Well that was fun to read! When Oren is not trying to defend the indefensible (Trump) he is rhetorically formidable. Free market fundamentalists are wrong about the infallibility of "the market". In part because the definition of optimum or most efficient is very narrow and divorced from actual well-being of people. Economics is a social…
Well that was fun to read! When Oren is not trying to defend the indefensible (Trump) he is rhetorically formidable. Free market fundamentalists are wrong about the infallibility of "the market". In part because the definition of optimum or most efficient is very narrow and divorced from actual well-being of people. Economics is a social science that tries to exclude all but a narrow set of behaviors so it's easier to describe mathematical relations. But underlying those behaviors are entire cultures, the rules of which allow and shape the behaviors economists like to model. Those models are dependent on factors they don't begin to address in a scientific way. To be fair, that is a gargantuan task that has only been addressed in science fiction. Economic discussions are largely rhetorical with some reliance on measured experience, mathematically described or not isn't super relevant. Logic and experience form the most powerful arguments for policy in service to the aims of the author. And that's sort of the crux of the disagreement. What are the aims of any particular economic policy?
Oren claims to be promoting policy to elevate the material well-being of working class Americans. As much of it is progressive economic policy I agree with much of it. Oren faces two different and serious challenges in his prescriptions. One is his insistence on framing his policies as "conservative". That is a big stretch. Partly even being clear on what a conservative is. As an economic progressive I can have a productive conversation with a Burkean conservative. But the infiltration of Libertarian poison into the identification of Conservative makes reasoning impossible with That as conservative. Corey Robin's Reactionary Mind as a companion To Russel Kirk's The Conservative Mind both show "conservative" as inconsistently defined at best. So why does Oren insist on framing it that way? It is suspicious, in part because it's counterproductive politically. It is another approach to splitting support for progressive economic policy which includes many conservative populist voters. Voters may becoming aware that they want similar (progressive) economic policy even if they want different social policy. Two parties claiming that economic policy is another way to divide support for it.
Oren's other really insurmountable problem is Trump/Vought/Bannon and MAGA as the vehicle for his policy vision. The whole constitutional lawbreaking and unitary executive theory deep state conspiracy aspects of MAGA theorists completely undermines whatever sensible notions they might espouse. An argument can be made for the good a benevolent dictator could accomplish. Americans don't want a dictator. And Trump has made it incandescently clear he is not benevolent if he's even sane. Oren latched onto the fact that Trump likes tariffs as a sign he will implement a whole agenda for American workers. Tariffs targeted to support nascent or revitalized industry make sense. There is next to zero evidence that is what Trump/Vought/MAGA is doing. So he's put himself in the position of defending tariffs when Trump's use of them has been incoherent and at odds with re-industrialization since there is no industrial policy other than undoing Biden's actual industrial policy.
I hope Oren abandons the Trump vehicle. (Loyalist clown car). It cannot succeed in helping the working class. I doubt it wants to. Instead he should task his rhetorical skill to uniting voters behind economic policy as the first and most important policy. When/if that happens we can see which party accommodates voters most effectively. Could be one that doesn't yet exist.
Well that was fun to read! When Oren is not trying to defend the indefensible (Trump) he is rhetorically formidable. Free market fundamentalists are wrong about the infallibility of "the market". In part because the definition of optimum or most efficient is very narrow and divorced from actual well-being of people. Economics is a social science that tries to exclude all but a narrow set of behaviors so it's easier to describe mathematical relations. But underlying those behaviors are entire cultures, the rules of which allow and shape the behaviors economists like to model. Those models are dependent on factors they don't begin to address in a scientific way. To be fair, that is a gargantuan task that has only been addressed in science fiction. Economic discussions are largely rhetorical with some reliance on measured experience, mathematically described or not isn't super relevant. Logic and experience form the most powerful arguments for policy in service to the aims of the author. And that's sort of the crux of the disagreement. What are the aims of any particular economic policy?
Oren claims to be promoting policy to elevate the material well-being of working class Americans. As much of it is progressive economic policy I agree with much of it. Oren faces two different and serious challenges in his prescriptions. One is his insistence on framing his policies as "conservative". That is a big stretch. Partly even being clear on what a conservative is. As an economic progressive I can have a productive conversation with a Burkean conservative. But the infiltration of Libertarian poison into the identification of Conservative makes reasoning impossible with That as conservative. Corey Robin's Reactionary Mind as a companion To Russel Kirk's The Conservative Mind both show "conservative" as inconsistently defined at best. So why does Oren insist on framing it that way? It is suspicious, in part because it's counterproductive politically. It is another approach to splitting support for progressive economic policy which includes many conservative populist voters. Voters may becoming aware that they want similar (progressive) economic policy even if they want different social policy. Two parties claiming that economic policy is another way to divide support for it.
Oren's other really insurmountable problem is Trump/Vought/Bannon and MAGA as the vehicle for his policy vision. The whole constitutional lawbreaking and unitary executive theory deep state conspiracy aspects of MAGA theorists completely undermines whatever sensible notions they might espouse. An argument can be made for the good a benevolent dictator could accomplish. Americans don't want a dictator. And Trump has made it incandescently clear he is not benevolent if he's even sane. Oren latched onto the fact that Trump likes tariffs as a sign he will implement a whole agenda for American workers. Tariffs targeted to support nascent or revitalized industry make sense. There is next to zero evidence that is what Trump/Vought/MAGA is doing. So he's put himself in the position of defending tariffs when Trump's use of them has been incoherent and at odds with re-industrialization since there is no industrial policy other than undoing Biden's actual industrial policy.
I hope Oren abandons the Trump vehicle. (Loyalist clown car). It cannot succeed in helping the working class. I doubt it wants to. Instead he should task his rhetorical skill to uniting voters behind economic policy as the first and most important policy. When/if that happens we can see which party accommodates voters most effectively. Could be one that doesn't yet exist.