American Politics Discussion Thread

[darrelljs]

So Trump is hundreds of millions in debt and is not making any money. US president is a broke conman. No wonder he has so many strings on him.

He paid 400 times more in taxes to other nations in a year than the to the US.

America first my ass .

Darrell

[SevenSpirits]

In US politics, each voter can only provide a few bits of information about their preferences. Opinions on a wide range of policies are reduced down to 1 bit every 4 years for the president, 1 bit per 3 years for senate seats, and 1 bit every 2 years for house seats.

And these bits are not independent of one another. They are pretty highly correlated by party. True, it's possible to hold the view that the senate should be controlled by party A and the presidency by party B, and it's possible to like one politician from a party but reject another, but these views are becoming less common and less sensical over time given the dysfunctional dynamics of national politics. As a result, you're largely just saying which policy basket you prefer, and so elections end up being referenda on the most prominent policy differences between the parties, e.g. abortion.

It's not fair to blame the politicians. Yes, many of them are evil, and many are hypocritical. (Side note: I was re-reading The Diamond Age recently and there's a nice little section railing against western society for giving up on universal moral principles and primarily holding onto hypocrisy as the thing you can legitimately complain about, since it's a disconnect between someone's actions and their own stated principles, and so doesn't require evaluating whether anyone's principles are good or not. I think this is a good point and so I've been trying to be less critical of hypocrisy since then, and more critical of what I think are things that I hope we can agree are bad.) The problem is that the system is set up such that the incentives of the politicians are to do right by their constituents only relative to the opposition, and primarily in a few main areas. And I can't really blame them for doing what their constituents apparently want them to do; even a typical non-psychopath who got into politics to try to do what people want would fall into that hole.

The best that Americans can do is to largely ignore policy and vote instead on who is more likely to move us towards a functional system of incentives in the future. Unfortunately, this is the axis on which it's approximately been fair to say that "both parties are the same". Yes, the parties have different preferred policy priorities, but they did have comparable amounts of corruption and similar crap, and both were pretty interested in keeping the status quo.

That is not the case in this election. (It wasn't in 2016 either, but I will grant that it was somewhat unclear at the time what kind of loose cannon Trump would be. You know this now, even if you didn't before.) This is our best opportunity in decades to express a preference against corruption and flagrant disregard for the truth. If you are a voter in the US, I strongly urge you to vote against Trump, even if you prefer conservative policies. Vote for republicans elsewhere on the ballot if you have to. Vote for a third party if you have to. (I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 in a state that voted Clinton even though I thought Clinton would be a much better president, because I thought it was the strongest available message that the republican party needs to be less like Trump.) Just please please please vote against the guy who obviously doesn't care if the words that come out of his mouth relate to the underlying reality of the world or not, and who puts himself above the law and before the country. We need that fucker to be defeated with as large a margin as possible for the future of the United States.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

The best that Americans can do is to largely ignore policy and vote instead on who is more likely to move us towards a functional system of incentives in the future. Unfortunately, this is the axis on which it's approximately been fair to say that "both parties are the same". Yes, the parties have different preferred policy priorities, but they did have comparable amounts of corruption and similar crap, and both were pretty interested in keeping the status quo..

Nonsense. The parties don't have different policy priorities, that's why it is fair to say both parties are similar. They are both profoundly anti-labor, with only a few democrats supportive of labor; both parties are pro-war (republicans hate china, democrats hate russia, both have different priorities over which middle eastern kids they want to kill so as to radicalize those who survive); both parties are in hock to the military industrial complex - the republicans are in bed with many of the contractors for DoD, democrats have become the military intelligence party (why do you think fairfax county votes democrat!). The Obama presidency was your standard investment-bank controlled gov't. Obamacare was a modified version of romneycare. Even bernie sanders' rAdIcAl healthcare program does not nearly go as far as the NHS in the UK. Barring social issues and other issues which the conservative-operated media shifts the narrative to, the parties operate in an identical fashion. The fact that most Americans vote on who best fits their political aesthetic is what got us into this hole in the first place. Oh and not voting on policy is just another "vote libertarian or republican because we have absolutely no policy". This prevailing narrative that ignorance is ok is exactly what has led to 50 years of republican-led austerity in the US, which has of course, been reinforced by two recent democratic presidents.

[Charriu]

The fact that most Americans vote on who best fits their political aesthetic is what got us into this hole in the first place.

The reason for that lies in the system itself: A Winner takes it all system, almost always develops into a two party system and with that the usual tribalism.

[SevenSpirits]

The best that Americans can do is to largely ignore policy and vote instead on who is more likely to move us towards a functional system of incentives in the future. Unfortunately, this is the axis on which it's approximately been fair to say that "both parties are the same". Yes, the parties have different preferred policy priorities, but they did have comparable amounts of corruption and similar crap, and both were pretty interested in keeping the status quo..

Nonsense. 

I can see you have a strong opinion about something. Please don't call what I wrote nonsense because it looks sort of like something you disagree with though. It's not going to get us anywhere.

[scooter]

The best that Americans can do is to largely ignore policy and vote instead on who is more likely to move us towards a functional system of incentives in the future. Unfortunately, this is the axis on which it's approximately been fair to say that "both parties are the same". Yes, the parties have different preferred policy priorities, but they did have comparable amounts of corruption and similar crap, and both were pretty interested in keeping the status quo..

Nonsense. The parties don't have different policy priorities, that's why it is fair to say both parties are similar. They are both profoundly anti-labor, with only a few democrats supportive of labor; both parties are pro-war (republicans hate china, democrats hate russia, both have different priorities over which middle eastern kids they want to kill so as to radicalize those who survive); both parties are in hock to the military industrial complex - the republicans are in bed with many of the contractors for DoD, democrats have become the military intelligence party (why do you think fairfax county votes democrat!). The Obama presidency was your standard investment-bank controlled gov't. Obamacare was a modified version of romneycare. Even bernie sanders' rAdIcAl healthcare program does not nearly go as far as the NHS in the UK. Barring social issues and other issues which the conservative-operated media shifts the narrative to, the parties operate in an identical fashion. The fact that most Americans vote on who best fits their political aesthetic is what got us into this hole in the first place. Oh and not voting on policy is just another "vote libertarian or republican because we have absolutely no policy". This prevailing narrative that ignorance is ok is exactly what has led to 50 years of republican-led austerity in the US, which has of course, been reinforced by two recent democratic presidents.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the US population looks like. This (along with the voting system issue Charriu mentioned) is the real reason things look samey on some issues:





Only around 25% of this country self-identifies as liberal. And "liberal" to an American is pretty centrist to a European. Republicans tend to have a more cohesive ideology because their core demographic is almost exclusively white and skew heavily religious, so they only really need to seize on a few issues. The Democrat coalition is far more diverse, but the majority of them don't even identify as liberal. It's a weird blend of fairly liberal white folks and minority groups that are often a lot more conservative than white liberals understand. This is why it's so hard for them to coalesce around liberal economic and social policies - a big chunk of their base isn't all that interested! It's much easier for them to campaign on a concept (healthcare should be more accessible!) than a concrete policy (Medicare4All).


Side note: can I ask if you are an American? You're talking like you are, but your characterization of the American populace sounds like something non-Americans like to say. The list of policy differences between the two parties is quite huge these days, so it's weird to see versions of this strawman popping up so frequently.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

The best that Americans can do is to largely ignore policy and vote instead on who is more likely to move us towards a functional system of incentives in the future. Unfortunately, this is the axis on which it's approximately been fair to say that "both parties are the same". Yes, the parties have different preferred policy priorities, but they did have comparable amounts of corruption and similar crap, and both were pretty interested in keeping the status quo..

Nonsense. The parties don't have different policy priorities, that's why it is fair to say both parties are similar. They are both profoundly anti-labor, with only a few democrats supportive of labor; both parties are pro-war (republicans hate china, democrats hate russia, both have different priorities over which middle eastern kids they want to kill so as to radicalize those who survive); both parties are in hock to the military industrial complex - the republicans are in bed with many of the contractors for DoD, democrats have become the military intelligence party (why do you think fairfax county votes democrat!). The Obama presidency was your standard investment-bank controlled gov't. Obamacare was a modified version of romneycare. Even bernie sanders' rAdIcAl healthcare program does not nearly go as far as the NHS in the UK. Barring social issues and other issues which the conservative-operated media shifts the narrative to, the parties operate in an identical fashion. The fact that most Americans vote on who best fits their political aesthetic is what got us into this hole in the first place. Oh and not voting on policy is just another "vote libertarian or republican because we have absolutely no policy". This prevailing narrative that ignorance is ok is exactly what has led to 50 years of republican-led austerity in the US, which has of course, been reinforced by two recent democratic presidents.

Only around 25% of this country self-identifies as liberal. And "liberal" to an American is pretty centrist to a European. Republicans tend to have a more cohesive ideology because their core demographic is almost exclusively white and skew heavily religious, so they only really need to seize on a few issues. The Democrat coalition is far more diverse, but the majority of them don't even identify as liberal. It's a weird blend of fairly liberal white folks and minority groups that are often a lot more conservative than white liberals understand. This is why it's so hard for them to coalesce around liberal economic and social policies - a big chunk of their base isn't all that interested! It's much easier for them to campaign on a concept (healthcare should be more accessible!) than a concrete policy (Medicare4All).


Side note: can I ask if you are an American? You're talking like you are, but your characterization of the American populace sounds like something non-Americans like to say. The list of policy differences between the two parties is quite huge these days, so it's weird to see versions of this strawman popping up so frequently.

Yes, I am American. The list of policy differences in the party platforms is irrelevant, look at the actual legislation passed by Reagan/Bush elder/clinton/bush younger/obama. Just now, the democrats said they're ok with keeping the rtump tax cuts for a bit, and that translates to forever. I pointed out in a post before how Cuomo kept the republicans in the NY state senate propped up. That's just collaborationist. It is absolutely not a strawman when there's dozens upon dozens of examples where the democrats behave little different than a controlled opposition. They rolled over with 58 senators in their pocket in 2009 and lay dead, and their compromise-fetishism earned them the devastating political losses of 2010 and 2014.

I think Mondale was the last one to mention the necessity of raising taxes to the public and he got clobbered. Right-wing indoctrination really is just that effective, and the democrats are terrified/incompetent/complicit enough that they haven't returned to Keynsian/New Deal economics since.

And Americans seldom vote on policy. Look at the democratic primaries, I don't think that Biden managed to utter a coherent sentence regarding his political program, and the clique of anti-sanders candidates were not any better. I still believe that primary election was illegitimate - starting from the inconsistencies in the publicly available data from Iowa caucuses that were extensively reported and never acted on, giving an undeserved win to Buttigieg, in fact on election night, I wrote a script to calculate them and point them out! Similarly, the results of exit polls and actual results had such a large gap that by UN definition, they would warrant a committee to examine them. I only grudgingly will vote for Biden.

Liberal is almost considered a dirty word, it's why people don't identify with it.

[superdeath]

If the 2 parties didnt have such a stranglehold on this country, a wealthy moderate faction could easily sweep thru.

[darrelljs]

As always, a SevenSpirits post is thought provoking .

Are there enough moderates disillusioned with where Trump took the Republican Party and where Millennials seem to be taking the Democratic Party to form a significant, centrist third party?

Darrell

[scooter]

I still believe that primary election was illegitimate

Gotta get outside your bubble some. Maybe you'll understand why people disagree with you. (I say this as someone who voted the same way I think you did in the primary.)

Are there enough moderates disillusioned with where Trump took the Republican Party and where Millennials seem to be taking the Democratic Party to form a significant, centrist third party?

Darrell

True third party will never happen with the American voting system. However, I do think you're seeing that disillusioned moderate faction form right now, and they voted for Biden in the primary and Dems in the house in 2018. Educated moderate suburbanites that have traditionally voted Republican are switching to voting Democrat in droves. To me, the more interesting question that nobody seems to be asking is what happens if Trump loses badly? There's clearly been a realignment of sorts since 2012, and I'm curious if that will prove to be temporary or permanent. The voters Trump picked up are not nearly as religious as the rest of the right-wing, and the voters Dems have picked up are not as liberal as the rest of the left-wing. If Trump wins or narrowly loses, probably not much changes. I'm just not so sure that's true if he gets smoked, which is vaguely on the table even if it's not the most likely thing.