American Politics Discussion Thread

[darrelljs]

Interesting paper on populism and democracy.  Pence seems to have stuck a nerve in the Republican Party.

Darrell

[Mjmd]

“This is also the last chance to defund these political prosecutions against me and other Patriots,” Trump wrote late Wednesday on Truth Social. Taking aim at McCarthy, Trump continued, “They failed on the debt limit, but they must not fail now. Use the power of the purse and defend the Country!”

The leading candidate for the party of law and order and good governance everybody!

Mind you even if the government shut down, most of his cases would probably still continue, so doesn't even work. Classic.

[Mjmd]

Interesting paper on populism and democracy.  Pence seems to have stuck a nerve in the Republican Party.

Darrell

Good paper. Had some good points and specifically the part on gradual descent. The second part is pay walled.

[greenline]

Interesting paper on populism and democracy.  Pence seems to have stuck a nerve in the Republican Party.

Darrell

The paper itself works to justify any sort of resentment against 'the system' that might lead to populism, which itself just seems to be a slur aimed at methods which attempt a form of direct democracy. Any form of illiberalism, anti-pluralism, or nativism is only bad populism, but supporting populism that leads to more votes (and therefore, entrenching the system as being ever more resistant to any form of change) is good populism. Actually supporting a sort of democratic spirit would mean giving the mob an end to mass immigration and technocratic rule if they really desired it - and acknowledging that there are also risks to letting the 55th percent terrorize the 45th percent. 

Not that it does any good to quibble about these papers, since the world will keep turning and policy will stay where it is. But the quality of the propaganda mill is clearly getting worse.

[Mjmd]

Setting aside if it would work, if you want a direct democracy wouldn't the first step be supporting the party NOT doing voter suppression? This seems like a logical disconnect.

So one thing representation democracy are good at is providing protection for the minority especially in a rural urban split like the US is currently in. Wisconsin is a good example. Back when when we had fairer maps Republicans commonly would still be even or slightly ahead in the house most times even when Democrats won the state. However with gerrymandering even though Wisconsin is a 50/50 state we now have a situation where even though Democrats won the governor Republicans are two seats short of a super majority in the house and have one in the senate.

My main problem with the paper is calling Trump a populist at all. But this isn't a problem with just this paper. To me he is a nationalist or possible just a firebrand of no particular persuasion. But yes the paper is right that things that lead to ill liberalism are bad. Such as overthrowing an election. Something most Republicans are just blind to is how dangerous a Democrat populist could be if they don't keep the controls that stopped Trump in place. Why it is important there are consequences. Democrats consistently win popular vote against a party that participates in voter suppression and gerrymandering and the main reason they lose the presidency is the electoral college. What is to stop a future populist Democrat president from doing what Trump did but with better justification and then start a slide that way. This has happened elsewhere. It is super important to keep checks in place.

[greenline]

Setting aside if it would work, if you want a direct democracy wouldn't the first step be supporting the party NOT doing voter suppression? This seems like a logical disconnect.

This is because just having more votes is not an inherent good to any sort of democratic system. This should be obvious. There are countries with compulsory voting that still have the exact same problems the USA does, if not worse, such as Australia.

Populism is so feared by eggheads because it represents the threat that a man outside of the existing system might come into power and change things that are not allowed to be changed. Democracy and direct democracy especially is supposed to be valuable for the result, not the process. The result of the demos, the people, affecting change. What you seem to be proposing is a voteocracy, where the goal is to eventually give every single person in the world a vote in the US elections so that things can be the most voteocratic they have ever been. Putin would not disagree with this logic in his country. He wins his elections handily.

[superdeath]

Putin would not disagree with this logic in his country. He wins his elections handily.

You cant tell me he doesnt rig those elections. Especially considering how Russia/Putin runs other things such as:  the Donbas region magically voting in a huge swing to join, with armed "guards" to protect said voters.

[greenline]

Putin would not disagree with this logic in his country. He wins his elections handily.

You cant tell me he doesnt rig those elections. Especially considering how Russia/Putin runs other things such as:  the Donbas region magically voting in a huge swing to join, with armed "guards" to protect said voters.

He does rig them, by poisoning and imprisoning his political opponents. Hence my concern about the same thing happening here.

[Mjmd]

Your going to have to extemporize more on your first point. To me this isn't obvious. Your missing an argument for "why excluding votes is good". Saying "x country isn't perfect" as an example doesn't really count. Logical flow please. Otherwise I have to assume you are fine just oppressing people via voter suppression that don't think like you.

I have nothing wrong with populism. I do think popularity can be abused. Those in power tend to think they should always be in power and this is only amplified even if they only think they are popular let alone when they are. Again, I've argued before you can have good autocrats, but it doesn't last and the price for an autocracy is high in the long term in corruption and chances for civil war.

I am not proposing a direct democracy. You seemed to be, which is why I mentioned. I wish our representation democracy had some serious changes done to it, but there is a reason I prefaced my direct democracy comment with "setting aside if it would work".

Ah yes the classic "x dictator handily wins his election challenge". I'm not saying it can't happen, there are some legitimately popular dictators out there, but most of them wouldn't. There is a reason they hold them though. To give the appearance of legitimacy. Not a lot of dictators can just come out and say "yep this is what I am" now a days. And that should tell you something.

[Mjmd]

Putin would not disagree with this logic in his country. He wins his elections handily.

You cant tell me he doesnt rig those elections. Especially considering how Russia/Putin runs other things such as:  the Donbas region magically voting in a huge swing to join, with armed "guards" to protect said voters.

He does rig them, by poisoning and imprisoning his political opponents. Hence my concern about the same thing happening here.

There is a LARGE difference between pressuring the justice department, actively campaigning on locking up your political opponents, and threatening to fire / actually firing officials to get your way (see Trump). VS just letting the justice department do its job.

A democrat senator just got charged with bribery. Looks a whole awful lot like hes guilty to me (the gold bars kind of give it away). And I say GOOD. This is how the justice deparment should work. It shouldn't be interfered with by political pressure (defunding and pressure from politicians).