US Politics: Burning Down the Country

[Arakan]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How many innocent dead are you cool with to achieve this goal?

This is a straw man. Are you cool with the perpetual wars the US are waging all over the world? Are you cool with a system which is intrinsically unjust? Where minorities are still treated like shit?
 

Nothing ever changes as long as the power structure and the status quo aren’t destroyed. 

[Fragile Bird]

1 minute ago, dbergkvist said:

If the left-leaning states prefer to join the UK instead of Canada, that's fine too. I just thought closer is better.

Americans aren't leaving their country to be part of anybody else's. Some states might leave, but they'll form their own country, I think. Direct them to a better policing model than Canada's.

[OldGimletEye]

8 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I guess it depends on what you mean by burning everything down and starting over. Obviously no one should seriously be suggesting that it's even possible to completely obliterate American culture and customs. But in the political realm, would it be such a terrible idea to scrap our absurd 18th century system of government that has us locked in a two party system that seems utterly unresponsive to the will of the people and incapable of meeting basically any of the formidable challenges we're facing? This kind of starting over has plenty of historical precedent. 

Should we get rid of the idea of constitutional democracy? Or get rid of separation of powers? How about democracy itself?

If you want to make specific suggestions about how to reform the way our system works, that's fine. At least that is helpful. But, running around saying "burn the house down" isn't helpful. And I'd say those changes isn't burning the house down because I think clearly we would design the system with some basic principles in mind.

[Martell Spy]

5 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I guess it depends on what you mean by burning everything down and starting over. Obviously no one should seriously be suggesting that it's even possible to completely obliterate American culture and customs. But in the political realm, would it be such a terrible idea to scrap our absurd 18th century system of government that has us locked in a two party system that seems utterly unresponsive to the will of the people and incapable of meeting basically any of the formidable challenges we're facing? This kind of starting over has plenty of historical precedent. 

The average Democrat would fear chaos. And a good chunk of them benefit on keeping the system as it is.

Republicans generally see the current system as politically advantageous and have no reason to change it. The Senate as it currently stands allows progress to be slowed down by decades, which is the main thing they want.

[Arakan]

38 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Was starting from scratch how they did it in your country? Explain very carefully how you go about burning everything down and then starting over. And how should we go about starting from scratch. What should our new institutions look like and be.

Forget my country. 
build a country on the principles of equality and justice, not greed. Build a country on the principle of a socially responsible market economy. Build a country on the principle of finding the best solution at all costs and not on the principle of winning at all costs. That’s the start. 
 

stop being self-righteous, stop speaking of yourself as God‘s own country, manifest destiny, best country in the world etc.
 

build up a better democratic system, not fptp but proportional representation etc

 

This is how you start. 

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Arakan said:

Forget my country. 
build a country on the principles of equality and justice, not greed. Build a country on the principle of a socially responsible market economy. Build a country on the principle of finding the best solution at all costs and not on the principle of winning at all costs. That’s the start. 
 

stop being self-righteous, stop speaking of yourself as God‘s own country, manifest destiny, best country in the world etc.
 

build up a better democratic system, not fptp but proportional representation etc

 

This is how you start. 

No nation has ever been built by following the guidance listed above. It's so far removed from possibility as to qualify as absurdism. Nations are formed around shared identities and shared interest in social structures. Mostly to defend themselves from an outside force or to subjugate an outside force.

 

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Forget my country. 
build a country on the principles of equality and justice, not greed. Build a country on the principle of a socially responsible market economy. Build a country on the principle of finding the best solution at all costs and not on the principle of winning at all costs. That’s the start. 
 

stop being self-righteous, stop speaking of yourself as God‘s own country, manifest destiny, best country in the world etc.
 

build up a better democratic system, not fptp but proportional representation etc

 

This is how you start. 

I've been to Germany a few times. And I really like the country. And Germany does some really smart things  that I wish we would do over here.

With respect to the economy, I think you probably know by now I lean pretty much to the left. And there are a number of reforms I think we should pass. In fact there is a lot of ideas I would "steal" from Germany like co-determination and stronger unions.

But, the idea of burning it all down and starting over is nonsense.

[Conflicting Thought]

21 minutes ago, dbergkvist said:

According to what has been said earlier in the thread, the people breaking the windows are white supremacists who want to frame BLM and start a race war. I'd say that's quite rotten.

I dont know that you can say that the people doing it are only white supremacist, these are riots, people are goint to smash and burn things, i dont doubt that cops and racists will take advantage, but i also think that people are legit angry, they are seeding, they cant take it anymore, and when that happens violence is going to happen. You can ascribe rott to the police, a concrete institution, i dont know if you can do the same to a disorganized, spontaneous protests. 

[Rippounet]

41 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, the idea of burning it all down and starting over is nonsense.

I don't think anyone meant "burning it all down" in the literal sense. I read it as a pretty common expression that means "reforming at the fundamental level."

54 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

No nation has ever been built by following the guidance listed above. It's so far removed from possibility as to qualify as absurdism.

Interestingly enough this is factually incorrect. Many nations have been built around such principles. They are, however, generally described as "primitive" by most of us.

It is widely recognized (sadly) that the first thing preventing any meaningful change is precisely our notion of what is possible or "absurd."
I believe Klein says a few words about this in her latest book, that the first step is to believe in the possibility of change while conversely, resignation and cynicism end up supporting the perpetuation of injustice.
I'd be tempted to go one step further, but to conclude on a positive note I'd rather paraphrase John Holloway instead and point out that we could all wake up one day and decide to build "something else." After all:

Quote

Bust a few rhymes so motherfuckers remember
Where the thought is, I brought all this
So you can survive when law is lawless (Right here)
Feelings, sensations that you thought was dead
No squealing and remember that it's all in your head

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Arakan said:

This is a straw man. Are you cool with the perpetual wars the US are waging all over the world? Are you cool with a system which is intrinsically unjust? Where minorities are still treated like shit?
 

Nothing ever changes as long as the power structure and the status quo aren’t destroyed. 

Not a strawman.  I would much rather solve our problems without killing each other.  

Unless you want to commit genocide eventually you have to talk to the people you are opposed to.  Does killing them and people around them make talking better.

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I don't think anyone meant "burning it all down" in the literal sense. I read it as a pretty common expression that means "reforming at the fundamental level."

I'm a fan of the rule of lenity. But, often in left wing of discourse there is talk of "burning it all down" and starting over, rather than just "reforming at  fundamental level". So it was a bit hard for me to give it that charitable interpretation.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How many innocent dead are you cool with

You should have stopped your question right there.

So far there are way over 100,000 innocent deaths in the last three months alone ... that we know of.  Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people of color who have been killed in so many ways over centuries and decades, starting in the 17th century.  So, I dunno, how many innocent dead are you cool with?

~~~~~~~~~~~

 "In reality, Donald Trump doesn’t run the government of the United States. He doesn’t manage anything"

"Fire, pestilence and a country at war with itself: the Trump presidency is over" by Robert Reich

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/31/donald-trump-coronavirus-pandemic-george-floyd-minneapolis-tweets

Quote

 

[....]In reality, Donald Trump doesn’t run the government of the United States. He doesn’t manage anything. He doesn’t organize anyone. He doesn’t administer or oversee or supervise. He doesn’t read memos. He hates meetings. He has no patience for briefings. His White House is in perpetual chaos. 

His advisers aren’t truth-tellers. They’re toadies, lackeys, sycophants and relatives.

Since moving into the Oval Office in January 2017, Trump hasn’t shown an ounce of interest in governing. He obsesses only about himself.

But it has taken the present set of crises to reveal the depths of his self-absorbed abdication – his utter contempt for his job, his total repudiation of his office.

Trump’s nonfeasance goes far beyond an absence of leadership or inattention to traditional norms and roles. In a time of national trauma, he has relinquished the core duties and responsibilities of the presidency.

He is no longer president. The sooner we stop treating him as if he were, the better.

 

 

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm a fan of the rule of lenity. But, often in left wing of discourse there is talk of "burning it all down" and starting over, rather than just "reforming at  fundamental level". So it was a bit hard for me to give it that charitable interpretation.

Come on, what would a US politics thread be without a bit of hyperbole? Obviously "burning it all down" in the literal sense would be inconvenient. How would one watch the latest Rick & Morty without WiFi?

And talking of hyperbole:

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

"Fire, pestilence and a country at war with itself: the Trump presidency is over" by Robert Reich

Nice article, but the title is incorrect: "fire, pestilence and a country at war" IS the Trump presidency. And it is certainly not over.

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Obviously "burning it all down" in the literal sense would be inconvenient.

You would think so. But, I do think there is some some on the left, not a majority, that thinks literally everything needs to be trashed and we need to start over from scratch and any calls for mere reform is the stuff of squishy milquetoast liberals.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I don't think anyone meant "burning it all down" in the literal sense.

Some Frenchman you are. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Should we get rid of the idea of constitutional democracy? Or get rid of separation of powers? How about democracy itself?

If you want to make specific suggestions about how to reform the way our system works, that's fine. At least that is helpful. But, running around saying "burn the house down" isn't helpful. And I'd say those changes isn't burning the house down because I think clearly we would design the system with some basic principles in mind.

I think we need to actually restructure so there is actually a separation of powers. Founders in the 18th century separated powers in the way they understood power to work (monarchy, for example), but I feel like they didn't fully understand the consolation of power under groups. Instead of a King, you now have a party that controls all three branches of government. So the powers are not truly separated. The most fundamental area of the three branches of government to restructure is the judiciary as it has been bogged down in ideology of one of two parties. No matter what, you have justices on the Supreme Court who will look at an issue and never vote for that issue outside of how you would expect based on their party ideology. I don't know how you remove bias/ideology from the judiciary but that has to be addressed.

Several of the founders argued that a Constitutional Convention should not be a one time thing, but should occur at a periodic interval. Because things are so partisan now, I can't believe another Constitutional Convention would do anything but further cement partisan lines and inequality in this country. So the argument for burning it down, is symbolic. It calls for massive, structural change. If, for example, we were to have another Constitutional Convention to revise the governmental structure of this country in a way that's better suited for the modern era, you can't have Mitch McConnell there, or Nancy Pelosi. It has to be fully reconceptualized. Right now we are seeing some literal burning of things, but I think most of us would agree that violent struggle against the U.S. government is doomed to fail.

[Fury Resurrected]

1 hour ago, Conflicting Thought said:

I dont know that you can say that the people doing it are only white supremacist, these are riots, people are goint to smash and burn things, i dont doubt that cops and racists will take advantage, but i also think that people are legit angry, they are seeding, they cant take it anymore, and when that happens violence is going to happen. You can ascribe rott to the police, a concrete institution, i dont know if you can do the same to a disorganized, spontaneous protests. 

It’s all of the above. There is legitimate civil disobedience causing it in response to the Floyd killing, there is legitimate civil disobedience in response to police brutality to the peaceful protestors, and there are undercover cops and white supremacists, boogaloo bois, etc. All have converged on Minneapolis.

[OldGimletEye]

12 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I think we need to actually restructure so there is actually a separation of powers. Founders in the 18th century separated powers in the way they understood power to work (monarchy, for example), but I feel like they didn't fully understand the consolation of power under groups. Instead of a King, you now have a party that controls all three branches of government. So the powers are not truly separated. The most fundamental area of the three branches of government to restructure is the judiciary as it has been bogged down in ideology of one of two parties. No matter what, you have justices on the Supreme Court who will look at an issue and never vote for that issue outside of how you would expect based on their party ideology. I don't know how you remove bias/ideology from the judiciary but that has to be addressed.

Several of the founders argued that a Constitutional Convention should not be a one time thing, but should occur at a periodic interval. Because things are so partisan now, I can't believe another Constitutional Convention would do anything but further cement partisan lines and inequality in this country. So the argument for burning it down, is symbolic. It calls for massive, structural change. If, for example, we were to have another Constitutional Convention to revise the governmental structure of this country in a way that's better suited for the modern era, you can't have Mitch McConnell there, or Nancy Pelosi. It has to be fully reconceptualized. Right now we are seeing some literal burning of things, but I think most of us would agree that violent struggle against the U.S. government is doomed to fail.

 I think I would like to see about four things off the top of my head; 1) Get rid of the current voting system so there is more than one party. If this requires moving to more a parliamentary system, then I would be fine with that. 2) Put term limits on Supreme court justices. And maybe get rid of the current political appointment system all together. 3) Get rid of the electoral college. 4). Limit political spending. I'm a pretty big free speech guy, but I think the Supreme Court went off the rails with this, just being oblivious to how money distorts our political discussions with junk.

But, I don't see any of this literally or figuratively burning things down. I see it more as making things work better. Of course selling this stuff to the American public would be difficult, but it probably has a better chance than saying "hey vote for me, I gonna burn shit down. And after that? Well I have no fuckin' idea."

[Toth]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Of course selling this stuff to the American public would be difficult, but it probably has a better chance than saying "hey vote for me, I gonna burn shit down. And after that? Well I have no fuckin' idea."

... wasn't that the idea of Trump's "drain the swamp" slogan though? Seems to have worked well enough...

Not gonna argue that I'm a proponent of associating sensible reforms with gasoline and matches though. I'm just saying that simple messages that paint an enemy that needs to be cut down are rather effective when it comes to gathering votes. "Yes we can" is the thing coming to mind as the closest democratic slogan that vaguely implied a positive notion of change you are free to project policies into.

[OldGimletEye]

11 minutes ago, Toth said:

... wasn't that the idea of Trump's "drain the swamp" slogan though? Seems to have worked well enough...

Not gonna argue that I'm a proponent of associating sensible reforms with gasoline and matches though. I'm just saying that simple messages that paint an enemy that needs to be cut down are rather effective when it comes to gathering votes. "Yes we can" is the thing coming to mind as the closest democratic slogan that vaguely implied a positive notion of change you are free to project policies into.

Well, I guess you're right. I guess you can win an election while generally just talking out of your ass and when asked a serious question, you just generally throw together some kind of word salad and make a vague reference to your "business experience".

I guess I'm banking on that most people won't be idiots in the long run. A secondly, stealing from Trump's playbook might not work for Democrats given the structural disadvantages they face.