Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: Show Trials & Tribulations

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Kalbear said:

federal elections need to be as broad and nonrestrictive as possible, and there really isn't a way to make 'head to go hang out and vote for a few hours' nonrestrictive. 

That it can take hours is appalling. There should be a voting place within a few minutes' walk of everyone in a reasonably densely populated area, and a few minutes' drive for everyone not actually living on a farm or otherwise a significant distance from any kind of population centre. The queue to vote shouldn't be more than a few minutes if you arrive at a particularly busy time. Other countries manage this, so there's no reason the US can't (costs are per capita, so the size of the country is irrelevant).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, DMC said:

Eh, certainly an interesting thought, but I don't think so.  My reading of the constitutional convention is they kind of rushed how the president will be elected/chosen right at the end.  Kind of like when I'm trying to finish a point in a lecture and all the students are packing up.  I don't think they put that much thought into it.  Moreover, I don't think there's any mention of a motion of no confidence in the Federalist.  Madison and Hamilton go over A LOT of political theory in those things, so one would assume if that was what they intended but wasn't actually in the Constitution - e.g. Hamilton expressing the intent of judicial review in Federalist 78 - they would have emphasized it.

 

I was trying to be inclusive!  So, by "left-leaning" posters, I essentially meant everyone but Altherion.  Maybe Cas or HOI or FNR, but I think they've all been sufficiently scared off from these threads.  Ideologically, my impression is you're pretty solid middle, in the Scot to Mudguard interval.  Maybe Ormond too.  Alright, that's probably TMI and me way overthinking things for a minute there, but you did say inquiring minds!

Two snips:

1.  I actually think that the founders GREATLY underestimated the eventual power of the executive branch under the system that they set up.  I would FURTHER argue, that they were in fact correct in (most) Civil War periods (maybe Andrew Jackson and the fact that political parties quickly became a thing, aside) in how they thought it would all work out.  I think for these inquiries it is almost better to look at the post-civil war post 14th Amendment world, and maybe even further the post-New Deal world.  But I'm probably overthinking this :P

2.  I feel very included.  I will claim the Scot, Mudgard, Ormond interval of rational, but doomed, thought.

29 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I wouldn't so consider you a left leaner.

OTOH PG considers me a snob.  Some days he might possibly be right -- and then it' probably intentional, meaning, attempts employing rhetorical tools such as inversion, irony, etc., hopefully, to illustrate how stupid a question is.  Most days though, he's just wrong. :D

Phew.  Thought I was losing my edge.  I try not to lean.  It's not ladylike.  I stand upright with a platinum rod through my spine (or up my a$$, take your pick), thank you very much.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

1.  I actually think that the founders GREATLY underestimated the eventual power of the executive branch under the system that they set up.  I would FURTHER argue, that they were in fact correct in (most) Civil War periods (maybe Andrew Jackson and the fact that political parties quickly became a thing, aside) in how they thought it would all work out.  I think for these inquiries it is almost better to look at the post-civil war post 14th Amendment world, and maybe even further the post-New Deal world.  But I'm probably overthinking this :P

Oh sure, three hours ago I was going over Mann (1986) in lecture.  In it, he talks about the growth of the "infrastructural" power of states.  Basically, the centralization of the national government.  In the American context, that's expressed with the New Deal.  The Framers definitely had no fucking clue how powerful the executive was necessarily going to grow to with the evolution of a larger and larger polity.  Governing 327 million people is a lot harder than what the Founders/Framers were dealing with.  This is one aspect where Jefferson had a pretty damn good point that every generation should establish their own "constitution," or structure of government.

So, I think not only looking at things post-Civil War Amendments (13-15), but also post-Progressive era amendments (16-21) is indeed the correct approach.  Also, on the Framers not anticipating political parties - which both you and Scot have mentioned - it's hard to say they didn't anticipate this was going to happen considering Hamilton and Madison started to establish the respective parties in a (necessarily based on the first past the post electoral system) two-party system basically immediately after the Constitution was ratified.

Anyway, most of the Framers would be scared shitless with how much power POTUS wields in our current paradigm (not Hamilton though, who was laughed out of the convention for wanting to essentially recreate the British monarchy with Washington).  But that's what they get for leaving Article II so brief and vague.

16 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

2.  I feel very included.  I will claim the Scot, Mudgard, Ormond interval of rational, but doomed, thought.

:) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Oh lord no.  Also, am I considered a left-leaning voter here?  Inquiring minds and all that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

 

2.  I feel very included.  I will claim the Scot, Mudgard, Ormond interval of rational, but doomed, thought.

 

Nice to be included as "rational", but sad to be included as "doomed."

I think I identify with the term "centrist" way more than I actually am "centrist" in terms of policy positions. According to the political test at Pew, I am a "solid liberal." It's just that back in my teens and 20s I definitely thought of myself as a "conservative" and so am still queasy about admitting just how far left my ideas have shifted. I think I've actually continued to shift leftward as I've aged --- I believe I am probably much more in favor of high taxes on the wealthy than I was a decade ago, for instance. Though the one question on the Pew test where I differed from the "solid liberals" was that I agreed with "Most corporations make a fair and reasonable amount of profit". I would also have agreed with "Many corporations make an unfair amount of profit" but just can't get myself to think it's actually over half that do! 

https://www.people-press.org/quiz/political-typology/

Of course I really most identify with the 6% of the American population who are "religious liberals." That group actually has increased from 5% to 6% since Trump took office. 

https://relevantmagazine.com/culture/study-the-religious-left-is-the-most-active-group-in-american-politics/

 

Edited by Ormond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the DEMS, every single one of them, whether elected, electioneering for office, leaving office, or just good citizen, don't holler every day, everywhere about Trump's announcement today that he's going after Medicare and Social Security :

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/us/politics/medicare-trump.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/22/trump-appears-open-overhauling-social-security-medicare-break-2016-campaign/

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/trump-open-cut-entitlement-spending-social-security-medicare-interview-davos-2020-1-1028837128

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I think I identify with the term "centrist" way more than I actually am "centrist" in terms of policy positions. According to the political test at Pew, I am a "solid liberal."

The ideological spectrum is significantly shifted on this board, or particularly in these threads.  Here, I'm a "moderate" perpetuating white male privilege.  In the real world, I'm a dyed in the wool liberal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Phew.  Thought I was losing my edge.  I try not to lean.  It's not ladylike.  I stand upright with a platinum rod through my spine (or up my a$$, take your pick), thank you very much.  

As I said, I don't see you leaning! or even standing! left.

As for my snobbery, it does rather seem that it has been confused with being educated.  Either that or education should never be shown in public, or even used, because reasons.  Or envy? :dunno:  It's so confusing.  Even with an education.  :read: So perhaps the critic is correct -- education is fony snobbery.  Ha!  :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ormond said:

 It's just that back in my teens and 20s I definitely thought of myself as a "conservative" and so am still queasy about admitting just how far left my ideas have shifted.

Why do you think that makes you queasy? Not trying to be an ass, I'm genuinely curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DMC:

1.  Actually, I think the "we are above political parties" was probably simply rhetoric, and they knew that at the time.

2.  I might even argue that Jefferson's prediction is actually sort of correct - we HAVE had a "revolution" of some sort periodically in our governmental system not every generation (what is that, really), but every 80 years or so.

3.  Agree that MANY of the non-Hamilton framers would not recognize our system and be horrified.  

4.  Here's a secret of drafting contracts.  Where the parties can agree on broad principles, but can't agree on specifics, draft the broad principle and fight about the specifics later.  Keeps litigators busy and gets deals done.  That's basically Art. II.

9 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Nice to be included as "rational", but sad to be included as "doomed."

*snip* 

Of course I really most identify with the 6% of the American population who are "religious liberals." That group actually has increased from 5% to 6% since Trump took office. 

https://relevantmagazine.com/culture/study-the-religious-left-is-the-most-active-group-in-american-politics/

 

Actually kind of describes me as well....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Zorral said:

As I said, I don't see you leaning! or even standing! left.

As for my snobbery, it does rather seem that it has been confused with being educated.  Either that or education should never be shown in public, or even used, because reasons.  Or envy? :dunno:  It's so confusing.  Even with an education.  :read: So perhaps the critic is correct -- education is phony snobbery.  Ha!  :cheers:

#real

#education

#envy

#snobberyinmotion

:):):) (I am absolutely taking the piss - cheers to you as well!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

The ideological spectrum is significantly shifted on this board, or particularly in these threads.  Here, I'm a "moderate" perpetuating white male privilege.  In the real world, I'm a dyed in the wool liberal.  

Nationality matters too. Many "socialist" or socialist-ic programs are barely considered left-wing in Europe. Even in the UK, which is hardly seen as leaning "left-wing" these days, BoJo and quite a few Tories have repeatedly claimed to want to defend the NHS, which from a US perspective is pretty hardcore socialism.
Point is, it only takes a few vocal Europeans (or Canadians) to shift the ideological spectrum of the board to the left.
Conversely, from a European perspective, some "moderate" US positions on the board could be seen as center-right.
It gets even more complicated if you factor in the generational gap(s), since the "left" has evolved tremendously throughout the West in the last few decades. Depending on your definitions, "leftist" and "liberal" are not necessarily synonymous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

@DMC:

1.)  I mean, the most famous and important aspect of the Federalist is Madison talking about factions.  It seems pretty clear his intent there was how to build a majority coalition of factions to implement policy, which is the basis of "cartel" parties in a two-party system.  So..yes, I agree.

2.)  Good question!  I'd have to dig up the quote, but pretty sure he was referring much more to ~ 20 years compared to 80 years.  Seems you're somewhat referring to shifts in the "party systems" of the US, which is in every GOV 101 textbook but no one really cares about or researches.  Even then, let's see.  Ignoring the beginnings, we can start with Jackson and the Democratic/Whig era from 1826-1860; then Lincoln Republicans v. Democrats from 1860-1896, or Reconstruction and its remnants.  Then there was another realignment after the Panic of 1893 that went from 1896-1932.  Then FDR's New Deal coalition, and where does that end?  Some scholars still debate this, like it matters, but I prefer to put it at Reagan so 1980.  

Anyway, reason I wrote that out was to see how long all those "party-system" eras identified in intro textbooks actually last..by my math we got 34; 36; 36; and 48.  And who knows what will be identified as the realignment since 1980.  Was Obama?  Trump?  I dunno, that's a qualitative thing I don't really think about much.  My point in this exercise is to emphasize that even there, realignment shifts are considerably more frequent than 80 years.  Thus, I'd put Jefferson's "generational" interval at around 20 to 40 years.

3.)  Yep.  They'd tar and feather all of us King George sympathizers!

4.)  Indeed, that's how passing legislation used to work.  Back in the long long ago.  But, that grants too much discretion to agencies, and we don't want the dastardly deep state bureaucracy to implement positive policy outcomes based on their expertise.  Fucking elitists.

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Nationality matters too.

Definitely.  But even if I isolated just the American frequent respondents of this thread, it's going to be significantly more left-leaning than the American public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Definitely.  But even if I isolated just the American frequent respondents of this thread, it's going to be significantly more left-leaning than the American public.

Hard to argue otherwise.

And yet, for conversation's sake, I can't help but remember one of Michael Moore's books in which he took a bunch of surveys showing that Americans were far more "left-wing" than politics tended to show (I'm aware he probably did some cherry-picking, I read that a decade ago).
Yet, a good example of that might be Warren's wealth tax, which in some polls gets the support of around 75% of registered voters (or at least 70%).
There's a strand of letist scholarship arguing that on economic issues populations are much more left-leaning than it seems and that politics quite simply do not reflect the will of the people because the culture war keeps emphasizing non-economic issues.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that almost everyone here leans left on cultural as well as economic issues... ;) 
As I said, this is just for conversation's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I can't help but remember one of Michael Moore's books in which he took a bunch of surveys showing that Americans were far more "left-wing" than politics tended to show (I'm aware he probably did some cherry-picking, I read that a decade ago).
Yet, a good example of that might be Warren's wealth tax, which in some polls gets the support of around 75% of registered voters (or at least 70%).
There's a strand of letist scholarship arguing that on economic issues populations are much more left-leaning than it seems and that politics quite simply do not reflect the will of the people because the culture war keeps emphasizing non-economic issues.

Certainly.  I don't want to attribute it to Michael Moore but this is well-founded.  There are a host of "leftist" policies that are very-to-incredibly popular with the American public.  I think it's lame that the best explanation us poly sci people can come up with for this disconnect is "culture war," but it is that, at least in a way.  It's what Durkheim described as anomie, being scared of structural shifts in society.  So, MAGA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I’d be very surprised if Scot doesn’t see himself as having moved to the left by standing still.

Ha!  And he'd be right!  (Or left?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I’d be very surprised if Scot doesn’t see himself as having moved to the left by standing still.

Eh?  I like to think of myself as a liberal in the classical sense of the term.  With a pragmatic sense of realism.  That’s a long way from my formerly libertarian ideals.  In my view today pure libertarianism is as unrealistically utopian an ideal as pure Marxist socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zorral said:

If the DEMS, every single one of them, whether elected, electioneering for office, leaving office, or just good citizen, don't holler every day, everywhere about Trump's announcement today that he's going after Medicare and Social Security :

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/us/politics/medicare-trump.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/22/trump-appears-open-overhauling-social-security-medicare-break-2016-campaign/

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/trump-open-cut-entitlement-spending-social-security-medicare-interview-davos-2020-1-1028837128

 

I have read similar articles - and the attached comments.

My take:

Trump tries any significant cuts to these programs he loses reelection in a landslide.  It is possible that a portion of Trumps base would turn on him for such an act, or at least stay away from the polls.  The attitude in the comments is that these programs are not 'entitlements' but 'earned rights.'   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

#real

#education

#envy

#snobberyinmotion

:):):) (I am absolutely taking the piss - cheers to you as well!)

Goddamn betcha -- whatever it is you are saying with hashtags and etc., egative or positive.

I'mma rollin' with it! Ha! Especially as I hail from the class that is supposed to hate educated, white, eastern Atlantic seaboard snobs! 

My class really does consider people with educations snobs, and who think they are too good, and bette.

More complications that my mom totally encouraged me to learn as much as possible, and my dad would punish me if I didn't have straight A's, while my community laughed at me for achieving anything.  One of the many reasons I quite feel I understand Warren and support her.  I know out of where she comes.

Also why my class despises those who make their living in the financial and investments industries, as well as those who make their living out of politics.  I keep that attitude -- even though it is hypocritical, as I have a very tiny portfolio -- along with my education.

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×