Jump to content

US Politics: Choking our Democracy


Maithanet

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Facebook removes QAnon-supporting candidate’s 'squad' post for inciting violence
Ilhan Omar called on Facebook to remove the post, which she called a “violent provocation.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/facebook-removes-candidates-squad-post-409175

 

Greene on Twitter told Omar to “Relax,” calling the post “just a meme.” In a statement to POLITICO in response to the post's removal, Greene said, “Pelosi and the Socialist Squad are trying to cancel me out even before I've even taken the oath of office.”

“I’m saying this while laughing, so you can’t criticize the gross things I’m saying”

is a really fun excuse.

If you agree with what x right winger or conservative said, then you’re on the right track.

If you don’t, you’re reading too much into and why can’t you take the joke. 
 

You know too bad the cancel threads aren’t open because this would be a great example of people crying “cancel culture!” To deflect from their own bad behavior. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

However, I disagree that the consequences that are already here have anything to do with climate change. The latter is projected to be harder to stop the longer we wait to implement countermeasures, but it's not expected to arrive in force for another few decades and the effects that are here now are nowhere near to having a major impact.

Occam's razor tells us that the trends/movements we are seeing now are the result of the 2008 economic crisis combined with "distributional effects" as you put it.
I am not disputing that.

But it's not the whole story. There are also elements here and there that already correspond to the new paradigm. It's not much at present, just some declarations or decisions here and there by Bolsonaro, Trump, or others, that don't fit the "classic" xenophobia, nationalism, or ethno-nationalism of the 20th century, that introduce new notions. The economic nationalism, the anti-globalism, the insistance on walls... They're close to what happened in the past and subtly different at the same time. Of course, history never repeats itself in the exact same way, so differences are to be expected since you'll have new factors coming in. But that's the point I'm making: climate change is in fact one of these new factors. At the very least it is contributing to political polarization by raising the stakes of elections for people who believe in it. It is playing a role in the 2020 US elections, and will play a role in elections throughout the West from now on.

Quote

the effects that are here now are nowhere near to having a major impact.

The jury's still out on this one, depending on how you view the impact of the drought on the Syrian conflict.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/3/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought/

Also, the abnormal climactic events that we are seeing every year now are translating into a greater attention to environmental issues in politics in many countries (not just the West).

2 hours ago, DMC said:

I have no idea what the political landscape is going to look like in 10-15 years here or globally.  And neither does anybody else so I don't see much point in speculating about it right now. 

Agree with the bolded, we can only speculate. Disagree about your conclusion though: there is a point in speculation. If we know what the trend is, if we determine what the worst-case scenarios are, then we know better what should be done to avoid disaster. In other words, it's one way of building a political program, an agenda, that can really prepare us for what's coming.

And I think it matters a great deal today. It is not enough for the Dems to win this year and hold power for a decade or so, they also have to ensure they are not succeeded by a smarter version of Trump. That means understanding how climate change is going to affect politics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I believe the line is "The only way I can lose this election is if they catch me in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." 

I don’t think either of those would make a dent in his base, sadly. He’s a named defendant in one of the Epstein suits for raping a child. If you support this guy, you are already overlooking SO much that it’s nothing the shrug one more thing off. He’s been funneling campaign contributions into his own businesses and pockets. They know that. They think it’s fine that he is flat out taking their money. Their support doesn’t make any sense but that shit is absolute

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

Not if you're wanting to see a trend. Democracies can fall pretty quickly; saying that they were stable for 250 years as a way to justify a rough spot is kind of like saying that a person was cancer free for 59 years but that last year kind of sucked.

Pointing to 2 of the past 5 elections is a pretty weak trend.  Especially when considering the five elections immediately preceding that timeframe had very comfortable margins of victory in the popular vote (let alone the EC vote), as did 2008 and even 2012 was pretty damn obvious or "stable."

33 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

When 20% of the male population of the main ethnic minority is represented in that prison population, let's not understate the impact in repression of ethnic minorities. When the US literally has more people in prison per capita than any other country, let's not understate that - especially when even after they get out of prison, they still cannot vote.

First, let's get our facts straight.  According to the NCSL, in 19 states and DC, a prisoner's suffrage is automatically restored (including the cases of Maine and Vermont where they never lose that right).  In an additional 20 states, suffrage is automatically restored upon completion of the sentence (either probation or parole).  Only in 11 states is additional action required.  So no, it's simply entirely inaccurate to say they still cannot vote even after getting out of prison.

Second, you also have to take into account the likelihood this population is to vote in the first place.  A former professor/colleague of mine spent the better part of three years trying to mobilize ex-felons to vote - it was the main part of her dissertation.  Her results were statistically significant, but the strength - as in boost in turnout - was very minimal.  Empirically, the cold hard fact is if you're in prison the likelihood you would be voting even if you never got sent to prison is decidedly below the national average.  That speaks to more systemic issues of disengagement and ignoring minorities of course - and I agree that should not be understated - but it still means we're talking about a very small percentage of the electorate.

33 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

The study is from 2019, but their data is from 2014 per their conversation in the article. Regardless, none of them take into account 2020. 

I don't know what article you're referring to, but Freedom House and the EIU update their scores annually.  The data is definitely not from 2014, you're simply wrong here.  And of course they don't take 2020 into account - 2020 hasn't ended yet!  Hell, Freedom House calls their current scores the 2020 scores because they publish them usually in January or February, but they're based on the previous year.

18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

In other words, it's one way of building a political program, an agenda, that can really prepare us for what's coming.

Oh I certainly agree it's important to build a political agenda centered around the potential effects of climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I don’t think either of those would make a dent in his base, sadly. He’s a named defendant in one of the Epstein suits for raping a child. If you support this guy, you are already overlooking SO much that it’s nothing the shrug one more thing off. He’s been funneling campaign contributions into his own businesses and pockets. They know that. They think it’s fine that he is flat out taking their money. Their support doesn’t make any sense but that shit is absolute

Weirder yet, their justification for everything he does seems to basically be that other people do bad things too. So much for the party of morality....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

So, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out - Trump has blood in the water right now. This reporting has been confirmed on Fox, and because Trump can only counterpunch, he can only keep drawing attention to it, which means that it will start penetrating the bubble.

"Traditional" conservatives actually have a choice to make; if they're ever going to defeat Trumpism, now is the time to strike. If Trump loses his apologists, he will lose some of his base; not all, but enough. If small-government, low-tax conservatives want to win the day, they can take their licks now and allow Trump to be defeated, and then try to revamp like they did after Goldwater's defeat.

Now, I'm not saying this is the most likely scenario. Most likely, they'll continue being spineless hacks. But, if they were ever going to pull a Brutus to Trump's Caesar, now is the time.

Don't you think an October surprise with Mattis, Kelly et al. going on T.V. to denounce Trump will be effective?  The people whose institutional equities are invested in Trump (Hewitt and his ilk) won't abandon their man now.  Nor are the keep-your-peace institutional conservatives going to stick their necks out of their shell now.  Bush has been raising money for Susan Collins, Cory Gardner and others.   Struggling to think of other conservatives who can make a difference. 

Also keep in mind these folks are not doing this because they care about the outcome.  John Kelly didn't speak off the record to Jeffrey Goldberg for the Atlantic (and permit his friends to speak) because he wants to take Trump down.  He just wants to protect his reputation for the future before elite audiences.  Same with Bolton (with score-settling and greed added in).  Very different incentives.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all of this talk US democracy failing is just paranoia and missing the forest for the trees here. Blind hatred of Trump is getting in the way of way of seeing what he's actually doing. Which is not much he hasn't laid the groundwork for any kind of coup he just blusters on and talks nonsense. He is an incompetent racist no doubt and his poor leadership has cause untold suffering with covid, but America has done worse things then Trump and had a lot more virulently racist presidents and still survived. We rounded up the Japanese under FDR, we deported the Indians under Jackson, democracy was pretty much suspended under Wilson during WWI  and in the 1870s we had racist militias destroy reconstruction governments and intimidate black voters. All of those things were a lot more "fascist" then anything happening now and yet we've muddled through so far with our institutions more or less intact. I think the idea that we are doomed to fall to fascism asinine.  If none of those things destroyed American democracy I doubt Trump tweeting will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Isn't it depressing to think about what kind of message this sends?  You can even be a child rapist if you talk shit the right way or something.  

ETA:  I think DMC is accusing Jace of being a Sith.  

It’s all about he makes the people they don’t like mad. Doesn’t matter if they get personally screwed, because it’s essentially a religion 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Triskele said:

 Where my paranoia comes from though is this feeling that the so-called guardrails and norms were a huge part of the old system and that we've never seen anyone shamelessly dismiss them like Trump has and that it's been way too easy for him to do so.  And that there's also a huge flaw in the separation of powers where one assumes Congress would be against a tyrant POTUS.  

And all of that stuff is deeply concerning and bad for the health of our society and democracy, but I still think there is an essentially zero chance of it leading to a dictatorship. For better or worse the US system is pretty stable. Also the US can't just "become" a dictatorship the way the Wiemar Republic did. Congress has proved fairly useless but I doubt the powerful democratic states are going to bow to a facist takeover, or Washington DC for that matter an actual fascist takeover would lead to the disintegration of the US, which is also a bad outcome but not what folks here are positing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Pointing to 2 of the past 5 elections is a pretty weak trend.  Especially when considering the five elections immediately preceding that timeframe had very comfortable margins of victory in the popular vote (let alone the EC vote), as did 2008 and even 2012 was pretty damn obvious or "stable."

I just disagree on this - having your country simply not elect the person with more votes than the other person is a systemic flaw in democracy. 1 failure would be too many. If this were an alert on my dashboard, it'd be paging people left and right. 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

First, let's get our facts straight.  According to the NCSL, in 19 states and DC, a prisoner's suffrage is automatically restored (including the cases of Maine and Vermont where they never lose that right).  In an additional 20 states, suffrage is automatically restored upon completion of the sentence (either probation or parole).  Only in 11 states is additional action required.  So no, it's simply entirely inaccurate to say they still cannot vote even after getting out of prison.

Conversely, in a majority of states a person in jail cannot vote, a person who is let out of jail and has not completed parole (which includes doing things like paying back fines and fees that are almost impossible to pay back) cannot vote. 60% of states simply do not allow jailed people to vote at all. If you like, it's more accurate to say 60% than imply all, but really I'm a lot more accurate than you are in this. 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Second, you also have to take into account the likelihood this population is to vote in the first place. 

No, you really don't. Not when it comes to actual rights. This is a fairly slimy argument; one could say that you don't want people 18-22 to vote and give virtually the same argument about how for the most part it doesn't deny most people much, since they wouldn't vote anyway. That isn't the point at all. The point is disenfranchisement of an ethnic minority by denying them basic democratic rights.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I don't know what article you're referring to, but Freedom House and the EIU update their scores annually.  The data is definitely not from 2014, you're simply wrong here.  And of course they don't take 2020 into account - 2020 hasn't ended yet!  Hell, Freedom House calls their current scores the 2020 scores because they publish them usually in January or February, but they're based on the previous year. 

So I still can't get the full EIU one, but the ourworld one is interesting. First, they do list 2014 as one of their big deals and their charts are from 2015. Second, they list the US at the absolute bottom of every single Democratic country's values - health, protecting rights, natal care. This is your link, so you can defend it at your own leisure, but it certainly doesn't indicate what you think it does.

And per Freedom House, while the US is decently high (still on the low end of democracies) it  is actually in decline.

And this is pretty laughable as to their 'analysis':

Quote

Leaders of both parties have traditionally made an effort to appeal to all segments of the population and address issues of concern to each, or at a minimum to avoid alienating any major demographic group. 

Yeah, not so much. And their rating on the safeguards in the US being effective against corruption are 3/4? REALLY? Come on, man. 

And even with all these quibbles, what does Freedom House actually say? They essentially agree with everything @Jace, Basilissa and others have been saying - that there is a trend towards authoritarianism and it hasn't been slowed in the least.

Quote

The unchecked brutality of autocratic regimes and the ethical decay of democratic powers are combining to make the world increasingly hostile to fresh demands for better governance. A striking number of new citizen protest movements have emerged over the past year, reflecting the inexhaustible and universal desire for fundamental rights. However, these movements have in many cases confronted deeply entrenched interests that are able to endure considerable pressure and are willing to use deadly force to maintain power. The protests of 2019 have so far failed to halt the overall slide in global freedom, and without greater support and solidarity from established democracies, they are more likely to succumb to authoritarian reprisals.

The chart showing how fast we've fallen from being one of the top Democracies to being just slightly above Poland - which is pretty close to authoritarian now - is remarkable. We're closer to the eastern bloc countries than we are any western bloc. At least we're beating Hungary!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Darzin said:

And all of that stuff is deeply concerning and bad for the health of our society and democracy, but I still think there is an essentially zero chance of it leading to a dictatorship. For better or worse the US system is pretty stable. Also the US can't just "become" a dictatorship the way the Wiemar Republic did. Congress has proved fairly useless but I doubt the powerful democratic states are going to bow to a facist takeover, or Washington DC for that matter an actual fascist takeover would lead to the disintegration of the US, which is also a bad outcome but not what folks here are positing.

No, we'd go something like how Hungary has gone. Or Russia, really. Where there are elections but they're pretty much inconsequential, no one is named dictator for life but it just works that way, and congress does the bidding or is largely toothless thanks to a stacked judiciary. 

I think you really discount the appetite for people who aren't losing a lot or anything to fight for other people's rights. And while I agree that we're probably not going to go for something like fascism, I think a failed democracy where there is no real opposition party, law is largely what leaders say it is and corruption is entirely unpunished, and corporations and moneyed interests basically run things is pretty realistic. 

So no, don't use Weimar as the example. Use, oh, Russia in 2000, or Hungary 10 years ago, or Poland now. The other thing to note is that once that slide starts it is virtually impossible to reverse short of a civil war or an external invasion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

I just disagree on this - having your country simply not elect the person with more votes than the other person is a systemic flaw in democracy. 1 failure would be too many.

Fair enough, but you originally stated "A system that routinely elects the person with fewer votes is not a great sign of stability either."  2 out of the last 5 is not "routine" when you take any larger sample into account.  It's not even a trend.

4 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

If you like, it's more accurate to say 60% than imply all, but really I'm a lot more accurate than you are in this. 

No you're not.  You said you can't vote after getting out of prison, and in 39 states you're automatically reenrolled upon completion of either the prison sentence, or probation/parole.  I don't know what kind of math you're doing, but that's more than 60% that automatically get reenrolled after a certain period.  Are there hurdles like supervisions fees to complete parole?  Sure, I never said otherwise.

17 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

No, you really don't.

You do if you want to estimate what that disenfranchised population's impact on the electorate would actually reflect if they weren't imprisoned at such high rates.  Sorry, but that's just common sense.

19 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

This is your link, so you can defend it at your own leisure, but it certainly doesn't indicate what you think it does.

And per Freedom House, while the US is decently high (still on the low end of democracies) it  is actually in decline.

Erm, ok, one of my three links included a lot of data from 2014.  Ya got me, wow!  The two other ones are the much more cited sources for measuring democracy across the globe.  Anyway, the chart I was referring to was the Polity IV data, which if you look here - yes, it's dropped from 10 to 8 since Trump was elected.  I'm not arguing in any way the fact the Trump administration has eroded our democracy.  Just that it's not inevitable he'll destroy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalibear said:

So no, don't use Weimar as the example. Use, oh, Russia in 2000, or Hungary 10 years ago, or Poland now. The other thing to note is that once that slide starts it is virtually impossible to reverse short of a civil war or an external invasion. 

Except one way or another it'd be fair to say that US democracy was at grave threat after the 1800 election, the war of 1812, obviously the Civil War, the panic of 1893, the Great Depression/WWII, the sixties, the post-Watergate era, the post 9/11 era.  And the system endured throughout all of those - and 7/8 did not require a civil war.  So, no, it's pretty stupid to compare the endurance of the US system to Russia in 2000 or Hungary or Poland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Maithanet said:

The Trump campaign has raised like a billion dollars, right?  And yet they're making some inexplicable decisions about campaign spending.  They pulled out of Michigan for like three weeks in July.  They went almost totally dark across the country during the week of the RNC (as if every single person was watching the convention :rolleyes:).  And this week they just announced they're canceling their buys in Arizona for this week and possibly the whole month. 

Why would they be doing this, if they are the most well funded campaign in the history of presidential elections?  I suspect it's because a huge portion, possibly more than half, of that money is being funneled away into the pockets of Trump, his family and their friends. 

Trump's inauguration raised about $107 million and Melania's best friend is being thrown under the bus for ~$40 million missing which gives some idea of how far they'll go. Add to that Trump's hotels golf courses, casinos, whatnot are being especially hurt by the pandemic. 50%+ is definitely not a wild guess at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Absolutism is what blinds people to reality, and that's what you're preaching.

:devil:

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

But the great news there is that the center-left has all the guns, right?  Right?  

I actually think this is overblown. If an actual civil war occurred (it will not) the liberals would arm themselves quickly and not be at a relevant disadvantage.

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...