|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 4, 2019 14:39:46 GMT -5
Iluvleniloud had several points about how she thought political civility could be improved. I didn’t want to get into the weeds in the more general “Stop, Look or Listen” thread, but I decided to address her points. So, a new thread for nerding out. It’s going to be in a lot more detail. Prepare for tangents, pet theories, jargon, and the like. And to be clear, this is not my thread, I just happened to start it. Anyone can post however and whatever s/he wants here. For better and for worse. The Cap'n I know that earlier response isn't exactly what you had in mind. So I'll offer an addendum. Just hoping and praying isn't going to get anywhere, and frankly when most people talk about compromise it seems like the onus is ALWAYS on democrats to do so. Based on the list provided above, as well as the fact that FDR and McGovern would be defamed as commie radicals today ( while our democrats look like the republicans of the pre-Reagan era) I hold firm that if anyone needs to cross the aisle and start the change it has to be republicans this time. Can you honestly see that happening? Do you really think the same republicans who worship Trump and hang "liar liar pants on fire" signs during a congressional hearing are really gonna meet us halfway if we tried? ( Remember the Obama years?) Exactly. In order to get politics back to a place of civility we're going to need a few reforms to pass.
1) So, first of all, we need new viable parties. When you only have two options it's inevitably going to devolve into an "us vs them" mentality. Even just a third party would upset the balance of power enough that it'd force compromise. Why? Because if you're obstructionist and shit all over the others, you get left out in the cold while the other two compromise to get their reforms passed. It changes up that one way binary status quo. This prevents tenuously allied factions of society ( fiscal conservatives/religious fundies/racists on one side, Centrists/Feminists/Democratic Socialists on the other) from being forced into these abnormal coalitions. This means no longer having to swallow your values to vote for someone you hate just so someone you hate MORE doesn't win. This way each faction can be more honest, active and influential without getting shouted down or shamed into falling in line within their own party. 2) But for this to even have a chance of happening, we need to get rid of First Past the Post voting. FPTP insures there can only ever be two parties, because risking a vote for the underdog up-and-comer means injuring your second favorite party's chance to win. If a new Progressive Party came up the pike in our current system, promising green infrastructure and healthcare and Universal Basic Income I'd want to vote for them. But if I risk it, everyone else even remotely close to me on the spectrum has to hop on board too or else all we've done is sabotage the Democrats. Then the party most diametrically opposed to me wins, the new third party dies out due to lack of power in government and demoralized followers. It has happened hundreds of times and will again in the future until we change the way we vote. I strongly recommend Range Voting based on my research into the topic, but literally anything would be an improvement. 3) We need to reform the media. Break up the monopolies ( six companies own all the mainstream media in the US) and reinstate the Fairness doctrine. Say that if you call yourself news you need to either present all sides or use verifiable sources ( academic research, scholarly articles, peer-reviewed scientific studies, etc.) You'd have some people throwing a fit and using free speech as a defense but at some point we're going to have to recognize that there are negatives of free speech and we'll have to determine which is more important. I've seen the garbage they air on FOX or CNN these days--it's all talking heads shouting over each other and regurgitating buzz-words, pushing the narrative of their side. Nobody can learn much less analyze what's going on with that kind of thinly veiled obfuscation. However, realistically I dont think even this would solve the problem since a lot of misinformation and echo-chambering occurs online. Trying to regulate the "good" websites will be like playing wack a mole. 4) We need to fix living conditions for people. When times are bad--and make no mistake, they are for most Americans--people resort to rallying around their tribe and attacking the other. It's what our primitive instincts demand of us. If wages were good, student debt didn't cripple people's futures out the gate, the planet weren't dying and our infrastructure were something to be proud of, do you think we'd be lashing out at each other so harshly? Probably not, because if things are good there's not as much to complain about. A fantastic documentary hosted by a former secretary of the interior goes into this--Inequality for All. Highly recommend it. 5) We need a public place where people can interact with others again. We spend so much time at these jobs we hate, then come home so exhausted we veg out on the couch watching TV until we fall asleep. We meet more and more people online and don't get the emotional reinforcement that comes from face-to-face interaction. Online, people are more likely to be nasty for no reason, plus our genuine attempts at communication are more easily misunderstood. We need a new modern equivalent to what the Roman baths used to be--a communal area where people could go and hang out for awhile. Nowadays, in the Late Capitalism era, everything cost money; there's nowhere you can really go to just chill in public for awhile if you're not spending a bunch of money and/or already meeting someone you know there. Maybe shopping malls used to fill that niche to a limited extent, but now with online shopping those are gone too. 6) We need real education. Our schools should produce people who value critical thinking and the scientific method as opposed to dogma and blind allegiance to authority. We have to reform the curricula of our schools, and move away from Educational Essentialism. One alternative to the way we organize schools now is Democratic Education, but my preferred is Progressive Education. Then there's Educational Perennialism which may be a good compromise. Like with FPTP, literally anything is better than the way we organize our schools now--it's terrible for the students AND the teachers. When we raise people who are actually interested in searching for the objective truth, who question authority and know the actual goddamn definitions of political science terms like "socialism" we might get a decent discourse again. 7) Personally, I'd argue that we need Universal Basic Income as that would solve a lot of these issues all at once. Without having to work shitty dead end jobs just to stay alive, people would have the time and means to see loved ones more often. They'd have the leisure time to go outside more often (it's boring being couped up forever). They'd have the freedom to pursue more education (even if it means just reading more articles or listening to more lectures online) and their creative endeavors since they wouldn't have to waste time working jobs they hate. Without work sucking out so much of our energy, people would be more likely to get involved with politics since, like the elderly, now they have the time to give a shit. I'll admit upfront this last one is more of my personal solution as opposed an objective need I think we could all agree with. With the automation crisis looming it will be a necessity unless someone else thinks of a better solution besides "everyone will just magically get a new job." And really, shouldn't a world where robots do all the work nobody else wants to do be the longterm goal of society? Why have we become so entrapped by this one ideology, unrestrained Capitalism, that we no longer have any imagination or drive to make a better world where man is free? The thing is though, the party standing in the way of all these things is the Republicans. They're the ones who cut the budget for education. They're the ones pushing for Laissez Faire Capitalism where everything is privatized and the poor are denied aid, healthcare or even basic human dignity. They're the ones who buy into these bullshit conspiracy theories wholesale because someone on a YouTube channel called "Verum Media" told them to. ( I'll admit bias and echo-chambers goes both ways, but I maintain no disinformation machine in America is as prevalent or successful as the Murdoch media empire.) The election reform though, I will grant is 100% on both parties, and luckily getting that one thing passed will make other reforms exponentially easier. So as a result, we're right back where we were in my first post--we need to fight the hardcore rightwing on these issues and get reforms passed in as many of these categories as possible. You do that, and given enough time a more balanced, respectful discourse will follow. But caving in, meeting in the middle every time they push harder, that's not a long term solution it's a short-term placation. That was the Clinton Third Way, this triangulation/meet in the middle BS. Again, Obama sincerely tried to do that his whole two terms and they spit in his face--now we have Trump and the Republicans are more inflammatory than they've ever been. We have to fight back now because we're dealing with people who will never be decent to anyone who's not ordained by FOX news and has an "R" next to their name. I know at least one person is going to take exception to these posts, probably accuse me of hating anyone who disagrees with me again, but it's true. |
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 4, 2019 14:41:44 GMT -5
I think most of the responsibility for civility lies with individuals themselves to be civil. That’s among the population; among government officials, institutions such as the parties and media have a certain amount of responsibility too. So with all that said, I did want to respond to your points.
1) New Parties
I agree completely. Many people believe America was designed to have a two-party system, which simply isn’t the case, and left and right alike have complained about their own ideological purity tests, both for and against them, at different times. If parties are meant to be ideologically pure—and it seems that’s where we are as a country—then there need to be enough of them to accommodate more ideologies.
Without much imagination, I can imagine factions like libertarians, pro-business liberals, cultural conservative populists, progressive populists, progressive technocrats, democratic socialists, globalist hawks, greens (and other single- or limited-issue parties), etc. The beauty of a multiparty reality would be the coalitions that could form on individual legislation. Libertarians, pro-business liberals, progressives, and democratic socialists might band together for criminal justice reform or drug legalization; libertarians, pro-business liberals, and progressive technocrats might band together for regulatory reform; etc.
I believe it’s too much to identify as A or Z and then be expected to buy in entirely. There are too many letters in the alphabet to be so totally defined with so few choices.
Where I’m less confident—largely because I’m less familiar, living in America my whole life—is if our system were more formally parliamentary and coalition-building became a prerequisite to stand up a government. (For one thing, without electoral reform, there is no way we could just dissolve governments and hold new elections at the drop of a hat. We take two-plus years to campaign as it is!)
2) Electoral Reform
Agree that we need something that encourages people to vote for the candidates they like most rather than hate least.
3) Media Reform
I have a really hard time with this, not because I disagree with the premise so much as have my doubts about the practicality of a solution. Corporate consolidation—not just in media, but in everything—is not a positive thing. But government intervention is something I’d do cautiously, if at all. And a certain amount of responsibility for the media’s behavior lies with the public for rewarding it. As an analogy, we decry mega-corporations when they move jobs overseas (or replace them with automation) … but we keep buying their products because they’re cheaper than the ones made locally by small businesses. Similarly we decry corporate media for its hot and loud style, but we don’t pay for smaller ad-free outlets or reward journalism financially; we don’t spend our time deeply engaging, but instead see ratings skyrocket with controversies. The media outlets are chasing their profits, and we’re the ones (indirectly) giving those profits.
Then on the practical side, I worry about government-imposed standards. Unfortunately my recollection of Fairness Doctrine is slim: I was a kid when it was undone in the late 80s. So I’ve read up, but I can’t speak as to lived experience. But letting the government decide what constitutes providing fair and balanced coverage, or how many sides to a story must be told, not to mention enforcement, seems practically problematic. (I’d also worry about different approaches with different administrations, though that depends on how the enforcement mechanism would be designed and how much leeway is given to political appointees.)
I am not quite an absolutist on free speech, but I do lean very, very far in that direction. So, despite agreeing on the problem, I don’t know that I’d find a solution I like other than telling people to do better themselves.
4) Improve Living Conditions
I agree that our government should be there to support citizens in need, but on this one I am also very tentative. First, in many measurable ways and despite the existing, very real problems, we are doing better than ever before. (Steven Pinker’s “Enlightenment Now” is one great resource on that.) Second, not to sound like a conservative, I do believe that at some level we need to watch for moral hazards. This doesn’t mean I don’t support any “welfare” programs; far from it. Just that I’d be judicious with them as much as possible, with rigorous review and assessment to ensure they do what they’re supposed to do.
5) Interact More
I agree that people should interact more, both among like-minded and differently minded people. Personally I don’t see a lack of free or affordable spaces for that, but that could be a local or regional difference. (The Twin Cities has a lot of public parks, for example.) There is also the cultural aspect of this: you need to be willing to get up and go meet real-life friends rather than play Fortnite all night; to join Kiwanis or Toastmasters or a church or the Third Holy Order of Elks Lodge Local #246 or the fencing club. People are financially barred from some activities, but also bar themselves from plenty of others.
But I completely agree that online interaction is a poor replacement for the real thing. Someone—and I’m sorry, I forget who—described the relationship of online interaction instead of real-life interaction as the equivalent of masturbating to porn instead of sex with your partner.
6) Education
I think it’s undeniable, in a country where a large number of people can’t find the USA on a map or name the branches of government, that education needs fixing. Being 20 years removed from the system, though, I can’t speak to it.
7) UBI
I’m fascinated by the concept of UBI (and even started a thread about it on PSF), especially because it has received a certain amount of support from left and right alike. Long-shot Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang has made it a centerpiece of his campaign, while conservative academic Charles Murray (still hated for his 90s work “The Bell Curve”) has come out strongly in favor as well.
What concerns me about UBI is, if it replaces other social benefits, what do you do with the people who don’t use the money properly? This would just be an extension of the existing problem we’ve had before between the more efficient cash benefits, and the harder-to-misuse in-kind benefits like food stamps, housing vouchers, etc. If you say people only get cash instead of X, Y, or Z, but they don’t spend the cash on X, Y, or Z, presumably there is a need for still more benefits. That makes it unpalatable to conservatives, who will complain that it’s just one more giveaway; but leaving people to do without makes it unpalatable to progressives.
Automation, however, is a very real issue. That said, previous predictions along the same lines (including during the late 1800s and early 1900s) didn’t come true, as we simply found other things that demanded our labor. Details aside, though, it is undeniable that our physical labor is less necessary, so it is worth thinking ahead and debating the issue of UBI.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2019 14:53:57 GMT -5
Thanks, Cap'n. I appreciate the response and new thread to go more in-depth. I hope I didnt hurt your feelings with my reaction on SLL. I may have been acting too dramatic. I was just frustrated at how every political discussion forum/site Ive tried to converse on has ended up being very anti-intellectual, mean-spirited/tribalistic or striving to be centrist no matter the issue lest anyone be offended. In a vacuum though I understand your idea for organizing the other thread in that way.
I'll try to respond to this tonight or tomorrow. Dont worry about getting caught up in replying if you dont want to. Im working on some of my own projects so I understand not wanting to get dragging into a time-sink. If anyone remembers, I wrote my own Constitution on the PSF based on problems in our own and utilizing suggestions from European countries, the anti-federalist papers and a few other sources. Right now Im working on a definitive list of problems with US policy, and then after that Im going to write my own policy platform as if I were running for office or forming my own party. I could post these here, or not if people think it wouldn;t be appropriate. Besides all that, Im working on getting a new, more professional Wordpress blog off the ground since Ive quickly grown disenchanted with the Blogger format. When it's done, I'll host ALL my political essays, Aquarian/spiritual essays and analyses of Vertigo and other works of art. I'll edit my signature and make a thread when it's done.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 4, 2019 14:56:33 GMT -5
No offense intended or taken.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2019 16:24:43 GMT -5
Cassandra said:
If anyone remembers, I wrote my own Constitution on the PSF based on problems in our own and utilizing suggestions from European countries, the anti-federalist papers and a few other sources. Right now Im working on a definitive list of problems with US policy, and then after that Im going to write my own policy platform as if I were running for office or forming my own party. I could post these here, or not if people think it wouldn;t be appropriate. Besides all that, Im working on getting a new, more professional Wordpress blog off the ground since Ive quickly grown disenchanted with the Blogger format. When it's done, I'll host ALL my political essays, Aquarian/spiritual essays and analyses of Vertigo and other works of art. I'll edit my signature and make a thread when it's done.jk said: They remember.  I'm biased, of course, but I'd say please post them here--appropriateness be damned.  Wow. Looking forward to that thread, C.  |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2019 16:31:26 GMT -5
They remember. I'm biased, of course, but I'd say please post them here--appropriateness be damned. Wow. Looking forward to that thread, C. I kinda like the irony of posting something so in-depth and potentially inflammatory regarding politics on a Beach Boys forum of all place, not gonna lie  |
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Mar 5, 2019 8:29:09 GMT -5
Captain - at the outset of this forum there was some discussion about multiple viewpoints being welcome to be discussed. Perhaps there should be a section for Moderate - Conservative (regardless of party affiliation) as there are other activist groups springing up such as #Walk Away, establish by Brandon Straka or #Blexit, with Candace Owens, to name a couple who have rejected traditional party doctrine and who are rejecting the notion of painting whole groups with a broad brush, racial and gender-based, block voting. They are trying to make the point that "one size does not fit all." This/these is/are some younger-in-age, generated movements, and who are making their presence felt on the American political stage with growing followings. Some discussions and postings with articles from marginalized media, might be a good start to have some multi-faceted views on current events might be a good place to start... |
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 5, 2019 8:58:07 GMT -5
Many of my positions, and even more of my recommendations, are relatively moderate (or undecided-conflicted). But I’m not starting everyone’s threads, and nobody needs my permission to start threads. You’re certainly welcome to start one focusing on whatever you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Mar 5, 2019 9:29:20 GMT -5
Many of my positions, and even more of my recommendations, are relatively moderate (or undecided-conflicted). But I’m not starting everyone’s threads, and nobody needs my permission to start threads. You’re certainly welcome to start one focusing on whatever you want. Not looking for anyone to start threads...it was just in my recall that there was a discussion on that very topic of inclusion of other points-of-view. Just looking for balance. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 5, 2019 9:32:22 GMT -5
The balance presumably will come from posters of diverse opinions weighing in. If that doesn’t happen, there won’t be balance, because no individual should be expected to post outside his or her perspectives just for the sake of balance.
|
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Mar 5, 2019 9:43:45 GMT -5
The balance presumably will come from posters of diverse opinions weighing in. If that doesn’t happen, there won’t be balance, because no individual should be expected to post outside his or her perspectives just for the sake of balance. There is a lot of grey area, where one could be a liberal for some social issues, but fiscally conservative for others, especially when it factors in tax increases, and it is coming directly out of one's pocket. For example, in a SALT tax impacted state, I think the ceiling should be at least $20,000 as opposed to the $10,000 offset that there is now. |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2019 10:15:38 GMT -5
If someone wants to discuss some particular issue, they should just post it and then the discussion will linger or die off on its own merit based on what other people think. If you want more rightwing opinions then BE that rightwing poster. Just whining about "balance" in the middle of someone else's discussion feels like another unhelpful dig at other posters for having their own ideas, implying they're not balanced or there's some kind of monolithic agenda. There's no need to drop in and complain about other people for not discussing some movement they don't care about or never heard of except as yet another example of the derailing that killed off the PSF politics subforum. It's the equivalent of jumping in the middle of an ongoing Beach Boys-centered conversation and telling everyone they should be talking about Bob Dylan instead.
Call me skeptical, but if you were really after "balance" I'd expect you to offer the same courtesy to those of us on the other end of the aisle from yourself. IE, not calling other posters "disturbing" or left-wing legislators "revolting." Practicing what you preach shouldn't be a high bar to set for anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 10, 2019 14:20:31 GMT -5
A thought--insufficiently considered to be called even a hypothesis, much less a theory--for you all to kick around:
One of the many problems keeping the U.S. government from working well is that there is no conservative party.
For this proposition to make any sense, we have to remove the modern branding and go to the concepts of terms like liberal, conservative, and progressive.
- Liberal as I'm considering it here is the system the entire country has more or less always gone with: we are a state that believes in the liberty, the rights, of the individual. We are liberal.
- Conservative as I'm considering it here is the perspective that change should be undertaken cautiously, as unintended consequences are real threats to prosperity; and institutions have value almost by their existence as institutions alone--that they have evolved to exist at all is proof of their values.
- Progressive as I'm considering it here is basically the opposite of conservative as I've described it: the position that there is change we can imagine that should be pursued via the state. Think of this as "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."
So to go on with my thinking here, you can't get caught up in the idea of what is sometimes called "movement conservatism" where I say "conservative." Conservatism (and progressivism) are ways of thinking, not policy positions. They change over time, because the things being conserved are different in different eras, just as the areas open for progress are different in different areas. (How many modern conservatives don't think women should vote? It was only 10 years ago that many conservatives didn't believe in gay marriage.)
And I'm not judging either way of thinking as good or bad. In fact, I think both ways of thinking are essential to a well functioning state in that they are the kind of Hegelian tension, the thesis and antithesis required to get to the eventual synthesis.
With all that said, back to my proposition. We do not have a conservative party.
The Republican party is not conservative, it is "movement conservative," which is branding. It is a radical party, pushing for radical change with respect to radical privatization and deregulation. Yes, there were times when taxes were low, when regulations were fewer and weaker, when the state didn't have such control. But it was a century ago. It isn't conservative to push for this, it is a radical return to what amounts to ancient history, a reality that none of us, or our parents, and few of our grandparents ever experienced. The world in which we live is not that world. It is not clear that a return to that fiscal policy or regulatory policy would work at all now, even if you argued it worked then. Then we were in the age of railroads; few people had cars and air travel didn't exist. I don't think I need to spell out how different our world is. So the conservative position would not be to blindly turn back the clock and hope for the best. It is a progressive position, in a sense (again, not considering the rightness or wrongness of the goals, not meaning "progress" as "good").
The Democratic party is both progressive and conservative. On one hand, it is pushing for the sorts of progressive things we're all familiar with and that some Republicans (and some Democrats) don't like. But the party is also conservative, with what we call moderates being what I'd call conservatives: they are, generally speaking, holding to the way things have been, which is the Clintonian "triangulation/third way" evolution of the post-FDR, post-LBJ welfare state combined with some of the more socially progressive changes that have happened--kind of the post-Reagan concessions to the FDR/LBJ way.
That internal conflict within the Democratic party causes the friction we see today, with one large faction nervous to lose what we have and afraid of dramatic change/unintended consequences, and the other pointing to perceived problems and pushing for action/solutions.
But the Republican party is similar to the progressive wing of the Democratic party, as it, too, is a radical or progressive group--just in an entirely different direction.
The result is a fight within the Democratic party between conservatism and progressivism, and for the past 20 years (or 30, or 40, or 50, depending on how you want to discuss the issue, but it's not relevant to my point) no real internal fight within Republicanism: it has rarely been conservative, and more often been radical or progressive.
Both factions of the Democratic party are in a way contrary to the Republicans, but they are differently contrary. The Democratic party ends up weakened in terms of "positive" (not defined as "good," but rather as accomplishments that achieve their goals) outcomes because it is in part trying to be conservative, trying to avoid what that faction sees as damage-control mode against the progressive/radicalism of the GOP.
Forget any of my personal leanings that I've described elsewhere: they are irrelevant to this idea. I'm not talking about who is right or wrong, or what should or should not be. I am just saying that this is what I see. I don't think there is a conservative party and a progressive party, and I think that identity crisis of sorts gets in the way of a properly functioning government for an appropriately progressing society.
(Let your arrows fly.)
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 9:08:42 GMT -5
The Cap'n , I somewhat agree with you. This was a topic I tried to talk about on the old forum before the political discourse there turned to muck. It's what I wish more people understood about our history and the political spectrum in the United States. We no longer have a conservative and liberal party. We have a reactionary party (that means trying to move society backwards, look it up people) and Centrist/Conservative Party. Goldwater and McGovern, two men who lost their respective elections badly, both had a significant impact on their parties regardless.
Goldwater ran on a staunch conservative/no-government wherever possible/private sector trumps all kind of platform. This was in stark contrast to the way Republicans had behaved during the Fifth Party System (more on that later) during the Eisenhower years, Nixon's previous campaign platform and Goldwater's primary opponent in '64, Nelson Rockefeller. Even though Goldwater lost in a landslide, his ideas inspired Ronald Reagan, who not only became president but revolutionized our political institutions and rhetoric with his neoliberal economic policies and supply side economics. If anyone doesn't know exactly what those words mean, google them, don't just assume "neoliberal" is related to liberalism, because it's actually completely different. McGovern played a big role in restructuring the Democratic Party's primary election process after the 1968 election. In doing so, he more or less cut Unions out and set them up to run as a coalition of women and minorities above all else. Not only that, but his massive loss in 1972 (on a platform of basic income, universal healthcare, anti-war, etc) was seen by the Democratic bigwigs as a repudiation of liberalism and left-wing ideas. Since then, Democrats pivoted to the right. As Ive mentioned in a previous post, you can see the proof for yourself if you watch the general election debates as well as Mondale and Dukakis' convention speeches from '84 and '88 respectively. Each cycle the Dems go further right and adopt more policies of their Republican counterparts, and those two speeches have the candidates openly praising Republican ideas and denouncing past Democratic values. You can see for yourself, don't take my word for it. This is how we came to be a country of both parties abandoning Unions/Labor, serving the interests of big business (one of neoliberalism's tenets is privatization of previously public services, for example) and leaving the Middle Class out to dry.However, another reason why the parties have changed since the '60s and before is due to the new electoral coalition--the 6th Party System, where the Republican voters are chiefly comprised of fiscal conservatives but also evangelicals and racists (look up the Southern Strategy.) The Democratic coalition, as I already mentioned, is formed of women, minorites and until very recently a small number of progressives who unfortunately didn't have a lot of power until the last 2 years. During the previous Fifth Party System, Democrats primarily catered to Unions/Labor and the "Solid South" was still part of their coalition, since they hadn't angered Southern whites by signing the Civil Rights Act yet. Now, that's all objective, historical background information. And that's where I'm coming from in my following subjective remarks to Cap'n:
I agree with Cap'n that Conservatism by its very definition changes over time. Conservatives, as opposed to reactionaries, want to keep things static as opposed to going backwards. Since times naturally change, so does their idea of what we should remain. However, I would argue that the progressive's positions have been mostly consistent since that same fateful '72 election. Decent wages (personally I support this thru a UBI), universal healthcare, more rights for all maligned groups in society. These haven't changed because we still haven't accomplished either in all this time, and minority groups are still under attack. I'd argue even more so now in the Trump Era. I agree with his assessment of the modern post-Reagan GOP. I'd add that the policies they're pushing for are what we used to have in the Gilded Age. You might want to look that up if you're not familiar. It was kind of a shitty time for everyone who wasn't a wealthy white business owner. The Progressive Era of Teddy Roosevelt, Taft and Woodrow Wilson happened for a reason. FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society happened for a reason. Before these reforms existed, life was pretty harsh for the majority of people. I agree with his assessment of the Democrats. However, I'd argue that even some of the moderate/Clinton wing Democrats are still rolling back progress we'd made decades ago. But that's a relatively minor sticking point. I'd also argue that the progressive wing is not radical in any way shape or form. It's the natural continuation of that FDR/LBJ legacy, what McGovern AND NIXON wanted to do in 1972 (yes, Republican Nixon also supported a primitive form of UBI and universal healthcare--look it up people. He didn't get to accomplish it because Watergate ruined his political capital and ate up his focus.) These policies are offered by every other modern, developed nation in the world. Objective political commentators/appraisers like the Political Compass place Bernie Sanders near the exact center of the spectrum. It's not that he's radical, it's that the Overton Window has shifted so far to the right in America since the pushback from '72 and the Clinton "Third Way" (ie meet in the middle) approach that a genuine moderate seems like a radical Communist by comparison. They called Obama a radical communist too for reviving the Republicans' own healthcare plan from the 90s. That's how insanely out of balance America's political discourse is. Anyway, I agree with Cap'n that we need balance. We need an actual leftwing party (the Democrats) and ideally the radical and/or openly racist wing of the Republicans would die off or be pushed to the fringe as they had been previously. Then maybe the Centrist/Conservative Democrats could branch off into a new Republican Party and we might have a functional government again. One that doesn't shut down the government out of spite, make a racist and useless wall its tentpole platform and waste trillions of dollars in Iraq after promising fiscal conservatism. So in short, Cap'n, I agree with most of the premises of your argument but I think you phrased it wrong. We don't need a conservative party in America--we already got one and it's called the Democrats. We need a progressive party that's electorally viable and we need the toxic wing of the Republicans (who, since the TEA Party movement and now especially with Trump's election have taken over the asylum) to be removed from power.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 11, 2019 9:28:46 GMT -5
Minor quibble: while I didn’t name it, I also did actually allude to the GOP looking for Gilded Age economic policy in my paragraph about them (when I said something about going back a century to an age of railroads or whatever I said.)
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 9:30:58 GMT -5
Minor quibble: while I didn’t name it, I also did actually allude to the GOP looking for Gilded Age economic policy in my paragraph about them (when I said something about going back a century to an age of railroads or whatever I said.) I know you did, I just wanted to complete the allusion and give those unfamiliar an easy term to Google if they needed more information. |
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Mar 11, 2019 9:33:08 GMT -5
This is where AOC came from - Justice Democrats nationwide recruiting to find candidates to run. She is not an organic candidate - her brother sent in a nomination - and was among 10,000 people. She did not come up the ranks as a city councillor or state representative to learn the legislative process.
This is a misappropriation in my opinion of what the Democratic Party is. (That is - if parties can be defined.) If "Progressives" or "Socialists" want to run - they should run as their own party - and not use/steal the D party framework to run on that ticket while disparaging other sections of moderate Democrats or fiscally conservative Democrats.
Don't use and intimidate (as what is going on right now) by threatening to "primary" an incumbent.
AOC is scripted 100% - by her committee, and her campaign manager/organizer is now under investigation for transferring campaign monies to LLCs that he controls to the tune of a million dollars. And, putting her boyfriend (speechwriter) on the payroll with a government email. When she is off-script her breathtaking lack of international relations background shows right through.
Bernie (whom I voted for in the primary as a protest vote) has done the same thing, running as a D and re-registering post election. Just play fairly - if you are a D - then, run as one; if you are Progressive, then organize your party to get on a ballot and run as a Progressive. JMHO
|
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 11, 2019 9:38:54 GMT -5
Minor quibble: while I didn’t name it, I also did actually allude to the GOP looking for Gilded Age economic policy in my paragraph about them (when I said something about going back a century to an age of railroads or whatever I said.) I know you did, I just wanted to complete the allusion and give those unfamiliar an easy term to Google if they needed more information. Gotcha. Then I retract my quibble. |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 10:07:04 GMT -5
I know you did, I just wanted to complete the allusion and give those unfamiliar an easy term to Google if they needed more information. Gotcha. Then I retract my quibble. Cool. I dont know if this is what you meant by "movement conservatism" but I see another big problem as the cults of personality as opposed to principled ideals. I'd argue it's always been that way to an extent but it seems to have gotten worse with each new iteration of technology. Radio meant you judged a candidate not just by their positions but the deepness and confidence of their voice. TV meant the tallest, handsomest and most suave had an edge. Internet/24 hour news means the one with the funniest quick quips and zingers has an edge as their best 10-second highlights spread to millions of people. It didn't start with Trump but it seems to have gotten worse with him. Look at these Republican voters previously so concerned with fiscal conservatism now openly chanting for a useless multi-billion dollar wall. Look at the people who lecture a pregnant woman about "personal responsibility" make excuses for the cabal of crooks now on trial from the administration. Look at them desperately searching for any little scrap of gossip to attack AOC (who, like her ideas or not, is just an idealistic Congresswoman trying to do some good) while ignoring Trump's sexual assaults, bankruptcies, crass insults, poor work ethic (golfing all day), documented marital rape and everything else. It's not rational, much less based on ideological principles. It's absolutely pathological and based on a blind hatred of the "other team" precisely because they're the " other team." I have no doubt that same tribalism exists in Democratic circles too, but I don't think it's as pervasive or cult-like. My friends and I all liked Bernie because he was the only one willing to stand up to Hillary and fight for the ideals we've wanted to see championed for years. I have no personal loyalty to AOC but I do think it's refreshing to see a millennial and a progressive win an election. With Trumpists it seems to be more about his "give no fucks" personality and overall brand as a rich guy who can steamroll other people. Just my observation based on Trump supporters I've seen in my extended family, Facebook statuses and the peanut gallery over here. However, Im not alone either. There have been scholarly articles and articles in the major papers about it as well. (And true to form, like any cult, any criticism is "fake news" as Im sure this is ) www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/opinion/trump-supporters-bill-white-bryan-eure.htmlwww.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/does-party-trump-ideology-disentangling-party-and-ideology-in-america/B5BAD0AE947BD3CF18D51D399263C8D3www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2018/05/06/trumps-support-is-more-about-the-personal-not-the-ideological/#1d2b1462f90e |
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 11, 2019 11:12:38 GMT -5
Couple things:
Movement conservatism. It’s a term you hear used mostly by conservatives among themselves. From context, I always assumed was the post-Goldwater into the Reagan Revolution effort to better organize politically to do the things they went ahead and did to realize their small government ideology. Turns out that while the practical meaning is correct, the history isn’t quite: it was originally coined as an anti-FDR coalition of conservatives, libertarians, and anti-communists (dedicated to better organization politically to realize the small government ideology), updated with new coalition members (e.g., neocons, religious right in the ‘70s) as they emerged. But the point of it is, it is more about a politically aware and active group of people committed to reducing the size and scope of “the administrative state,” as opposed to being a definitionally conservative group. (Like liberal, it’s the use of, and over time perversion of, the definition.)
Cults of personality. This is actually one of my biggest annoyances in politics, not to mention something I think is more dangerous than it’s given credit for. People seem to want figureheads; I think a casual review of history across nations, ideologies, or even subject matter (doesn’t have to be politics) shows that. (Watch The Life of Brian, for pete’s sake!) Charisma is tremendously powerful, which can have benefits if it is on your team and can cause harm if it’s on the other team. I decreasingly agree with Noam Chomsky in general, but I still agree entirely with his position that charisma and the subsequent canonization of leader-figureheads is a huge problem. (Ironically he has been turned into one.)
Overall I’m not sure whether people with conservative mindsets are more prone to cults of personality than those with progressive ones. I kind of doubt it, actually: I think you can find a Church of Dr. King or a Church of Obama for every Church of Reagan or Church of Goldwater.
Trump is different, and I think he absolutely embodies a cult of personality than do typical politicians—probably because that’s more of what he is. Aside from the border issue—though he’s even flipped on that now and again to some degree—he hasn’t really held firm on anything resembling a political ideology or philosophy, so it’s almost impossible to relate to him on those grounds. His big personality IS the selling point almost exclusively. (Not saying everyone who voted for him fell for a cult of personality; I think there were plenty of other reasons people could have voted for him or might support him. But I can’t imagine adherence to a shared, cohesive, coherent political philosophy is one, because he has demonstrated no such thing.)
That said, I also think our system is built for such things. We vote for individuals, not party platforms. And because we have a citizenry that is relatively unengaged with politics, yet that is quite highly self-sorted into the political teams for mostly cultural reasons, I think most people already know the party from which they’ll be voting. They make their choices within those parties based on cults of personality more than anything else, in my opinion. Whether it’s the old “who would you rather have a beer with?” trope, or the feeling of being inspired by someone’s soaring rhetoric, or the delight at someone’s wit in snappy comebacks, it is not usually sober reflection, but gut feelings that drive choices. It is cult of personality.
Two very brief but relevant asides to conclude:
1. Honestly that is a big piece of why I’m mostly absent from the favorite presidential candidates thread. I don’t usually see anything resembling heroes anywhere, other than the kind of normal, everyday heroes that I see everywhere else, too.
2. This is why your comments about the humanness of candidates and presidents actually struck a chord with me (in that convo about LBJ’s … parts). These are not demigods waiting to be hung in the sky to guide us forevermore; they’re more likely to be egotistical partisans backed by sufficient funds to forward their party and, more than that, their legacies and pocketbooks.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 13:16:21 GMT -5
Couple things: Movement conservatism. It’s a term you hear used mostly by conservatives among themselves. From context, I always assumed was the post-Goldwater into the Reagan Revolution effort to better organize politically to do the things they went ahead and did to realize their small government ideology. Turns out that while the practical meaning is correct, the history isn’t quite: it was originally coined as an anti-FDR coalition of conservatives, libertarians, and anti-communists (dedicated to better organization politically to realize the small government ideology), updated with new coalition members (e.g., neocons, religious right in the ‘70s) as they emerged. But the point of it is, it is more about a politically aware and active group of people committed to reducing the size and scope of “the administrative state,” as opposed to being a definitionally conservative group. (Like liberal, it’s the use of, and over time perversion of, the definition.) Cults of personality. This is actually one of my biggest annoyances in politics, not to mention something I think is more dangerous than it’s given credit for. People seem to want figureheads; I think a casual review of history across nations, ideologies, or even subject matter (doesn’t have to be politics) shows that. (Watch The Life of Brian, for pete’s sake!) Charisma is tremendously powerful, which can have benefits if it is on your team and can cause harm if it’s on the other team. I decreasingly agree with Noam Chomsky in general, but I still agree entirely with his position that charisma and the subsequent canonization of leader-figureheads is a huge problem. (Ironically he has been turned into one.) Mine too, as it goes hand in hand with hyper-partisanship as well as willful ignorance of facts and our historical context. All of which are deeply entwined, and the reason we can't even have a productive dialogue anymore. We have a great example of it in our midst, someone who can't carry on an intelligent discussion about political issues yet insists on throwing out partisan talking points and character assassinations against "the other side." We as humans aren't completely built for democracy or modernity, unfortunately. We have the intellectual capacity but are held back by our primitive instincts. Tribalism and submission to the "alpha male" may have served us well when we were close-knit tribal groups struggling to survive. It doesn't serve us well in these modern complex societies with government structured around (in theory) a thoughtful weighing of ideas. I do agree tribalism and excusing of your own sides faults is also a problem on the left. The way Obama fans lionized him, refused to hear about his inhumane droning campaigns or the aftermath of Libya or his continuation of the surveillance state still enrages me. However, I can personally assure you the Left has nothing close to the constant and hyperbolic lip service towards Reagan in all their convention speeches. The left dumped Al Franken like a hot potato for doing 1/1000 of what Trump's done (cupping a boob in a picture vs admitted assault on tape and legally documented rape and much more.) At least since 2016 when I've been an active participant, when I hear leftists talking and getting excited it's about actual concrete principles and programs. Rightists since Obama got elected have been all about dumping on him for every little perceived problem, obstructing every move out of spite, and then go on to defend a man as lecherous as Trump till their dying breath. In my experience, there's no comparison between the two. Agreed 100%. I distinctly remember him on the campaign trail talking about infrastructure reforms, defending Planned Parenthood at a primary debate, coming out in favor of LGBT rights...I even thought maybe he wouldn't be so bad for a time there. Because, you see, I like policies not people when it comes to electing someone. That's the way it should be. And if Trump supporters themselves were principled, they'd hold their man to his promises, especially things like these which have solid support across the aisle. In the old forum, we had someone (wonder who?) literally defending the practice of separating families at the border. Not just that, literally putting young children in CAGES within these camps for months at a time. Where many have died, more have been sexually assaulted, and many more stolen and given to other families. This shameless individual and many more like them sees no issue with this cruel, proto-Nazi practice, this blight upon human dignity. But what does our illustrious peer take issue with? AOC running for Congress before becoming a city councilor. And yet, apparently Donald Trump going right for the Presidency before doing anything else in the public sector is just a-okay. " It's perfectly fine if my side does it, but if yours does even half of that, we shall nail you to a cross!" The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife. www.csmonitor.com/USA/2018/1009/Separated-from-parents-some-migrant-children-are-adopted-by-Americanswww.nbcnews.com/news/latino/deported-parents-may-lose-kids-adoption-investigation-finds-n918261edition.cnn.com/2018/11/27/us/transgender-asylum-seeker-wrongful-death-claim/index.htmlwww.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/22-immigrants-died-ice-detention-centers-during-past-2-years-n954781www.pbs.org/newshour/show/while-in-ice-custody-thousands-of-migrants-reported-sexual-abusewww.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/us/sexual-assault-ice-detention-survivor-stories.htmlwww.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/ice-detention-center-says-its-not-responsiblewww.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-09/ap-investigation-deported-parents-can-lose-custody-of-kidsThats something we might consider changing. In some European countries you vote for parties/platforms as opposed to individuals. Worth looking into for sure. Well, like I said in the beginning of that very thread, absolutely every President has done incredibly terrible things in their personal and/or professional life. Even the popularly revered ones like Lincoln and Washington. The key is to understand that when discussing them. Personally, despite being disgusted by many of those flaws, I still think it's interesting to talk about. For better or worse these men influenced our lives and shaped our country, it's interesting to know the story even if it's not all rosy. I just wish more political discussions could be objective and open about our Presidents' and country's flaws without some partisan hack telling me everyone with a D or R next to their name is perfect. (Usually while disparaging the other letter's latest guy for far less than they're willing to excuse of their own side.) I hate whitewashed, glorified history. The Presidents are not demigods, they're flawed humans like any of us. And even if their flaws (within reason) are distasteful, I dont think that's worth disparaging them wholesale for. You and I, if we were President, would have our skeletons too. Personally, I think I'd make a good President with some actual experience under my belt. At the very least I think my Constitution and (soon to come) Policy Platform could be a great framework for America's future. I'd hate for someone to dismiss me and my ideas outright just because I'm trans, openly pro-psychedelics, go to local kink events and write esoteric musings on Aquarian Age values. One does not cancel the other, and that's why I'm willing to call the man with the jumbo cock with a penchant for dictating on the toilet seat and driving an amphibious car my favorite President. |
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Mar 11, 2019 18:55:20 GMT -5
iluvleniloud, you referenced UBI again, which reminds me that I wanted to get your reaction to my take on the issue from an earlier post. Quoted below for convenience.
7) UBI I’m fascinated by the concept of UBI (and even started a thread about it on PSF), especially because it has received a certain amount of support from left and right alike. Long-shot Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang has made it a centerpiece of his campaign, while conservative academic Charles Murray (still hated for his 90s work “The Bell Curve”) has come out strongly in favor as well. What concerns me about UBI is, if it replaces other social benefits, what do you do with the people who don’t use the money properly? This would just be an extension of the existing problem we’ve had before between the more efficient cash benefits, and the harder-to-misuse in-kind benefits like food stamps, housing vouchers, etc. If you say people only get cash instead of X, Y, or Z, but they don’t spend the cash on X, Y, or Z, presumably there is a need for still more benefits. That makes it unpalatable to conservatives, who will complain that it’s just one more giveaway; but leaving people to do without makes it unpalatable to progressives. Automation, however, is a very real issue. That said, previous predictions along the same lines (including during the late 1800s and early 1900s) didn’t come true, as we simply found other things that demanded our labor. Details aside, though, it is undeniable that our physical labor is less necessary, so it is worth thinking ahead and debating the issue of UBI. |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 22:03:02 GMT -5
Not ignoring you, Captain. I will respond to that topic tomorrow.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 2:40:01 GMT -5
Personally, I think I'd make a good President with some actual experience under my belt. At the very least I think my Constitution and (soon to come) Policy Platform could be a great framework for America's future. I'd hate for someone to dismiss me and my ideas outright just because I'm trans, openly pro-psychedelics, go to local kink events and write esoteric musings on Aquarian Age values. One does not cancel the other, and that's why I'm willing to call the man with the jumbo cock with a penchant for dictating on the toilet seat and driving an amphibious car my favorite President. jk likes this |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 10:28:14 GMT -5
iluvleniloud, you referenced UBI again, which reminds me that I wanted to get your reaction to my take on the issue from an earlier post. Quoted below for convenience.
7) UBI I’m fascinated by the concept of UBI (and even started a thread about it on PSF), especially because it has received a certain amount of support from left and right alike. Long-shot Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang has made it a centerpiece of his campaign, while conservative academic Charles Murray (still hated for his 90s work “The Bell Curve”) has come out strongly in favor as well. What concerns me about UBI is, if it replaces other social benefits, what do you do with the people who don’t use the money properly? This would just be an extension of the existing problem we’ve had before between the more efficient cash benefits, and the harder-to-misuse in-kind benefits like food stamps, housing vouchers, etc. If you say people only get cash instead of X, Y, or Z, but they don’t spend the cash on X, Y, or Z, presumably there is a need for still more benefits. That makes it unpalatable to conservatives, who will complain that it’s just one more giveaway; but leaving people to do without makes it unpalatable to progressives. Automation, however, is a very real issue. That said, previous predictions along the same lines (including during the late 1800s and early 1900s) didn’t come true, as we simply found other things that demanded our labor. Details aside, though, it is undeniable that our physical labor is less necessary, so it is worth thinking ahead and debating the issue of UBI. I think UBI, accomplished via a Negative Income Tax, is the future. It's what a truly egalitarian, forward-thinking society ought to be striving for: an egalitarian world robots do all the tedious, menial tasks for us so humans are freed to enjoy leisure time, pursue their dream careers without getting bogged down in a shitty job to pay bills in the meantime, and create art. That's the utopia they had in Star Trek, it's finally within reach, and yet we're so pessimistic, closed-minded and selfish we're incapable of seizing the potential in front of us. I think people misusing their dividend is just an unfortunate thing we'll have to deal with. Some people are too irresponsible or willfully ignorant to take advantage of a good thing. But I don't see why that should hold the rest of us back from a good thing. And yes, I think if we get UBI we should dissolve all other welfare programs as they would become redundant. That's what McGovern wanted to do as well. I dont think the industrial revolution is comparable. Machines made work easier to do, but didn't totally replace the human element as they needed humans to build and maintain them. With automation, fully thinking and self-acting robots doing tasks, they can replace any simple job humans need to do. The excuse I hear about "oh but people will need to build/maintain those robots" is a nonstarter, because that process can be automated too. Sure, there might need to be a human overseer but that's one or a small handful of people as opposed to entire industries employing hundreds if not thousands of them. Once the genie is out of the bottle and robots are advanced enough to program to do tasks, it will be very easy to take them and expand into all other sectors of the economy within a decade or two. The displacement will be rapid and ruthless. |
|
