The Democratic Party insider culture is weird, creepy, and super out of touch. It's basically the annoying people in College Democrats from the 1980s and 1990s who look down on others for not obsessing over Roberts Rules of Order. politico.com/story/2019/01/…
Unless you've worked on the Hill, it's hard to convey just how weird these people are. It's not that they are vanilla and lie to the grassroots, it's that they are incredibly proud of doing so and just loathe and distrust anyone who doesn't.
The culture is changing very quickly, but it was a fight - and people won't believe me when I say this - but it was a fight in 2008 to convince Democratic staff and members that Fox New wasn't an actual news channel.
The Democratic #BigLaw, Hill, and nonprofit space is like a set of incredibly meek loser mafia families. There are a few key people that control all the money and the blacklists are ridiculous. Read the article and you'll see how insular this culture is. politico.com/story/2019/01/…
People think Dems are wonks but the truth is they hate debate and ideas.
--> “I’m sure Ms. Cortez means well, but there’s almost an outstanding rule: Don’t attack your own people,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.). “We just don’t need sniping in our Democratic Caucus.”
“She needs to decide: Does she want to be an effective legislator or just continue being a Twitter star?” said one House Democrat. --> Yeah, like Democrats have been super-effective. This is so absurd.
“Washington is a political animal where a lot of the work that you want to accomplish depends on relationships within the Democratic Caucus,” said Velázquez <-- This is exactly what voters hate.
“The honeymoon between the voters that you represent and yourself could be a short one. People want to see results.” <--- This is just insane. Establishment Dems think they have just done a bang-up job for decades and that @AOC is popular just because she has a Twitter account.
“I think she needs to give herself an opportunity to know her colleagues and to give herself a sense of the chemistry of the body before passing judgment on anyone or anything,” said Rep. Yvette Clarke <-- Why should anyone have opinions about anything?
Of course there's sniping she hired @saikatc as her chief of staff, because controlling staff culture is incredibly important. In 2009 Dems couldn't believe that my boss hired me because I had *no hill experience.* Which is code for 'he doesn't know tolerating bribery is fine.'
“It totally pissed off everyone,” said one senior House Democratic lawmaker of the campaign. “You don’t get picked for committees by who your grass-roots [supporters] are.” <--- Dems have institutionalized hatred of their external supporters. Party of the people!
I don't want to contribute to the @AOC obsession in the media, and of course she and her people have things to learn. Writing law isn't simple. But she's a great touchstone to show how so many Dem establishment people are just wildly out of touch. There need to be mass layoffs.
There are a lot of staffers and ex-staffers who have stories about this and know exactly what I mean. This is particularly true for the post-2008 period, when the Dem leadership fully embraced the bailouts and the GOP did not.
And to a large extent this isn't the fault of most of these people. It just messes you up psychologically to have to write law as a member of the Party of the People while also doing so without disturbing anyone who is powerful. It turns you into someone angry at all non-liars.
There's this insane conflict-aversion. You only get to have an opinion if you are a 75 year annoying weirdo who obsessed over model UN in high school and is surrounded by yes-men eager to become lobbyists. Otherwise you don't understand the GOP are bad.
This isn't just a corporate donor thing, it's a culture. People like @sethmoulton and Tim Ryan were in part rebelling against Pelosi as a statement that it is just annoying to have so many out of touch thin-skinned dork weirdos as co-workers. Remember, this is their job.
Yup. It's not just the House, though that is the most infected part of the party. It extends down to more than half of Dem voters. Older Dem voters despise intraparty conflict and see themselves as personally left-wing while voting against left-wingers.
Even today lots of Democratic voters just do not believe you when you say Obama's policy was to have a foreclosure wave and not prosecute top Wall Street bankers. It's not that they disagree, they just cannot even imagine it. Cognitive dissonance is profound. Super weird.
Dem members are outraged anyone would see anything wrong with this.
1. This is an interesting piece by pollster Stan Greenberg, who coined the term 'Reagan Democrat' in the 1980s. It's all about Obama and his legacy, and not in a positive sense. Dems are losing black and hispanic working class voters now. prospect.org/politics/democ…
2. Greenberg sees the same trend lines for black and Hispanic working class voters as he did for white working class voters in the 1980s. And this all happened under Obama, who voters see as prioritizing Wall Street and big business.
3. While he's respected, Obama was insanely out of touch on what mattered to voters, and won reelection only because Mitt Romney was more out of touch. Obama is liked but the Obama political project is perceived of as disastrous. Obama is why Hillary Clinton lost in 2016.
Anyone who thinks the U.S. should defend Ukraine needs to explain why letting China waltz into Taiwan as our forces are bogged down in Europe is a good idea.
If Putin wants to invade Ukraine, there's nothing we can or should do. There is no rules-based international order, we saw to that with the invasion of Iraq. And Putin's fear of NATO expansion is legitimate. There is simply no reason to be involved in the defense of Ukraine.
Taiwan is actually strategically vital to the U.S., Ukraine is mostly not. This isn't complex, but the Army is embarrassed about Afghanistan and they have no role in the Pacific. And our bureaucracies know how to hate Russia but don't want to deal with the Wall Street-China axis.
It's common to ask 'well weren't firms greedy in 2019?!?'
Well, there has been a record merger wave from 2019-2021, accelerated by the pandemic and the Federal Reserve.
So yes, market power has increased.
No one is saying there's more greed, or that market power is the only cause of inflation. These are straw-men designed to police the boundaries of elite discourse. Keep doing it, economists, keep discrediting yourselves.
Listening now, man the judge is angry at Facebook. Asks plaintiffs to call for sanctioning them over their bad behavior in discovery. Also calls for the lawyers to also be sanctioned. Wow.
Judge Chhabria: "I want to invite the plaintiffs to invite to file motions for sanctions if they agree with me, and in any other areas where Facebook has engaged in sanctionable conduct. The partners in the pleading and Facebook should be jointly liable in the sanctions."
Judge Chhabria is saying the associates perhaps should not be sanctioned, but the partners should be. Perhaps to pay attorney costs for the other side. He's holding #BigLaw accountable.
1. Ok, this is kind of interesting. NBER's industrial organization section, which is the gathering of economists who study antitrust, just did something that seems a bit odd with regards to its annual conference. nber.org/conferences/in…
2. On day one of their conference, Friday, there was a panel with a bunch of antitrust economists who very much dislike Lina Khan and the new anti-monopoly movement. It was a lively panel, and I watched it.
3. Economist @florianederer live-tweeted the panel, and it kicked up something of a storm among those of us who care about the politics of antitrust economics. You can read his thread here.
I am no MMTer but I'm struck by how the basic critique by @Noahpinion of MMT - 'they always claim they are right' - apply to failed mainstream models of economics. None of them got the financial crisis or free trade or shortages.
Price controls are a good idea sometimes and a bad one sometimes. We are imposing controls for shipping right now, which no one in this debate seems to understand. We cannot impose broad price controls because we lack the capacity, which no one in this debate seems to understand.
The point of economics is not to be right or wrong, that's entirely incidental. The point is to develop a political language that excludes normal people from discussing political economy. That is it. mattstoller.substack.com/p/what-is-the-…