American Politics Discussion Thread

[BING_XI_LAO]

If there's one thing that supports horseshoe theory, it's the resounding pessimism on the extreme left and right. "We're decaying, it's the end of times, the power of ((insert scapegoat outgroup)) is usurping our traditional privileges."

Explaining why the extreme left and right think similarly is interesting, and I'm not wholly against horseshoe theory (in late Weimar there was a lot of crossover voting between NSDAP and Communists, and in this thread I ended up being on the same side as communists which was very amusing). But it's more straightforward to say "the ruling ideology says it is doing well for society" - because of course it does.

The outgroup scapegoat thing is too basic, I agree. Whether you're a communist or a hardline social conservative the first people to blame and bring back under control should be your own merchant class.

I mean sure, the pendulum swings, we go from "End of History and the Last Man" and the early 90s optimism to the rampant pessimism in the wake of autocratic resurgencies, and now with the Ukraine fiasco exposing the cracks and corruption of the second most powerful autocracy—there's some renewed optimism.

It's shown us their tactics, for sure, not sure how much else. Maybe it showed us that they were very competent at managing their currency - the Western narrative was "make the rouble rubble" not "make the Russians adopt certain currency controls that will eventually have negative consequences".

As for as "cracks and corruption" is concerned, I think that was just a higher than usual intensity of Western journalists posting panicked pieces about how Putin is definitely dying of cancer for real this time, Shoigu has been arrested, Russia is running out of bullets, COUP INCOMING. But I should ask - what did the war really show us much about Russian corruption and politics from what you've been reading? EDIT: just watched Perun's video on the topic - so now I know what you meant about thew corruption. Still that's baked into the cake at this point, perhaps it did sabotage Russia's efforts, but there are few new corruption surprises 2 months into a war, I should think.

Just remembered there is one bit of corruption reporting I could believe - the idea that Russian intel planners weren't taking the invasion option seriously and made fabulously optimistic predictions about Ukrainian morale and loyalty to kiss up to superiors. But I only give it some credit because of a pretty good LARP post on a 4chan/8chan style forum that I saw a screenshot of. It was by a supposed FSB intel type complaining that they hadn't been told the invasion was a real possibility, so "how did we know to plan for it properly" - so yeah, the institution is pretty shit if it has lazy incompetents like that.

People love autocracies because they "do something" (or at least maintain the image of "doing something"). It's bold, dashing, and decisively plowing ahead to solve the nation's most pressing problems.

The problem with this mythos is twofold
A) since the "doing" is justifying the existence of abusive executive powers, and those powers will be revoked or eroded once the problem is gone, the aspiring autocrat must always create new "problems", a new bait or pogrom to flash in the eyes of the media and public to distract.

B) Not all of society's problems are solved by government action, and even well-intentioned policies can muck up the waters and cascade unintended consequences. Sometimes doing nothing and waiting for private sector or cultural changes to swing around is the preferable state policy.

My first thought on this topic is China building railway lines and HVDC lines. It just gets built, none of this endless fannying around catering to private interests, local objections, etc. US and India are particularly bad - I suppose Europe and Australia are doing okay though. Plus, requiring the private sector to lead everything just isn't appropriate, the private sector is inherently opportunistic rather than strategic and has no guarantee of serving the national interest or the broad social interest.

I strongly suspect that the Biden Administration deliberately sabotaged fuel prices, by attacking domestic infrastructure such as Keystone XL and by sabotaging Europe's fuel supply from Russia. If you want an energy transition, and you want the private sector to lead it, this is how to make renewable energy comparatively more appealing while maintaining fossil fuel cars and power plants becomes far less affordable. Compare this to China - its renewable efforts are absolutely vast, but at the same time it is maintaining and expanding its fossil fuel infrastructure and keeping those costs as low as it can. Because its energy strategy isn't private sector lead, it doesn't need to introduce a cost differential.

Apologies if I raised that in a previous post and am getting repetitive, I don't remember.

I can sense T-Hawk or someone saying "Well it's not a real private sector paradigm is the state is distorting the market" - okay but if you have a society where rich merchants are allowed to act as entryists into political affairs then you will end up with that kind of unholy mixing between the state and private capital interests. Now China mixes state and capital too, but it does so with the state in charge.

What you say about an autocrat always needing a "new bait or pogrom" sounds like projection, democracies have these crazy news cycles all the time, probably worse because they have to manufacture consent for elections, while autocracies only have to avoid mass protests and keep the ruling apparatus happy, which is less demanding.

I suspect the Chinese are more free to have their own views about politics, because their thoughts are undisturbed by the constant, intense punch-and-judy propaganda of a participatory two-party democracy. From my limited experience reading google-translated Chinese news, they don't bother politicising it as much, because it doesn't matter what the ordinary person thinks as long as they aren't supporting an insurrection because some basic infrastructure failed.

If I say something that goes against the grain in the West the young people are outraged (due to cultural decay they lack the tolerance of the boomers, who are real liberals but whose ideology couldn't remain stable into the next generations). They're outraged, even if we're just having a private conversation, ultimately because at least nominally everyone has a vote, has a hand in politics, and has a say on social media - so if someone is against your vision of social morals it's a threat. If I was Chinese in China, and said some politically subversive thing, I don't think anyone would mind unless I was spreading it around on social media. And even then, you'd only be looking at a recoverable dip in social credit score and a limited media account, not the vindictive hatred that can occur in the West towards cancelled people. This is one way monarchy can ironically afford more freedom to people.

Almost all the indicators for world living standards have gone consistently up the last 70 years, and while there's many problems in the west, it's truly myopic to decry the current status quo and advocate for radical political policies or—as you put yourself, burn anything bipartisan in a fire. I can't shake the metaphor that this autocratic siren call is akin to burning down the house because our fingers are cold.

Haven't world living standards been going up for as long as homo sapiens has existed? Looking back on our Western civilisation, the progress I find most profound is the mediaval and dark age political forms and cultural norms, because they were starting from so little. Everything since then had a lot more to work with and was iterative, aside from Communism.

Given that there's inevitably a delay between the adoption of political and cultural norms, and their material socio-economic consequences, we are currently enjoying the results of late 20th century culture, and everything before it. Supporting more of those ancient norms against the new isn't that radical at all from that perspective, whereas 21st century norms, many of them historically unprecedented, are radical. Moreover rule by the merchant class typically sees society change a lot instead of guarding its traditions and existing economic arrangements, so that is radical.

[BING_XI_LAO]

I'll bite (with the acknowledgment that we're just pathetically regurgitating our media consumption given that I assume none of us have inside sources or experience as war analysts)

That's a wise acknowledgement, but hey - we ARE civ players.
Also I have been thinking about the word "regurgitation" a lot in this context myself.

I think the Russian state apparatus has a tight enough clamp on media and information flow to prevent any significant dissent if they don't order general mobilization.

And it is a crucial point of disagreement. I think the government has the political capital to call a mobilisation, therefore if they aren't - it must be because things are going fine for them without one. But if Russia can't call a mobilisation because of politics, then it changes the interpretation a lot.

I am certain that Russian support for Putin and for the war are very high, don't know if they would support themselves participating in the war.

On possible additional sanctions, I'm sure the Biden's administration would love the invitation to do so, but it's clear that he's letting Europe take the lead on this issue as a way to prove that it's united western consensus and not whatever "US/Nato imperialism" crap the tankies are pushing these days. I doubt the tinfoils are convinced, but its probably important to internal signaling among western allies that this isn't a US diktat a la Suez. Diplomacy isn't just for your enemies. 

The whole pre-war Nordstream 2 thing was pretty clearly the US forcing its preferences on germany, or trying to. But since then - I don't have a spy in the halls of diplomacy. I think the internet has expanded US' cultural reach into the rest of the West a lot more than in the 90s, though, its influence is great.

As for the military situation, I don't really see how Russian incremental gains in the Donbas will be permanent. Their logistics are terrible and the financial/manufacturing capacity to replace lost heavy equipment is probably not there, especially with sanctions. I've seen reports of the old T62 series being returned to service, and that really gives the impression of scraping the bottom of the barrel. The situation for Ukrainian equipment is opposite, more weapons and supplies ship in from the west daily. 

Perhaps this is another reason Russia is relying on artillery so much, besides being its normal doctrine, it means less exposure for tanks etc. Russia can certainly keep making its own missiles and shells ad infinitum.

But why are Russia's logistics terrible into Donbass? It's right there, next to Russia. How hard can it be really?

I think now that the shoe has dropped, this war has maybe a year or two left in it at most. Take that with a grain of salt, as I was never good at judging time, which is why I've signed up for pitboss games   

Interesting that we arrrived at the same timeframe.

[superdeath]

If I was Chinese in China, and said some politically subversive thing, I don't think anyone would mind unless I was spreading it around on social media. And even then, you'd only be looking at a recoverable dip in social credit score and a limited media account, not the vindictive hatred that can occur in the West towards cancelled people. This is one way monarchy can ironically afford more freedom to people.

The idea of having a social credit score... and the government being able to limit my media account/access ect is terrible.

[BING_XI_LAO]

If you look at strength of democracy vs a corruption index there are also some very heavily correlation.

But what you need is before and after comparisons, I doubt that Imperial Germany was a corruption leader. The question is what way around the causation is.

[BING_XI_LAO]

If I was Chinese in China, and said some politically subversive thing, I don't think anyone would mind unless I was spreading it around on social media. And even then, you'd only be looking at a recoverable dip in social credit score and a limited media account, not the vindictive hatred that can occur in the West towards cancelled people. This is one way monarchy can ironically afford more freedom to people.

The idea of having a social credit score... and the government being able to limit my media account/access ect is terrible.

As opposed to the Western model, where government-allied oligarchs which control the platforms limit those things without having a formalised system in place? Where instead of taking a hit to a score which can go up and down, you go from zero to fired, no backsies?
(I'm thinking of fake #MeToo entries like Depp, or the guy who was fired for donating to Rittenhouse's legal defense, something I also did)

[superdeath]

If I was Chinese in China, and said some politically subversive thing, I don't think anyone would mind unless I was spreading it around on social media. And even then, you'd only be looking at a recoverable dip in social credit score and a limited media account, not the vindictive hatred that can occur in the West towards cancelled people. This is one way monarchy can ironically afford more freedom to people.

The idea of having a social credit score... and the government being able to limit my media account/access ect is terrible.

As opposed to the Western model, where government-allied oligarchs which control the platforms limit those things without having a formalised system in place? Where instead of taking a hit to a score which can go up and down, you go from zero to fired, no backsies?
(I'm thinking of fake #MeToo entries like Depp, or the guy who was fired for donating to Rittenhouse's legal defense, something I also did)

Those are social issues that can be fixed alot easier imo than a government like China.

[Charriu]

If I was Chinese in China, and said some politically subversive thing, I don't think anyone would mind unless I was spreading it around on social media. And even then, you'd only be looking at a recoverable dip in social credit score and a limited media account, not the vindictive hatred that can occur in the West towards cancelled people. This is one way monarchy can ironically afford more freedom to people.

As far as I know the social credit system is a little bit more evil then you describe it.
If you go down in social credit so do your friends and family and other close contacts. So someone would mind

[Mjmd]

I suspect the Chinese are more free to have their own views about politics, because their thoughts are undisturbed by the constant, intense punch-and-judy propaganda of a participatory two-party democracy. From my limited experience reading google-translated Chinese news, they don't bother politicising it as much, because it doesn't matter what the ordinary person thinks as long as they aren't supporting an insurrection because some basic infrastructure failed.

1st try to keep to like 3 topics (or less) if you actually want conversation.

But I did want to point out this one because it goes with my debate with Darrell about social media. I think people just forget how present the nationalization  of citizens is and the dangers that can pose. My question is how can you have your own 'free' view of politics if you don't have information. While I was up north my FIL showed me a "current history book 1926-27". Let me tell you, I think I got brain damage . It was a headache of opinion and random statements not supported by any actual logical argument or any facts. IE it was basically a one sided internet forum  . While US history books may be better now I am fully aware of the 'texas / southern' book publishing issues, but at least people CAN* get different viewpoints. We at least have the opportunity to know about corruption and can then choose to ignore it when voting (although I would like to think in close races like Georgia it matters). While good journalists looking for those kinds of stories are scarce, they do at least exist.

[Ginger()]

There is this claim that western media supporting its private interests is no different that state-owned censorship, and I really dislike the notion. The existence of hack journalism in the west doesn’t preclude good reporting and strong adversarial press from existing. And that’s the key important thing, that the free press exists. It doesn’t have to be predominant (would sure be nice...) but the key is that the information access is there in a way that is available to everyone.
Its a truism, but seems to be forgotten here: censorial states always look better than they really are

[Mjmd]

I also did again want to point out that with strong leaders autocracy's can* be better than democracies ..... in the short term / at least in some areas ...... but it requires an exceptional person at the top who doesn't get corrupted / starts being paranoid about losing power. Ex: Frederick the Great considered himself the first servant of the state for instance. I do think Xi excluding his human rights abuses would rank as GA leader. The strength of democracies is both A) the transfer of power and B) there is a force from the bottom as well.

What happens as Xi gets older? Will he pick a successor and retire? That's what he SHOULD do, but leader's egos tend not to go that direction. The problem with picking a successor and not retiring is obviously that A) they might want you gone sooner then and B) your enemies have a known rallying point. What if there is no clear successor? The communist party KIND OF* in theory help with the transfer of power as long as there is a clear person. How much power and $ does that person have to spend keeping the party / military happy? What if there are multiple people with strong followings? You can see these questions playing out over history again and again. There are all kinds of results, but eventually it will end poorly. There is a reason I've been harping on the US's own transfer of power problems.......