Epstein Files | Patel: Trust us

[superrific]

1. I don’t reject the idea of abundance. I reject a narrow “abundance agenda” that frames every problem as a supply constraint and sees deregulation as the universal fix. Yes, housing scarcity is real, but the deeper problem is who controls land, credit, and development, not just how fast we can build. Texas builds more, but it’s also dominated by predatory landlords, sprawling car dependency, and wage exploitation. You don’t solve extraction with more extraction. A left-wing abundance politics should challenge concentrated ownership, not just zoning codes.

2. Why are those efforts kept small and underfunded? Because capital defends its power. Because neoliberalism shrank the public sphere, deregulated finance, and pushed market solutions to every social problem. Because even under Democratic administrations, corporate lobbies are too often prioritized over working people. Clinton’s welfare reform, trade deals, and banking deregulation were not imposed by Republicans. Obama had a supermajority and still barely lifted a finger for labor until the last two years of his presidency.

1. Fine. If you want to focus on the deeper problems associated with abundance, have at it. Ezra wants to win elections now. Different perspectives. Could be complementary if people will let it.

2. Obama had a supermajority for about six months. There was no way that labor rights were going to be addressed while the economy and financial system were in the crapper and Obamacare was being hashed out. And then what's her fucking name insulted Curt Schilling because she didn't know anything about baseball and then well, we know. It's amazing how much history gets decided by stupid trivialities like that.

Anyway, Obamacare looks the way it does specifically because the unions were involved, because Obama was respecting labor power. If I recall correctly, the unions weren't supportive of the public option. It didn't give them much, because they all had negotiated the so-called gold plated insurance into their contracts. That was because of the tax advantages -- it was cheaper for the company to provide more benefits than more money, even though they are basically fungible. So we got the different tiers of public insurance, IIRC, for that reason. We also, IIRC, retained the favorable tax treatment for unions even though it made it much harder to pay for the Medicaid expansion.

 

[superrific]

Saying “fascists are fascists because they’re bad people” is the essence of a moral-psychological diagnosis that abandons any structural analysis. That’s exactly the problem with leaning too hard on Adorno in 2025.

I'm not leaning on Adorno. I'm leaning on the empirical evidence showing that he was right all along. Being right all along is less of a compliment, perhaps, than it might seem. Being right is lucky. Betting on the highest probabilities is genius. Sometimes those go together, sometimes they don't. Adorno was brilliant and insightful, but the authoritarian personality was speculative. Good speculation in the end.

At what point would you accept that moral-psychological diagnosis? What if God himself came down and told you, "I made these bad people on purpose." Would you still insist on structural analysis? Obviously that's a gross exaggeration, but there is a lot of evidence for the moral psycho diagnosis. Should we discount that evidence because it's unfashionable?

 

[superrific]

That’s really the heart of our disagreement. You interpret recent history as confirming the primacy of personality, while I see it as confirming the primacy of class. At this point, I don’t think either of us is going to shift our core beliefs based on this back-and-forth.

If God came down and told me that he made these people authoritarians and that it was unchangeable, then honestly, I would stop caring about political change altogether.

I engage in politics because I am a humanist. I believe people can change, that systems can be transformed, and that progress is possible. If it were 100% confirmed that 30, 40, or 50 percent of the population had immutable authoritarian personalities bent on destroying everything I value, I wouldn’t waste my energy on debate or reform. I’d retreat and prepare to defend what matters by other means.

But I don’t believe that. I believe in the power of ideas, conditions, and struggles to shape human behavior and society.

You don't have to assume they are unchangeable. Personality isn't destiny. The MAGA extremists managed to keep it in their pants for a while before Trump unzipped before the country. Perhaps they can again. Or will find that they have to. But it's a different kettle of fish than class interests, yes?

The issue of the working classes being conservative and counter-revolutionary for cultural reasons was addressed by Daniel Bell in his Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism book. I wish I could recommend it but I found it hopelessly boring. Maybe you might enjoy it more.

 

[superrific]

Would be a good convo for the Abundance thread. That one slipped off the map pretty quickly though.

I didn't even see it.

 

[hedge]

There is nothing apolitical about how foreign capital moves. It moves toward exploitation, deregulation, and regimes willing to discipline labor.

This sounds pretty much like water following the path of least resistance...

 

[hedge]

Basically, fascists are fascists not because of class interests but because they are bad people.

"What was the matter with the master-at-arms?"

 

[hedge]

When I posted that I was enjoying this thread it hadn't even gotten started good yet. Kinda like saying "damn this is a good match" after the third set of the French Open finals yesterday...

 

[hedge]

The question becomes: who has the power to redirect that flow?

The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must...

 

[heelinhell]

1. Criticizing the abundance agenda, and then citing the problems the abundance agenda tries to challenge as the basis for your own argument, is a take I suppose. Why is rent eating half their paycheck? Why is it way more expensive to build in California than in Texas? That's a fact. Texas' way is not necessarily better for many, many reasons, but if housing is a major problem, build more housing!

2. Why does the political and economic system keep those efforts small or underfunded? Is it because of neoliberalism? Or because every time a Dem president expands labor rights, the subsequent GOP administration undoes that progress or more.

3. You want to know why I'm frustrated by Nader and the Naderites? Well, here's an anecdote. A while back, the Supreme Court issued one of the most anti-union decisions since the 1890s when the Sherman Act was interpreted to be a union-busting tool. It was authored by Alito. Alito was the driving force behind it -- having complained about unions endlessly until he finally got a majority to take them down.

If Ralph Nader had not run for president in 2000; if he hadn't been out there talking about a uniparty and blurring the distinctions between the two parties, Samuel Alito would not have been a Supreme Court justice. In all likelihood, Justice Tatel would have been writing opinions upholding union rights. Oh, and campaign finance reform -- another issue where Roberts and Alito did so much damage even before Citizens United.

The reason that unions are underfunded is not Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or Joe Biden. It's GWB and Trump and Ralph Nader. It isn't neoliberalism. As applied to labor rights, that term is even more bullshit than usual. If you knew anything about labor law, you'd know that there are more volumes of NLRB adjudications than all federal court cases. Well, I don't know if that's technically accurate, but the density is much higher. That's because the NLRB is always changing its stripes. Dems come in and expand union rights through adjudications. Then the GOPers come in and retract those rights in subsequent adjudications.

Can we add Roberts taking a torch to protecting minorities' voting rights in Shelby ?

naive Nader voters put in motion so much destruction and undoing of the progress we were making as a country. It began 2001 but we continue to suffer the effects in 2025. And let's give Jill Stein voters an assist that kept the trend going...

 

[05C40]

"What was the matter with the master-at-arms?"

For those of you, who like me, were poorly educated in the classics, not because of the schools I attended, but because of internal shotcomings, this quote is from Herman Melville's "Billy Budd." TGF Google. In college, getting me interested in the Classics, was like trying to paint plastic.

 

[theel4life]

Back to Trump being in the Epstein files.

 

[finesse]

I somehow missed this reply in real time, but it deserves a response.

I don’t reject expertise in the way some populists on the right do. I agree that professional standards, peer review, and institutional knowledge are crucial to a functioning society. But I think you’re misunderstanding where my skepticism is coming from.

I’m not talking about throwing out expertise. I’m talking about the fact that in recent decades, many of the people and institutions who claimed the mantle of expertise, particularly in politics, finance, foreign policy, and media, failed in massive, visible ways. The Iraq War, the 2008 financial crisis, the opioid epidemic, the Covid response, the collapse of local journalism, and the bipartisan economic consensus that hollowed out working-class communities were not engineered by the MAGA right. They were often driven, rationalized, or rubber-stamped by credentialed experts in high places.

That doesn’t mean we abandon all expertise. Rather, it means we need to reckon honestly with why public trust has eroded and why institutions that should be defending democracy and the common good have so often been captured by elite interests.

People aren’t stupid. They’ve watched “the experts” bail out Wall Street while their towns die, tell them globalization will be a net positive while their jobs are offshored, and treat their skepticism as ignorance rather than a rational response to betrayal.

This is why I focus more on the failures of Democrats and liberal institutions. It’s not because I think they’re as bad as Republicans. It’s because in communities like this, everyone already knows the GOP is a wrecking ball. My concern is how liberal leadership has often failed to meet the moment, and how that failure has opened the door to reactionary politics.

As for pragmatism and electability: I want to win too. But I think our chances improve when we offer people something clear, material, and rooted in dignity, not when we keep chasing the political center or trying to guilt people into voting for a status quo they feel has failed them. The reason figures like Bernie resonated was because they spoke directly to people’s material needs without talking down to them. That’s the path forward, not “perfect versus good,” but credible versus hollow.

You’ve lived through real change. That matters. But I think the risk now is that without a reckoning and a bolder vision, we’ll keep losing ground to a right-wing movement that has no such hesitation.

Several of the problems I see is that you are likely your (pl) view of soft "experts" like politicians, economists, media pundits and such reject statisticians, scientists, researchers and the sort of hard expert people who could have saved us from some of this ignorant voting patterns. There really are some things that can be nailed down as the best possible explanation possible with our knowledge. Those things aren't really a matter of public opinion and when you reject those because these other so called experts let us down, everybody loses.

Your focus on the Democrats may feel to you like being a gadfly but feels more like a stab in the back to a lot of us. Why do you undermine the support of the one group that has done anything at all to actually accomplish any of your agenda? Why not win from within? You don't really have a power base now. Help win ,collect favors, convert the party by example and have a power base. Don't discount that the insipid support by the left or the ability by the right to both pin and demonize the ideas of the left on the Dems has had on the rise of those reactionary politics, either.

I have yet to see where it's harder to win the center than inspire the left. The left just doesn't have that good of a track record. And the bottom line is that if you don't have power, you can't change anything.

 

[superrific]

That’s a fair analogy in some ways.

Capital does flow like water toward the path of least resistance, but the key is that the “terrain” it flows through isn’t natural; it’s shaped by political choices.

Governments build the channels. They cut away labor protections, weaken environmental standards, and offer tax incentives not because of gravity, but because of pressure from international institutions, corporate lobbying, and a prevailing economic orthodoxy.

So yes, capital follows the path of least resistance, but it’s a path engineered to serve its interests. The question becomes: who has the power to redirect that flow?

To extend the analogy, though, gravity is non-negotiable. You can't make water flow up. You can't redirect capital flow just where you want.

I'd also extend the analogy with a canal: while the surface of the canal so to speak is political, the existence of the canal is not,.

 

[superrific]

I’m noticing that my last point here about the limits of personality-based explanations for political behavior hasn’t been responded to. I think that silence is meaningful. When we frame political divisions primarily as fixed psychological traits, it leads to a dead end in terms of building inclusive, hopeful movements.

It’s worth reflecting on what that means for anyone interested in lasting social and political change. If a large share of people are seen as inherently authoritarian or “bad,” then organizing becomes less about solidarity and more about exclusion or defeatism. That kind of framing risks alienating the very people whose support we need to create real progress.

This isn’t just a theoretical debate; it shapes how we build coalitions, craft messages, and imagine the future. I believe in a politics rooted in human potential, material conditions, and shared struggle. If we lose that, we lose everything.

I welcome others who want to think through how we can maintain that hopeful, grounded approach to change.

If you're talking about my silence, what it means is that I haven't looked at the board for 15 hours.

1. I don't know what you mean by the "limits" of personality-based explanations. It seems to me that if personality-based explanations were true, then you'd be making a big mistake focusing on material conditions because you won't reach anyone. Likewise, if personality isn't much of a factor, then focusing on it would make little sense. I

That's to say that this is an empirical question. What we should do depends very much on how the world is, and how the world is doesn't care about solidarity or shared struggle.

2. For instance: the last election was incoherent, right? A bunch of people who are supposedly mega-concerned about inflation, voting for the guy who was promising to increase inflation. And now that he's wrecking the economy, and people are losing their businesses, they are still reluctant to quit their Trump support. That suggests to me that material conditions weren't actually the driving force. What they wanted was a scapegoat. Hitler had the Jews, Trump has the invading Mexicans.

3. This empirical approach is difficult, to say the least, for a number of reasons that probably require little explanation. Have you seen the movie Full Metal Jacket. I've watched it several times. The first time, I was with some friends and we all agreed that if they were ever thinking about serving in the marines, no longer. Full Metal Jacket seems, to me, a pretty strong argument against military. And yet, the reality was that it dramatically improved recruiting when it came out, and recruiters credited it with a spike in enlistments. I'm not using this story to suggest anything about the issue of psychology or materiality; simply to say that sometimes it can be hard to understand a person's motivations either way.

4. You are aware of the book What's the Matter with Kansas, I'm sure. I haven't read it, and I'm not all that interested in the details of that particular debate. But that literature does marshal a lot of evidence of people voting against their economic interests, repeatedly and consistently. And it's not all that easy to explain, is it, in material terms. It's not hard to explain with personality. That doesn't mean the personality approach is 100% correct (I'm confident that authoritarian personalities are definitely a factor in creating Trump; how much of a factor is what's open for debate), but it is something the materialist has to reckon with.

That's why I think throwing out the psychology explanation in toto is not helpful. I should add that the Dems have not actually embraced that theory. The closest we came was basket of deplorables.

I think it also explains the whole "receding privilege" argument. I mean, I don't care in the slightest if my white privilege gets eroded. Not an iota of my identity comes from a sense of racial superiority or privilege in any way. My outlook is definitely affected, as is everyone's. But you can't scare me with black people moving into the neighborhood (my neighborhood has actually seen an influx of Muslims, probably settled from Afghanistan, and they have been less visible recently) because I don't fucking care about that at all.

But there are people whose identity is vested in the sense of white or male superiority, ranging from the extreme virulence to just seeing men as the natural leaders and women as complements. So what distinguishes them from me? I'm radically anti-authoritarian personality wise. I know, it seems incongruous with being a corporate law professor, but I am punk rock at my core. Obviously a personal anecdote is not data, but it's an illustration. Psychologists have data.

5. I don't want to get in a length back and forth again any more than you do, so I'll leave it at this. If we try materialism with people who love Trump because of the whole bit about "tell the lowest white man he's better than the highest black man and he'll open your wallet for you," it ain't gonna work. If we focus on psychology when peoples' anxieties are economic in nature, that ain't gonna work either.

 

[superrific]

For those of you, who like me, were poorly educated in the classics, not because of the schools I attended, but because of internal shotcomings, this quote is from Herman Melville's "Billy Budd." TGF Google. In college, getting me interested in the Classics, was like trying to paint plastic.

You don't have to be poorly educated not to recognize that quote. In fact, it's quite obscure as far as I know. Your lack of recognition isn't a comment on you; it's a comment on our resident literary genius who is able to pull quotes from classical literature the way I pull quotes from Tarantino.

And I'm not using the word genius sarcastically. I mean, it might be a bit of an overstatement given the type of ability at issue, but I am genuinely impressed not only with that poster's depth of knowledge but his recall as well.

 

[Centerpiece]

The Paine POV is altruistic and at least can be viewed as on the correct side of history… But that Utopia will get rolled over by Nazis, fascists and the American Taliban every single time. Rolled so quickly it’ll make your head spin. Messaging from the ground up - through the middle, in the center (in what ever fashion: MSM, Legacy M or new age podcasts and long form substack) is what may win the race.

Bo-siding is one thing, but you must sit astride the fence so you can see both sides, engage both sides, deal with both sides of the aisle. Once you jump down off the fence, and travel too far from it (left or right) you’re losing. If you travel so far, either way, so that you can no longer see the fence, you’re surely lost.

The hard right has lost sight of the fence. They’re so far away now, they don’t even realize or recall there ever was a fence. I still believe that AOC, Bernie - and those even farther left than they - can at least still see the fence and realize it’s actually there.

Remember, 36% of eligible voters didn’t vote at all in 2024. The independent voters, the registered unaffiliated, are the largest faction in the country, and its growing. They’re not Green Party or Libertarian… they’re unaffiliated because say can still see the fence. And I think most still sit astride the fence.

And I don’t mean they’re “on the fence” because they can’t make up their mind which way to step. No not at all. They’re on the fence because they choose to be. They’re Centrists. They see the good and bad of both sides. And they realize it’s ok to step off the fence - one way or the other - and dabble about on a side for a while, and maybe even decide to stay on that side…. But they’ll never stray too far away from the fence itself. They realize that is folly.

It’s those folks who still have their shit together. It’s those folks who respond to a poll with an unfavorable view of both parties.

Center Right or Center Left… whatever… but for humanities sake be somewhere in the middle.

The left MUST be closer to that. How else can you explain why longtime Republicans like Liz Cheney, John Kasich, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, George Bush, George Will, David Brooks, etc. etc. have all disavowed Trump and Maga? Few if any of those folks can be viewed as a “centrist” but by God they realize Maga has jumped the shark and they ain’t going that damn far down that road with them.

 

[superrific]

Bo-siding is one thing, but you must sit astride the fence so you can see both sides, engage both sides, deal with both sides of the aisle.

In fairness to Paine, this is how he understands what he's doing. He's telling people like me to talk to people across the fence as if they were not racist authoritarians -- or, perhaps more accurately, talk about them in that way. He wants to pull some of those folks to the better side of the fence.

 

[Centerpiece]

In fairness to Paine, this is how he understands what he's doing. He's telling people like me to talk to people across the fence as if they were not racist authoritarians -- or, perhaps more accurately, talk about them in that way. He wants to pull some of those folks to the better side of the fence.

I’m almost positive he is scrambling to find ways to bring some sanity to this insane position in which America finds itself. I really wish his suggested form(s) of messaging can find footing and actually work. I’m sure the Centerists of the world would appreciate it.

But as most know, there is no communicating with those who’ve strayed so far to the right of the fence. “The fence” for them is that great big beautiful wall that Mexico will pay for. Either that, or it’s the fence with razor wire in which to contain and “own” the libs.

 

[superrific]

But as most know, there is no communicating with those who’ve strayed so far to the right of the fence. “The fence” for them is that great big beautiful wall that Mexico will pay for. Either that, or it’s the fence with razor wire in which to contain and “own” the libs.

Paine has said multiple times that he recognizes that, but he wants to speak to the maybe 5% who aren't so far. On that point, he's correct that if successful, that could make a big difference when our elections are so close. I'm skeptical that it's easy to distinguish the true believers from the non-cultists but all of us really are speculating.

 

[hedge]

I’d counter that history has always involved people organizing around visions of what could be.

This may be true, but if it is, isn't it just as true of Maga and the vision of what they think could be as it is of the other movements you mentioned?

Another question: You have mentioned "the elites" and the elite consensus more than a few times. I assume you would regard the ultra-wealthy as necessarily and perhaps by definition as part of the elite class. Do you think there should be a limit on how much wealth one person can accumulate or control? Like when a person achieves a net worth of, say, $1 billion, anything over and above that goes into the public coffers (perhaps you think in an ideal world the figure should be much less than this). After all, isn't maintaining (but never exceeding) a billion dollars in net worth more than sufficient incentive for a person to work as hard as they can? What are your thoughts on the (re)distribution of private wealth?