The Washington Post takes great pains to assure us that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren aren't actually "real" progressives. And here's why: their "free" trade opposition hurts the poor in foreign lands (why isn't the welfare of the Vietnamese the responsibility of the Vietnamese people and their government again?), and also because they're not anxious enough to cut Social Security and Medicare I guess is how I can possibly put what the Post says, and also because some wealthier folks would benefit from tuition-free college, as if we couldn't possibly write legislation differently. I've sort of liked the Post the last few years, but I think they just convinced me not to subscribe.
If you're impressed with Donald Trump's wish to rebuild American infrastructure, the incomparable David Dayen at The New Republic tells you why you should "beware" his actual infrastructure plans. Long story short: handing out tax breaks to investors so they'll build projects that stand to make lots of money is a bad way of funding projects (i.e., fixing bridges and water pipes) that people need, but that don't make investors rich. Also, too, it's corporate welfare, and will pretty much lead to public resources getting privatized, which just about always leads to worse services at higher costs.
Alice Speri at The Intercept describes the long career of Donald Trump's choice for Attorney General, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions -- the artist formerly known as Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, and when you read the article, you'll see why he didn't want you to know he was named after a Confederate General. Mr. Sessions couldn't get a District Court judgeship during the '80s because of his long trail of racist actions and utterances, but he wasn't a U.S. Senator then. He is now, which is why I think his comrades won't be too upset about confirming him, no matter how embarrassing his past and present stands are.
Speaking of which, Richard Spencer, the man who coined the phrase "alt-right" to rebrand racists, calls Mr. Trump's election "the first step...towards identity politics for white people." And again I must ask: how is this not whining? How is it not whining to demand the same kind of "identity politics" other folks need precisely because white folks tell them they're not worth anything? How is it not whining to imagine that you're oppressed simply because your opinion as a white person doesn't count for everything anymore? Oh, and he likes to call himself an "identitarian" rather than a white nationalist -- so he's politically correct in addition to being a whiner.
Finally, Paul Waldman at the Washington Post suggests that "Paul Ryan's Plan to Phase Out Medicare is Just What Democrats Need," i.e., a "specific controversy around which they can organize and potentially notch a win." I like Mr. Waldman, but enough with the sports talk already! And what about what we the people need? We the people need a Medicare that works well for us when we need it after we've paid into it all our lives, and we don't care about Democrats "notching a win" if we don't win.
Comments