Due to the fact that my vote in Massachusetts doesn’t count and due to having predicted Hillary’s victory back in April 2015, I haven’t been paying too much attention to election news. Has anyone bothered to sift through the clutter to figure out what the practical policy differences might be between the two main candidates? Let me try to make an outline and then readers can fill in details.
Sources: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/and https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Taxes
Trump wants to cut rates, bringing them down closer to Singapore’s, Ireland’s, etc. Hillary wants to raise tax rates, bringing them closer to what France charges.
(Federal Reserve shows that actual collections as a percentage of GDP haven’t varied much since the mid-1950s, despite wildly different headline rates, which suggests that the only way for the government to get more money is via Americans becoming wealthier (per-capita GDP growth) or by expanding population (more people to tax).)
Immigration
Trump wants to cut back on illegal immigration and redesign legal immigration to favor those who are likely to earn a lot and therefore pay a lot in taxes? Hillary wants to continue the expansion of immigration, especially from non-Western countries, that began under JFK. Essentially everyone who is currently in the U.S. illegally will be able to become a citizen, perhaps without paying a fee? (“Hillary will work to expand fee waivers to alleviate naturalization costs”)
Foreign Policy
Trump wants to stop poking Russia with a stick. Hillary thinks that we are clever enough to use our military and economic power to bend foreigners to our will.
Nation of Victims
Hillary promises to assist Americans with disabilities (but we’re already the world leaders in collecting disability benefits).
Hillary promises to assist Americans who are victimized by their self-identification as “women”: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/womens-rights-and-opportunity/ says women will get paid more when they work, will get paid when they don’t work, and won’t have to divert any of this increased pay to contraceptives or abortions (which will be subsidized by taxpayers? But aren’t about half of them women?). [If identifying as a “woman” triggers the requirement for so much government assistance, wouldn’t an intelligent citizen simply identify as a “man”? Hillary promises to make changing your gender easier.]
Trump makes no corresponding promises.
Getting Taxpayers to Fund Your Kids
Trump says that anyone who can create or obtain custody of an additional child will pay less in taxes (see also Donald Trump’s child care tax deduction idea). He also promises some Federal money so that poor families can enjoy “school choice” (private schools, charter schools, magnet schools).
Hillary promises to pay parents for not working and the money will come from “making the wealthy pay their fair share–not by increasing taxes on working families.” (so a wealthy person can escape the higher taxes by having a W-2 job and being in a multi-person household? Or is that still not a “working family”?) Hillary promises free daycare (“preschool”) for all American kids starting at age 4. Child care will be limited to less than “10 percent of [family] income” (so a family with zero income can have 8 kids and park them in daycare 24/7 at taxpayer expense?)
Hillary leads with “no child should ever have to grow up in poverty” and then provides details. If we take her at her word, anyone can escape poverty by having a child since (a) the government doesn’t want to take kids away from parents, or at least not the mother, and (b) the child cannot be lifted out of poverty without giving the parent(s) an above-poverty-line lifestyle. Another implication of this philosophy is that people without jobs can have an unlimited number of children, assured that taxpayers will take care of these kids through adulthood (and beyond?).
Summary: Trump wants people with jobs to have more kids; Hillary wants people without jobs to have more kids.
Related: The Son Also Rises: economics history with everyday applications (successful people tend to have successful children, but not because of inherited wealth)
Appointing Judges
Hillary will find liberal judges to bless everything that the Great Mother in Washington does for her children? Trump will let his sister (a Federal appeals court judge) pick boring, but competent, people?
Gun Nuts (subsection of “Appointing Judges”?)
Hillary promises to torture gun nuts with paperwork and regulation. Men who’ve been defendants in custody or child support lawsuits won’t be able to own guns because it is conventional for female plaintiffs to accuse them of domestic violence and Hillary says she will “stop domestic abusers from buying and owning guns.”
Trump says that he will appoint Supreme Court justices who will continue with the current interpretation of the Second Amendment (i.e., that ordinary citizens can have guns).
Health
Hillary will cure Alzheimer’s, Autism, and HIV/AIDS (see the top-level issues page), but mental health problems are too tough to be erased with Federal dollars? And cancer has already been beaten by Obama’s “moonshot”? (Not to be confused with Nixon’s “War on Cancer”)
Trump doesn’t promise any advances in medicine or science.
Business and Trade
Hillary will make it illegal for an American to get a job paying less than $15/hour (Labor). She will “say no to trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership…” Hillary will help small businesses (but not if they want to hire anyone at less than $15/hour) and radically change the American legal system for handling contract disputes, at least when it is a big company and a small company fighting (her plan). [Hillary doesn’t explain why a big company wouldn’t then just try to avoid contracting with small companies. Or perhaps have an overseas division contract with a small company overseas rather than subjecting themselves to the new tilted playing field.]
Trump also will bail out on “the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has not yet been ratified.” (Trade) He promises to harass China and Mexico (but not Canada?). He complains about Mexico having a value-added tax (but the U.S. will need one soon too given how we spend!).
Is that it?
Readers: Are the above the main substantive differences between what the candidates propose to do? If not, please add some more sections via comments below.
[Note that I’m specifically ignoring statements about K-12 education because there isn’t much that a federal politician can do about state-run schools. I’m also ignoring the questions about personal character that have been raised, e.g., Trump’s comments about what American women will do for guys who are rich and/or famous and the Clinton dynasty’s billion-dollar revenue stream from selling access and influence. The question is what these two would do as part of the job of President assuming that (a) one of them wins, and (b) whoever wins delivers on promises made to voters.]
If the Cubs win the World Series, a republican can win an election, someday. Funny that men in child support lawsuits won’t be able to own guns, because that’s really everyone outside Silicon Valley.
I still think the most substantive economic impact if Trump wins is the possibility of Smoot-Hawley’ing us into a great depression. This would make any other differences insignificant.
The most substantive *political* impact if Trump wins will be the end of the Clinton stranglehold on the Democratic party and the end of the neocon-captured Republican party. Read the frantic posts from conservative pundits David Frum and Ross Douthat today, among others, encouraging a vote for Hillary. A Trump win may force the parties to rethink and rebuild.
If Hillary wins nothing changes. The Clintons will control the Democratic party for a very long time, maybe long enough to get Chelsea elected. And the neocons will recapture the Republican party. Hillary 45, then Jeb 46, then Chelsea 47, then… Billy 48? It looks preposterous, but both parties are likely to change rules even further to prevent insurgent candidates like Sanders or Trump.
Either way there will be gridlock. Trump vs. a filibustering Democratic Senate or Hillary vs. a Republican House and never-ending investigations.
Obama has cured cancer? That must be news to the 1000+ people in the US who will die today from cancer.
Reading the comments on http://www.reddit.com/r/politics (a mostly D forum), the policy positions of the candidates don’t matter. Their criticisms of Trump seem almost entirely to be that he lacks empathy, he insults people, he has a big ego, he is divisive, and he that he scares people.
My disgusted but lifetime Dem buddy says Hillary lies better than Trump, but Trump can go up stairs without assistance and his eyes point in the same direction….so it’s a toss up.
Current joke going around FBI office here in San Diego:
Q: Trump and Clinton are on a luxury cruiseliner which hits an iceberg and sinks, killing all aboard. Who survives?
A: America
Phil G, I do not understand why you won’t vote for Trump after what you have written. Is it because you feel your vote doesn’t count or perhaps you are scared what your liberal neighbors will think? Or maybe you actually think Trump is a crazy and dangerous rapist/sexist/racist/stupid etc.
On foreign policy, Trump is saying that the US won’t necessarily stand behind its Article 5 commitment to its NATO allies. As a Canadian, this is seriously scary.
On trade, Trump is proposing a 45% tariff on all goods imported from China, and a 35% tariff on all goods imported from Mexico.
Matthew Yglesias points out that if Trump wins, he’ll likely have a free hand, as the Republicans will almost certainly have a majority in the Senate, plus a majority in the House. If Clinton wins, she would likely have a majority in the Senate, but the Republican House means that most of her agenda is dead on arrival.
Evan Osnos has a long New Yorker article describing what Trump’s first term would look like.
Forgive the ignorance, but why exactly a vote in Massachusetts doesn’t count?
As an outsider I see it this way… you’re screwed either way. Hillary is same old but much worse. And Trumps’ brain operates on a level beyond what most people can comprehend, which either makes him a genius or an idiot, depending on how you look at it. I just can’t get beyond how everything about him is utterly repulsive. But that’s not really in the job description so there is also a chance he gets something done.
In the end, not my problem. We have our own idiots to deal with (who don’t have the possible genius upside).
Climate:
Hillary: Vows to fight it because she believes the actual climate scientists.
Trump: Thinks it’s a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese.
Forget all the other crap, this issue alone *trumps* all others for me…
You forgot to mention that Trump’s tax cuts will mainly benefit rich people, as did those of Reagan and Bush 2 in previous years. There are no probably no matching spending cuts, so Dick Cheney’s feeling that “deficits don’t matter” will be back in force in a Trump administration.
re: “Trump doesn’t promise any advances in medicine or science.”
It’s not a centerpiece of his campaign, but Trump did promise to speed time-to-market for drugs.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-delivers-groundbreaking-contract-for-the-american-vote1
I recall philg’s pro-mccain musings, which struck me as crazy.
McCain would have been an utter disater, far worse than Obama. After Trump wins we can hopefully get fewer philg political musings. He’s been saying for a year and half that a “R” win is obviously impossible. Welp, apparently not.
NATO is an insane arrangement, russil. It should have been entirely dismantled in approximately 1992. The US defense budget should have also been cut down to a third.
bobbybobbob: “philg’s pro-mccain musings”? I don’t remember ever having said anything positive about McCain (that makes me a sourpuss?). I did a quick search of this server.
http://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2008/04/14/all-presidential-candidates-are-senators-why-havent-they-fixed-up-t/ says “Obama, Clinton, and McCain are among the 150 or so most powerful Americans. They can literally rewrite all of the laws in this country. Yet it would be tough to find anyone who can say that they have enjoyed greater opportunities or a better life because of something that one of these three has done.”
http://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2008/10/07/obama-v-mccain/ says “Each candidate seemed skilled at criticizing his opponent. Barack Obama had the additional skill of criticizing George W. Bush. Neither opponent seemed to have many ideas for improving the economy or American competitiveness. This was rather disheartening on yet another day when the stock market crashed a full 5 percent. We (the American people) may be on our own…”
http://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2008/06/02/wile-e-coyote-tax-and-tariff-policy/ describes McCain’s proposals as schizophrenic.
bobbybobbob: US security depends on the balance of power in Europe and Asia.
US military spending was indeed cut after the end of the Cold War. US military spending, 1988 to 2013.
I would point out a couple of major things for me
1. Trump couldn’t be bothered to prepare for the debates. I think he will half ass his way though the presidency. He is the type of boss that would yell that he didn’t get the exact color or font he wanted on the website but accept the BS that it would take a month to change them since he can’t be bothered by the details. I expect tons of Jay Hallen type appointments.
2. Trump is extremely petty and vindictive and completely unable to take criticism. I won’t work for such a person and I am sure any competent person won’t stand for that either. I can’t imagine this working it out well.
tekumse – I agree on your point #2. What gives you the impression Clinton takes criticism any better than Trump?
Jernej: “why exactly a vote in Massachusetts doesn’t count?” The U.S. Presidential election is state-by-state. Massachusetts awards delegates on a winner-take-all basis (we do the same with houses, children, and cash! see http://www.realworlddivorce.com/Massachusetts ). Hillary Clinton is 100% guaranteed to win all of these delegates. Most of the ballot in the Massachusetts general election consists of candidates “running” unopposed. Trump is the only Republican on our town’s local ballot and, as noted above, has no chance of winning anything here. Neither Trump nor Clinton bothers to campaign here. This is one reason why other countries haven’t adopted the U.S. system, preferring parliamentary democracy instead.
Toucan Sam: “I do not understand why you won’t vote for Trump after what you have written.” Certainly announcing support for Trump would lead to social friction here amidst the Millionaires for Obama! A former Soviet comrade says that there was a much wider range of ideas tolerated under the Soviet system than in Massachusetts. In the Soviet world there was a diversity of opinion expressed in private settings and at work; in Massachusetts you wouldn’t have any friends or a job if you were to question the Barack Obama agenda, for example.
But the real answer is that I haven’t made up my mind yet. I still have four days! I have done very little research on the candidates. I have seen them on TV just once (in the first debate and only because I was staying in the Trump hotel).
I will make my decision based on policy positions and proven previous actions (in a work/job setting) by the candidates. I’m not persuaded by the media and Facebook hysteria that Donald Trump is especially badly behaved. It seems that he has handled the temptations of being a billionaire in Manhattan better than most of my scolding Facebook friends would (e.g., one of the scolds was having sex with 19-year-old undergrads during his stint as a middle-aged university professor, but he is shocked and horrified by The Donald’s behavior).
The above posting is part of my process and you’re helping. So thanks!
“Sometimes you need a clown to lead you out of the darkness” (Bart Simpson; The Simpsons; episode 452; Aug 2017)
Climate change and the fact that he could start a nuclear war. Forget the rest. This is real and why people are scared.
Matthew: As neither candidate is running for a job in the government of China I can’t see how it makes sense to vote based on “climate change.” Neither candidate has promised to start a nuclear war, so I don’t see how I can make my decision based on that. (And, separately, Trump seems to have a lot of exposure to U.S. real estate so I don’t see why he would want to start a nuclear war. Hillary Clinton and her family would be less affected by a nuclear war on U.S. soil due to the fact that they can park their wealth in foreign investments. All Clinton family members and close associates could fit on Air Force One for a quick escape, no? Trump would have a much tougher time making a clean getaway.)
Isn’t one of the candidates currently the subject of two active FBI investigations? That might be a difference worth considering.
Larry: I don’t think the FBI is worth factoring in. The Clintons are not trying to hide what they are doing. You can go to https://bbis.clintonfoundation.org/donate right now and give money that Chelsea will be able to spend 5, 10, or 20 years from now (and it won’t be taxed, unlike earned income, which would be taxed at a rate of 90 percent by the time it gets to Chelsea (see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.html ). Do we need the FBI to tell us whether a parent such as Hillary would be willing to do a favor in return for money given to her daughter?
“Summary: Trump wants people with jobs to have more kids; Hillary wants people without jobs to have more kids.”
This is the kind of nonsense that you hear on Fox news. If you haven’t decided on who to vote for yet you truly are clueless.
There is another policy related issue to consider:
Hillary has a deep grasp of policy and knows (in detail) where she wants to go with policy. Donald seems unable to express a coherent thought beyond what will fit in a single tweet. His policy positions have often been simplistic and erratic. I think there is a lot more uncertainty about what Donald’s actual policies would end up being. Because Hillary has a set of well defined policy preferences which don’t align with yours (philg) while Donald is more of a blurry slate, take care that you don’t project your policy preferences on to Donald.
>Are the above the main substantive differences between what the candidates
>propose to do?
They also differ on whether a women should be allowed to end a pregnancy. Do not kid yourself into thinking that folks in liberal Massachusetts are safe. If Donald and his party control all three branches of government, their concern for federalism will evaporate and they will almost certainly move to end abortion everywhere in the United States. I’m not saying Donald’s policies would drive this; I don’t think he’s particularly committed to the pro-life position. Nonetheless, it is a potential consequence of electing him President.
They also differ on whether or not climate change is a real problem.
Donald has said he wants to “immediately” repeal Obamacare without any plan for dealing with the millions of sick people in need of care who would then become uninsurable.
> He complains about Mexico having a value-added tax
He didn’t just complain, he either didn’t understand or deliberately misrepresented the effect of that VAT on international trade.
> poking Russia with a stick
I can’t agree that this is a fair summary of our existing (or Hillary’s proposed) policy toward Russia. Russia’s behavior, not the west’s, is the primary source of the new tension. A President Donald would end up dealing with it whether he wanted to or not.
>I’m not persuaded by the media and Facebook hysteria that Donald Trump is especially badly behaved.
>It seems that he has handled the temptations of being a billionaire in Manhattan better than most of my
>scolding Facebook friends would (e.g., one of the scolds was having sex with 19-year-old undergrads
>during his stint as a middle-aged university professor,
>but he is shocked and horrified by The Donald’s behavior).
Donald’s behavior toward women isn’t the only (or even the primary) “character” issue. Note the following are statements he made on the campaign trail and thus count as occurring in a job/work setting:
“You gotta see this guy, I don’t know what I said…” (while making wild arm/hand movements and exaggerated facial expressions): Why is it wrong for Donald to mock a disabled reporter? Because millions of people see Donald doing it and think it is ok for them to do it. Really, don’t disabled people have enough to deal with without the President encouraging others to be unkind to them? Most people grow out of this kind of behavior in middle school. Seeing it in a candidate for President disqualifies him.
“I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you that.”: Encouraging violence in front of a crowd which you are driving to a heightened state of emotion/enthusiasm is beyond irresponsible. You want that in a President?
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”: Mexico doesn’t “send” people here, in the past they were drawn here by the opportunities created by our strong economy. Recently, they have been drifting back to Mexico due to our relatively weak economy. Relatively speaking (compared with Americans), immigrants from Mexico are hard working and law abiding. However, the big problem with this statement isn’t that it is misleading (or a lie), the problem is that it is stated in a way which could (and seems intended to) incite hatred for all Mexicans. Even if Mexico did have a secret program to send their rapists to the US, I would expect the President to speak about the issue differently.
“I don’t know anything about David Duke. okay? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists.”: That’s a pretty shocking level of ignorance for a Presidential candidate. Even taken at face value, it is disqualifying. I don’t really believe it though. It’s hard to believe that 70 year old Donald Trump living in the US all his life doesn’t know who David Duke is or anything about “white supremacy”. It sounds to me like at best he is trying to sidestep the issue without disaffecting white supremacist voters. If managers at his casino properties really did hide black employees when he visited then perhaps he is sidestepping the issue because he has some level of sympathy. Even if you do take his statement at face value, his response is still wrong. It is a serious issue. If they didn’t actually know about it, any candidate I could vote for would quickly find out and then strongly disavow white supremacy. It is very important that everyone (especially white supremacists) understands that the President does not condone, and is in fact actively working against, white supremacy.
Some elements of Donald’s business career also point to a penchant for a particular kind of deception and a disregard for other people which we may have to tolerate in a private businessman but which I don’t want in my President. For example, using the Trump name to raise money from the public and then transferring his personal debt to the newly created entity relieved him from much of the burden of the eventual bankruptcy by placing it on his investors who weren’t involved in the decisions to run up the original debt. I was going to say a bunch about Trump University but I’ve got to get back to work so I think I’ll just say it looks like an obvious con and leave it at that. The history of stiffing contractors suggests a tendency to bully people when he is in the more powerful position. It is a dangerous character trait for someone in the increasingly imperial US Presidency. Perhaps more significantly, he has spent most of his career positioned such that he could bully others. We don’t really know how he will respond if he suddenly can’t just bully someone to get his way because (for example) they represent a nuclear armed nation of one billion people. Even this business of raising campaign money from people by touting how much of your own money you are spending and then redirecting some of the proceeds back to your own businesses smells funny.
In contrast, Hillary’s corruption looks to me more like what is typical for an American (albeit unusually successful) politician. To the extent it looks worse than average it is because of the extraordinary scrutiny to which she has been subjected, and because the people she is compared to either haven’t had the opportunity to do the same or haven’t needed to because their father or grandfather did it for them.
If you were to say that Hillary is not what America needs right now I would agree. We need Donald even less.
>Matthew: As neither candidate is running for a job in the government of China
>I can’t see how it makes sense to vote based on “climate change.”
The President is in charge of this thing called “Diplomacy” which might play a role in attacking the problem of climate change (if one believed in climate change).
I always enjoyed the propaganda. (I must have been born Russian, by carma.) There is a lot of propaganda on both left and right. Since everyone can read The NYT, I think it only makes sense to discuss the so-called “progressive” propaganda.
In my personal view, a propaganda has three important characteristics:
(1) it makes broad-sweeping political statements and rejects any attempts to define a (narrower) domain of applicability for the model of thought (i.e., any propaganda is kind of religious)
(2) it rejects arguments to the contrary by irrational means: e.g, by attacking opponents, claiming that their arguments or experiences cannot be relevant, are biased, or otherwise malicious
(3) it polarizes the society by dividing people into us and them (and I believe that Russians perfected the idea that, whoever is not with us, is against us); it vilifies the opponents to apply (2) above, and it mobilizes the faithful by outlining (4) below
(4) it gives salvation hopes to the followers by claiming that they are good people and hence will be saved
I am not interested in discussing #3: it would be too boring.
Here is an example of #4.
“If you are a racist, vote for Trump” (as stated in one of the previous discussions by the same poster). Notice that the author did **not** state that if you are a Trump supporter you are a racist. However, do try the contrapositive: if you do not vote for Trump, you are not a racist. So, how do you ensure that you are not a racist? Just don’t vote Trump, and you’ll do fine.
Here is an example of #1:
“Obamacare works.”
It only works for people who did not have to deal with it. To be honest, it did help the poorest (those with under $21K in annual income), albeit at an absurdly steep price. Didn’t work for me. I was diagnosed with a stage-4 cancer shortly before Obamacare took effect and I was known then as a “self-paying patent”. I jumped on the “bridge plan” (a separate story altogether, fun to research if you want to know how a single-payer option would work within the current US system), and then I have been on a variety of Obamacare/exchange plans for 3 years. I smile when people who have never had an exchange plan tell me about Obamacare. But progressives do. 🙂
Another example of #1:
>Hillary has a deep grasp of policy and knows (in detail) where she wants to go with policy.
Excuse me, what if it’s not a direction I would prefer the president to go? So, which is better: a random walk or an adversarial (as defined by the game theory) walk?
> In contrast, Hillary’s corruption looks to me more like what is typical for an American (albeit unusually successful) politician.
Again, a judgement call that I might or might not accept.
All in all, I am not a big fan of Trump’s, but the massive leftist propaganda steers me to vote for him. (I need to ask my Obamacare plan if they would help me pay for an allergy medicine; they probably won’t as they paid precisely $0 in all 3 years of coverage although they allowed me to carry a gold plan.) It appears to me that an alternative may be much worse. Trump might have a 0.1% chance of changing the political course, while his opponent has precisely 0; plus the affirmation risk of encouraging corruption (now that FBI are all Putin’s puppets) and establishing a political dynasty.
>“Obamacare works.”
Excuse me, but if you are attributing that quote to me I did not say it in this thread, on the other thread you referenced, and (depending on what you mean by “works”) I don’t necessarily agree with it. I think a discussion of Obamacare would be off topic, but I think it is relevant to point out that if Trump implements his policy of “immediately” repealing Obama care (based on the medical history you describe in your post) you will almost certainly be without insurance of any kind when your current policy ends.
@Neal,
Yes, I attribute this to you, kind of. Although, what you said was, precisely:
“If you care about health care, “repeal Obamacare” is not a plan.’
Can you please explain how it could have been worse for people like me? I did not have insurance back in 2012. Did I mention that I was termed a “self-paying patient” by the hospital? Any particular experience that convinces you that you know better than a person who actually lived through the cancellation of coverage pre-Obamacare? and who still thinks Obamacare didn’t help, like, at all?
Anon,
Obamacare was big piece of legislation with many provisions. For some reason many people reduce it to the places offered on the exchanges. Since its passage the portions of Americans without insurance has been reduced from around 17% to around 10-11%. Health care inflation has also been reduced. So it’s been a limited success based on its goals.
“Health care inflation has also been reduced.”
Health insurance premiums paid by my company and by employees (me) has gone up 15% per year on average for the past 8 years and the delta from last year to this year was 17.5%. 15% per year means it doubles every 5 years approximately. Do you get 15% return on your investments? If it continues and my company keeps the same health care plan, health care will cost $100K per employee with a family in 10 years.
So, after having used two Russian quotes in this discussion, it occurred to me that I might find more interesting thoughts in Russian satirical aphorisms (in fact, any Trump supporter should have thought of getting some help from Mother Russia). After some thinking I narrowed my search to the Russian political and literary thought of the mid-19th century.
Why? AFAIK, that was the time of a quick rise in both the national awareness and influence of the published word, the pre-cursor of the famous Russian literature. Both the educated class and a general interest in politics were growing fast, the Czarist regime was widely viewed as reactionary (although, unlike the Commies later, it did allow for **some** discourse). So, can we expect to find any valuable parallels between the mid-19th century Russia and the America of today? I’d say yes, mainly due the political awakening, proliferation of the “mass” media, and an uncompromising stance from political parties (we are talking about the Czarist Russia, mind you!)
I enlisted some help from a native Russian speaker; but if either yourself, a friend, or a family member can speak Russian fluently, please do chime in. I am happy to report that I think I found a treasure trove of political wisdom, that was often tongue in cheek, as the political tolerance had its bounds. It was such a delight!
One of the most celebrated authors of that time was Kozma Prutkov, a collective pen-name really: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kozma_Prutkov . I am told that he is still highly regarded among the intelligentsia and I do suggest that you check out his famous quotes. Here is one that I think is most relevant to this thread:
Most things we fail to understand are not due to our principles being weak, but because they fall outside of the boundaries set by our principles.
I am told that the translation found on Wikiquote ( https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kozma_Prutkov ) is somewhat inaccurate, so I used the suggested alternative instead: it might not the most literal translation but well in spirit–you be the judge.