American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

Wonder no more…

Just read a great article on the pernicious impact of social media…

Darrell

Man that article is pretentious and ignores large swathes of history. I did not end up reading all it to be fair. I went from reading, to skimming, to stopping.

Social media and technology in general has just given different tools and methods for hate, division, and tribalism. It is important to remember societies have been split without social media. Honestly the idea that our society was harmonious at some point is laughable. Are we old men where everything new is to blame and we ignore what has happened in the past? Democracies have been overthrown, racism has literally resulted in slavery, and disinformation campaigns have been in effect since governments began. Technology and social media are just new tools for both good and bad.

I actually think the completion of the party shift is probably more to blame for a return to a polarized state.

[Ginger()]

Wonder no more…

Just read a great article on the pernicious impact of social media…

Darrell

Man that article is pretentious and ignores large swathes of history. I did not end up reading all it to be fair. I went from reading, to skimming, to stopping.

Social media and technology in general has just given different tools and methods for hate, division, and tribalism. It is important to remember societies have been split without social media. Honestly the idea that our society was harmonious at some point is laughable. Are we old men where everything new is to blame and we ignore what has happened in the past? Democracies have been overthrown, racism has literally resulted in slavery, and disinformation campaigns have been in effect since governments began. Technology and social media are just new tools for both good and bad.

I actually think the completion of the party shift is probably more to blame for a return to a polarized state.

Very well said, but one correction I would make is that slavery lead to racism more than vice versa. Originally growing out of the indentured servitude system, slavery was not restricted to the white European settlers, there are records of black slave owners, and it seems that racism grew as a way to justify the continued existence of an underclass.

[Mjmd]

Slavery is old as dirt sadly, I misspoke. Racism was used as a way to justify the continuation is probably a better way of saying.

[BING_XI_LAO]

Didn't Manchin's state vote 28% Biden, 68% Trump? As such, it's only reflecting the opinions of his voters to be a centrist stick in the mud.

Also MJMD, what sort of things do you fear Republicans will do to actually degrade elections? What's so great about that bipartisan election commission anyway? if you dislike the establishment of both parties then isn't "bipartisan" a sign of something that should die in a fire?

[Amicalola]

What's so great about that bipartisan election commission anyway? if you dislike the establishment of both parties then isn't "bipartisan" a sign of something that should die in a fire?

In functional terms, bipartisan means 'beholden to neither party,' not 'beholden to both.' At least, that is the intention.

[BING_XI_LAO]

Now that I'm half a glass of wine in here is some random thoughts.

American banking system and access to cash that way doesn't get nearly enough historical credit or attention (I would argue its been far more important that equity investment). At least until it causes problems..... then we just let them keep doing it while continuing to be consolidate and just look the other way for a while.

Watching way too many historic videos since covid a consistent theme you'll hear a lot when they get to the golden age of whatever nation is "then leader x redid the tax system to be more equitable". Although to be fair strong leaders had additional incentive back then (you know other than preventing peasant revolts, encouraging peasant productivity, and funding their empire). Usually there was a power struggle of ruler vs aristocracy. If you were able to tax your elite without them rebelling it made you stronger and any potential rebellion from them less likely to succeed. In the US if you are elected official you were either A) already in our aristocracy or B) were financed by them to get elected.    While its a good talk to talk about trying to write actual good effective tax laws, its not a terrible surprise tax loopholes keep getting written in. Mind you that just means their should be more awareness made of this, not that we just give up. History can be seen as a slow crawl of the common man not being ground underfoot quite as much over time by the elite telling them that is just the way it has to be.

Reminds me of a couple of Eastern Roman mediaeval emperors, on (I forget who, but I think it was 9th century) visited the eastern frontier and was reportedly appalled by the way there were fuedal landlords exploiting estates populated by serfs and slaves, instead of a substantive society of freemen each owning their own land. Also the Nicean Empire in exile from Constantionople from 1204 to 1261 - reportedly the Emperor himself ran a farm and forged a new coronet from the profit made from selling eggs. The re-acquisition of Constantinople was followed very swiftly by a permanent collapse of the Greek position in Anatolia, and repotedly one aristocrat even predicted that would happen - the attention of the crown would be distracted from the land to the foreign-controlled sea trade.

What I really want in politics is a strong king who will punish and extort the oligarchs, whether that's Prince Salman locking billionaires in the Ritz in 2017, Xi Jinping's China with its habit of executing very rich people, or whatever else.

[Mjmd]

Didn't Manchin's state vote 28% Biden, 68% Trump? As such, it's only reflecting the opinions of his voters to be a centrist stick in the mud.

Also MJMD, what sort of things do you fear Republicans will do to actually degrade elections? What's so great about that bipartisan election commission anyway? if you dislike the establishment of both parties then isn't "bipartisan" a sign of something that should die in a fire?

Well I fear them actually overturning them most...... One of the people up to head the bipartisan commission in WI as it rotates between parties was a fake elector for the Republicans, BUT again at least its better than someone who doesn't care about overturning elections being solely in charge.

The preferred method would obviously be non partisan. Not sure how other countries do honestly. Retired judges? In general neither party should be in charge of making rules for or overseeing election results. Its a clear weakness.

I could understand Manchin being a centrist, but I don't like him being so obviously corrupt. Its good to call it out where you see it on all sides.

[Charriu]

So while I walked back home after my bike tire blew out, I gave some thought as to why this story isn't front page news. Why do a lot of people treat this just like any other political issue.

-Are we just historically stupid in America? I mean yes, but I don't think that is all of it.
-Do we have short attention spans? IE are there not enough 'clicks' for a major news network to keep posting these kinds of stories. I mean also yes.

There's also the lack of historical experience. You, the US, never lost your democracy. That let's some believe that your democracy is strong and the turn to authoritarianism could never happen. But no democracy is safe in that regard.

[Mjmd]

Again the main problem with hoping strong and effective dictators (flavor there of) will do the right thing is A) even the most secure have to keep secure in their position which often means pandering to the rich and powerful B) very few with that much power remain even partially uncorrupted for long, and C) even if you do somehow get a "great" leader, eventually they die. Even just a sniff of history shows that the pursuit of power is very destructive and corruptive.

[BING_XI_LAO]

Again the main problem with hoping strong and effective dictators (flavor there of) will do the right thing is A) even the most secure have to keep secure in their position which often means pandering to the rich and powerful B) very few with that much power remain even partially uncorrupted for long, and C) even if you do somehow get a "great" leader, eventually they die. Even just a sniff of history shows that the pursuit of power is very destructive and corruptive.

The really strong autocrats don't have to pander to the rich, the weak ones do for sure - but how is that any different from the typical anglo/western democracy? Even if it's only sporadic, at least sometimes an autocracy can rise above subservience to the merchants. And it's not like democracies have been held back from exercising their power in destructive ways either. I think just about any random dictator trying to run a strategic vision of foreign policy wouldn't be as consistently wrong as the neocons, because he would have some random set of ideas and quirks, instead of reliably horrendous concepts of nation building etc.

edit: I suppose you are less pessimistic than me, I think this is a decaying civilisation for a lot of reasons, it's allowing educational standards to constantly decline out of sheer limp-wristedness for example. I want to shake things up, looking for consistently great outcomes is fabulously optimistic.
Of course material conditions are stilll great, but those were inherited, the political and cultural situation is trash.