Sunday’s Forum
Steven L. Taylor
·
Sunday, October 26, 2025
·
23 comments
OTB relies on its readers to support it. Please consider helping by becoming a monthly contributor through Patreon or making a one-time contribution via PayPal. Thanks for your consideration.
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored
A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on
Twitter and/or
BlueSky.
Headline of the day – Trump dances as performers welcome him on arrival in Malaysia
Florida headline of the day – There’s no sharia law in the state, but South Florida lawmaker files bill to outlaw it anyway
This is something…
https://www.politico.eu/article/ireland-elects-a-new-left-wing-president-in-anti-government-landslide/
An Independent Socialist and a woman.
Sweet.
This is from the article I linked in the above post…
“While the left celebrated from Dublin Castle to Galway, Ireland’s disgruntled conservatives left their own mark on the election — by vandalizing their ballots in unprecedented numbers.
More than 200,000 ballots — or about one of every eight cast — had to be discarded. Many voters had written in the names of their own invalid choices, or drawn disparaging X marks across all three candidates. Others defaced their ballots, often with anti-immigrant messages expressed in nativist or racist terms.
Their alienation reflects how the government parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, since the 1990s have largely ditched their previous bonds with Catholic conservatism and have become, like Connolly and the wider left, socially progressive and welcoming to immigrants.“
Being an obnoxious arsehole appears to be universal in Conservo-world,
Baldwin has a substack in which he goes into a lengthy, math heavy explanation of the problems with Trump’s tariffs. For those not math inclined in his summary he notes two major problems, one of which I have provided in the quote. If you actually believe that tariffs can have positive effects, even economists who dont like tariffs seem to think there are times when they arent at least negative, the manner in which Trump’s tariffs are being carried out make little sense. It’s as though there really wasn’t much thought, much educated thought, put into the tariffs. It’s all mostly based on his personal whims, like increasing tariffs if he doesnt like a TV ad.
“Classic Import Substitution Industrialisation (ISI) strategies in autos illustrate this well. Malaysia’s low tariff on auto parts but 80 % on finished cars created a domestic “car industry” based on imported Complete Knock-Down (CKD) kits. (See my “Trade and Industrialisation After Globalisation’s 2nd Unbundling” for the comparative story.)
The Trump administration’s approach has flipped that logic. Input tariffs are sky-high – around 45 % on Chinese parts and 50 % on metals – while tariffs on finished autos are lower, typically 25%, with many exemptions for Canada, Mexico, Europe, Korea, and Japan.
In effect, this is upside-down ISI. It is protection aimed at producers that ends up discouraging production at home. By taxing the parts and materials that American manufacturers need, these tariffs erode the competitiveness of U.S. assembly plants and shift advantage to foreign carmakers. It’s an unintended gift to producers in Mexico and Canada as I argue in my July VoxEU piece (Will Trump’s tariffs help Canadian and Mexican industry?).
The broader lesson is that Trumpian tariffs were either designed without input from economists who could have predicted the wayward outcomes we have seen, or they were designed with something other than economic goals in mind. Frequent readers will know that I believe that latter (which also explains why the former is also true). I call it the “Grievance Doctrine” in my May 2025 eBook on Trumpian trade policy.”
https://rbaldwin.substack.com/p/teaching-trumpian-tariffs
Steve
@steve222:
This might seem odd or surprising if you assume El Taco is capable of thought.
It’s more like an incantation than a policy.
We have data on LatinX. Pew Research* reports that of Hispanics who’ve heard the term ‘LatinX’, 75% oppose its use. There’s some greater acceptance among the youth, but not much.
Of all the tiresome progressive neologisms, this was the dumbest. It is an insult not just to Spanish speakers, but to every romance language that uses gendered nouns. As a formerly fluent, now halting French speaker, I hate gendered nouns, they’re a pain in the ass. But Anglo college kids insisting on this unpronounceable nonsense word is the height of White arrogance. And the fact that so many people couldn’t see this obvious fact shows just how clueless the well-meaning Left can be.
Social engineering via neologism does not work. It never has, it never will because that is not how language works. We’ve gone through multiple ‘correct’ ways to refer to Black people, and yet, George Floyd. We’ve repeatedly tried to rename illegal/undocumented immigrants/aliens and ICE is still snatching them off the street. And the second dumbest neologism – unhoused FFS – has also not improved the lot of homeless people.
Making up new words is what people do when they have the ‘feels’ but aren’t actually doing anything useful. It’s a way for tedious, unserious people to be even more insufferable.
*Pretty sure this is paywalled.
@Michael Reynolds: Honest question: has anyone around here actually argued that LatinX is popular?
All I have ever said is that I simply do not think that it has been part of Democratic politics, nor do I think it matters electorally in any significant way.
I just think you are flat wrong about this. The goal of not getting people to use the n-word or call Black people any number of things was to get them to stop using slurs and to make slurs socially unacceptable. We accomplished that.
The goal of not using the n-word was not to pretend that doing so would prevent George Floyd from happening.
You are older than I am, and I can remember what it was like in the 1970s. There has been positive change, especially in how we talk about one another, and that is a good thing.
It also seems more than a bit silly to put Latinx and not calling people slurs in casual spaces in the same category.
I know thou don’t like being told what words to use, but there is little doubt that over time, social pressure over various slurs for persons of color or sexual orientation has created positive outcomes.
Remember the hypocrisy!
The CEO of the Alamo’s historic site has resigned after a top Texas Republican criticized her
Although the discussion was likely much larger than the reportage covers, Rogers was presumably coerced into resignation on the basis of her academic paper which merely references a book supporting a fuller, truer account of the history of the Alamo.
Given that
— allowing the public presentation at the Alamo monument to include topics of slavery, indigenous people, and the particularly dissonant fact that Mexico had outlawed slavery, well, that just would run counter to the Republican “national cancel culture initiative.”
I visited the Alamo on a trip to San Antonio as a young man. I remember thinking how small and unimpressive it was compared to other historic places I’ve experienced. The Alamo’s cultural projection was much larger than the actual thing.
Now, the Alamo gets a MAGA makeover, inflating its propaganda value much like a 90,000 square foot ballroom addition.
Big egos need big reassurances.
The most interesting thing I’ve seen around the use of Latinx is from several years ago, when the LA Times ran a poll. There had been lots of complaints about Latinx, so the poll asked in open-ended fashion what should be used instead. 80% of respondents said “Mexican-Americans”. I’ve always wondered if the Miami Herald ran that sort of poll would they get Cuban-Americans as the dominant answer? Or if the NYTimes would get Puerto Rican?
@Steven L. Taylor:
@Michael Reynolds
Language is changing all the time. New expressions become vogue in a smaller social grouping and then either go viral or they don’t. Or sometimes these expressions change meaning, shades of meaning as they filter through society. “Latinix” never got traction, was never really put into use, and only gained notoriety as yet another of our culture war brickbats. Other than that, I dare say most people didn’t pay attention, and it is surely is not worthy of being generalized to “progressivism.”
@Michael Cain: When was the last time you heard someone use the word “chicano”? That expression seems to have dissappeared and “latino/latina” predominates.
One of television’s most famous mothers, June Lockhart, has passed away at age 100. She portrayed the matriarch of families on both Lassie and Lost in Space. I never did watch much Lassie but I LIS was different and I remember June Lockhart well. RIP.
@becca: I note in the linked article that while an “independent”, she was backed by an antiRW coalition of five parties. Something that’s hard to put together in a two party system.
@Rob1:
Texas – the only state to commit treason in defense of slavery twice.
@Rob1:
My pet peeve is “progressive”. Some years ago FOX/GOP set out to poison “liberal”, and they succeeded so well Dems started calling themselves “progressives”. Now it seems to be OK to call oneself liberal and progressive is used, often as a perjorative, to describe the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Meanwhile I often see conservatives try to claim the mantle of “classical Liberal”, basically stroking their conservative psyches by believing “liberalism” should be fixed and unchanging since John Locke. Just as they believe conservatism is fixed and unchanging, despite massive evidence to the contrary. For which see Reagan on tariffs. They endorse the classical liberal notion of “limited government” while trying to create a “conservative” government that dictates sexual conduct, persecutes foes, suppresses dissent, and owns shares of the means of production.
Steven – I’m a trained engineer. Our terminology is fixed. “Modulus of elasticity” means now what it meant when it was first defined. It must be hard to work in a field like yours where your terminology is in general use, thereby subject to change, so nothing seems quite defined. Karl Popper observed that definitions are usually defined left to right. “Liberal” is a word in use, we, Funk and Wagnalls, will try to discern and document its core meaning. But scientific definitions tend to be right to left, here is a class of things, we will coin this word/phrase to refer to them.
@gVOR10:
The only “conservatives” that can claim the mantle of “classical liberal” would be libertarians and in truth, only a sub-set of those.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Yes, we’ve had debates around LatinX, though I don’t think anyone was do or die about it. And we have certainly debated various neologisms and euphemisms.
We have not gotten people to stop using the n-word, we’ve just gotten them to shift the burden into the mind of the listener. Which is my point: it doesn’t accomplish anything in the end. ‘N-word’ usage is a constant reminder of the n-word. It gives too much power to the n-word, and in historical contexts, it serves to mask the depth of racism. Huckleberry Finn is an example where we do damage to Twain’s words and his anti-racist message by insisting on either masking or redacting entirely.
It has affected my work. I wrote a trilogy set during WW2 where I was trying in part to show the depth of racism and sexism in the 1940’s, but because of the ‘n-word’ prohibition I had to mask, which served to understate the problem of racism.
I’d argue that by insisting on the n-word we’ve given an easy cover for people who mean the full word. Genuine racists can say ‘n-word’ in public and the whole word in private and pass as decent members of society, whereas not giving them the easy out would force them to reveal their true character. Better a fully-exposed racist than a covert one. The racist Republican Party can claim they aren’t racist because they never use the forbidden word. There are millions of Americans who think that just avoiding that word means they cannot possibly be racist.
But in any case, that particular word, outside of historical contexts, has no decent, acceptable use. It’s a word expressing contempt and has no other use – except for Black comedians and musicians. There is no other word that is the equal of that word. ‘Retard’ has multiple meanings. ‘Fag’ has different meaning if you’re speaking British English, just as ‘cunt’ is a different word coming from an Australian.
The advocates of neologism and euphemism try to apply the unique history of the n-word to any number of other words. I’ve seen people argue that ‘bitch’ is an equally offensive word. No, it’s not, women are not Black people and do not have that history. Nor is ‘illegal alien,’ the equivalent. Nor is ‘dead-naming.’
It is not and never has been about a word. Words are just tools, they are screwdrivers, they are not magic, they do not summon demons. It is always about meaning and usage and context.
Today I learned that there is an actual movement out there (waves arms) called “Rebel Canning.”
These people are homesteader types who deliberately ignore USDA canning guidelines for food preservation. They water-bath can meats and vegetables, and (weirdly, IMHO) baked goods.
None of this is safe. Meats, veggies, and baked goods are all low-acid foods and can harbor botulism toxin when not processed properly.
Between the MAHA nuts and this type of anti-government nonsense, there is a concerning subset of people who depend heavily on survivor bias to push their idiocy out.
@gVOR10:
100%
My peeve too.
I often attempt to make the distinction between R and MAGA-R in my own observations; a distinction that may be moot given how centrist conservatives seem to have conceeded the field.
Humans are bundles of contradiction, and employ “elasticity” in language to rationalize the dissonance. “Conservatives” have hardly ever been “conservative” with our environment, resources, or national deficit. But, they’ve been plenty “liberal” with tax cuts and subsidies to patrons, and interpretation of the Constitution when it suits.
@Kathy:
Trump’s declarations seem to toggle between his own visceral reactions and the special interests of his whisperers — with scant modulation from rational disinterested sources. Hellava way to run a $7 trillion/year enterprise.
@Rob1: I tell people I am a “liberal, in fact a bleeding heart liberal”.
@Bill Jempty:
Talk about “cringeworthy.” Could be a segment in one of the “don’t be your parents” themed Progressive Insurance commercials.
@becca: Damn straight!
@Sleeping Dog:
Yes to claiming the mantle. Whether classical liberalism consists of a coherent political theory is a no, IMO.
It’s “9 out of 10 dentists agree” branding.
Two examples:
Smith is not taught in full in favor of bowdlerized version to promote dogma.
Forgive my indulgent side trip…the other example is down there, but most of the below is an airing of a grievance I hold close. To differentiate, I italicized it.
A famous study from the 80s by Lutz is well known in Christian Nationalist circles, because it is characterized as proving the founding fathers intended the US to be a Christian nation. But it is mischaracterized by them.
The table they reference shows that 34% of citations during the founding era were from the Bible. I will quote one example of this below that I view as egregious.
I don’t recall the names, but the table was reproduced in a few well sold books by pastors. It spread from there. But there is a problem. That 34% figure is not limited to the founding fathers nor is it indicative of political debates of the era.
Lutz:
More salient to my point about Classical Liberalism is another table that shows the citation patterns during the ratification era, comparing the Federalists to the Anti-Federalists.
The most cited author for the Federalists? Montesquieu (29%).
By Anti-Federalists? Montesquieu (25%).
Lutz also points out that the founders emphasized different works by Enlightenment thinkers than we do, thus different aspects of their thought.
*now, back to my bellyaching*
How about Biblical citations?
Among the latter, 9% of citations were from the Bible.
The Federalists? 0%. Zilch. Nada.
Now, it specifically excludes private documents that were not public during that era. Even if some of the Federalists may have indeed thought that Christian ethics were foundational to their political goals, they kept it private. Contra to the Christian Nationalists, This is at least suggestive of a specific attitude toward the relationship between religion and government. The former a private matter; the latter, public.
And my favorite part of all of this. The following quote is from a speech given at the C.S. Lewis Institute. Note how the speaker describes the Lutz paper. After, you will see why I had such harsh words about it earlier.
At least this quote isn’t as bad a distortion was what some of the clergy have claimed. But it still misrepresents the study by conflating the broad public of the time and the founders. But further into the speech, the conflation is explicit.
Why is it so maddening to me? This guy didn’t graduate from Moody Bible Institute or Bob Jones. He is a damn Rhodes Scholar (D.Phil.), holds a JD from UVA, is faculty at the American University School of Public Affairs, and is a Senior Fellow at Emory’s Institute for the Study of Law and Religion.
It wasn’t enough to quote Lutz about the need for more scholarly attention to the role of Biblical ethics during the Founding era. Rather, dude feels the need to distort the paper.
Or he did not actually read it. Or he read into it his own position.
Any one of those options is damning.