Vosem: Ask me anything

[Vosem]

So, yeah. I'm a 19-year-old secular-Jewish Russoanglohispanophone international studies (formerly molecular genetics) major at the Ohio State University, with a strong interest in political demography and political systems (as my Atlas Forum membership goes to show). My opinions tend towards the center-right, with strong pro-market stances that I tend to emphasize, though my political beliefs are also characterized by soft secularism, soft interventionism, and a strong adherence to Zionism and environmentalism.

Please try to challenge my beliefs; I'm a pretty stubborn person by nature, but I like to think I'm open to new viewpoints and if you don't this won't be particularly interesting. But you can ask me about anything and I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities.

Yes, I did delete a thread like this about a week ago; the past week has been (the first half of) finals week, with the second half taking place next week, and I decided to study rather than procrastinate. Since I now have nothing to turn in till Tuesday, I'm making the opposite decision now.

Ask away

[Kingpoleon]

Who are your top five-ten favorite Democratic Senators? I'd guess some people would be Manchin, Wyden, and other similar ones, but I don't know for sure.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Why are you still a Republican?

[Vosem]

Do you support universal healthcare?

Yes, I think so. I definitely didn't when I first became interested in politics (which was all the way back in 2007), but I've come to the conclusion that not having universal healthcare is sufficiently detrimental to people's lives and sense of security that it would be best for society if coverage were to become universal. I do still believe that the best quality comes about in a healthcare system where there is some competition, so ideally that would be preserved under the context of universal healthcare; I think enacting a single-provider system would be a deep disservice to the ordinary person. This is definitely a subject that I'm not an expert on and hope to learn more about, though.

Who are your top five-ten favorite Democratic Senators? I'd guess some people would be Manchin, Wyden, and other similar ones, but I don't know for sure.

The pro-gun Senators -- Manchin, Heitkamp, and Tester, who voted against Chris Murphy's shameful bill to prevent Americans on the arbitrary No-Fly List from purchasing guns -- have to be there. Beyond that, I would include non-crazy effective legislators or those that have advocated for Israel; my hometown bias means I'll round this list out with two New Yorkers (Schumer and Gillibrand), but several other names, like Menendez or Feinstein, also come to mind. Wyden is pretty reasonable too, and would be in the top ten.

[America Needs R'hllor]

You're somewhat of a globalist, I guess. Seeing the statistics about shootings in the US, and seeing how most other western countries both seem to be fine without freely giving guns, and almost don't experience this phenomenon of constant shootings, don't you think that the American obsession with guns is a bit too traditionalist, outdated and stubborn?

[SATW]

How do you define your Zionism?

I feel like we don't talk much at all, especially on Zionism even though we are both closely aligned on it.

[Vosem]

You're somewhat of a globalist, I guess. Seeing the statistics about shootings in the US, and seeing how most other western countries both seem to be fine without freely giving guns, and almost don't experience this phenomenon of constant shootings, don't you think that the American obsession with guns is a bit too traditionalist, outdated and stubborn?

A fair question -- I am indeed something of a "globalist". I believe that people have an inherent right to self-defense and that areas that were at one point safe and low-crime can become quite violent and dangerous rather abruptly (I believe there was a year in the 1960s prior to the outbreak of the Troubles when zero murders were committed in all of Northern Ireland; the somewhat abrupt return of ethnic conflict to the Caucasus and to the Balkans in the 1980s-'90s, in my mind, also goes to show how difficult it can be to predict the future and to guarantee the absence of some form of violent conflict); none of us are really as aware of what will happen in the future as we think we are. Thus, no circumstance can possibly exist in which someone would not need to ensure that they would be able to exercise their right to self-defense in the future.

Considering these points, I have to say that while it would be foolish of me to suggest, as many pro-gun advocates in the United States do, that America's gun violence problem is disconnected with the much easier access to guns in this country than in the rest of the West; I simply think the right of self-defense is important enough that it's an acceptable price to pay, or it should be tackled through other means.

Is this a traditionalist and stubborn point of view -- yeah, probably. Those are acceptable critiques. I wouldn't say outdated, since it seems that the peak of gun-control sentiment in the US was reached in the 1990s and it has generally been declining in public opinion since then.

How do you define your Zionism?

I feel like we don't talk much at all, especially on Zionism even though we are both closely aligned on it.

Zionism constitutes my support for a Jewish and democratic state in the general geographic area of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, with its capital in Jerusalem. Since the present State of Israel, in my view, fulfills these conditions, it constitutes support for that states' continued existence (obviously) and both a military and political alliance between my country (the United States) and Israel. I can go into a lot more detail about what I'd like Israel to be like in an ideal world, or my opinions on actual Israeli domestic politics, but that's the basic definition of what I perceive to be 'Zionism'.

Indeed we don't -- I tend to log on to Atlas mostly to yell at people I disagree with or are being particularly blockheaded, so it follows that I don't interact too much with people I don't have many disagreements with

[SATW]

Ah, that makes sense. I usually bash the knuckleheads/idiots on twitter and facebook for than on here. It's admittedly fun to bash those type of politicos haha.

[Figueira]

Why is your name Vosem and not Sem or Devyat*?

*Not sure what the best way to transliterate that one is.

[Vosem]

Ah, that makes sense. I usually bash the knuckleheads/idiots on twitter and facebook for than on here. It's admittedly fun to bash those type of politicos haha.

Definitely

Why is your name Vosem and not Sem or Devyat*?

*Not sure what the best way to transliterate that one is.

My birthday is August 8 (8/8), so I've always seen "eight" as a lucky number. Picking the Russian was a nod to my heritage in that direction -- it felt classier than going with "Eight" or "Ocho" and something along the lines of "Huit" or "Acht" would've felt untruthful.

[PPT Spiral]

What are the most compelling criticisms of neoliberalism you've come across, and what would it take for you to reconsider your beliefs in that respect?

[Vosem]

What are the most compelling criticisms of neoliberalism you've come across, and what would it take for you to reconsider your beliefs in that respect?

It is difficult for me to talk about compelling criticisms of neoliberalism on account of the extremely divergent definitions that that word has -- I can talk about certain definitions which are more or less compelling, but it's difficult to discuss criticisms. The most convincing criticism of unfettered capitalism I've encountered is its tendency, pointed out by many, to consume itself in competition; often actions that make sense to take for individuals or corporations don't make sense if they are taken by society en masse, which is the effect of unfettered capitalism. It is for this very reason that government is necessary at all.

What would it take for me to reconsider my belief in a broadly market-based economy/society, with only narrow and precisely defined restrictions to the market's power? I don't know. Whatever it would take, I haven't seen it.

Also, I'm bumping this thread and would be happy to take your questions!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What values do you think generally constitute 'good government' as a general rule?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Career plans? Having pursued two liberal arts majors, I'm always curious to see what others with similar concentrations plan on doing.

[Vosem]

What values do you think generally constitute 'good government' as a general rule?

A good government is one that efficiently distributes the services it has promised to its citizens, and refrains from stealing from them. The latter is something that can be defined more broadly than money or possessions: a good government refrains from diminishing its citizens' dignity, and does not moralize like a Sunday-school teacher might; it allows citizens to behave how they wish so long as they do not infringe upon others. Lastly, a good government also defends its citizens effectively from outside powers.

Career plans? Having pursued two liberal arts majors, I'm always curious to see what others with similar concentrations plan on doing.

Certainly heading to law school at this point; have secured an LSAT score I'm decently happy with (171; though I'm going to take it one more time to try to increase this, since it's a bit lower than my practice scores), have my recommendations lined up, am finishing my personal statement, and will be sending my applications on the first day of the new cycle (I believe no school I'm applying to has a deadline earlier than September 1, but this will have to be checked). I am graduating from OSU this coming December; it could be done earlier this year, but I am putting off graduation until I have been accepted to a law school, since law schools track grades prior to first college graduation.

Anyway, yeah, I'm bored and bumping this thread. Some of the newer users on this forum may not have heard much of me, since I'm mostly on AAD these days; but I've been on here since 2009 and my peak activity was around 2012-2015. Ask me whatever you like.

[Goldwater]

Do you think you are going to still support the Republicans during these midterms?

[WritOfCertiorari]

You probably remember me. We used to argue about the Republican primary all the time. Hint: D-MD.

I have one question. Do you still think Kasich  can grab the nomination... in 2020?

[Vosem]

Do you think you are going to still support the Republicans during these midterms?

I still support the Republican Party here in the State of Ohio; I think the state has been well-governed by Kasich and our current slate of officials and would like to see it continue being governed similarly. I would vote for DeWine or Taylor against Cordray or Kucinich, bar something very strange. I will be voting for the Democratic candidate for Secretary of State, Kathleen Clyde, over Frank LaRose; LaRose is a hypocrite who was NeverTrump up until the election and then immediately turned around to seek a job in the federal administration. Clyde has also expressed support for legalizing recreational marijuana, which LaRose has been silent on; it would be the job of Secretary of State to determine wording for any possible referendum, which was why the 2015 effort here was torpedoed. I may vote Democratic for Attorney General, so that Ohio can join states suing the Administration, but I like Dave Yost, so I'm unsure about this one.

For Congress, I am inclined to support Democrats to block Trump. Mike Gibbons is very unlikely to be the Republican nominee, but he is from my hometown in Northeast Ohio and was my 8th-grade English teacher's father, along with seeming to have pretty good ideas, so I suppose I'll vote for him if he is the Republican nominee, but this seems unlikely. My House vote is currently cast in a very Safe D seat, so it doesn't matter too much, so I currently intend to vote for Joyce Beatty and Sherrod Brown (yuck, hopefully a one-off thing).

You probably remember me. We used to argue about the Republican primary all the time. Hint: D-MD.

I have one question. Do you still think Kasich  can grab the nomination... in 2020?

I have been on this forum for nearly 9 years. I remember people who stick around for years. I argued with lots of people about the Republican primary; I'm sure there was a D-MD in there somewhere.

I don't recall saying Kasich could be nominated in 2020; possibly I was trolling if I said that. My somewhat banal answer is that Trump could only be seriously challenged if he alienates Republican voters in a big way, and I think this is possible depending on how Trump handles post-2018 Democratic congressional majorities; if this does happen, I can see it not being clear until very late 2019 that Trump is vulnerable at all, in which case someone on the very fringe of the party (Kasich or Justin Amash, both of whom I think intend to run) could rise to prominence as a challenger. Even then I don't think either could win outright, though. Just reduce Trump to a Hillary v. Bernie type of situation.

If you link me to your old profile, I may remember you. Unfortunately this forum prohibits sockpuppetry, so you'll probably be gone soon. RIP jmfcst/opebo/Atlas Forum Freedom Fighters.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What are your thoughts on how free trade has developed as a political issue as of late?

[Vosem]

What are your thoughts on how free trade has developed as a political issue as of late?

As a political issue in the United States? OK. I do not think free trade is a very important issue within the Republican Party; polling showed a large shift during Trump's rise (Pew had support for free trade among Republicans decline from 56% to 29% during 2015-2016, though it's since somewhat rebounded to 36%), but I've yet to see any candidate be attacked over support for free trade or lack thereof. My junior Senator, Rob Portman, is probably one of the biggest free-trade ideologues in the Senate (literally the architect of CAFTA), but attempts to attack him over this in 2016 went over very poorly, and he ran ahead of Trump in a lot of areas classified as quintessentially "Trumpy" (notably he carried Mahoning County, which includes Youngstown, outright, something Trump failed to do).

On the Democratic side, you've long seen a constituency that really does care about free trade and is quite vocal in their opposition; these guys are mostly concentrated in Midwestern states. (My senior Senator, Sherrod Brown, comes from that tradition.) A very significant part of Trump's victory came from their switching over to support him in the general; this explains the weird and kind of contradictory phenomenon of Trump being pretty weak in the Midwest in the primary but conversely very strong in the general. However, in keeping with the phenomenon of the anti-Trump backlash among Democrats, you see Pew reporting that Democratic support for free trade has spiked from the low fifties to 67%.

On the whole, given the pretty severe variation you see depending on question wording, I don't think free trade is a very relevant electoral issue for the large majority of Americans. There does exist a coherent voter bloc, especially in the Midwest, who do care and are against it, but they are outnumbered by a general pro-free trade consensus opinion, both among ordinary voters and among the elite; since the backlash to Trump has generally been stronger in issue polling than the force that elected him in the first place, you've seen support for free trade rise in recent polling, going from about a tie nationally during the campaign to 52/40 in favor now.

Lastly, while I don't think free trade is a very important issue for most people, it is part of the nexus of issues at the globalization/nationalism debate in Anglophone countries, and it's my view that this debate is a primarily generational one rather than ideological, with "globalizers" being basically the youth and "nationalists" being basically the elderly. The triumph of the former in Anglophone domestic policies over the next 10-15 years or so is therefore pretty pre-ordained. This is easily summed up by the note that those over age 65 disapprove of free trade, 38/51, while those under age 30 approve of it, 67/29.

While there's a lot of polling on free trade, Pew tends to be a really good resource for a lot of things, and I chiefly worked off this page to come up with this response: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/25/support-for-free-trade-agreements-rebounds-modestly-but-wide-partisan-differences-remain/

[Oldiesfreak1854]

What are your thoughts on how free trade has developed as a political issue as of late?

As a political issue in the United States? OK. I do not think free trade is a very important issue within the Republican Party; polling showed a large shift during Trump's rise (Pew had support for free trade among Republicans decline from 56% to 29% during 2015-2016, though it's since somewhat rebounded to 36%), but I've yet to see any candidate be attacked over support for free trade or lack thereof. My junior Senator, Rob Portman, is probably one of the biggest free-trade ideologues in the Senate (literally the architect of CAFTA), but attempts to attack him over this in 2016 went over very poorly, and he ran ahead of Trump in a lot of areas classified as quintessentially "Trumpy" (notably he carried Mahoning County, which includes Youngstown, outright, something Trump failed to do).

On the Democratic side, you've long seen a constituency that really does care about free trade and is quite vocal in their opposition; these guys are mostly concentrated in Midwestern states. (My senior Senator, Sherrod Brown, comes from that tradition.) A very significant part of Trump's victory came from their switching over to support him in the general; this explains the weird and kind of contradictory phenomenon of Trump being pretty weak in the Midwest in the primary but conversely very strong in the general. However, in keeping with the phenomenon of the anti-Trump backlash among Democrats, you see Pew reporting that Democratic support for free trade has spiked from the low fifties to 67%.

This seems to be in line with what I've seen.  I remember when Dick DeVos (Betsy's husband) ran for governor of Michigan in 2006, Gov. Granholm and the Democrats accused him of supporting NAFTA and other "unfair trade agreements," which they pinned on George Bush.  Never mind that it was Bill Clinton (not Bush) who signed NAFTA into law, that he campaigned for Granholm in that election, that Granholm supported Hillary Clinton for president in 2008 and 2016, and that Dick DeVos' wife is now Secretary of Education for President Trump.

That said, Democrats have also been steadily increasing their support with the white-collar, business-oriented profession class since the 90s, drive in large part due to social issues, and this has had an impact on making the party as a whole less protectionist and more globalist.

[Vosem]

What are your thoughts on how free trade has developed as a political issue as of late?

As a political issue in the United States? OK. I do not think free trade is a very important issue within the Republican Party; polling showed a large shift during Trump's rise (Pew had support for free trade among Republicans decline from 56% to 29% during 2015-2016, though it's since somewhat rebounded to 36%), but I've yet to see any candidate be attacked over support for free trade or lack thereof. My junior Senator, Rob Portman, is probably one of the biggest free-trade ideologues in the Senate (literally the architect of CAFTA), but attempts to attack him over this in 2016 went over very poorly, and he ran ahead of Trump in a lot of areas classified as quintessentially "Trumpy" (notably he carried Mahoning County, which includes Youngstown, outright, something Trump failed to do).

On the Democratic side, you've long seen a constituency that really does care about free trade and is quite vocal in their opposition; these guys are mostly concentrated in Midwestern states. (My senior Senator, Sherrod Brown, comes from that tradition.) A very significant part of Trump's victory came from their switching over to support him in the general; this explains the weird and kind of contradictory phenomenon of Trump being pretty weak in the Midwest in the primary but conversely very strong in the general. However, in keeping with the phenomenon of the anti-Trump backlash among Democrats, you see Pew reporting that Democratic support for free trade has spiked from the low fifties to 67%.

This seems to be in line with what I've seen.  I remember when Dick DeVos (Betsy's husband) ran for governor of Michigan in 2006, Gov. Granholm and the Democrats accused him of supporting NAFTA and other "unfair trade agreements," which they pinned on George Bush.  Never mind that it was Bill Clinton (not Bush) who signed NAFTA into law, that he campaigned for Granholm in that election, that Granholm supported Hillary Clinton for president in 2008 and 2016, and that Dick DeVos' wife is now Secretary of Education for President Trump.

That said, Democrats have also been steadily increasing their support with the white-collar, business-oriented profession class since the 90s, drive in large part due to social issues, and this has had an impact on making the party as a whole less protectionist and more globalist.

The general long-term trend does seem to be in favor of more free trade and more globalism; even in a state like Michigan, it's hard to imagine that attack going successfully now. It certainly wouldn't come from Democrats against Republicans, either (vice versa is imaginable but I can't think of successful campaigns that have done it besides Trump's, which leads back into the pro-Trump guys' problem that candidates like Trump just don't win down-ballot primaries particularly often at all). On the other hand, it's kind of silly to talk about things Granholm did after 2006 to attack her over that campaign.

More generally, the globalist trend is a lot more visible on immigration issues (where one Pew survey members under age 50 of our modern, pro-Trump Republican Party as more sympathetic to immigration than your average American in 1994), which has been a really visible and abrupt shift in American politics under the Obama Administration and in many ways is the fuel that keeps anti-Trump anger burning, but it's present on other things, such as free trade, as well. Inasmuch as (I keep harping on this in a lot of places) most of the globalist/nationalist divide in the Anglophone world is a generational conflict, the globalists are pretty much going to win by default.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Do you read Commentary magazine?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

What are your thoughts on how free trade has developed as a political issue as of late?

As a political issue in the United States? OK. I do not think free trade is a very important issue within the Republican Party; polling showed a large shift during Trump's rise (Pew had support for free trade among Republicans decline from 56% to 29% during 2015-2016, though it's since somewhat rebounded to 36%), but I've yet to see any candidate be attacked over support for free trade or lack thereof. My junior Senator, Rob Portman, is probably one of the biggest free-trade ideologues in the Senate (literally the architect of CAFTA), but attempts to attack him over this in 2016 went over very poorly, and he ran ahead of Trump in a lot of areas classified as quintessentially "Trumpy" (notably he carried Mahoning County, which includes Youngstown, outright, something Trump failed to do).

On the Democratic side, you've long seen a constituency that really does care about free trade and is quite vocal in their opposition; these guys are mostly concentrated in Midwestern states. (My senior Senator, Sherrod Brown, comes from that tradition.) A very significant part of Trump's victory came from their switching over to support him in the general; this explains the weird and kind of contradictory phenomenon of Trump being pretty weak in the Midwest in the primary but conversely very strong in the general. However, in keeping with the phenomenon of the anti-Trump backlash among Democrats, you see Pew reporting that Democratic support for free trade has spiked from the low fifties to 67%.

This seems to be in line with what I've seen.  I remember when Dick DeVos (Betsy's husband) ran for governor of Michigan in 2006, Gov. Granholm and the Democrats accused him of supporting NAFTA and other "unfair trade agreements," which they pinned on George Bush.  Never mind that it was Bill Clinton (not Bush) who signed NAFTA into law, that he campaigned for Granholm in that election, that Granholm supported Hillary Clinton for president in 2008 and 2016, and that Dick DeVos' wife is now Secretary of Education for President Trump.

That said, Democrats have also been steadily increasing their support with the white-collar, business-oriented profession class since the 90s, drive in large part due to social issues, and this has had an impact on making the party as a whole less protectionist and more globalist.

More generally, the globalist trend is a lot more visible on immigration issues (where one Pew survey members under age 50 of our modern, pro-Trump Republican Party as more sympathetic to immigration than your average American in 1994)

Which is interesting.  I've had the feeling all along that Trump is being fueled by the Baby Boomer and Gen X Republicans, i.e. the "me generations" that have been ruining America ever since Bill Clinton's presidency.  Once our generation takes over, that will probably change.  Most Gen Y Republicans, as I understand, are not huge Trump fans and are not offended by globalism and its related policies (including free trade).  I know I certainly fit that description.  In many ways, Trump is an outgrowth of Pat Buchanan's paleocon movement in the 90s--he was also an outspoken opponent of NAFTA and other free trade deals and supported restrictions on legal immigration.

Furthermore, why is it silly to attack Granholm for hypocrisy for what she did after the campaign?  It's no sillier than holding any other politician's feet to the fire to keep their campaign promises (and believe me, Granholm broke MANY of those.)  Was it silly, for example, for voters to toss George HW Bush out for violating the "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge?

[bagelman]

If you live here in Ohio, why do you still have R-IL? What's so bad about R-OH? Ohio has a prettier shape than the ugly blob of Illinois.