US Politics: Sit Up Straight and Show Some Respect

[The Anti-Targ]

14 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Hmmm... I've always tought that. But for some reason, tonight I'm reminded of all those science-fiction stories I've read in which corporations have acquired incredible power and government is only there to manage the police and the military. I believe Philip K. Dick among others wrote a few of those...
I think it's easier than ever to see such stories become reality. Large corporations already hold incredible power in most countries. With regulations and public services fast disappearing one can easily imagine a world in which individuals have to rely on their employer for many basic human needs (like housing, healthcare, childcare... etc) rather than the state. Such a world would essentially be "libertarian" in appearance.

As for repression... Hmm... I don't think that much repression is needed. The neo-liberal/individualistic/libertarian ideology is already quite powerful throughout the West. Just get rid of public education and make sure there is no middle-class left so that most people are too preoccupied with their economic situation to engage in any form of activism, and you're pretty much certain that dissent will be limited to a minimum. Since the media have already been bought by our corporate overlords people would find it hard to have access to the information necessary to resist ; not to mention the fact that elections wouldn't have much influence on socio-economic realities anymore.

Of course, that's only the script as they want to write it. Fortunately, a surprising number of people are aware of what is happening and attempting to resist. But it's not easy: the culture wars, identity politics, and ethno-nationalism (among others) are preventing the people from building a unified front. As it is today, I have to say it could go either way. But I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of some sort of libertarian wetdream from becoming reality within a few decades.

 

Yeah, that's never a permanent state. People eventually recognise they are being oppressed and then act to remove their oppression. There are only so many funny cat videos on YouTube that can anaesthetise the masses into accepting their lot in life. ETA: The frog in a slowly boiling pot thing is a myth. People eventually realise their lives are unbearably shitty and do something about it.

For something different:

Woman refused prescription to bring on medically necessary miscarriage because of pharmacist's beliefs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5878831/Walgreens-pharmacist-denied-mother-medication-end-pregnancy-beliefs.html

So while it may be lawful in Arizona to refuse to fill pregnancy termination prescriptions, perhaps it should be necessary for pharmacies to have signs up saying telling potential customers if pregnancy terminating prescriptions may be refused. Also, doctors who are prescribing terminations, whatever the reason, in states where these belief based refusal laws are in place should have a list of pharmacies where patients can safely fill their prescriptions without the stress or embarrassment of having service refused.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think a truly libertarian society is an invitation to violent revolution. As such, the only way to have a truly libertarian state would be to have a highly repressive state. All this would be done of course in the name of "freedom".

Libertarianism, or maybe it should be called propertarianism as that what seems be what the US version of libertarianism means is simply an unworkable and not very realistic philosophy.

Libertarianism, even if taken as a concept by its most earnest of purveyors, would necessarily result in an anarchic state - or a 'state of nature,' if you prefer.  This is not really debated among serious political theorists but rather taken as a given.

[Jace, Extat]

58 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Hmmm... I've always tought that. But for some reason, tonight I'm reminded of all those science-fiction stories I've read in which corporations have acquired incredible power and government is only there to manage the police and the military. I believe Philip K. Dick among others wrote a few of those...
I think it's easier than ever to see such stories become reality. Large corporations already hold incredible power in most countries. With regulations and public services fast disappearing one can easily imagine a world in which individuals have to rely on their employer for many basic human needs (like housing, healthcare, childcare... etc) rather than the state. Such a world would essentially be "libertarian" in appearance.

As for repression... Hmm... I don't think that much repression is needed. The neo-liberal/individualistic/libertarian ideology is already quite powerful throughout the West. Just get rid of public education and make sure there is no middle-class left so that most people are too preoccupied with their economic situation to engage in any form of activism, and you're pretty much certain that dissent will be limited to a minimum. Since the media have already been bought by our corporate overlords people would find it hard to have access to the information necessary to resist ; not to mention the fact that elections wouldn't have much influence on socio-economic realities anymore.

Of course, that's only the script as they want to write it. Fortunately, a surprising number of people are aware of what is happening and attempting to resist. But it's not easy: the culture wars, identity politics, and ethno-nationalism (among others) are preventing the people from building a unified front. As it is today, I have to say it could go either way. But I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of some sort of libertarian wetdream from becoming reality within a few decades.

 

A few decades? Bruh. Wake up and smell the toxic air. It's over. We lost.

[The Anti-Targ]

The only way to really kill off an ideology is to let it have its day running the show and let it utterly fail. It's easy for libertarians to claim their way is a great utopia of freedom for everyone, because they've never had to prove it or had the opportunity to try to prove it.

 

[Rippounet]

14 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Yeah, that's never a permanent state. People eventually recognise they are being oppressed and then act to remove their oppression.

Yeah... I dunno. After a bit more than three decades of neo-liberalism, it seems millions of Americans "acted" by voting for ethno-nationalist billionaire Donald Drumpf, who convinced them that the sources of their woes were their own government, globalism/liberalism, and immigrants. And it's not like he had that much work to do in the first place...
That's the thing about ideology: it has the power to blind people to their own self-interest. And the libertarian bullcrap is particularly seductive: it's mind-bogglingly simple and efficient. By destroying basic concepts such as "society" and solidarity, it has the power to reframe economic oppression as economic "freedom." The reason why libertarianism is so scary is precisely because it prevents people from recognising oppression. In fact, if we are to believe half of what MacLean wrote, the current brand of economic libertarianism that's popular in the US (and I would say, throughout the West now) was purposefully *designed* to fool people.
So I don't know how long it will take for people to realize they've been had, if ever. Eventually, libertarianism will fail, that's a given. But what kind of world will we have when that finally happens? Will we even have a world left to speak of?

3 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

A few decades? Bruh. Wake up and smell the toxic air. It's over. We lost.

Well, not to put salt in the wound, but as a eurocommie I'm on the losing side but haven't completely lost just yet.

The way I see it we lost a major battle in the US with the election of Trump, but the war ain't over. If the Dems could get their shit together and actually score some significant wins, there might be hope for all of us, because for better or for worse, everyone is always focused on what's going on in the US.

Reminds me... Anti-Targ you're a kiwi, right? According to my -leftist- readings Macron has drawn inspiration from Roger Douglas, you're familiar with his work?

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Hmmm... I've always tought that. But for some reason, tonight I'm reminded of all those science-fiction stories I've read in which corporations have acquired incredible power and government is only there to manage the police and the military. I believe Philip K. Dick among others wrote a few of those...
I think it's easier than ever to see such stories become reality. Large corporations already hold incredible power in most countries. With regulations and public services fast disappearing one can easily imagine a world in which individuals have to rely on their employer for many basic human needs (like housing, healthcare, childcare... etc) rather than the state. Such a world would essentially be "libertarian" in appearance.

The stories were based on real life though (basically company towns in space or something of the sort) and while this can recur, it didn't last long the first time and I doubt it will last any longer the next. The fundamental problem all of these libertarian fantasies run into is that sooner or later, the serfs revolt -- and if they start out well armed and raised by parents who lived a much better life, it's almost certainly going to be sooner rather than later. In the last American presidential election cycle, the people rejected the candidate preferred by the neoliberals and voted in an opportunist. If the latter fails to make life better for the majority (and it doesn't look like he's too successful at the moment), the next act of rebellion will be more significant.

31 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

Libertarianism, even if taken as a concept by its most earnest of purveyors, would necessarily result in an anarchic state - or a 'state of nature,' if you prefer.  This is not really debated among serious political theorists but rather taken as a given.

But the anarchic state does not last. It will shortly result in despotism or feudalism or something of the sort.

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

 

Well, not to put salt in the wound, but as a eurocommie I'm on the losing side but haven't completely lost just yet.

The way I see it we lost a major battle in the US with the election of Trump, but the war ain't over. If the Dems could get their shit together and actually score some significant wins, there might be hope for all of us, because for better or for worse, everyone is always focused on what's going on in the US.

Well hang in there, brother. It's basically down to you and Japan to realize a future that isn't a reversion to petty Feudalism. You'll fail, mainly because Russia and China don't want to fight each other, but godspeed all the same.

U.S.A. is fucked good and true, make no mistake. It'd take decades to repair the damage Trump has authored in a scant 2 years, Democrats will not be given decades. It's all downhill from here.

[Rippounet]

9 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

Well hang in there, brother. It's basically down to you and Japan to realize a future that isn't a reversion to petty Feudalism. You'll fail, mainly because Russia and China don't want to fight each other, but godspeed all the same.

U.S.A. is fucked good and true, make no mistake. It'd take decades to repair the damage Trump has authored in a scant 2 years, Democrats will not be given decades. It's all downhill from here.

Blah, don't count on Europe. European politics are a mess (what with all those different countries) but between neo-liberals posing as centrists -or even  socialists- and ethno-nationalists who are really neo-liberals in disguise there is little hope of the EU becoming anything else than a puppet for the 1% in the near future. It's just that Western European countries have so much regulations and socialized services to begin with that they have more work to get rid of them all. But with the ethno-nationalists having scored Brexit and likely to gain power in Italy or France soon, it could actually be much quicker than we tend to imagine. 'tis why I was talking of a few decades earlier: whatever nice things we still have may very well disappear in our lifetime.
Japan has a nationalist problem of its own I'd say. China has failed to liberalize -dismally. Russia is a hardcore autocracy. So yeah, as incredible as it might seem, I'm still hoping that the Dems can reverse course in the US. You guys gave us Obama, I'm sure you can give us someone like Kamala Harris. It won't be enough to repair the damage that Trump is doing, but at least it would be the start of something better than what we have now.

 

[Altherion]

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

So yeah, as incredible as it might seem, I'm still hoping that the Dems can reverse course in the US. You guys gave us Obama, I'm sure you can give us someone like Kamala Harris. It won't be enough to repair the damage that Trump is doing, but at least it would be the start of something better than what we have now.

You dislike Macron, but you like the Democrats and Obama? That's a rather strange position to take -- if anything, Macron is slightly to the left of the latter...

[Rippounet]

30 minutes ago, Altherion said:

You dislike Macron, but you like the Democrats and Obama? That's a rather strange position to take -- if anything, Macron is slightly to the left of the latter...

Context matters. In absolute terms, the Democrats are certainly not far from the traditional French right, and I've raved against them at times for that reason (and will no doubt do so again). But you have to look at the political alternatives in each country. If you're a leftist, the best you can hope for in the American context is a Democrat. In the French context you still have some genuine socialists to vote for (and one of them wasn't that far from winning the presidency last year, all in all).
Obama certainly wasn't a true leftist in my eyes but he was nonetheless taking the US to the left - if ever so slightly. While Macron is taking France very far to the right at the moment. And there's still hope that the next Democratic president will be a bit more to the left than Obama was ; in fact, it'd be slightly surprising if they weren't imho (they will probably make sure not to enrage Sanders supporters).
I'm not even sure Macron is to the left of Obama even in absolute terms. You may be underestimating just how bad Macron is, or how decent Obama was. Macron is somewhere in-between Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher, and many people think he's closer to Thatcher. Also, Macron is just getting started. Tell me in a couple of years if you still think Macron is to the left of Obama...
Anyway I deal with perceptions. I personally know that Obama was not a true leftist... But seen from Europe his election and reelection were still wins for the left. Just as Trump winning in the US emboldened the far-right throughout Europe, the election of someone like Harris in the US could embolden the European lefts. It's not much to hope for, perhaps, but I'm being realistic here. Unless you somehow think that there's an alternative to the Republicans and Democrats in the US... ?

[Jace, Extat]

Kamela Harris will be president when hell freezes over.

Were you asleep during 2016 or do you not realize that she's not only black but also has ladyparts? A transgender hyena running on a veganism platform would face less rabid resistance.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

But the anarchic state does not last. It will shortly result in despotism or feudalism or something of the sort.

Right.  Point?

14 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

Kamela Harris will be president when hell freezes over.

Funny, that's what everybody said about Obama.  And Trump, for that matter.

[Jace, Extat]

54 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

Right.  Point?

Funny, that's what everybody said about Obama.  And Trump, for that matter.

Hmm, was Obama president? I seem to remember a handsome well spoken man inhabiting the office for a while, but when I try to find lasting impact I'm coming up with fuck nothin'.

Let's wargame the aftermath of a Kamala Harris presidency.

Rosanne Barr? Vince McMahon?

No, no, I'm sensationalizing. It'd probably just be Putin who wins the top job. Cyclical voter trends and all that.

[Martell Spy]

Trump: 'We cannot allow all of these people to invade our country'

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/24/trump-invade-country-immigrants-667191

President Donald Trump on Sunday continued escalating his rhetoric about migrants, tweeting, “We cannot allow all of these people to invade our country.”

The president wrote on Twitter: "When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came,” presumably confusing “bring” with “send” in that instance. “Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order.”

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

Hmm, was Obama president? I seem to remember a handsome well spoken man inhabiting the office for a while, but when I try to find lasting impact I'm coming up with fuck nothin'.

Let's wargame the aftermath of a Kamala Harris presidency.

Rosanne Barr? Vince McMahon?

No, no, I'm sensationalizing. It'd probably just be Putin who wins the top job. Cyclical voter trends and all that.

Vince McMahon would be an incredibly better president than Trump.

[Altherion]

37 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Context matters. In absolute terms, the Democrats are certainly not far from the traditional French right, and I've raved against them at times for that reason (and will no doubt do so again). But you have to look at the political alternatives in each country. If you're a leftist, the best you can hope for in the American context is a Democrat. In the French context you still have some genuine socialists to vote for (and one of them wasn't that far from winning the presidency last year, all in all).
Obama certainly wasn't a true leftist in my eyes but he was nonetheless taking the US to the left - if ever so slightly. While Macron is taking France very far to the right at the moment. And there's still hope that the next Democratic president will be a bit more to the left than Obama was ; in fact, it'd be slightly surprising if they weren't imho (they will probably make sure not to enrage Sanders supporters).

Obama did move the US slightly to the left, but you have to look at this in the context of how the American political system has operated in the past 30-40 years. The Democrats and Republicans take turns being in control of the Presidency and of Congress with the Democrats moving to the left on social issues, but very barely (if at all) on economic ones and Republicans moving to the right on economic issues, but very barely (if at all) on social ones. The result is that over time the country moves to the left on social issues and to the right on economic ones. The next Democratic President will be further to the left than Obama on social issues, but she (or he, but more likely she) is extremely unlikely to reverse the tax cut that Republicans recently gave corporations -- even if the President is willing to do so and the party has a majority in both the House and the Senate.

57 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I'm not even sure Macron is to the left of Obama even in absolute terms. You may be underestimating just how bad Macron is, or how decent Obama was. Macron is somewhere in-between Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher, and many people think he's closer to Thatcher. Also, Macron is just getting started. Tell me in a couple of years if you still think Macron is to the left of Obama...

It's entirely possible -- I have not paid attention to what Macron has been up to recently.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Anyway I deal with perceptions. I personally know that Obama was not a true leftist... But seen from Europe his election and reelection were still wins for the left. Just as Trump winning in the US emboldened the far-right throughout Europe, the election of someone like Harris in the US could embolden the European lefts. It's not much to hope for, perhaps, but I'm being realistic here. Unless you somehow think that there's an alternative to the Republicans and Democrats in the US... ?

I do not think there is such an alternative. Regarding the election of somebody like Harris: I think there's a pretty decent probability of it in 2020 (certainly much higher than anybody gave Trump in 2014) and a very high one at some point between now and 2030, but I doubt it will signfiicantly embolden the left either in the US or in Europe. Obama did so, but the most important factor in him doing it was simply that he was the first minority President and the others are mostly specific to him personally (I haven't seen a Democrat equally charismatic among the current crop). In fact, if somebody like Harris is elected, it's quite likely that more people will realize that, just like in corporations, it doesn't much matter whether the leader is male or female, black or white, etc. etc -- the left-right dance will continue as before.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Obama did move the US slightly to the left, but you have to look at this in the context of how the American political system has operated in the past 30-40 years. The Democrats and Republicans take turns being in control of the Presidency and of Congress with the Democrats moving to the left on social issues, but very barely (if at all) on economic ones and Republicans moving to the right on economic issues, but very barely (if at all) on social ones. The result is that over time the country moves to the left on social issues and to the right on economic ones.

I'd say this was insanely reductive if it wasn't just wrong.  The right has moved increasingly right on both metrics while the left (slowly) has moved left on social issues and not much on economic ones.  This is essentially demonstrated by DW-NOMINATE scores if you trust them as a proxy.

6 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Regarding the election of somebody like Harris: I think there's a pretty decent probability of it in 2020 (certainly much higher than anybody gave Trump in 2014) and a very high one at some point between now and 2030, but I doubt it will signfiicantly embolden the left either in the US or in Europe. Obama did so, but the most important factor in him doing it was simply that he was the first minority President and the others are mostly specific to him personally (I haven't seen a Democrat equally charismatic among the current crop).

Sure, Harris isn't really a "movement" candidate.  No such candidate will ever win in a two party system.  Hell, Obama went out of his way to make clear he wasn't some champion of the left.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that.  In fact I think that's how it should be.  Obama was for cogent and responsible government - something we barely saw since LBJ.  I'll take more of that please.  No scandals, limited wars, and a stable economic strategy.  Isn't that what government is supposed to do?

10 minutes ago, Altherion said:

In fact, if somebody like Harris is elected, it's quite likely that more people will realize that, just like in corporations, it doesn't much matter whether the leader is male or female, black or white, etc. etc -- the left-right dance will continue as before.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

 

Reminds me... Anti-Targ you're a kiwi, right? According to my -leftist- readings Macron has drawn inspiration from Roger Douglas, you're familiar with his work?

Really? Not sure how this will be interpreted but my Dad was a Labour party MP at the same time as Roger Douglas. They were close friends, but their lives pretty much took a sliding doors type track because Dad lost his seat in the 1972 election, while Roger didn't. Roger Entered Parliament in a safe Labour seat, Dad got into parliament in 1972 in a seat that had never gone to Labour before or since. He was probably not meant to win it in 1972. Dad never ran for office again, though he was offered a safe Labour seat in 1981. Probably due to my mother being strongly not in favour of him being a MP again. He resigned from the Labour Party in about 1986. Anyway, their social and economic philosophies were pretty aligned in 1972 and to some degree through the '84-'90 Labour govt. Though I would say they started to diverge during that period. A lot of Labour party members from that period broke libertarian along with Douglas and Prebble and Bassett to form the ACT Party in the 1990s. Personally, I'm relieved Dad never got back into politics, seeing how many of his friends from 1972 ended up lurching towards Libertarianism. Dad was also a friend of Helen Clarke and Phil Goff, and remained more ideologically aligned with them. We got nice messages from all of them at his funeral in 2009. Dad was always wiling to talk civilly to people, even when he fundamentally disagreed with them.

Depending on what period of Roger's political life, drawing inspiration from Roger could be seen as a good thing or a bad thing depending on your ideological perspective. Douglas started out as committed to the ideals of social justice as any left of centre person, but he ended up kind of losing his way, probably forming the view that the neoliberal economic model would somehow indirectly deliver the social justice outcomes he desired as a bright-eyed young politician. Probably helped to form that view by the failed interventionst policies of the '75-'84 Muldoon govt.

Macron is pretty much a typical liberal right? He just looks moderate when stacked up against the likes of Trump.