Jump to content

US Election 2016: the fall of the American republic


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Boris the Blade said:

Trump really finds ways to lower the bar more and more.

A Kid With Cerebral Palsy Got Ejected From A Trump Rally. Then He Met The President.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-obama-cerebral-palsy_us_581ffb8de4b0aac62485438c?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

The ones who kicked and attacked that kid are deplorables of the highest order.

From the lady's Facebook post:

Quote

As Secret Service escorted JJ, his mother and two sisters, Trump supporters shouted obscenities and even kicked his wheelchair.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Not bad. They do not discuss (or dismiss on very thin grounds) several other reasons which contribute to this, but the basic idea is correct. It will be interesting to see who will try next. I would guess somebody younger and less crude, but still independently famous. We might even see an American version of France's Le Pen story.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Castel said:

The thing is, if an argument can be made that any group is less trustworthy than the political elites it's the Zuckerbergs of the world. 

What happens when the Koch's get their own social media network, or we discover tiny variances in spending and find out people in certain parts of the country (which correlate more with certain beliefs) spend X or Y more? 

 

It's going to happen, period. People are going to gravitate towards information that confirms their viewpoint and go away from things that don't. Hiding it won't change that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Not bad. They do not discuss (or dismiss on very thin grounds) several other reasons which contribute to this, but the basic idea is correct. It will be interesting to see who will try next. I would guess somebody younger and less crude, but still independently famous. We might even see an American version of France's Le Pen story.

 

Mark Cuban? :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's going to happen, period. People are going to gravitate towards information that confirms their viewpoint and go away from things that don't. Hiding it won't change that. 

Insofar as some people in the history of ideas would say western civilization experienced an information explosion with similar resulting patterns of partisan media consumption during the late Enlightenment (to give an example borrowed from fiction, think of all the partisan handbills littering the streets in the Baroque Cycle; from history, just google the phrase partisan handbill), it's happened before, and during the time the bones of this country were put together, so we may be better-equipped to handle it than we think. On the other hand, it was not during a time period as democratic as this one. But, on the other hand, the people equivalent to today's average Trump voter had the right to vote then too. 

As much as we hear about this issue, I don't think the self-selected echo chamber thing is as unique to this period as we think; the golden era of TV broadcast news and journalism we're at the tail end of was probably more of an exception.

It's more this kind of partisan media start-up bullshit that people were probably thinking of when they gave all that lip service to the importance of a free press in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

My biggest takeaway from this election is that the Founders, Plato, Machiavelli, etc. were at least partially right. The people do need the elites to guide them away from terrible decisions. The Overton window, just like the dollar, needs some active management.

Or maybe instead of having a small handful of privileged elites who allegedly know what's best for society calling the shots, maybe expand those privileges (especially education) to the general populace so they don't make terrible decisions and choose shit-eating demagogues to represent them? Too bad said privileged elites you mentioned have pretty much zero incentive to do just that since no one likes having their privilege taken away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

It's more this kind of partisan media start-up bullshit that people were probably thinking of when they gave all that lip service to the importance of a free press in the first place.

Eh. The media at the time had folks like Jefferson openly saying fairly horrible things about their opponent and spreading it widely. The nonpartisan aspect of the media back in the day is kind of overrated. The suffragette movement also suffered the same kind of propaganda.

I think one big difference between then and now, and something that is the real danger, is that we do not have the respected representation and party power that we have had in the past. In the past, someone like Goldwater might win - but it would and did get largely chided by both sides, and reasonably so. The result was a 20 point win for LBJ. McGovern was similarly mocked by his party and Nixon won in a landslide too. A big reason for that was that the party did not heavily support that candidate, and because of that the people did not support them much, either.

That isn't the case now. The parties are weak. The parties can't effectively veto things. When the Access Hollywood tape came out and Ryan condemned Trump, what happened was Trump's numbers dropped a bit and Ryan's numbers absolutely CRATERED. Chaffetz went on air and said he couldn't vote for Trump and look his daughter in the eye and three weeks later announced he was voting for Trump. The entire Republican party save a few stragglers jumped directly on the Trump train. And that is something that the founders did not expect, because they expected representatives and elites to be able to balance it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Or maybe instead of having a small handful of privileged elites who allegedly know what's best for society calling the shots, maybe expand those privileges (especially education) to the general populace so they don't make terrible decisions and choose shit-eating demagogues to represent them? Too bad said privileged elites you mentioned have pretty much zero incentive to do just that since no one likes having their privilege taken away. 

The US electorate already has the privilege of selecting their party nomination for president- which is nowhere near a guaranteed "right", see other parts of the world-and their reps and they selected Trump.

The elites didn't force them, if anything the so-called elites would likely lie on train tracks to prevent it.

At a certain point people should maybe look at themselves instead of hiding behind the constant  banging about "political and media elites". This isn't Best Buy, the customer isn't always right.Sometimes they fuck up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Castel said:

The US electorate already has the privilege of selecting their party nomination for president- which is nowhere near a guaranteed "right", see other parts of the world-and their reps and they selected Trump.

The elites didn't force them, if anything the so-called elites would likely lie on train tracks to prevent it.

At a certain point people should maybe look at themselves instead of hiding behind the constant  banging about "political and media elites". This isn't Best Buy, the customer isn't always right.Sometimes they fuck up. 

Yep, this. @All For Joffrey, the problem is that the evidence is that you need both, and both need to have some power. Demagogues were a danger recognized by the founders for this very reason, and their answer was to use a representative system with a lot of ability of said representatives to have power but no single one having too much. While they didn't have parties,  they assumed parties would arise naturally. And they assumed that those groups would have some power and ability to sway.

While it's true that more power to the people could result in at least more fair elections or fair results, it can also result in a popular monster being elected. And that is precisely what we're seeing with Trump. Even if you want someone like Sanders, if the way you do it would also more easily allow demagogues and populists it is probably a bad choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Castel said:

The US electorate already has the privilege of selecting their party nomination for president- which is nowhere near a guaranteed "right", see other parts of the world-and their reps and they selected Trump.

The elites didn't force them, if anything the so-called elites would likely lie on train tracks to prevent it.

At a certain point people should maybe look at themselves and not continue with the constant  banging about "political and media elites". This isn't Best Buy, the customer isn't always right.Sometimes they fuck up. 

I didn't say democratic party elections were a "right," but I would argue that in a two party system, it's pretty integral to a representative democracy otherwise you're stuck with two elite-sponsored candidates -- which is usually what happens (2016 aside)  given the way our campaign finance system works. But at least with with popular votes in party primaries, the onus is ultimately on the voters even if they tend to be heavily influenced by who has the most money to drop on campaign ads (or in the case of the 2016 GOP nominee -- the most free media coverage). 

And I obviously wasn't arguing that somehow the GOP elites forced Trump on an unwilling electorate -- that's obviously false (quite the opposite of course). I was taking umbridge with the contention that the elites should act as political gatekeepers. As Rosseau said "the will of the people is not always correct." Duh. But that doesn't make the will of a handful elites any more correct or any more/less likely to do stupid stuff. Look at Dubya. He lost the popular vote and was a product of the electoral college, designed specifically to give the elites a final say in the election, and still fucked up royally -- as did most of the DC foreign policy elites when they shilled for the Iraq war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Castel said:

The US electorate already has the privilege of selecting their party nomination for president- which is nowhere near a guaranteed "right", see other parts of the world-and their reps and they selected Trump.

The elites didn't force them, if anything the so-called elites would likely lie on train tracks to prevent it.

At a certain point people should maybe look at themselves instead of hiding behind the constant  banging about "political and media elites". This isn't Best Buy, the customer isn't always right.Sometimes they fuck up. 

Well said. It's always what I have in mind when people whine about politicians. Because, well, the people went and voted for each and every single one of them, and support their policies after they're elected so much that flame wars erupt everytime politics are brought up.

Think one of the biggest examples of that is the war in Irak. How many were in favor, back in 2003? Something like 80-90% of the population, right? While others were protesting and saying it would be a disaster, the vast majority was out for blood. Nowadays, everyone will (of course) tell you it's obviously a disaster. Well, should have thought with your head and spoke up back then. And don't tell me the ridiculous arguments put forward by the Bush administration at the time were in any way convincing to anyone with a modicum of critical sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Demagogues were a danger recognized by the founders for this very reason, and their answer was to use a representative system with a lot of ability of said representatives to have power but no single one having too much. While they didn't have parties,  they assumed parties would arise naturally. And they assumed that those groups would have some power and ability to sway.

They also predicted in no uncertain terms what would happen when the parties become too partisan and too powerful:

Quote

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

To be fair, our parties are not quite like that -- not yet, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Want to jump on this for a second.

Quote

 But at least with with popular votes in party primaries, the onus is ultimately on the voters even if they tend to be heavily influenced by who has the most money to drop on campaign ads (or in the case of the 2016 GOP nominee -- the most free media coverage). 

Maybe. Once you get past that, however, it doesn't seem to matter in the least. I think that's one of the most striking things about this campaign - that for all the money going into the campaign, all the funding, all the everything money just didn't matter that much. 

All that mattered was Republican or Democrat. 

What's also interesting was that IN the primary, at least one party had their elites completely fail to influence in any way. And that wasn't just because of free money for Trump - it was because no one cared. No one cared that Romney called Trump on the mat. In fact, for a big chunk of those voters Romney dissing Trump was a sign that Trump was clearly better because he wasn't an elite. The same tactic was tried - and somewhat worked - with Sanders. 

I think the campaign financing may matter a lot in downballot races going forward, but I don't think it matters much any more for the presidential races. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

Well said. It's always what I have in mind when people whine about politicians. Because, well, the people went and voted for each and every single one of them, and support their policies after they're elected so much that flame wars erupt everytime politics are brought up.

Think one of the biggest examples of that is the war in Irak. How many were in favor, back in 2003? Something like 80-90% of the population, right? While others were protesting and saying it would be a disaster, the vast majority was out for blood. Nowadays, everyone will (of course) tell you it's obviously a disaster. Well, should have thought with your head and spoke up back then. And don't tell me the ridiculous arguments put forward by the Bush administration at the time were in any way convincing to anyone with a modicum of critical sense.

Right but most people wouldn't be howling for blood in Iraq -- much less even know where the fuck Iraq is -- had Bush and his neocon parties not beat the war drums and disseminate their "arguments" for war to the public and down through (a largely uncritical and placid) media establishment. This was a war engineered by the elites and then sold the plebs. No one would be clamoring for war with Iraq had it not been engineered by the Bush administration.

So at the end of the day, most Americans supported the Iraq war because the elites TOLD them they should support it. I'm not saying that more direct representation isn't dangerous, I'm just arguing that it's (at the very least) no more dangerous than having a small handful of uber-priviliged people call the shots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

Yep, this. @All For Joffrey, the problem is that the evidence is that you need both, and both need to have some power. Demagogues were a danger recognized by the founders for this very reason, and their answer was to use a representative system with a lot of ability of said representatives to have power but no single one having too much. While they didn't have parties,  they assumed parties would arise naturally. And they assumed that those groups would have some power and ability to sway.

While it's true that more power to the people could result in at least more fair elections or fair results, it can also result in a popular monster being elected. And that is precisely what we're seeing with Trump. Even if you want someone like Sanders, if the way you do it would also more easily allow demagogues and populists it is probably a bad choice.

I do wonder if it is just a particularly potent mix of factors with the US cause I too find it a bit of an instinctively off-putting argument in general. Polarization + weak parties + only two parties and so on, which make it so bad. That way you end up with a Tea Party that is an actual party that just has 30 seats in the House or whatever, but something that has wormed itself deep into a broad tent party and no one has the power or courage to just tell it to go fuck itself. 

Arguably the bigger issue is not the lack of elite control inside parties but the loyalty of voters. If open primaries weren't a rubber stamp for 40+% of the population there would be fewer problems. If people had some alternative party or were just willing to cross the aisle..the extremists could show up to primaries and elect Trump all they want...and they'd lose.

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I think the campaign financing may matter a lot in downballot races going forward, but I don't think it matters much any more for the presidential races. 

 

Well, it doesn't matter if you're either the exact sort of established candidate who should win or Trump and getting millions in free advertising. Let's posit a sane Trump, an actual outsider without the sort of attention he actually grabs. Would that guy really have a chance? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...