Radio LIVE 01/21/22
Added 2022-01-22 03:18:48 +0000 UTC
Comments
I mentioned this first question on the episode I posted tonight: We started posting Finger Guns Clyburn after he ended the Bernard Sanders movement in the 2020 primary. There was a lot of talk about SC voters "voting against their interests" and a general lack of understanding of what he was doing, which is how it became a meme. In terms of tangible benefits, Clyburn delivers his district and his patronage network government money and services and he is not shy about it, he attaches his name to almost everything. The way you phrased the second and third questions seems like you are asking "If Clyburn is so good at politics, why doesn't South Carolina have the living standard of Sweden?" We replaced patronage politics with civil service in the 19th century, and then wiped out the rump of political machines in the late 60s and 70s when the Democratic party found a new beau in the ~Professional Managerial Class~. Clyburn is a photocopy of a photocopy, barely a ghost of the old time political machines. You are correct, he is not at the top of the food chain, he is a capo that reports to the leaders and patrons of his political party. More tax money gets kicked up than gets kicked down, but that doesn't really change his relationship to his clients. Is Clyburn a good guy? No, he is a politician who takes money from me and my friends and gives it to our enemies. I don't really see how what Clyburn offers his people is worse than what 'millennial socialists' get from Democratic Party politicians (nothing). And America is by no means bad at this. We could also ask the residents of Loudon County if they would rather have the wealth of the people of Orebro, etc. America is an empire and it has the politics of an empire, social democracy might come to us once we've lost it like the western European countries. -- Maarek
Good Ol Boyz Podcast
2022-02-05 04:35:49 +0000 UTC(I accidentally deleted Grass Chuckley's question while trying to reply to it, so here is the original post he made) Grass Chuckley "Why is it clever to troll millennial socialists by posting photos of a smirking Jim Clyburn? Sure, there's the cheap thrill of feeling like you've 'owned' them, but in terms of tangible material benefits what exactly do Clyburn's constituents get to own from the relationship? You guys should discuss with Malcom and Markus whether it would be better as a wagie to experience a medical emergency in Orebro, governed by the hated Social Democrats, or in South Carolina, governed by God Emperor Clyburn. Which would you choose? The question you should be grappling with is: why are Americans so bad at patronage politics? Clyburn's district is (if memory serves) the poorest in the state, and with one of the lowest life expectancies in the country. What is so great about Clyburn as a patron, if the results for his clients are worse than virtually any other equivalent district in the OECD, despite it being located in one of the richest countries in the world? Might the fact that Clyburn takes more money from health insurers and pharmaceutical firms than anyone else in the House have something to do with it? Do his constituents even factor into your patron/client loop at all? Isn't Clyburn the real client, and the medical cabal he serves the patrons? Clyburn has surely secured for his patrons about 1000 times the value of whatever crumbs he tosses his constituents by fighting to keep their medical costs three-to-infinity times higher than any other country in the developed world. Why is the ostensible best that American patronage politics has to offer so poor? Sure, the millennial socialists are often too gormless to realise that patronage politics is what they're after, but at least - consciously or not - they are demanding more from their patrons than corporate assets like Clyburn have to offer? Why are Americans so bad at this?"
Good Ol Boyz Podcast
2022-02-05 02:39:07 +0000 UTC
