Yesterday, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote an op-ed for The Guardian arguing that Labour voters should reject Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign for Labour leader on the grounds that Corbyn is unlikely to win a general election in 2020. Corbyn replied that he does not do personal or abusive politics. This got me thinking–what are the primary differences in thinking between a Corbynite (someone who supports Corbyn) and a Blairite (someone who supports Burnham, Cooper, or Kendall)? Continue reading “Blair vs. Corbyn: How to Think About Where You Should Stand”
Category: Politics
Concerning the nature of man and the state, and how best the latter can be structured to augment the former.
Bernie Sanders, Black Lives Matter, and Why Identity Politics is the Left’s Cancer
A few days ago, Black Lives Matter activists took a microphone from Bernie Sanders at one of his campaign events, called his audience “a bunch of white racists”, and demanded a 4 minute moment of silence for Michael Brown, the black victim of a police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri:
Sanders marched in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s and has made economic inequality the signature issue of his campaign. By attacking an allied politician in this uncivil way, Black Lives Matter is damaging the cause of racial inequality in America. This is a counterproductive and misguided strategy. I said this on Facebook a few days ago. Most of my Facebook friends agreed with me, but a couple disagreed, and they were quite uncivil about it. I also found their arguments morally and politically disturbing. Over the past few days, I’ve been thinking about this, and I find myself increasingly coming to the conclusion that identity politics as currently practiced does not serve the interests of anyone, even the people it is intended to help.
Bogus Claims and Broken Arguments: The First 2016 GOP Presidential Debate
The pundits are out in force today arguing about which republican candidate performed best in yesterday’s debate. But the pundit definition of “best” is, well, not the best. They evaluate politics descriptively, disputing who will get the most support, not who should. There’s precious little serious reflection on the quality of the arguments presented. Candidates know this, and consequently every election they behave more theatrically, trying to score cheap points with burns and put-downs instead of engaging in nuanced policy discussion. So instead of discussing whose personal anecdote was the most touching or whose one-liner had the most zing, I invite you to join me in a dissection of the substantive claims and arguments we did see.
Continue reading “Bogus Claims and Broken Arguments: The First 2016 GOP Presidential Debate”
Cecil the Lion and the 3 Pitfalls of Outrage Politics
The viral story of the week is the tragic shooting of Cecil the Lion. Cecil was a famous lion that was tracked by researchers from the University of Oxford. The shooting has many people outraged at the hunter–American dentist Walter Palmer. Palmer is receiving an immense amount of abuse on the internet, and some are even calling for Palmer to be hurt. It is and should be a crime to kill research animals and it is and should be a crime to lure protected species out of their protected areas for the purpose of killing them. Nonetheless, the reaction and the reactions to the reaction are leaving me a bit uneasy. Outrage politics is ugly politics. When we are motivated by rage and righteous indignation, we rarely show thoughtfulness or empathy. Let me show you what I mean.
Continue reading “Cecil the Lion and the 3 Pitfalls of Outrage Politics”
Candidate Evaluations: Jim Gilmore
Jim Gilmore is a late addition to the presidential race. This means it’s time for one more candidate evaluation. I’ll be looking at Gilmore’s background, policy history, and explicit statements to determine whether or not he would make a good president. I won’t be paying attention to electability or likeability, as is often common elsewhere on the web.
