.

He said "Ethno-nationalism - it's losers. It's a fringe element....we gotta help crush it...These guys are a collection of clowns."

Maybe he's right that economic nationalism beats a focus on race and identity. So we should also push economic populism to the front of our campaigns. We need to stress that the economic elite has unfairly grabbed almost all economic gains, that all of us are getting screwed by them. That the rising economic tide only lifts the yachts and none of the lesser boats. It is only fair that the hugely rich pay more tax, that the government spend more on programs that benefit the masses of us, such as on infrastructure to reduce commuting times, bigger subsidies for daycare for workers. We should raise tax on vacant land to encourage construction of homes, offices, businesses. The economic royalist always say if you tax something you get less of it. Taxing vacant land will produce less of it, which in many areas would be good. More residences means lower housing costs.

[ehrnst]

1. This was deliberate on the part of Bannon

to give Commander Chaos cover for firing him.

I wouldn't put much stock in what he says.

And if you are basing a prediction on how "economic populism" will win over white nationalists, you haven't been paying attention to what is going on in Europe right now.


https://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/13/14698812/bernie-trump-corbyn-left-wing-populism

Trickle down social justice is about as likely as trickle down economics.

[Cicada]

6. Not all populist policies piss off racists

Racists support higher taxes on the elite rich. There is no reason for them to view higher tax on vacant land as another give away to you know who. Racists can favor cleaner air and water projects - racist farmers around me love the payments they get for easements for power lines from big solar projects, young racists probably agree that global warming is a problem.

But thanks for your link to the Vox article showing my naïveté about the inevitable appeal of populism. You have motivated me to think harder.

[ehrnst]

8. Any group that gets livid at the mere mention of "government"

isn't going to accept any policies that increase government involvement.

We can, however keep moving forward on policies that address the very real issues that keep people who are not straight white males at the bottom of the economic ladder. I don't agree that they are somehow in opposition to or take away from economic policies that affect white straight men.

I think that the idea that they do is straight out of the right wing playbook.

[Cicada]

27. How many people get livid at all govt acts?

The tiny govt crowd may just use that to justify govt actions they oppose. Iowa farmers want minimal govt combined with the grandest ethanol programs the world has ever seen. I bet there are many govt programs most tiny govt people would support.

[ehrnst]

29. They are of the opinion that they deserve any assistance that benefits them personally

but that which benefits others that aren't in their tribe is "socialism," and that is fresh steaming hell straight from the colon of Satan.

And we have seen how easily they defend tax breaks for the wealthy, likely because they consider themselves temporarily unwealthy.

[BeyondGeography]

2. You suspect he's right

I suspect you're right.

[JHan]

3. You are aware that...

Maybe he's right that economic nationalism beats a focus on race and identity. So we should also push economic populism to the front of our campaigns. We need to stress that the economic elite has unfairly grabbed almost all economic gains, that all of us are getting screwed by them. That the rising economic tide only lifts the yachts and none of the lesser boats. It is only fair that the hugely rich pay more tax, that the government spend more on programs that benefit the masses of us, such as on infrastructure to reduce commuting times, bigger subsidies for daycare for workers. We should raise tax on vacant land to encourage construction of homes, offices, businesses. The economic royalist always say if you tax something you get less of it. Taxing vacant land will produce less of it, which in many areas would be good. More residences means lower housing costs.

...the republican message doesn't hold with any of that right?

That Bannon himself doesn't care for higher taxes on the rich, that the democratic platform last year more closely resembles what you espouse than the word salads Trump offered the electorate.

And surely you understand that what is called "racial ID politics" by a white nationalist like Bannon is actually policy that addresses the particular concerns of women, and minority groups, and there would be overlap covering infrastructure development , criminal justice reform, reproductive rights etc etc,

Sighhhhhhhhh

[BeyondGeography]

4. When you run candidates who have credibility issues when it comes to economic fairness

good luck getting the voters to think about policy specifics.

[JHan]

10. The determination to avoid underlying reasons for Trump's appeal...

is not unexpected.

"Good luck getting voters to think about policy specifics" - to their detriment they don't and they are the only ones who lose out. Politicians have options when they lose elections or bow out of politics, voters live with the consequences, including those who bothered to take their civic responsibilities seriously.

The hot take from Bannon about racial ID politics is co- signed by the OP , while Sessions is determined to undo anti-discrimination laws at the department of Justice which sought to address the ways millions of Americans are disadvantaged, which by the way, impacts not only their rights but access to opportunity and by extension, capital/wealth.

Apparently this needs explaining on a liberal forum.

[BeyondGeography]

11. More condescension...ping me when you figure out what happened last year

[JHan]

20. Condescension is co signing an OP that quotes Bannon...

A white nationalist, despite the nonsense going on at the Justice Department, despite Bannons isolationism which will impact the economy, and despite the fuckery Trump exposed.

And yeah I know only too well what happened last year. I was determined to avoid the bullshit happening this year.

[BeyondGeography]

21. Evil people understand certains things, too

That's how they acquire power. Better to acknowledge why they are a legitimate threat and what we might be doing to make ourselves more vulnerable to them than to moralize.

[JHan]

25. And on that point we may find some agreement

I believe one of the core problems are how liberal ideas are framed and disseminated.

[BeyondGeography]

31. We have been too muddled for too long

is my two cents, both our policies and our candidates/elected officials. Most people are justifiably freaked out by the present and they want some clarity. We have for decades failed to define the Republicans for what they are. Obama, God bless him, kept waiting for the bipartisan magic to appear and spent eight years playing the game by a set of rules that only he was prepared to abide by. The enemy is the Republican Party and it must be defeated at every possible level. How about using that as a starting point? Then take every step you can to differentiate. That would mean big changes in how we conduct our business as Democrats, starting with who our politicians take money from and how they make their money. But it would have the happy side-effect of adding a world of credibility to what we're offering policy-wise.

[JHan]

36. I agree with a lot of that

The influence of moneyed special interests and how they wield influence is a problem ( and this depends on who is doing the lobbying of course , I have no issue with lobbying as a practice but lobbying from "corporate" entities and other big industries dominate D.C far too much) .... Still this has been a problem for a long long time. Even FDR, who many see as populist, wasn't as populist as people think today, despite his famous speech. Money and politics go hand in hand. I would rather state/ federal funded elections but there are some steps we have to take before we get there - we have to reverse decisions at SCOTUS. Until such time , we have to use tools as imperfect as they are.

And we have to not walk into traps- you alluded to one of them which was Obama's assumption Republicans would be good faith actors in their dealings with him. Idealistically , Obama was correct in his approach , but his opponents were not about to make his presidency easy. And the Tea Party rebellion guaranteed there would be fewer republican centrists or moderates to reach across the aisle and put partisanship aside.

I am also not sure people who turned to Trump cared that much about the money aspect - sure they claimed him being a businessman meant he was beholden to no one but he ran as a republican, and the republicans have no issue with dark money in politics. What has worked for Republicans is their ability to falsely equivocate Democrats using corporate smears while being the party that advocates for the supremacy of predatory capitalists. And they successfully made arguments about dems being out of touch in states they control , states they have badly governed and subjected to service cuts.

And then the voter suppression tactics ...

So the war of ideas and how they are communicated, using effective tools and beating opponents at their own game, is what is critical. It also means tending to the base, at a time when the demographics Sessions & Co will target will be those who usually vote democrats i.e PoC ...etc

[BeyondGeography]

37. I didn't vote for Bernie and I know you didn't either

but when he called Republicans cowards for their voter suppression tactics, I wished at the time that it would instantly become SOP for all Democrats on the issue (knowing full well that it wouldn't). There's nothing wrong with sharpening our rhetoric. In fact, it's politically criminal not to on issues that define who we are relative to our opponents. We fail repeatedly to draw clear distinctions with language, and we've been doing so since Reagan.

[emulatorloo]

13. So you're talking about Trump right? Predatory capitalist with a long history of not paying workers

The guy who ran on White identity politics, murderous Mexicans, terrorist Muslims, and "my African American"

Had no substantive policy, but a history of fucking over working people.

[BeyondGeography]

14. Trump ran as a douche

And you must admit, he was authentic.

[emulatorloo]

17. True! But he was "anti-Status Quo" tho lol

[ehrnst]

18. What candidates are you referring to? (nt)

[Cicada]

12. We need to support social justice PLUS stress economic populism

If pro social justice policies lose votes, I don't care. Winning racist votes by being racist is obviously horrible. But wE can still steal votes from racist enclaves with additional good populist policies. And in politics, as a sad truth, we must support some bad but popular ideas. For instance I believe, as many liberal economists believe, that trade deals such as the TPP treaty will produce small benefits to us overall. But I can live with policies opposing such trade agreements which appeal to those who just hate foreigners and view trade deals as giveaways to Asians etc. The additional votes we gain are probably worth the small economic losses from opposing such economic treaties. Can we talk? A small bit of demagoguery may be a requirement to get good things done in politics.

[JHan]

24. tell that to Iowa's farmers..

Who wanted access to Asian markets .

Bannon is wrong about trade, wrong about job creation, but he knows how to appeal to the ignorant and he knows how to manipulate narratives.

20th century solutions will not fix 21st century challenges. His arguments are 60 years stale and they got traction because millions of Americans wanted "their country back" whatever the fuck that means....actually we know what that means but don't want to talk about it for fear of offense.

This is actually a meme war, We have to counter the ways liberal ideas are framed and deseminated.

[ehrnst]

33. So we throw the environment under the bus, too?

Or just issues that don't affect straight white men directly?

I mean, we could promise to bring back coal, right?

[Snake Plissken]

5. Yes Steve, slavery tends to work that ...

as does genocide.

[Johnny2X2X]

7. Bannon will be out

Bannon is breaking the first commandment of the White House here, I. Thou Shalt not draw even an ounce of attention away from the Fuhrer!

And he contradicts Trump in this interview on a couple issues. Bannon is getting dismissed soon.

[tblue37]

9. Robert KUTTNER, not Kushner. nt

[Cicada]

15. Apparently all the K people look alike to me

[tblue37]

22. We type "Kushner" all the time, but Kuttner pretty much never, so

our typing fingers tend to go on automatic and type out the more familiar word. Also, autocorrect tends to stick in words we have typed frequently.

[Nevernose]

16. Dear Mr Bannon:

We can multitask.

Sincerely,
Democrats

[ehrnst]

19. +1000 (nt)

[dalton99a]

23. Absolutely.

[JHan]

28. Thank you. ++++++++++

[uponit7771]

30. +1

[Cary]

26. I just heard Robert Kuttner interviewed on NPR

He was not too flattering to Bannon. He said Bannon, like #fakepresident, would say anything and that.hubris is always the downfall.

I agree. Bannon will never deliver.

[superpatriotman]

32. Here we go again

Letting the unservatives frame the argument.

Identity politics? Is that our term or theirs?
Answer: it's theirs.

There has to be an ad executive on the left who can start work shopping and focus grouping some strong Democratic messages. Because the Better Deal stuff ain't making me get the feels.

[BeyondGeography]

34. Here's a good take on that

Modern-day Democrats are constitutionally incapable of sharp and bold; Nancy Pelosi’s op-ed announcing the Better Deal in the Washington Post, for example, is swimming in the same sort of ambiguous futurific formulas that Americans are wary of but that Democrats seem to love.

“It is time,” she writes, “to ignite a new era of investment in America’s workers, empowering all Americans with the skills they need to compete in the modern economy.”

Empowering Americans with skills for modernity? If the Democrats mean, workers will be paid more, why not just say it? Even the noncontroversial promise (noncontroversial among liberals, I mean) to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour is clouded on the Better Deal homepage with enough wishy-wash to make one doubt the sincerity of the party’s Solons.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/10/finally-democrats-are-looking-in-the-mirror-thats-reason-for-optimism?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[maxrandb]

35. I would tell folks

Look, if I raise Trump and Dick Cheney's taxes by a million dollars, and yours by $100, but that would cut $5,000 off your kids college tuition and give you back 42 hours a year of commute time... would it be worth it?

[Gothmog]

38. Lets prove bannon wrong

[ehrnst]

39. Good post on VOX why Bannon is dead wrong on Economic Nationalism

The reality, however, is that “economic nationalism” has grave flaws as an ideology beyond Trump’s racism, lack of policy knowledge, and personal indiscipline. The idea that the United States as a whole is locked in zero-sum economic competition with other countries or that average Americans could become wealthier at the expense of foreigners is simply wrong.

At best, it’s an analytical error born of bias or confusion about relative versus absolute living standards. At worst, it’s a con job — an effort to distract middle- and working-class Americans from very real questions about the domestic distribution of economic resources by casting aspersions on foreigners.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/21/16165348/steve-bannon-economic-nationalism

[Cicada]

40. Here Bannon's views are shared by many Democrats

He called Kuttman to express solidarity about the harm of trade with China, for instance.

But the critique of Vox is shared by many liberal experts, such as Paul Krugman, Brad de Long, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama etc who all view trade as a winner for almost everyone. We all pay a hundred dollars less per month at the store, say, Ford using a lot of less expensive imported components can compete for European car sales, etc while 58 people at a factory making brooms in El Paso have to find a different job. I trust Paul Krugman and Brad de Long to likely be correct.

And a huge part of lost manufacturing must be due to automation rather than Nafta.

It seems to me the solution to economic inequality starts with more progressive taxation, beefed up government safety nets, such as subsidies for child care for working parents with low and moderate incomes, big infrastructure projects, big environmental projects such as for planting trees, subsidies for apprentice programs like in German factories, etc

I think Bannon is a crack pot. I agree that China's economy will grow bigger than ours but I think this can be a good thing. Chinese scientists curing cancer before UC San Diego scientists do it is ok with me. Chinese autonomous car software edging ahead of Tessa would save American lives, not just Chinese lives. This zero sum game crap he worships is bull.