February 17, 2019

Ann Coulter and crew should campaign for Bernie, after failure of Trump experiment to revive GOP

One of the few politicians who immigration hardliner Ann Coulter repeatedly quotes, and only ever in a positive tone, is Bernie Sanders, who stated the obvious during the 2016 election season -- that open borders is a Koch Brothers proposal, meant for employers to haul in cheap labor to undercut the wages and working conditions of the American working class.

She has been getting more and more blunt on this issue, for example during a recent interview on talk radio, saying that "the Marxists are right" about immigration's anti-labor function. On Bill Maher's show, she also emphasized to the liberal audience that immigration is only costing the working class, while enriching the well-to-do with cheap labor, widening inequality.

The SJWs on the liberal side have no economic response to that, because they do not care about economic issues or foreign policy, but only social-cultural identity issues. For them, open borders is culturally tolerant, and closed borders is racist / xenophobic, end of story. For them, the impoverishing effect of immigration on our working class is immaterial. They believe that due to living in a rich country, American workers are privileged -- even the black ones -- despite living hand-to-mouth. So even if immigration slashes the workers' standard-of-living by half, meh, they were spoiled First Worlders living high on the hog to begin with.

Pitting these sides against each other is the only way for the less-immigration camp to win. They have tried to win by pointing to crime, IQ, cultural differences, etc., but have only lost more and more ground. At the grassroots level, liberals and Independents do not give much weight to those issues. And at the elite level, the GOP elites won't suffer any of those consequences, so what does it matter to them? Conservative critics of immigration have totally isolated themselves on this issue.

The only way out is to build a bridge to liberals or Independents who value matters other than crime, IQ, cultural alienation, and so on. Like those who want to see the working class do as well as in the Midcentury / New Deal era. And they have to build bridges to elite sectors that do not materially benefit from cheap labor -- namely, whose business models are not labor-intensive. That eliminates the GOP, who are controlled entirely by labor-intensive sectors (manufacturing, agriculture, military, and energy).

As odd as it may seem, big finance is a better ally in reducing immigration, since the big investment banks, hedge funds, and the central bank do not hire many employees, whether foreign or domestic, because their business model is informational. To expand their profits, they don't need to hire boatloads more employees. Their cost structure is determined by financial risks that blow up, like a debtor defaulting on a big loan, not how much they have to pay their small number of employees. Sure enough, back when we had closed borders during the New Deal era, big finance played the leading role in the dominant coalition (Democrats).

For the same reasons, Wall Street -- and the Democrat party that they control -- is also more amenable to raising the minimum wage. Financial services do not require boatloads of low-skilled laborers, so they won't be hit by a hike in the minimum wage. Walmart and McDonalds, on the other hand, will.

And jacking up the minimum wage, one of Bernie's signature issues, is one of the most effective ways to curtail immigration -- if employers have to pay $20 an hour, they will get the most bang for their mandatory 20 bucks and hire Americans, rather than Third Worlders. Once their employment opportunities dry up, immigrants will throw in the towel and return home -- without us having to round them up, fight their appeals in the courts, etc.

Nor would a higher minimum wage "kill jobs," but simply dry up the financing for those businesses that are not profitable at the high minimum wage -- and re-direct that financing to businesses that are, such as manufacturing, which we desperately need greater financing for in order to re-industrialize and lift the working class up out of shitty dead-end servant jobs.

Bernie may rail against Wall Street, but ultimately he would be heavily influenced by them if he were president as a Democrat. Just like Trump can rail against our military's foreign policy all he wants on the campaign trail, but any GOP White House will be controlled by the Pentagon. Bernie, even influenced by Wall Street, would be better at reducing immigration than any Republican including Trump, under whose watch illegal immigration has exploded to be far worse than under Obama, back to George W. Bush levels.

Aside from cheap labor, the GOP pushes open borders in order to fulfill the military's goal of being a globally integrated, multinational, multicultural empire. They are interested in establishing borders of the empire, not borders of the core nation-state.

Of course, any gamble could fail, and no one is saying Bernie as president would close the borders. But that is a far more hopeful scenario than relying on the GOP, including the failed experiment of Trump realigning the party. Rather than shrink our military footprint, he has expanded it. Rather than narrow our trade deficit, he has widened it. Rather than lower illegal immigration, he has raised it -- and that will only get worse after the massive amnesty he just signed.

Bernie led the way to pressure the Pentagon out of Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, and has expressed disapproval of our coup attempt in Venezuela (which would send 30 million more Latin Americans over America's non-existent border). He's compelled Amazon to raise their minimum wage to $15, and is the only major politician to identify and speak against the material basis of open borders, i.e. cheap labor for the employer class.

Aside from doing more to ultimately reduce immigration, Bernie is also the leading figure against identity politics on the Left. He may not come out swinging against it, but they will most definitely against him, and he will have no choice but to play the role of "let's call a truce to the culture war and focus on universal economic programs," since all the other Democrats will be exploiting id-pol as their comparative advantage. The fake news media in particular will be viciously attacking him on social/cultural grounds, non-stop throughout the election season. "Old heterosexual white male," "putting economics above culture," etc. If you want to support whoever the mainstream media wage their fake news wars against, that will be Bernie.

Hell, if all you want to do is own the libs, forget voting Trump or GOP -- libs don't mind that so much, since it gives them a comfortable and familiar Other to organize against and strengthen their in-group cohesion. But Bernie? Libs have gone apoplectic over him, and not in the theatrical, ritualistic way that they bad-mouth Trump, which gives them pleasure. Freaking out over Bernie gives them only dread and anxiety, since they see him as the enemy within who could undo their familiar liberal yuppie cohesion.

If conservatives are serious about defeating the SJWs, they will have to vote for Bernie and snuff them out from within the SJWs' own party. They have clearly failed to defeat them by voting for generic Republicans or even Trump. SJWs can only be defeated by refusing to take part in their game, and challenging them on a separate battlefield where they will get abandoned by their former coalition allies -- like improving the lot of the American working class. SJWs are hostile toward class issues, and will alienate their own liberal / Democrat allies by siding against the working class, and in favor of woke capitalism. That will leave them isolated, defenseless, and endangered as a political faction.

Ann Coulter -- and by extension, anyone who has treated the Trump phenomenon in utilitarian, rather than identitarian terms -- has been officially disavowed by the president and his team. They don't want to deliver for us when it was we who got them elected? Then fuck them. It's time for a major defection.

First we held the GOP hostage, and they shot themselves rather than give in to our meager demands. OK, next up, the Democrat party! Time to try saving that one for normal people, and Bernie's campaign is the only channel that effort can go through. Ann has said that her main goal, now that Trump and the GOP have signed such a terminal-decline amnesty bill, is revenge against the elites who have destroyed our country. Going pedal-to-the-metal for Bernie is the only way to get all of the hated groups in one fell swoop -- Trump-the-president, Trump's WH team, the GOP writ large, the Chamber of Commerce who controls them, the Democrat Establishment, the SJWs, and the braindead GOP cultists.

Every realignment of the party system depends on a large-scale switching of allegiances, otherwise the old dominant coalition would stay dominant forever. The last time around, it was the military elites and the Southern voters switching from loyal Dems to their new home in the Reaganite GOP. This time it must be working and middle-class normies in the Midwest, choosing not to get fucked over so hard by the GOP, and cast their lot with a new brand of flyover-friendly Democrat, in the campaign of Bernie Sanders.

21 comments:

  1. > As odd as it may seem, big finance is a better ally in reducing immigration

    Don't their players invest their income in shares of the regular economy, eventually? Thus they own means of production and profit from exporting job and cheap labour.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jamal Robinson2/17/19, 11:40 AM

    A key part of any sort of realignment is punishing the military elites. Firstly gut pay to start at $2 per hour for privates. If they want benefits they can get a job like normal people, so get rid of veteran's pensions/tricare/the VA.

    Use the saved money to start helping shore up the safety net.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Big finance may invest some of their wealth in agriculture and manufacturing, but they prefer more speculative sectors like info-tech.

    And even then, that's only part of their revenue. Any lower or middle-tier investor can do that. What the big Wall Street investment banks can do, which the lower-tier players cannot, is underwrite somebody's IPO (again, preferring tech companies), buy tons of US treasuries, borrow tons of dollars from the central bank, and other purely financial activities.

    The ag / manufacturing sector itself is 100% invested in cheap labor and de-industrialization. A financial firm that is partly invested in those sectors is only partly invested in destroying the real economy. See the history of the New Deal -- controlled by the big finance sector of the Northeast, and happy to let the manufacturing sector get unionized, pay high wages, and keep their factories in America.

    ReplyDelete
  4. See also the votes on NAFTA. The two sectors it served were manufacturing -- allowing US manufacturing to move their factories to the cheap labor colony of Mexico -- and agriculture -- allowing the highly subsidized US ag sector to export its products into the Mexican market, where the local farmers are not so highly subsidized and cannot compete with US farmers.

    Ag and mfg control the GOP, so that's who pushed NAFTA. It was negotiated by the Bush Sr. administration, and overwhelming majorities of Republicans in the House and Senate voted in favor. Majorities of Democrats voted *against* NAFTA in the House and Senate, both of which they held in 1993.

    Most Republicans, plus a handful of traitor Democrats, and the traitor-in-chief in the WH (Clinton), allowed NAFTA to pass.

    Why did Democrats vote against it? Because the finance sector got nothing from it. The Bush Sr. admin did not negotiate a way for the Wall Street banks to enter and take over the financial services market in Mexico. And the de-industrialization would hurt the Democrats' electoral base of labor unions.

    Even a puppet of Wall Street like Chuck Schumer voted against NAFTA -- that's how opposed the finance sector was to it. He's now the head of the party in the Senate, so it was not a fringe position to take. Although, Pelosi voted in favor of NAFTA, as one of the minority of traitors.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Debt is the other major reason why finance opposes de-industrialization and other cheap-labor practices. The more that mfg sends its factories out of the country, the less corporate revenue there is to tax here in the US.

    And with the disappearance of all those good-paying jobs for the working and middle classes, that's less income tax revenue that the govt can extract from the middle and bottom tiers of the pyramid.

    The jobs that replaced mfg are shitty servant jobs, which means the workers earn too little to have to pay income taxes. And even if they could be forced to, their income has still been cut in half.

    De-industrialization is a major contributor to the explosion of the national debt over the past 35-40 years, since the govt has been starved of tax revenues now that our economy has devolved back into a pre-industrial servant economy.

    Who will have to jump on the grenade of soaring debt? Big finance. They will have to bail out the govt by monetizing the debt outright (to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars), which would entail printing shitloads of dollars and hyper-inflation.

    With inflation, the value of financial assets (most of which are denominated in US dollars) plummets. But that does not hurt the tangible assets of the GOP sectors -- farmland will continue to be productive, the military bases will still be well-stocked with vehicles, weapons, and loyal soldiers.

    Or, the govt will have to default on the debt, which would damage our credit rating, and make foreign lenders less likely to give us credit. That would harm the finance sector most, since they are the ones who mediate financial transactions with the rest of the world.

    Defaulting would also severely weaken the dollar -- there will be less demand for the currency of a govt that ramps up its supply in order to pay off its debt. That would primarily harm sectors whose wealth is financial and denominated in dollars, rather than tangible things like farmland, livestock, bases, weapons, etc.

    If the big Wall Street banks, and the central bank, want to avoid having to jump on the grenade of debt -- or at least, if they want to jump on a smaller rather than a larger grenade -- they will have to re-industrialize the economy, to boost corporate tax revenues on factories that return to the US, and income tax on well-paid workers and managers of those factories.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are directing this proposition of a left right political coalition towards right wing Trump supporters. European style welfare capitalism in exchange for a permanent white supermajority. I would take that deal and build that coalition in a heartbeat. My question is: Would Bernie bro's and economic leftists take that deal? Are they really willing to work with "racists" like me? I want a country for "ourselves and our posterity" this is a gross immortality to the left half of our population. And I am guilty of being straight, white, male, and Christian all at the same time. I would love to spend the 2020's building this coalition you describe but I would be crucified at the first parlay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > European style welfare capitalism in exchange for a permanent
      > white supermajority. I would take that deal

      I'm not against it on principle, but do you know how corrupting that is? Here in Germany over 2 million are working for the welfare sector, the biggest employer by now, one third of MPs are working for it, full-time or honorary, preparing their golden parachute after politics. They love immigration of dysfunctionals, so they can bleed the taxpayer for their care, they got the state under their thumb.

      Delete
  7. Black Bernie babe Briahna Joy Gray has already said the Dems need the votes of white racists in flyover country in order to win back control. It's just a statement of fact, not an endorsement of their views.

    As long as that is simply "people who hold prejudiced beliefs," with no way for them to implement those beliefs on a systematic scale, then who cares what people think?

    If you're a white identitarian, your beef is not with historically protected minorities like African descendants of slaves and Native Americans. They're never going to be more than 15% of the population, and they're deeply rooted in this country, hence here to stay.

    Your beef is with the hordes of immigrants who were brought in to replace black and white working-class Americans. Employers of unskilled labor figured it would be better for them to just replace blacks with Mexicans, and that is what's happened.

    So, your policy goals would be reducing immigration in the future, and getting the immigrants already here to return home. That is eminently possible under a Bernie realignment. Just shut up about your motives, since motives do not matter, only real-world outcomes. If you say "We want America like it was during the New Deal 1950s," that's enough of a dog-whistle to other culturally-oriented right-wingers, while being overtly in favor of New Deal outcomes.

    If you and Bernie supporters could support the same outcomes -- reduced immigration after forcing labor-intensive sectors to pay higher wages to workers -- then that's all that matters. It doesn't matter that you have different motives. Outcomes, not motives, are what holds together a coalition of allies.

    (Just look at the godless Pentagon and the fundamentalist Zionist Christians, who both support massive aid to Israel, albeit for entirely separate motives, and who both staunchly vote for the same Republican party.)

    That's not to say that some Bernie supporters or other Dems won't try to prevent an invasion of former Trump supporters. Just like how the old-guard Rockefeller Republicans did not want the invasion of conservative Southerners circa 1980 -- but the realignment was won by Reagan, and the Rockefellers got sidelined.

    Likewise the old-guard SJW libs will try to keep populist Trump supporters out of the Bernie realignment -- but they won't be any more successful than the Rockefellers who resisted Reagan. That's what realignment does, bring a big chunk of defectors from the old dominant coalition into the old opposition, transforming it into the new dominant coalition. Anyone who doesn't like it, does not count.

    Now, this time around, the atmosphere is so polarized that it may take another election cycle to force this realignment into existence, since the partisan resistance is so fierce against it happening *on both sides*. Dems resisting the invasion of Trumpers, and Trumpers resisting the call of defection.

    So maybe it takes until a split opposition fails to stop the GOP in 2020, and after Nikki Haley's term as president (since Trump won't be the nominee), both sides decide to give in on their partisan BS and unite against a common enemy (all the easier without the person of Trump as the president -- not even the most deluded Trump cultists will cuck for president Nikki Haley).

    ReplyDelete
  8. What do you think of Bernie's announcement and his focusing on Trump being racist, sexist, etc?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > If you say "We want America like it was during the New Deal 1950s," that's enough of a dog-whistle to other culturally-oriented right-wingers, while being overtly in favor of New Deal outcomes.

      The corrupt new left will hear the dog-whistle alright, too, they can't be fooled, I'm afraid.

      > Debt is the other major reason why finance opposes de-industrialization
      > and other cheap-labor practices.

      Sounds plausible, but when did they ever oppose immigration? I'm sceptical.

      Delete
  9. He does not focus on Trump being racist, sexist, etc. That's what makes him different. He includes some throwaway lines to that effect in his SotU responses, but they're just that -- throwaway.

    His campaign announcement video did not mention Trump at all, let alone focus on "racism". It was about the state of our broken society on a material level, and how he's been delivering the goods on making it better -- bullying Amazon into a $15 minimum wage, leading the vote to end support for Saudi's war on Yemen, and so on. Nothing about id-pol.

    It could've veered into "intersectionality," but thankfully did not. It's so awesome. My cat is getting jealous that I'm visibly excited about something other than him. Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Trump's reaction to Bernie was sympathetic: he's good on trade, got the nomination stolen by the DNC last time, but his ship has sailed.

    That's unlike the neocon garbage being pumped out by the GOP against Bernie -- muh free markets, muh Venezuela regime change, etc.

    That's the choice that Trumpian populists have in 2020 -- some random neocon (since Trump won't get the nom, passing the torch), or the only other challenger to the Establishment from 2016.

    After 4 years of a failed attempt to take over the GOP, for populists in 2020, it's Bernie or bust, bitch!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think Ive mentioned it before, but I'm kind of curious about this weird bifurcation with Sanders supporters: sensible, down to earth populists who like or get along with Trump supporters and people who absolutely hate the guts of any Republican no matter the stripe. I think the latter group is very small, but I'm not sure.
    All the violent, murderous (3 people murdered on a bus; shooting up baseball field; etc.) anti-Trump people were Bernie supporters, not any other kind. This bothers and hurts the normal Bernie Sanders supporters significantly I've found when the topic comes up about how the media portrays them, naturally. In the media, better educated Bernie fans, you have guys who stalk Cernovich, Posobiec, are fervent de-platformers, will hate on the GOPe, and all with the same fervor.
    Questions: Who are these people? Why do they support Bernie vs being anti-Bernie? With their hatred, and often ID politics, they seem to have a lot in common with the wealthy older pussyhats, but a big difference is the wealthy Dem woman doesn't see anyone else but herself whereas these guys definitely see others, oh boy do they ever see them, and obsess over them.

    Is it alienation and loneliness? Like, they identify wholly with a team, in this case, the Democratic Party, for reasons of low self-esteem? And within that group, they then gravitate to the outsider?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Further observation. I don't think I ever see this type hate on other Dems; these aren't the "Bernie Bros". To the extent that they rag on other Democrats, it's because of perceived friendliness towards Trump supporters. Violence and violent ideation is very real and realized from them unlike the fake threat of the Bernie Bro Menace.

      Delete
  12. you notice fucker carlson ripping on "socialism" tonight? after getting trucked by that dutch guy i think he got a little spooked...no more sympathizing with mark blyth maybe...just say "socialism" and you scare everyone who might have been on board with going after all the entrenched interests bernie talked about in his announcement. sure, my dad is a fox news cable addict but he's a good proxy for a distribution of how people feel...i even know some people my age (early 20's) who call themselves "liberal" but bang on about free markets...and when they all watch netflix original shows and characters soliloquy snarkily about cheap drugs in single payer canada they all nod enthusiastically and say "what the hell are we doing wrong"...I fear that we've lost them and tucker to the neo/identity cons

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Socialism" is just a floating signifier, and has been since the beginning.

    "Communism" is less ambiguous -- no private ownership, and usually a central planning board in place of a market.

    "Socialist" as a term includes the neoliberal dominant parties in the Med countries, as well as the neolib opposition in Venezuela.

    So, already it means whatever it means. Bernie does not use it in a neolib way -- quite explicitly not. Tucker is using it in a more Boomer way for his audience, referring to Communism.

    Millennials don't interpret it that way, so I wouldn't worry about them getting freaked out by a Tucker monologue against Communism just cuz it uses the term socialism. Millennials are pretty in favor of "socialism", by all polls.

    What remains to be seen is what it means when the Millennials implement what they call socialism. So far, it looks mostly like "social justice-ism" -- i.e., liberal identity politics, victimhood hierarchies, oppression Olympics, etc., plus some better handouts from the govt (Medicare for all -- which the other rich countries already have).

    We'll have to see how far they push against free markets, concentrated industries, militarism / imperialism, corporate influence over the private sphere including family life, and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes, for many of my generation it is synonymous with social justice/identity politics. For the ones who don't use it that way there is a boomer-esque pavlovian allergic reaction to it and it shuts down debate immediately. Think of the new crop of congresswomen reverting to SJWism. They probably reflect what the vast majority of Millenials mean when they use the term.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You wrote: "if employers have to pay $20 an hour, they will get the most bang for their mandatory 20 bucks and hire Americans, rather than Third Worlders."

    That would be nice, but the more likely possibility (as I saw repeatedly living in hardcore-lib cities with high mandatory minimum wages), is that the business lays off the legal American employees and hires illegals "under the table".

    ReplyDelete
  16. It goes w/o saying that any law needs tough enforcement to work, including min wage. That's why pro-labor immigration restrictionists want mandatory E-verify, or something stronger, to punish employers rather than the illegals themselves.

    I favor seizing all of their wealth, which is the fruit of the poisonous tree. Ill-gotten gains from running a business whose model is "we can only make money if we destroy America and pay illegal foreigners breadcrumbs".

    Somehow I think Bernie Sanders' coalition would be more willing to punish greedy employers, compared to the Trump admin which is doing absolutely nothing to employers (and hardly deporting the illegal workers either).

    Not just because of the rhetoric about corporate greed, etc., but because a Democrat coalition will not see their own elites punished by a crackdown on illegal hiring. That would be GOP bastions like small businesses in a material sector, agriculture, and the like.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "We'll have to see how far they push against free markets, concentrated industries, militarism / imperialism, corporate influence over the private sphere including family life, and so on."

    Merely not having knee jerk reaction over "hating" America and muh freedom is a step in the right direction. Silents and conservative Boomers/X-ers would rather be strangled than hear about what a joke this country has become on their watch.

    I find it rather absurd that later X-ers, or Millennials, would be accused of ideological derangement, when after all, it was Silents and conservative Boomers who commenced the current Darwinist regime in the first place.

    And research consistently shows that those who have the most to gain from something will be the ones to fight hardest for it. In other words, since people born over the last 45 or so years have gained practically nothing from Reaganism, it should follow that we won't defend it like the spoiled and worthless Silent Generation has. Is the cultural climate permitting us to challenge and essentially over-turn the dominate paradigm? No, hardly at all. We're in a very corrupt and decadent era, where we throw kajillions of people behind bars for the most flimsy of reasons. This isn't the early 70's, when the GI Generation permitted Silents and Boomers to start debauching the culture because that was, ya know, what two generations actually wanted. Nowadays you aren't to challenge the established culture. There are simmering class, cultural, racial, gender, and generational conflicts, and we no longer seem to have leaders who can develop a widely shared sentiment as to how to proceed forward and resolve these issues (whereas in the 60's and 70's, programs to protect the environment and advance civil rights were allowed forward momentum which opponents didn't obstruct too much).

    ReplyDelete
  18. C'mon Ann, get revenge by campaigning for Bernie after this level of open betrayal. The near-term future is going to be dominated by Democrats, so you might as well choose the best among them, and wash your hands of the irredeemable corporate-globalist GOP.

    "Wacky Nut Job @AnnCoulter, who still hasn’t figured out that, despite all odds and an entire Democrat Party of Far Left Radicals against me (not to mention certain Republicans who are sadly unwilling to fight), I am winning on the Border. Major sections of Wall are being built..."

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1104503216111321089

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."