American Politics Discussion Thread

[Gustaran]

You may not like T-Hawk's reasoning for his vote, but this is still very American:

Let's not pretend dissenting opinions are any more tolerated by the liberals than conservatives, nor that the news narrative is any less narrow.  I force myself to read one article from Fox and one from CNN every day before retreating back to The Economist (even if I have to swallow my own vomit to make it through).  I see little difference, nor do I see any difference in the WhatsApp groups between my liberal friends and conservatives friends.  A lot of righteous "how could they do that?" and "how can they believe that?" indignation without any reflection.

Sorry, darrell, but I think this is a lazy comfortable position. It's like Trump saying "There are good people on both sides" when there is a march with Nazi flags and some protesters. When you don't see a difference in the journalistic standards of CNN and Foxnews (especially the evening program) then we need to agree to disagree here.

Pandemic response is a good example.  I would say most Europeans look at China's actions in Wuhan with horror.  What Macron just did in France would be viewed with horror by many if not most Americans (myself included).

No, I don't think that's a great example, because the discussion is largely driven by science vs. denial, but I feel Covid has been debated enough in this thread.

I'd rather elaborate on my "liberty of government" problem: What I mean is that the phrase is way too broad. The decisive point is how far and in what areas you value liberty.

For example: There is a large group of evangelical Christians in your country, who may have no problem with a deregulated economy, but when it comes to abortion and other social issues they would be more than happy to forget about personal liberty and ban abortions and gay marriage. Then you have another small group of hardcore libertarians with rather extreme views for the 21st century who only like absolute minimum government involvement in all areas. Then there are people on the other hand of the spectrum that feel their liberty is restricted by economic and social discrimination due to race or gender by institutions and the government itself.

When we come to the marketplace, yes, generally speaking a "free market" for Americans is always desirable. But to quote Bill O'Reilly:  "A market without any rules is anarchy." For example, do you support a minimum wage? If yes, what amount? What about unemployment benefits? Should that be a thing? If yes, indefinitely or for a limited time only? Do you support a minimum number of paid sick leave? Always or only during the pandemic? Do you support laws against discrimination that may restrict the liberty of a business owner? What about the right to work law and unions?
Then there is debate which areas should be privatized. One debate for many years: Should prisons be allowed to run by private companies? What about water and electricity? The USPS? Railroad network? Roads?

Then there are people who think the government needs to guarantee certain basic rights, i.e. health care. After all a majority of Americans are in favour of a law that allows kids being insured with their parents until age 25, despite their love for the free market. So should everybody have access to health care? Should everybody be forced to buy health care or should it stay a personal choice? What happens if someone who didn't opt for health care falls ill, would you just let him die? How far should the government regulate health care? Should prices for vital drugs be regulated or be decided by the market place? Do you support a system of private insurances with aid from the government? Or do you prefer a single payer public option? Should the government pay for all Covid related tests and treatment? Should there be another Covid release package for needy people and small businesses?

Honestly, I could go on for pages. But that's what I mean when I say "liberty over government" does not really tell me all that much. It might be a popular sentiment to characterize Americans and draw a general distinction to other western nations, but the actual details vary quite a lot by the individual.

[suboptimal]

If someone made one of those "proportional to population" maps, it would be mostly blue.

What gets lost in the electoral maps that get shown around is that many of the middle states have less population than New York City. I saw this data visualization on Twitter a day or two after the election.  It shows the somewhat stark difference between presenting the popular vote as land area (e.g. by state or by county) vs. population distribution.

[T-hawk]

Sorry, darrell, but I think this is a lazy comfortable position. It's like Trump saying "There are good people on both sides" when there is a march with Nazi flags and some protesters.

Do you realize that Trump supposedly supporting Nazis was a complete media hoax? He went on to say, exact words, "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally." Video and Transcript

For example: There is a large group of evangelical Christians in your country, who may have no problem with a deregulated economy, but when it comes to abortion and other social issues they would be more than happy to forget about personal liberty and ban abortions and gay marriage.

On these points I do not side with the Republicans, because these do violate individual liberty. They're merely not a priority; these issues don't affect my life, economic and lockdown liberty do.

The rest of your list is a screed of anti-liberty against businesses. No, I don't support any minimum wage laws, it's none of government's responsibility to decide what price of labor two parties can voluntarily agree on. It's none of government's responsibility to compel businesses for whom they must serve. It's none of government's responsibility to compel business to pay a worker for not working, either for sickness or unemployment or whatever else. It is the worker's responsibility to not spend beyond their means and prepare themselves for possible interruptions of income. It is not government's responsibility to reward poor personal decisions.

I could perhaps agree with enacting such things on a state or local level, so those who want them can have such a system, and those who don't are free to leave. That's compatible with liberty, as long as a choice otherwise exists.

Why am I repulsive for wanting to keep my resources for myself? The opposing viewpoint is equally as repulsive for wanting to forcibly confiscate my resources for themselves.

Health care I will say I'm not sure what to do with. The problem is the free market does break down here, because of information and power imbalance. You can't exactly shop around for competitive providers when you're in an ambulance. What is the correct free-market price for saving your life? The correct answer is "everything you have", but we don't seem to like that.

[AdrienIer]

A rather common situation in the US is getting cancer, losing your job and not being able to pay for your cancer medication. And you call that "a poor personal choice" ?? As if you can "prepare for possible interruption of income" when you're already working two jobs and barely making ends meet...

[T-hawk]

Why can't that be handled by the free market? If you're worried about cancer, buy cancer insurance just like house insurance. The government isn't involved in the financials, only in enforcing that the insurer satisfies its end of the contract if necessary.

[Deceptus]

Sorry, darrell, but I think this is a lazy comfortable position. It's like Trump saying "There are good people on both sides" when there is a march with Nazi flags and some protesters.

Do you realize that Trump supposedly supporting Nazis was a complete media hoax?  He went on to say, exact words, "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."  Video and Transcript

But that's not what Gustaran said. Gustaran said Trump claimed "There are good people on both sides" when there was a march with Nazi flags and some protesters. This is implying that the crowd of people who allegedly chanted "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and soil" had some peaceful protesters mixed in who just kinda decided to tag along the ride, and that the sentiment that carried the rally was "just some bad seeds".

Don't forget that Trump also told Proud Boys to "stand by and stand back", later claiming his ignorance on who they are. Consistently, Trump offers cover for groups he supposedly "condemns totally", downplays their influence, and deflects with "but the left wing terrorism!".

Even in the most charitable interpretation Trump is completely tone deaf and doesn't consistently condemn the groups he's against. Gustaran is, I believe, addressing Trump's lack of transparency on this subject and a tendency to lean towards some form of centrism that doesn't adequately answer straight questions, which is worrisome considering that the poltical climate we're in has fostered brouhahas like the Wolverine Watchmen fiasco. The Charlottesville thing wasn't the first time he said something contradictory on the matter, and it does take him long timespans to follow up with statements like "I condemn white nationalists".

[Charriu]

If you march with neo-nazis and you do:

• nothing to expel them from your protest or
  
• leave that protest yourself
  

Then you are either tolerating neo-nazis or support them. Both can't be tolerated in a democracy as neo-nazis are trying actively to end that democracy.

[darrelljs]

No, I don't think that's a great example, because the discussion is largely driven by science vs. denial, but I feel Covid has been debated enough in this thread.

Read what Brick said upthread...and try and set aside some of the baffling things Trump has said. That wearing a mask became a political issue is ridiculous, no doubt, but even with agreement on the science decisions exist. Compare the approach between China and the EU, or within the EU between Sweden and France. Even within the US each state is different, and in my own state South Florida is very different than elsewhere. How do we strike the right balance between reducing R0 and trying to keep some semblance of normal life? Remember the US was founded by rebelling against a government they felt was ignoring their needs.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Darrell

[darrelljs]

Honestly, I could go on for pages.

You already have in my mobile browser .

But that's what I mean when I say "liberty over government" does not really tell me all that much. It might be a popular sentiment to characterize Americans and draw a general distinction to other western nations, but the actual details vary quite a lot by the individual.

I'd say generally the examples you give fall in the "where to draw the line" bucket, and it would be painful for us both to debate point by point.  BUT...my point is there is a debate for most of these as its not always obvious (including the pandemic).

Darrell

[AdrienIer]

Why can't that be handled by the free market?  If you're worried about cancer, buy cancer insurance just like house insurance.  The government isn't involved in the financials, only in enforcing that the insurer satisfies its end of the contract if necessary.

Basically because those who can afford such insurances are those who are already well off. All studies on how poverty usually leads to more poverty have examples similar to this, with cases where a person could have avoided a large expenditure by making a small expenditure earlier at a time when it was completely impossible for that person to pay that small expenditure. So overall they pay more, by virtue of not being able to pay when it's most efficient.
BTW taxes are basically about doing that but on a national level. Society pays less overall and has better service (public police forces > private public forces, same with firefighters health and education in most countries) by giving everyone basic access to all of these, and it gets benefits back from the poorer parts of the population having access to those.