Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[TGW]

Read on Twitter

[Pointgod]

The changes in Europe are pretty fascinating - including Merkle essentially losing her position due to immigration.

Those that advocate for restrictions rely on a couple of key arguments.

Immigration weaken the use of existing languages, weaken existing religion(s), decrease family values, change cultural norms, etc..

Immigrants use social welfare programs, leading to urban slums and inundate our social service programs.

Immigration hurts the sending country (if they lose high-skilled labor).

Immigration lowers the income of the citizens that are currently here, especially our low-skilled workers.

But none of them are true. And until those arguments are beaten down and the general public understands this or until we come up with the counter emotional arguments - the anti-immigration folks will win that war.

The problem I see if that there isn't an effective emotional counter argument. There are definitely logically arguments (especially in the US) like increased GDP, our demographic issue (age), need for skilled workers, etc. But the current set of politicians that are pro-immigration have been very ineffective at getting their message out.

Well the answer isn’t to completely ignore it and not address the obvious xenophobia and racism, the answer is to call it out for what it is, but also explain why. This is the part where the Democrats have been poor when it comes to messaging. The only reason Republicans use racism as a political tool is because they believe the American people are stupid and can’t offer any policies that either make the majority of Americans safer or their lives better.

And they need to offer a better alternative in a less academic and matter of fact way, instead using a way that connects to people.

I’m pretty sure the American people don’t appreciate being lied to or Republicans playing them for idiots. It needs to be called out.

With you on this one. We need to make sure that the R policies are stupid and are having unintended consequences. Then lay out there better way... and that is the problem I am having - it is hard to articulate the D party line. For Trump its easy, I am keeping them out because - see the points above.

I think the way Merkle presented her view ended up being a losing strategy.

But you yourself pointed out why immigration is really a non issue. It’s a net benefit, even illegal immigration. You can’t make a good faith argument against immigration so why should Democrats even address it on Republican terms? Instead they should always pivot and point out that Republicans use immigration as a political tool. When you call out their game the Republicans lose all their talking points.

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

I like Cenk but I don’t know what he really expected here. Mueller was never going to go all a few good men and start yelling at Congress and implicating Trump. Literally everything was laid out and spelled out in the report.

His testimony yesterday did a good job of refuting Barr and Trump’s lies that the Mueller report exonerated Trump. More importantly he reiterated that Russia attacking and infiltrating the elections was real, substantial and criminal, not a hoax. Something that you and your buddy Glenn Greenwald have been proven wrong about many times.

[dckingsfan]

Well the answer isn’t to completely ignore it and not address the obvious xenophobia and racism, the answer is to call it out for what it is, but also explain why. This is the part where the Democrats have been poor when it comes to messaging. The only reason Republicans use racism as a political tool is because they believe the American people are stupid and can’t offer any policies that either make the majority of Americans safer or their lives better.

And they need to offer a better alternative in a less academic and matter of fact way, instead using a way that connects to people.

I’m pretty sure the American people don’t appreciate being lied to or Republicans playing them for idiots. It needs to be called out.

With you on this one. We need to make sure that the R policies are stupid and are having unintended consequences. Then lay out there better way... and that is the problem I am having - it is hard to articulate the D party line. For Trump its easy, I am keeping them out because - see the points above.

I think the way Merkle presented her view ended up being a losing strategy.

But you yourself pointed out why immigration is really a non issue. It’s a net benefit, even illegal immigration. You can’t make a good faith argument against immigration so why should Democrats even address it on Republican terms? Instead they should always pivot and point out that Republicans use immigration as a political tool. When you call out their game the Republicans lose all their talking points.

Well - learning from others mistakes - in this case Merkel would be my response. She didn't lay out a vision of why they would help Germany, just why Germany needed to help them. And in a sense, that is a bit why we are losing this debate. Articulating the policy from a D perspective is hard and we haven't had a recent POTUS that was able to do that effectively.

It is also pretty easy to counter, "they are just using it as a political tool". The Ds have also played the game to make it a political too.

Eventually, if we want to win this debate and not have it yoyo back and forth - we need to have a solid immigration plan that benefits both the US and immigrants and be able to articulate it.

A response to the immigration issues that they lay out of - they are just using it as a political tool is a losing strategy.

[Kanyewest]

Read on Twitter

I like Cenk but I don’t know what he really expected here. Mueller was never going to go all a few good men and start yelling at Congress and implicating Trump. Literally everything was laid out and spelled out in the report.

His testimony yesterday did a good job of refuting Barr and Trump’s lies that the Mueller report exonerated Trump. More importantly he reiterated that Russia attacking and infiltrating the elections was real, substantial and criminal, not a hoax. Something that you and your buddy Glenn Greenwald have been proven wrong about many times.

Is Glenn Greenwald joining Nancy Pelosi in the movement not to continue the impeachment proceedings? Go figure.

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

Folks,

We got him. The GOP will now line up for a bipartisan impeachment effort. Trump voters are ready to disavow the President after learning of his staff's abhorrent email practices. Proper email server management, as we all know, is a bedrock national security issue that both sides care deeply about.

We got him!!!!!

Spoiler:

[I_Like_Dirt]

She knows what she speaks - it has taken her down.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/will-the-latest-migration-crisis-bring-down-angela-merkel

I suppose I didn't word that clearly. It absolutely took her down. I'm suggesting that without her there, things would be so much worse right now and would have devolved so much quicker that there would be an absolute disaster. Anyone but Merkel and Germany doesn't accept so many Syrians because the anti-immigration movement would have had waaaaay more traction out of the gates. And if Germany doesn't accept all those Syrians, they go elsewhere which means not only is Germany worse off but the rest of Europe is now facing way more migrants and that would mean even worse problems. Merkel's accomplishments guiding Germany were flat out amazing in my eyes, even if she couldn't prevent the inevitable. She strengthened Germany's economy, kept the middle classes relatively strong (though home ownership isn't nearly the same kind of thing in Germany, for example, but tenants rights absolutely are much better) and did so at a time of mass migration. Fear in general, and in this case fear of migrants, makes it far easier to divide and conquer. Merkel fought the rising tide and held it at bay way longer than anyone else might have done even if she couldn't win the war on her own.

[dckingsfan]

She knows what she speaks - it has taken her down.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/will-the-latest-migration-crisis-bring-down-angela-merkel

I suppose I didn't word that clearly. It absolutely took her down. I'm suggesting that without her there, things would be so much worse right now and would have devolved so much quicker that there would be an absolute disaster. Anyone but Merkel and Germany doesn't accept so many Syrians because the anti-immigration movement would have had waaaaay more traction out of the gates. And if Germany doesn't accept all those Syrians, they go elsewhere which means not only is Germany worse off but the rest of Europe is now facing way more migrants and that would mean even worse problems. Merkel's accomplishments guiding Germany were flat out amazing in my eyes, even if she couldn't prevent the inevitable. She strengthened Germany's economy, kept the middle classes relatively strong (though home ownership isn't nearly the same kind of thing in Germany, for example, but tenants rights absolutely are much better) and did so at a time of mass migration. Fear in general, and in this case fear of migrants, makes it far easier to divide and conquer. Merkel fought the rising tide and held it at bay way longer than anyone else might have done even if she couldn't win the war on her own.

One way of looking at it. Or their is the Sun Tzu approach to this...

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

Fighting a battle that was inevitably going to shift the entirety of Europe to the left and help the Brexit cause. Is that a hill to die on?

[pancakes3]

In resistance news, someone doctored the presidential seal at Trump's speech to the maglets at Turning Points to have a Russian eagle clutching golf clubs instead of arrows, and instead of e pluribus unum, it read "Trump is a puppet" in spanish.



https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-speech-in-front-of-presidential-seal-with-russian-eagle-2019-7

[Kanyewest]

She knows what she speaks - it has taken her down.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/will-the-latest-migration-crisis-bring-down-angela-merkel

I suppose I didn't word that clearly. It absolutely took her down. I'm suggesting that without her there, things would be so much worse right now and would have devolved so much quicker that there would be an absolute disaster. Anyone but Merkel and Germany doesn't accept so many Syrians because the anti-immigration movement would have had waaaaay more traction out of the gates. And if Germany doesn't accept all those Syrians, they go elsewhere which means not only is Germany worse off but the rest of Europe is now facing way more migrants and that would mean even worse problems. Merkel's accomplishments guiding Germany were flat out amazing in my eyes, even if she couldn't prevent the inevitable. She strengthened Germany's economy, kept the middle classes relatively strong (though home ownership isn't nearly the same kind of thing in Germany, for example, but tenants rights absolutely are much better) and did so at a time of mass migration. Fear in general, and in this case fear of migrants, makes it far easier to divide and conquer. Merkel fought the rising tide and held it at bay way longer than anyone else might have done even if she couldn't win the war on her own.

One way of looking at it. Or their is the Sun Tzu approach to this...

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

Fighting a battle that was inevitably going to shift the entirety of Europe to the left and help the Brexit cause. Is that a hill to die on?

I would say it is probably worth it for her if it is true that she wasn't planning to run for another term but yeah these moves are not without their political costs.

Not sure why she should care too much about her policy effects foreign countries like the US and Britain, more or less because they seem to be responsible for electing similar crazy hair conservatives.

[dckingsfan]

I suppose I didn't word that clearly. It absolutely took her down. I'm suggesting that without her there, things would be so much worse right now and would have devolved so much quicker that there would be an absolute disaster. Anyone but Merkel and Germany doesn't accept so many Syrians because the anti-immigration movement would have had waaaaay more traction out of the gates. And if Germany doesn't accept all those Syrians, they go elsewhere which means not only is Germany worse off but the rest of Europe is now facing way more migrants and that would mean even worse problems. Merkel's accomplishments guiding Germany were flat out amazing in my eyes, even if she couldn't prevent the inevitable. She strengthened Germany's economy, kept the middle classes relatively strong (though home ownership isn't nearly the same kind of thing in Germany, for example, but tenants rights absolutely are much better) and did so at a time of mass migration. Fear in general, and in this case fear of migrants, makes it far easier to divide and conquer. Merkel fought the rising tide and held it at bay way longer than anyone else might have done even if she couldn't win the war on her own.

One way of looking at it. Or their is the Sun Tzu approach to this...

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

Fighting a battle that was inevitably going to shift the entirety of Europe to the left and help the Brexit cause. Is that a hill to die on?

I would say it is probably worth it for her if it is true that she wasn't planning to run for another term but yeah these moves are not without their political costs.

Not sure why she should care too much about her policy effects foreign countries like the US and Britain, more or less because they seem to be responsible for electing similar crazy hair conservatives.

The political costs were possibly Brexit, long-term move away from her party in Germany and enabling the move to the right in other European countries. Pretty steep.

As for the US - she shouldn't care. But it is a learning opportunity on how not to do this.

[Kanyewest]

One way of looking at it. Or their is the Sun Tzu approach to this...



Fighting a battle that was inevitably going to shift the entirety of Europe to the left and help the Brexit cause. Is that a hill to die on?

I would say it is probably worth it for her if it is true that she wasn't planning to run for another term but yeah these moves are not without their political costs.

Not sure why she should care too much about her policy effects foreign countries like the US and Britain, more or less because they seem to be responsible for electing similar crazy hair conservatives.

The political costs were possibly Brexit, long-term move away from her party in Germany and enabling the move to the right in other European countries. Pretty steep.

As for the US - she shouldn't care. But it is a learning opportunity on how not to do this.

I'm not sure turning away Syrian refugees in Germany would have stalled the rise of the right in Britain at least based on the Europeans that I know. I think you are right that there is a rise in the right in Europe but I would not attribute that simply to the refugee issue but also economic reasons (loss of jobs/wages/etc) and people wanting to find someone else to blame. The US barely had any refugees and they managed to elect Donald Trump. Probably legal immigration was enough to get the far right in Europe riled up.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Fighting a battle that was inevitably going to shift the entirety of Europe to the left and help the Brexit cause. Is that a hill to die on?

I suppose. Sun Tzu is more about living to fight another day, though. I'm not so sure there was exactly another day there, or that the battle was lost in a manner that she lost avenues to return later that would have otherwise been available to her. Realistically, what were her options? Leave and come back with an army? Become a subversive force from the underground? That was more Sun Tzu's style.

Her losing didn't actually salt the earth for future gains, either. She did a lot that will ultimately help her cause long term, too. A stronger economy makes positive politics easier. And allowing all those refugees in and holding power for so long makes it impossible to simply close the doors at this point while also buying some time for those people to establish themselves a bit. This wasn't a simple win/lose situation. I suppose the argument would be that Germany wouldn't have so much far-right activity had she not let those immigrants in but looking at things objectively, the entire world is having issues with reactionary movements right now whether they have immigrants or not, and by increasing problems in the rest of Europe, it would have simply made the problem worse. Merkel wasn't going to be Chancellor for life anyway. In different circumstances I get the impression she might have stepped aside earlier but held on longer due to real world problems.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Well - learning from others mistakes - in this case Merkel would be my response. She didn't lay out a vision of why they would help Germany, just why Germany needed to help them. And in a sense, that is a bit why we are losing this debate. Articulating the policy from a D perspective is hard and we haven't had a recent POTUS that was able to do that effectively.

Merkel did articulate why refugees would help Germany. The problem is that in practice, telling people that they aren't enough on their own and that they need others (people they don't trust, fair or not) to move there and help them out when they don't get to tangibly see that help themselves, has never been a particularly useful political tool.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-economy-immigration-law-analy/merkel-takes-a-gamble-with-new-immigration-law-idUSKCN1LY1E0

Your argument is akin to an argument liberals often make where the gist of it is that "education" is somehow the answer. The problem with that line of thinking is that it's both true and not true at the same time and understanding that paradox is crucial. The larger issue, though, is that if people aren't actually seeing economic benefits of immigration, they're going to ignore them. In Germany, it hasn't been long enough to really show anything substantial and it's impossible to tell where they will head right now. In America's case, the precedent for all the benefits being syphoned upwards to be eventually, hopefully trickled down at some point in the undefined future, causes potentially greater problems on that end.

[TGW]

Watch on YouTube

[dckingsfan]

Well - learning from others mistakes - in this case Merkel would be my response. She didn't lay out a vision of why they would help Germany, just why Germany needed to help them. And in a sense, that is a bit why we are losing this debate. Articulating the policy from a D perspective is hard and we haven't had a recent POTUS that was able to do that effectively.

Merkel did articulate why refugees would help Germany. The problem is that in practice, telling people that they aren't enough on their own and that they need others (people they don't trust, fair or not) to move there and help them out when they don't get to tangibly see that help themselves, has never been a particularly useful political tool.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-economy-immigration-law-analy/merkel-takes-a-gamble-with-new-immigration-law-idUSKCN1LY1E0

Your argument is akin to an argument liberals often make where the gist of it is that "education" is somehow the answer. The problem with that line of thinking is that it's both true and not true at the same time and understanding that paradox is crucial. The larger issue, though, is that if people aren't actually seeing economic benefits of immigration, they're going to ignore them. In Germany, it hasn't been long enough to really show anything substantial and it's impossible to tell where they will head right now. In America's case, the precedent for all the benefits being syphoned upwards to be eventually, hopefully trickled down at some point in the undefined future, causes potentially greater problems on that end.

Well, I don't speak German well, so I could be wrong on this but Merkel didn't so much articulate as dictate - If I am wrong, let me know.

And I am not in Germany, so I can't tell you why so many fled her party after the immigration decision(s). My guess is that it was communication and leadership.

Either way, it is hard to ignore the unintended consequences - losing power and moving Europe further right. And I think there are some good lessons to be learned by our politicians. For example, let's say Booker wins and does what he has promised - would that then cause the next cycle back to the Republicans? Probably.

[dckingsfan]

I would say it is probably worth it for her if it is true that she wasn't planning to run for another term but yeah these moves are not without their political costs.

Not sure why she should care too much about her policy effects foreign countries like the US and Britain, more or less because they seem to be responsible for electing similar crazy hair conservatives.

The political costs were possibly Brexit, long-term move away from her party in Germany and enabling the move to the right in other European countries. Pretty steep.

As for the US - she shouldn't care. But it is a learning opportunity on how not to do this.

I'm not sure turning away Syrian refugees in Germany would have stalled the rise of the right in Britain at least based on the Europeans that I know. I think you are right that there is a rise in the right in Europe but I would not attribute that simply to the refugee issue but also economic reasons (loss of jobs/wages/etc) and people wanting to find someone else to blame. The US barely had any refugees and they managed to elect Donald Trump. Probably legal immigration was enough to get the far right in Europe riled up.

She didn't just take on Syrian refugees, she pledged to take in a million of them. And with open borders in the Europe - what did that mean long-term? Brexit passed by the slimmest of margins.

What is interesting is that the unintended consequences of our actions (Bush's ill-advised War in Iraq and Obama ignoring Syria) were her eventual undoing and intimately has move Europe to the right.

[Ruzious]

So Booker's deal is that his main focus as President will be to improve rights of hardened criminals. That sounds like a winner.

[I_Like_Dirt]

And I am not in Germany, so I can't tell you why so many fled her party after the immigration decision(s). My guess is that it was communication and leadership.

Either way, it is hard to ignore the unintended consequences - losing power and moving Europe further right. And I think there are some good lessons to be learned by our politicians. For example, let's say Booker wins and does what he has promised - would that then cause the next cycle back to the Republicans? Probably.

Her party always had a tenuous pact and more right-wing leanings. When the more right-wing side of her party leaned, she chose not to lean with it and to get what she could before things ultimately broke while making the case. Things were already breaking that direction even before she made moves on immigration and refugees. I suppose you can make the argument that she should have blown with the political tides but that sort of defeats the point and doesn't stop the political pressures in the slightest. To use the American example, you can see how Obama didn't do enough to stop refugees but he's the one that built the cages. These political arguments are shields at best to hide the beliefs and emotions that are driving these movements.

And Merkel didn't cause Brexit with her immigration policies. Let's be real. It's a factor, to be sure, but this idea that she is somehow the kingmaker in England? England is responsible for their own issues. It isn't Mexico that's causing Trump. If you're going to make that argument, then the argument should be made that we need to stop immigration altogether because it risks having anti-immigration movements. The logic just doesn't follow. We're seeing Trump supporters telling Native Americans to go back to their country. Texans telling the same to Mexicans, completely ignoring history. It's ridiculous and it doesn't actually follow this kind of cold rationale logic you're trying to bring in where some sort of clear education on advantages and disadvantages would suddenly resolve the issues. It very clearly doesn't.

People can't escape owning their **** here regardless of whether or not they want to admit it. There is no finger pointing to blame some "other" for why they hate refugees or different skin colors or different languages. That's on them. If the idea is that someone else needs to do something to change their minds, there are absolutely limits to that. Simply accepting it and following their lead is extremely Neville Chamberlain-esque. The big issue at play here is that social media has made democracies vulnerable in ways they previously weren't vulnerable. It's now possible to target and access wide swaths of voting citizens and group like-minds together in ways that simply weren't possible before and the whole concept of "education" being the clear winning formula, as though it hasn't been tried time and again or as though anyone who has previously tried it was totally incompetent, has been a losing concept on its own for decades now.

[Pointgod]

Well - learning from others mistakes - in this case Merkel would be my response. She didn't lay out a vision of why they would help Germany, just why Germany needed to help them. And in a sense, that is a bit why we are losing this debate. Articulating the policy from a D perspective is hard and we haven't had a recent POTUS that was able to do that effectively.

Merkel did articulate why refugees would help Germany. The problem is that in practice, telling people that they aren't enough on their own and that they need others (people they don't trust, fair or not) to move there and help them out when they don't get to tangibly see that help themselves, has never been a particularly useful political tool.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-economy-immigration-law-analy/merkel-takes-a-gamble-with-new-immigration-law-idUSKCN1LY1E0

Your argument is akin to an argument liberals often make where the gist of it is that "education" is somehow the answer. The problem with that line of thinking is that it's both true and not true at the same time and understanding that paradox is crucial. The larger issue, though, is that if people aren't actually seeing economic benefits of immigration, they're going to ignore them. In Germany, it hasn't been long enough to really show anything substantial and it's impossible to tell where they will head right now. In America's case, the precedent for all the benefits being syphoned upwards to be eventually, hopefully trickled down at some point in the undefined future, causes potentially greater problems on that end.

Well, I don't speak German well, so I could be wrong on this but Merkel didn't so much articulate as dictate - If I am wrong, let me know.

And I am not in Germany, so I can't tell you why so many fled her party after the immigration decision(s). My guess is that it was communication and leadership.

Either way, it is hard to ignore the unintended consequences - losing power and moving Europe further right. And I think there are some good lessons to be learned by our politicians. For example, let's say Booker wins and does what he has promised - would that then cause the next cycle back to the Republicans? Probably.

I’m not an expert on German politics but it’s from my understanding that as part of German values is to accept refugees precisely because of what happened during the holocaust. So if Germans are going to penalize Merkel for actually living up to German values (you know more than just keeping Germany white and Christian) then they should go **** themselves. From what I read Germany could have better handled integration of refugees a lot better but I think claiming immigration is her downfall is short sighted. The refugee problem would have it Europe one way or another and to be honest it’s right wing politicians pretty much lying about the situation for personal gain that’s the problem. As far as I can tell the UK didn’t have a refugee crisis, but Brexit happened because not only did Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage flat out lie, but there was intense xenophobia against other Europeans! I think a swing to the hard right was inevitable, but I don’t know what the solution is to scared white people (in the case of Europe and North America).

You and I both know that you could literally get rid of every immigrant in Europe and North America and not only would their economies immediately collapse, they’d just find someone else to blame (since irony is dead probably Jews and other ethnic groups). I don’t think any particular framing of immigration changes that, you just need to get more people voting for the right side unfortunately.