US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

[ummester]

9 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Indeed, I wonder where this Clinton-specific distrust is coming from. If there's anyone who looks like a pathological liar in this race, it's Trump. And that impression is based on the way he has led his campaign, not some elaborate conspiracy theory.

Trumps a different type of liar.

Trump has an unstable, dismissive relationship with the truth. He'll never let the truth come in the way of trying to big-note himself, or make his opponent look bad.

Hillary has a manipulative relationship with the truth. She'll promise and align with whatever the majority wants.

Hillary's type of lying is obviously more in line with the standard set by her political brethren.

[The guy from the Vale]

Public opinion changed because many people changed their mind. Why can't Hillary Clinton be one of them? In the oh so distant 90es, gay marriage was an absolute fringe position, after all.

Hillary tried to reform Health Care in the US in the 90ies. She accepted campaign donations from the health care industry a decade later. There's no evidence of wrongdoing here.

More to the point, I like politicians who listen to their constituencies and who are able to change their mind based on evidence. Even more so if they change their mind in a direction I like. Why on earth should I condemn a politician for coming to a more enlightened position, along with the rest of the populace? I want a smart person as the most powerful politician in the world, not some mindless ideologue or raging lunatic.

[sologdin]

38 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

I like politicians who listen to their constituencies and who are able to change their mind based on evidence. Even more so if they change their mind in a direction I like. Why on earth should I condemn a politician for coming to a more enlightened position, along with the rest of the populace? I want a smart person as the most powerful politician in the world, not some mindless ideologue or raging lunatic.

representative democracy really requires that a representative become tabula rasa, like baldrick:

Quote

What we need is an utter unknown yet someone over whom we have complete power. A man with no mind, with no ideas of his own. One might almost say a man with no brain.

 

[The guy from the Vale]

That's a bit of an exaggeration, but I don't think it's entirely wrong. I think some general directions of what they want to achieve is still desirable; that's why we should have an election, after all. But inside those rough ideological guidelines, I still want somebody who can deliberate issues with input from several perspectives instead of only their own.

In a two-party system in particular, that's the case; in a multiparty democracy, the voters at least have a choice beyond the binary decision for the lesser of two evils.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

What we need is an utter unknown yet someone over whom we have complete power. A man with no mind, with no ideas of his own. One might almost say a man with no brain.

 

We tried that. It's how we got the last Iraq war.

[Martell Spy]

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/trump-statues-meet-anarchists-behind-emperor-has-no-balls-w435341

Naked Trump Statues: Meet Anarchist Artists Behind 'Emperor Has No Balls'

This wasn't the first action from activist crew Indecline – and it won't be their last

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Throwing up naked statues of Trump earns you anarchist status? 

[Happy Ent]

50 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

In a two-party system in particular, that's the case; in a multiparty democracy, the voters at least have a choice beyond the binary decision for the lesser of two evils.

At the danger of derailing this thread, here’s the Popperian view on elections:

Democracy is not about who should rule, but how to get rid of inevitably false decisions. In particular, democracy accepts as basic dogma that democratically elected leaders will be at best as good as the hoi polloi. The electoral process is a priori unable to consistently select good (or even average) leaders; it will select bland leaders, some good leaders, and some downright terrible leaders. (“Leaders” here is a catch-all for individual people, parties, or even ideas. You might substitute “ideas”.)

So the election of Trump is cool. Democracy expects these kinds of things to happen. One man’s Trump is the other man’s GW Bush or Tony Blair or Merkel. Electing Trump would not be a sign of democracy being broken; instead, it is an expected event.

Because the purpose of elections is defensive. They aim to get rid of bad ideas (in a nonviolent and orderly fashion), rather than select good ideas. Democracy breaks not when a bad idea is elected (after all, wrong decisions are inevitable). Democracy breaks when institutions that protect the people break (such as elections), not when bad ideas are elected.

From this point of view, two-party systems are vastly superiour. (This, at least to a European as myself with strong sympathies for representative elections, coalition governments, and compromise, is a major surprise and runs counter to my intuition.) Representative and coalition governments are very terrible at getting rid of bad ideas. (Plenty of parties in various European governments have governed for decades while representing only a tiny sliver of the population by changing the wagon to which they hitch themselves to.)

Here endeth today’s Popper sermon. 

[The guy from the Vale]

I agree with much of what you're saying there, HE. Not with everything; I think there are some choices too terrible to make (hence constitutional safeguards, checks and balances, and so on), in particular the democratic choice to end democracy or develop into a tyranny of the majority where the losers of the last election get entirely disenfranchised. I wouldn't claim to have the perfect answers to those problems either, though. 

But while I see the falsification argument for two-party democracies, I'm a bit reluctant to follow it to its conclusions. In particular, I fear that a two-party system is in some ways worse at getting rid of bad ideas if these ideas keep lingering on in the ideological background of one of the two parties. In particular, I'd argue that racism is such a bad idea. But while in a multi-party democracy, non-racist conservatives have a choice of possible coalitions to make (e.g., they can ally with pro-market libertarians, racist right-wingers, or form a "grand coalition" with the social democrats), in a two-party system they can't actually get rid of their in-party racists the same way. When more than one quarter of the populace has a certain idea that is abhorrent to the rest of the populace, in a three- or more-party democracy the other parties can still make sure that idea doesn't get into power. In a two-party democracy, that idea, discredited for the majority, will still be able to control government for about half of the time.

 

ETA: In some ways, what I'm saying is that while multiparty democracies are bad at getting rid of moderately bad ideas, they may be in some ways better at getting rid of terrible ideas as long as the ability to compromise is retained.

[lokisnow]

34 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

I agree with much of what you're saying there, HE. Not with everything; I think there are some choices too terrible to make (hence constitutional safeguards, checks and balances, and so on), in particular the democratic choice to end democracy or develop into a tyranny of the majority where the losers of the last election get entirely disenfranchised. I wouldn't claim to have the perfect answers to those problems either, though. 

But while I see the falsification argument for two-party democracies, I'm a bit reluctant to follow it to its conclusions. In particular, I fear that a two-party system is in some ways worse at getting rid of bad ideas if these ideas keep lingering on in the ideological background of one of the two parties. In particular, I'd argue that racism is such a bad idea. But while in a multi-party democracy, non-racist conservatives have a choice of possible coalitions to make (e.g., they can ally with pro-market libertarians, racist right-wingers, or form a "grand coalition" with the social democrats), in a two-party system they can't actually get rid of their in-party racists the same way. When more than one quarter of the populace has a certain idea that is abhorrent to the rest of the populace, in a three- or more-party democracy the other parties can still make sure that idea doesn't get into power. In a two-party democracy, that idea, discredited for the majority, will still be able to control government for about half of the time.

 

ETA: In some ways, what I'm saying is that while multiparty democracies are bad at getting rid of moderately bad ideas, they may be in some ways better at getting rid of terrible ideas as long as the ability to compromise is retained.

On the other hand, you could argue that the "bad idea" of racism was at peak ascendancy within the two party system in 1964 and 2016, and that in the intervening years that idea swung like a pendulum between these two points in the intervening measure because of the reasons ent pointed out. While Nixon et al were certainly racist, post Goldwater we have the eradication of the john birch society and other measures taken to reduce the influence of this idea within the party that harbored it the most.

[The guy from the Vale]

Sure. But in countries with multi-party systems, movements like the Tea Party or the Trumpites never even get to the point that they influence policy to the same extent, because the party that would be representing the establishment Republicans could simply decide not to form a coalition with them, something they have no choice not to do in a two-party system.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Ahum.

Let's wait for the re-run of the Austrian presidential election.

Let's travel a bit north Hamburg had this embarassing Schill moment.

France the National Front with the Le Pens. And if you look at the local levels they won a few mayor elections, and them winning a presidential election or entering a coalition with the conservative party is not totally undoable for them.

multi-party systems are no guarantee to keep those movements away from power.

[The guy from the Vale]

Agreed on Austria.

Luckily, Schill fizzled out rather embarrasingly.

As for France, its insitutions are pretty much build around a two-party system, and indeed it was until very recently.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Yes, Judge Coke fizzled out. As do most right wing populists, when they somehow wind up in a position where they actually need to govern/come into power. But it doesn't mean they can't reach a position in which they can influence to some bigger extent policies, which was your original point. And I would not be too sure that some conservative politician would throw in his lot with populist parties, if it means they get to rule/govern. 

[The guy from the Vale]

Yes, they often fizzle out. But not always, and the risk of them turning the democracy into a dictatorship is too great for me to take that gamble.

[ummester]

7 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Hillary tried to reform Health Care in the US in the 90ies. She accepted campaign donations from the health care industry a decade later. There's no evidence of wrongdoing here.

Like I mentioned earlier, only if you think giving up and eventually taking money from the enemy  is wrongdoing. Her internal fortitude regards her position in the 90s must not have been that strong.

7 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

More to the point, I like politicians who listen to their constituencies and who are able to change their mind based on evidence. Even more so if they change their mind in a direction I like. Why on earth should I condemn a politician for coming to a more enlightened position, along with the rest of the populace? I want a smart person as the most powerful politician in the world, not some mindless ideologue or raging lunatic.

So, Hillary accepting that the public and Trump are correct with a certain degree of isolationism is enlightened? Look, if she becomes president and stands by it - disallowing the TPP and so on - all the best to her. I just don't think she will, she's already proved herself to be too much of a corporate stooge IMO.

Ideologues and lunatics create real change - not just this safe tinkering around the fringes. Sure, that change can be disruptive and painful - but so is birth, so is any change worth making.

1 hour ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Yes, they often fizzle out. But not always, and the risk of them turning the democracy into a dictatorship is too great for me to take that gamble.

You're already a plutocracy, at best - what do you really have to loose?

[sologdin]

1 minute ago, ummester said:

You're already a plutocracy, at best - what do you really have to loose?

postmodern bourgeois liberalism, rather.  

[ummester]

55 minutes ago, sologdin said:

postmodern bourgeois liberalism, rather.  

That's only calling the surface shots though, not the real shots. But yes, I would agree that is a fair term for the superficial social politics of the American people, though it does not encompass the underlying forces driving the Empire.

[The guy from the Vale]

@ummester: You're barking up the wrong tree; I'm not a US citizen.

 

ETA: As for what America has to lose, there's still a difference between a self-made millionaire daughter of small business owners and the self-declared billionaire heir of a multi-million fortune in terms of actual plutocracy. The difference, here, is between allowing the rich too much access to power - or handing the power to the rich themselves. One need not like either to still have a preference.

As for what I have to lose, not much, admittedly - but many of my friends have. Sometimes, policy preferences do not have to be about yourself for you to have an opinion, you know.

 

Everything I've seen about Clinton running so far has been indicating that she'd not pursue TPP further, yes. If nothing else, her forcing pro-TPP Tim Kaine to change his stance means she wants to display a clear position on this issue. There's various ways she might have fudged the issue; she's consistently chosen one position on TPP since starting her campaign, and that position has been not to support TPP.

[MerenthaClone]

1 hour ago, ummester said:

 so is any change worth making.

Bullshit.  Radical change hurts those most vulnerable to change the most; that is, the poor, powerless, and neglected.  Slow, measured reform is the way to accomplish the most change with the least amount of pushback or pain to the vulnerable populations, even if it doesn't come with sexy revolutionary moments.  Its easy to say "oh, well, change brings pain" when you're going to be isolated from a lot of that pain, and this kind of ho-hum pseudo-accelerationism is intellectually lazy.  This is not to say that a measured response is appropriate for all situations, or that radical change is by its nature unnecessary.  However, you'd need to convince me of why we should be going to radical change and that it wouldn't just be change built on the backs of the marginalized.  Your blithe "what have you got to lose?" says a lot.  Because for most people, there is a lot to lose, and the people who say that the most are the ones who can usually weather a crisis well.  

The idea that the first person to attempt to use the formerly relatively powerless FLOTUS position to accomplish a major reform of healthcare was, in fact, actually just faithless instead of so thoroughly rejected by the political body that she decided to change tactics is somewhat silly.  Her attempts to create large, sweeping reform lost the Democrats the House and Senate, significantly hampering Bill Clinton in other areas.  It makes a lot of sense to me that after watching that big attempt at reform collapse in flames that she'd become more incrementalist.  Possibly too much so, but that's not the same as the charges you're making.