Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Trump of the Will


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, sologdin said:

intractable polarization among the public

is there evidence that supports the thesis that the polarization of political opinion in the US is qualitatively or quantitatively different than it had been in the past?

the allegation is often made; i am suspicious, however, insofar as it seems similar to prior laments that the present moment is a crisis of one sort or another in comparison to a past golden age--ayn rand bemoans a 'bankrupt' present, fascists seek to cure a degenerate modernity, and conservatives think back to the good old days of segregation.

on the other hand, assuming arguendo that the conclusion that polarization exists is warranted, what is the argument that it is a nail upon which a nostalgic complaint might hang? a lack of polarity might be considered both undesirable and unrealistic.

The history that leads to the US War of the Rebellion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Um, this isn't Watergate.  It's a feckless Congress and intractable polarization among the public.  I'm all for endless hearings drowning out anything Trump wants to do, but to think it's going to lead to impeachment, or even have much of an effect on his approval?  You haven't been paying attention.

Watergate was the same. The GOP hardline supported Nixon until almost the end. Even after Dean testified, they said it was ‘he said, she said’ and called Dean a self-serving liar. They attacked the press, they called it the ‘worst kind of stunt’, and supported Nixon firing the special council et al down to Bork. 

Most of the country didn’t know or care for most of the investigation. The audiences watching the hearings were split pretty much along the party lines, and the Dems themselves were listless and wary of Constitutional repercussions.

It really didn’t turn until the tapes. That is one of the two primary differences; no way today’s Supreme Court goes 8-0 against Trump. The other primary difference is that no one back then bought into the idea that Presidential obstruction wasn't a big deal. The case really hinged on that 1 conversation a few days after the break-in where Nixon issues directions to obstruct the investigation. That was the ‘it’ moment leading to Goldwater’s ‘very few and not mine’ moment. 

And for the record the Mueller Report contains almost a dozen such moments that are largely uncontested. Imo they are uncontested because the GOP don’t want the fight to be about obstruction because that will make the public realize that obstruction is a big deal in and of itself. Instead they are trying to dance around it by concentrating on the un-crime of ‘collusion’...they could have skipped some steps and focused on ‘conspiracy’ if they had known how cautious Mueller would be...and by proxies arguing that ‘no collusion = no obstruction’ which they know won’t last a second in the sun. 

That, to me, is the point of an impeachment. Force the fight out into the open. Let people see how serious obstruction is by virtue of how much Trump et al have to argue it never happened. Once this fiction about collusion dies in the light of that fight, then the people might sit up and take notice. 

Now, along the lines you are thinking, Trump’s recent racism-inspired surge in approval might actually get more Dems on board impeachment. The alternative...that Trump’s actions as President make him vulnerable and it therefore is wise to deal with him via election...are becoming less attractive as it becomes clear that he is virtually untouchable with his base. Meaning it has to be about turnout. And who looking at the present state of affairs would bank on turnout?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sologdin said:

intractable polarization among the public

is there evidence that supports the thesis that the polarization of political opinion in the US is qualitatively or quantitatively different than it had been in the past?

There is, yes. There's some from 538 about county level partisanship and how since McGovern things have gotten more polarized. There's another nifty chart that shows that polarization hasn't been this bad since the early 20th century. There's a whole lot on Pew Research. There's even some by Psychology Today.   

There's a lot of evidence, in other words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Zorral said:

That's why voters went for others than the established moderates, and want new people.  

A-fucking-men.

That's a big reason (I think perhaps the main reason) why Trump was able to win the R nomination and part of why he won the election. He wasn't a politician. I know several people who voted him just so that he would cut through the bullshit in Washington or he would be so blatantly unqualified and self-dealing that DC would HAVE to reassess how things work. I think it was short-sighted and a dangerous game to play, but you can't deny that this is a real response. I even flirted with it briefly before deciding the stakes were way too high. Others didn't make that reassessment. 

Real question for those in the biz - do politicians know, really know how much they are hated and do they even care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't care. Do you think Pelosi has ever even looked at her profile page of Twitter? The high falutin societal bubbles these people have is utterly divorced from the ones you or I inhabit. 

Donald Trump is the non-politicians champion, you said it yourself. Some of us who acknowledge the right to dream also acknowledge that it's a dream. And basing political strategies on dreams is a horrible idea.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sologdin said:

kal, thanks.  the empirical studies appear to draw inferences that are unwarranted, and the terms thereof are laden with conceptual ambiguity.  must excogitate and then return later to crush these items like cigarettes.

Reality so infrequently conforms to rhetoric. Frustrating, nay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so my question was a lay-up, it's obvious they don't care. What I'm trying to understand is do the establishment pols take into account how fed up most people are with status quo? Do they think it's nothing to worry about because lol - pleebs. Do they recognize it but don't really get it, or are they scared of the sentiment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

OK, so my question was a lay-up, it's obvious they don't care. What I'm trying to understand is do the establishment pols take into account how fed up most people are with status quo? Do they think it's nothing to worry about because lol - pleebs. Do they recognize it but don't really get it, or are they scared of the sentiment?

Why would they be concerned by what the plebs think? If they lose their seat a nice lobbying or consulting gig is waiting. I'm not sure what you're driving at. Because if you're trying to suggest that lawmakers need to shape up before the public punishes them then... That's not gonna happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

OK, so my question was a lay-up, it's obvious they don't care. What I'm trying to understand is do the establishment pols take into account how fed up most people are with status quo? Do they think it's nothing to worry about because lol - pleebs. Do they recognize it but don't really get it, or are they scared of the sentiment?

I think this is inaccurate.

Most people are NOT fed up with the status quo. They are NOT rioting or protesting day in and day out. Puerto Rico showed precisely what ' fed up with the status quo' looks like, and that's not the US. The US has seen that as well - constant huge protests and riots about Vietnam, Civil Rights, and Nixon. And this ain't it either.

Like it or not, right now the US has kind of an absurd amount of actual chill regarding politics for the vast majority of people. Now, should it? I don't personally think so. I think there are a lot of huge problems that the US continues to have and not do anything about. The US has been in a continual state of hot war for almost two decades now - soldiers dying in Afghanistan were maybe 1 year old when 911 hit. The US has the world's biggest prison population per capita, the developed nations' worst medical system, and one of the worst democratic systems on the planet. People should be up in arms daily, especially with Trump. But even the ones who are supposedly really pissed off aren't constantly protesting and rioting. 

So no, I think that there isn't this idea that people are fed up with things. I think that politicians do have a good idea about how angry people are, and the answer is 'not that angry'. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck, you're probably right. In my personal sphere we're all fed up, but not to the point of rioting or protesting non-stop. Does it have to be at that point, though, for pols to take it into account? The easy way to show our displeasure is by voting (see AOC). What is the point where they take notice? If we start seriously primarying out our established pols, does that do it?

And I know you're right that too many people are just comfortable enough to not really care to do shit about it, but that doesn't mean the sentiment is not there.

This is why it took me so long to educate myself on politics. I'd get to a point where I'd despair and it overwhelmed me and I avoided it. I'm past that point, but it took me well into my 30s to get there. I mean the despair is still strong, but I don't avoid it anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I think we need a country that is willing to hold impeachment hearings more often

Oh, fuck that.  Let's go back to Watergate.  It wasn't started by impeachment hearings.  It was the Senate establishing a select committee.  Pelosi is certainly under the prerogative to do the exact same thing.  Do I think she should?  Fuck yes.  But that's entirely, fundamentally distinct from impeachment proceedings.  Initiating a norm* in which every president undergoes impeachment proceedings because Trump is the largest piece of shit in the history of pieces of shit?  Nah, again, fuck that.

*And yes, I get that it wouldn't be initiating a norm, because Trump is especially criminal/horrid/whatever, but that's how the GOP will take it, so that's how it will go.

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

is there evidence that supports the thesis that the polarization of political opinion in the US is qualitatively or quantitatively different than it had been in the past?

Qualitatively?  Not sure what that exactly means.  Quantitatively?  Pretty much all the lit.  Unless you're Morris Fiorina or one of his misbegone acolytes, it's pretty much unanimous within the field that polarization among the public is at historically high levels.  If you wanna shit on all of us, fine, but then you're just like @Altherion.  And as for Congress, that's empirical fact.

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

on the other hand, assuming arguendo that the conclusion that polarization exists is warranted, what is the argument that it is a nail upon which a nostalgic complaint might hang?

I don't understand this question.

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Most of the country didn’t know or care for most of the investigation. The audiences watching the hearings were split pretty much along the party lines, and the Dems themselves were listless and wary of Constitutional repercussions.

It really didn’t turn until the tapes.

Yep, this was my point.

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

That, to me, is the point of an impeachment. Force the fight out into the open.

That's fair, but you know what they should have done, like, 6 months ago?  Opened investigations on these clear violations individually and/or collectively.  Pelosi is holding her fire.  I suppose she really wanted that budget deal she just got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think this is inaccurate.

Most people are NOT fed up with the status quo. They are NOT rioting or protesting day in and day out. Puerto Rico showed precisely what ' fed up with the status quo' looks like, and that's not the US. The US has seen that as well - constant huge protests and riots about Vietnam, Civil Rights, and Nixon. And this ain't it either.

Like it or not, right now the US has kind of an absurd amount of actual chill regarding politics for the vast majority of people. Now, should it? I don't personally think so. I think there are a lot of huge problems that the US continues to have and not do anything about. The US has been in a continual state of hot war for almost two decades now - soldiers dying in Afghanistan were maybe 1 year old when 911 hit. The US has the world's biggest prison population per capita, the developed nations' worst medical system, and one of the worst democratic systems on the planet. People should be up in arms daily, especially with Trump. But even the ones who are supposedly really pissed off aren't constantly protesting and rioting. 

So no, I think that there isn't this idea that people are fed up with things. I think that politicians do have a good idea about how angry people are, and the answer is 'not that angry'. 

 

Exactly. The thing to remember is that most Americans who vote have life pretty good, or at least think they do. The big disasters of Trump either don't affect them, are too far down a chain of events from what affects them, or won't affect them for some number of years. And the broader structural issues beyond Trump are either the same way or they simply just don't believe there's a better option, and will ignore people who say that there is.

Unemployment is down, wages are up, gas prices are relatively stable, climate change isn't having a direct impact on their daily lives yet, polls regularly show that a large majority are happy with their health insurance. If Trump kept his mouth shut and let Mike Pence run his foreign policy, his approval rating would probably be over 60% and be cruising to re-election.

There's plenty of Americans being fucked of course. But they can't vote, don't vote, or don't vote in nearly great enough numbers. Politicians only have incentives to carry about the people who are voting in large numbers. So things don't change.

There are also a ton of people deeply upset about Trump and there's a good chance he'll lose re-election in 2020. But they're deeply upset about the things he's doing that affect other people or the future problems that he's ignoring; and that's enough to get people to vote, donate money, and get some of them to volunteer for Democrats. But it's not enough to get them to go to the streets. The anti-Iraq War protests, that the media never covered or made jokes of when they did, were larger and more sustained than anything happening now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

uerto Rico showed precisely what ' fed up with the status quo' looks like, and that's not the US. The US has seen that as well - constant huge protests and riots about Vietnam, Civil Rights, and Nixon. And this ain't it either.

My you sound like trump.

News for ya -- Puerto Rico is the US, which is why Puerto Ricans are US citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Does it have to be at that point, though, for pols to take it into account?

Yup.  That's how things changed here with Civil Rights, etc.  Cities burned and property owners got concerned.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something small, I phoned the Gretna police department, and asked what they thought of a policeman making jokes about using rounds on a congresswoman and that I wouldn’t leave my name or number because I thought they could not be trusted, and I also asked the police of the former place where I lived. So I’m sure I was the one to get those bad cops fired—not. Use the telephone wisely at this stage, not e-mail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

My you sound like trump.

News for ya -- Puerto Rico is the US, which is why Puerto Ricans are US citizens.

Puerto Rico is a territory of the U.S. what happens there is largely dependent on the U.S. but what happens in the U.S. is next to not-at-all dependent on events in Puerto Rico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The president’s approval went up after being openly racist. What do you think impeachment and riots would do?

Put up his disapproval?

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...