In many ways, Donald Trump reminds me of an age-old practice for raising property taxes in jurisdictions where a referendum is required to do this.
Suppose that you want to raise taxes by 5% but know that your electorate will never approve it. First propose something truly outrageous, like a hike of 15%. After the furor dies down—preferably with a staged ‘defeat’ at the ballot box—propose your 5% rise.
The electorate will be fooled into comparing the 5% rise to the 15% rise, instead of the present taxation rate. It will seem palatable. Even the anti-tax diehards, the ones who picked and yelled and threatened to secede or move to Canada will be taken in. “See! We got them to back down!” They’ll gloat. “We won!”
Tail wagging the dog, no offense to dogs.
This database state we’re building is a unique and especially pernicious threat. It’s completely arbitrary.
Before, it was simple: there were clear laws. Some things were illegal, everything else was permitted. You do something illegal (even if it shouldn’t be) and get caught, you get a public record. The chain of cause and effect sometimes had cruel effects but it was rational even when it was wrong.
Now, you buy a video-game while Muslim… you get a record. It’s irrational AND wrong. There’s no logic to it. There’s no way to refute it. We are faced with an inhuman monstrosity that absolutely nobody whatsoever has control over. The bureaucracy has spiraled out of all human control and it will not stop. “Those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to worry about.” Except, someone will misuse it. Someone untrustworthy will be granted access. There will be a mistake, a leak even.
The data will be used in ways that were not intended. Credit files are already used this way, to make employment, insurance and housing decisions. They’re not supposed to be but they are. This will be the same way.
Nothing could kill western liberal democracy. There is no force on earth that could destroy it from the outside. The suspicious heterodox dudes with videogames couldn’t do it. Even a sustained attack by a powerful nation-state could not do it. But it can commit suicide. It won’t even take very long.
So there’s all this talk now about Title II and how the FCC is going to force Net Neutrality and we’re going to have the Intertubez flow with milk and honey and blah-dee-blah.
We don’t need net neutrality, we need competition. To get competition we need local-loop/last-mile un-bundling. If we had that, prices (which are spectacularly high compared to similar countries) would plummet and competitive pressures would render ‘paid prioritization’ dead in the water. There wouldn’t even be a need for N.N. in the first place because it’s the very lack of these pressures that puts the carriers in the position to extort such schemes.
Wheeler’s plan is secretly a good deal for the cable cabal. They have to eschew a revenue stream, yes, but their monopoly status isn’t going to be challenged,
I do not think BriWi will, in the end, survive. The economics of TV news and the increasingly unpredictable finances of the networks mean that they keep doing news in part for reasons of prestige and you cannot be a prestigious prevaricator, no matter how fun that phrase is to say out-loud. If he does, and there is a non-zero chance he will, it will be the final crowning proof that the public are actively rejecting their civic duty to take news seriously and consume it critically and responsibly so they can make good democratic choices. I’m not sure that needs any additional proving at this point but there you have it.
“It could … largely [neutralize] a debate that a majority of Americans believe Republicans are on the wrong side of — and well ahead of the party’s 2016 presidential primaries.”
Yeah right, just like Roe V. Wade totally “neutralized” the debate over abortion… In reality, Roe grossly inflamed passions and quashed a growing, state-level movement. It will be the same here, this will make things far, far more acrimonious. It will not offer the G.O.P. cover, it will make the insurgency even worse and might contribute to the party’s already severe risk of selecting a non-viable candidate.
Here’s whats going to happen over the next 5-10 years. Everything tied to traditional malls will die.
Each time a “mall death” occurs it degrades the mall ecosystem and eventually the negative feedback will amplify exponentially and the 90-200 or so non-anchor store chains will all close quite quickly, probably within a few years.
Then assuming that none of the anchors die as a result of this process (for weakened anchors like Penny, Sears a significant possibility) the anchors will be robbed of the foot-traffic needed to survive and will then realize that they can’t close stores selectively because mall usage covenants irrationally impose extreme financial penalties for going out of business they’ll have no choice but to keep their unprofitable stores open and gradually bleed out in place.
These weakened institutions will not have the financial resources needed to re-orientate away from malls the way they once re-orientated towards them in the 70s-80s.
The left has convinced itself that prattling on about “income inequality” is the way to go. This is wrong; Americans want to be rich themselves so soaking the rich is not an attractive proposition.
It’s also too easy for the right to bat aside as “politics of envy” or something like that.
What the left really needs to do is rephrase their points to be about the “dramatic collapse of upward mobility.” Americans like upward mobility, after all, they want to be rich.
Polls show the majority of Americans believe their children will not have superior standard of living and the overwhelming majority of “middle class” adults believe their own standard of living is difficult to maintain. Most under-30s believe they already are the lost generation and have little hope for the future.
There’s your hook.
I do not think that the solution to dysfunctional politics is to push the Democratic party further to the left. In fact, this would weaken the left the same way the tea movement weakened the right. Then we will have weakness doubled up against weakness and BOTH parties will be consumed by ridiculous internal purity struggles. In such a scenario the unreformed, hated party establishment will inevitably prevail. There are real solutions: term limits, party threshold preferences, mandatory voting, root-and-branch electoral reform, open primaries but the people who control the system would lose their jobs if they enacted them.