That’s the point, dog.
1 Like
Yang is definitely not a socialist, although some would argue that Bernie really isn’t one either.
People like UBI because they want the money, but he doesn’t seem to see this as the fulfillment of a basic human right. Rather, I think Yang conceptualizes UBI as somewhat of a bribe to make people accept the technocratic and soulless automation of society and keep the masses from revolting. And I think there’s a libertarian-ish, small government impulse behind it of turning the social safety net into a block grant to individuals.
Pete got dragged for his health care position. I don’t know if people looked closely at Yang, who said he supports Medicare for All “in spirit”, but at the same time believed in keeping private insurance and generally seemed to have technocratic solutions to lowering health care costs as his primary stance on the issue.
1 Like
I really am not in the mood to do the whole back and forth about your perceptions of Andrew Yang no offense. You’re hearing his language choices and paying more attention to them than the substance of the ideas, the promotion of which was the whole point of his campaign.
I’m going to ask that everyone here who doesn’t think I’m some kind of idiot who has negative opinions about Andrew Yang to do a deep dive on the guy or reset your perceptions to flat neutral or better.
I’m happy to get into the weeds on any of AY’s policy proposals, but I’d politely ask that you not show up with a straw man and ask me to battle it.
AY made an intentional choice to run on UBI not M4A. He’s for single payer healthcare like every other person who knows how to work a spreadsheet and isn’t on a healthcare payroll, but that wasn’t what his campaign was about and I assume he didn’t want that to be used as a wedge issue on his supporters. I listened to his most recent podcast where he spent a bit of time explaining, for the umpteenth time, how to sell universal healthcare to conservatives… which I think is a much more important question than the minutae of imaginary M4A plans that will never pass with our current politicians.
He won’t talk about touching Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid because of how popular those are, but he very much seems into the idea of replacing other social welfare programs with UBI.
“Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.” - The Freedom Dividend, Defined
I’m not necessarily opposed to UBI, but I am not enthusiastic about Yang’s conception of it. He approaches it from the technocratic view that the biggest problem is bureaucracy and that you can eliminate waste and increase efficiency just by simplifying things. It’s a mindset which (combined with a history of dodging the question) makes me think that his answer to issues public education will involve charter schools. His opposition to means-tested forms of welfare suggests to me that he would prefer to find an alternative to programs such as housing vouchers.
Yang’s UBI comes across as the kind of welfare that libertarians would design if they were forced to accept some form of a welfare state in exchange for getting more of what they want on other issues. I openly admit that I have a great deal of mistrust and hatred for libertarians. I am uncomfortable with the libertarian-ish sorts who seem to like Yang more than any Republican, but would probably take most Republicans over someone like Sanders or Warren.
1 Like
So Yang is exceptionally good at selling right wing people who you, frankly, would like to see at least hurt. As a result you’re going to catch a lot of linguistic red flags from the guy. That being said he’s doing a fabulous job of selling them on a new vision of government and capitalism using language they are already programmed to respond to.
His solution to public education is to pay teachers a lot more in exchange for significantly higher recruiting standards and accountability… a position I agree with fully.
Yang backtracked on removing most of the social safety net programs already and if you listened to him talking about the failed social safety net (and it is without a doubt totally failed or many of the arguments on this site wouldn’t make much sense) his passion is not for removing existing benefits but for creating a social safety net that actually works and for changing the metrics we use to measure the well being of the country.
I get why you would read libertarian off the guy… he’s definitely coopted a lot of their concepts on a linguistic level. Which is fine as long as you’re talking about the few legit good points they have (which they use as pegs to hang all of the rest of their idiotic bullshit on).
What you should be doing is looking at how Yang makes points when talking to libertarian leaning types and copy them. They’re literally the answers to the test and you should cheat your heart out. It’s so much fun to have conversations with libertarians where YOU get to play with the meanings of words. Easy to see why the Nazi’s love it so much.
For example most of the people here when arguing for M4A would talk about the deep injustice and how medical care is a human right. Yang would talk about how your job being linked to your healthcare prevents potentially millions of people from taking entrepreneurial chances and starting new things that would potentially give society a lot more than them toiling away at some safe job they are somewhat overqualified for. He’d point out that the only reason job and health insurance are even linked is that there was a tax break long ago and what we’ve accidentally done is forced people to stay in situations they should have the freedom to leave because health insurance.
That argument makes libertarians nod along. It’s brutal and it works. They don’t give a shit about injustice or human rights but they generally shout freedom when they orgasm. If you want to convince them of something you aren’t going to do it by making the argument they should respond to and then just writing them off when it doesn’t work because they’re evil.
That ability to take the other sides point of view and warp the living shit out of it is what makes Andrew Yang special. It can be a touch hard to read from the left though, which might be the problem with the approach.
1 Like
I basically think libertarians are as bad as hardcore Trumpers, so I really have no interest in appealing to them.
They aren’t quite as dumb (which means they are more persuadable) as hard core Trumpers but I think we don’t have a choice but to appeal to both. It’s not a question of want really so much as need. We can’t concede that many people in the places they are at with the Senate map being what it is. Not if we ever want to do better than Joe Biden.
He is trying to put soul into automation. Automation should be a good thing and allow humans to pursue greater things.
Also, do you apply the same logic to other social welfare programs?
Libertarian types would prefer UBI vs things like food stamps but if you don’t think the people on those programs would prefer cash too you probably don’t know very many people on those programs.
Yangs approach is a bottom up vs the elites top down approach.
Right, like Yang is showing that he understands that a two bedroom apartment literally isn’t enough for a family of four, but then turns around and expects most other people to just deal with that situation. He’s a lot closer to some sort of libertarian utopianist than he is to any sort of socialist vision.
1 Like
The same Andrew Yang who was hired by CNN?
3 Likes
Yeah and a great move by him taking it. Anything to get that name recognition up. He’s a legit contender for mayor of NYC now.
If you’ve actually watched him on CNN you realize he’s been himself basically. Seeming non threatening is something he’s fantastic at. If Bernie could seem non threatening maybe he’d have won the nomination.
Cash is better but if it’s not enough cash to make up for ending other programs which help it’s worse.
One thousand a month is not near enough to live on if you are getting rid of the safety net. If you are keeping the safety net then it’s a good thing.
1 Like
This really wasn’t even close to a hit piece or a gotcha question. If you’re going to run for mayor of X without living in X, people will ask what’s up. IIRC, Hillary got the same kind of heat when she ran for senator. Sorry, Yang just bobbled a softball question.
1 Like
He has solutions to affordable housing like “[e]ncourage the building of new innovative housing options like micro-apartments and communal living for people in high-density urban areas.”
1 Like
ETA: I mislabeled AY as a billionaire in this post. He is in fact a millionaire.
I would say that when you label AY as a leftist, it runs contrary to your request that others reset their perceptions to neutral. It’s debasing the word leftist to a point where it becomes nearly devoid of meaning. “Hi. I’m AY, a leftist who is a fanboi of capitalism. I am proposing a UBI that will be funded by a VAT. Sure, VATs are a regressive tax, but I’m AY, a leftist billionaire, and therefore prefer regressive tax schemes over taxing the shit out of billionaires. It’s just a total coincidence that my policy proposals protect my wealth, and more importantly they protect the system that allows billionaire levels of wealth accumulation.”
Pro-capitalism, regressive taxes, a billionaire with many libertarian-esqe ideas. That is not leftist, and labeling it as such is not neutral.
IMO, a more neutral way to describe AY would be a mash up of what both you and NBZ have said: AY is a technocrat dressed up in libertarian-esqe populist language.
If you want to label AY as a leftist populist, then what would you label someone who is actually a leftist populist? You know, someone with anti-capitalist ideology, or who advocates for democratic worker control of the workplace aka removing the privileges of the billionaire owning class, or equitable distribution of wealth, or community ownership of public goods and natural resources, etc.
Like here’s an actual IRL leftist populist, former president of Bolivia, Evo Morales.
AY, is never agreeing with EM’s statement, because AY is fundamentally in favor of capitalism. That places AY right of center. It’s why your take that AY is comfortable speaking the language of libertarians to people on the right is accurate. It’s because that is AY’s ideological home, on the right with the libertarians and capitalism fans.
6 Likes
I think you are mistaken about Yang’s net worth.
He’s not a billionaire? I thought I had heard him labelled in that manner. My bad. Google says he’s way less.
Guys not a billionaire. He’s a low millionaire (definitely <10) who lives in a 2BR apartment in Manhattan who has spent the last decade + of his life doing straight charity work.
Look you haven’t bothered to look into him and he’s very much a leftist. Bernie likes him. Maybe don’t let people with his destruction in mind form your opinions. Absolutely insane how a bunch of mostly Bernie supporters aren’t wise to the fact that the media does this. They literally started coverage on him by finding some far right extremely online people who liked him and trying to associate his campaign with them. Then they actively avoided covering the man. And you’re here basically just repeating a ton of bad takes and straight misinformation.
Look go read the War on Normal People. It’s great material.
Bernie is not a leftist…he is left but not a full on socialist or communist.
2 Likes