US Politics - And Now it Begins

[Larry of the Lawn]

Abolish ICE

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I think that there is a lot of agreement in terms of stated goals, but I think that stated goals and actual goals are different. As I said earlier, I think that the Democrats like to say that they have these goals, but in reality there are a lot of Democrats who either prioritize maintaining their own personal power or they like to play at being progressive for public perception purposes while ensuring that the system that has made them wealthy continues to work for them and their friends. I honestly think that there is a class dimension that crosses party lines, because the wealthy do actually have solidarity with each other and they know that if they keep giving the working class people crumbs, they can keep them just happy enough that they don't end up effecting their wealth and power. I'm very cynical about this sort of thing.

That's fair. I think you're very much wrong, mind you, but that's reasonable. 

I also think that taking unpopular positions as a politician is a great way to lose your power, and then you, well, don't have any power.

3 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Yes, Israel does SUUUUCK,What the fuck do you want for that? The reality is the US actively backing them allows them to take the posture that they have taken which actually destabilizes the middle east and allows the religious far right to agitate against them. They are a repressive, right wing bordering on fascistic state that has millions of people living as second class citizens many of whom live in an open air prison. Does this mean that we just walk away? No, but there is a lot of space between walking away and enabling their actions. You said that they are nothing compared to places like China, and it is true that China does have a lot of human rights issues, but we can actually have a significant influence on Israel because they are a smaller country who is dependent on us. China is outside of our sphere of influence, Israel is not, and by doing nothing but wagging our finger (at worst) we are complicit in their crimes.

Israel isn't nearly as dependent on us as they were. I think this is a big misstep in understanding the relationship. And with Iraq going away and Turkey being more antagonistic towards the US, the US is even more dependent on Israel for military needs in the region. 

And no where is outside the US's sphere of influence. The US has massive clout in changing Chinese behavior if we choose to. 

3 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

We need to do exactly what we did with South Africa to use diplomatic pressure to force them do cease their apartheid practices. Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) is the only way we are going to make Israel correct their ways.

Again, I really don't think this is going to work out the way you want it to. Israel is not going to change their policies if they think that doing so will result in the end of Israel. 

Furthermore, this is really not the history win you think it is. The US did create a number of boycotts against South Africa (though thanks to Reagan they weren't ever enforced until 1989), but it was still held up by the US military and others because it was considered a bulwark against communism in the area. Once the cold war ended, South Africa's need there was ended. This is why I said something like the Trump policy actually makes sense; the only reason you need to support Israel as much as you do is because Israel is literally at war with like 10 countries in the region. If you can remove that threat, there's very little reason to support that policy any more, and then you can pressure it via economic sanctions. 

But if you don't do that first? If you remove military support without removing that external threat? Israel is not going to cave in if it considers Palestine crucial for its survival (which it currently does). It will look for other allies in the region - honestly, probably Russia - and back itself into a corner, or start preemptive wars. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

I do think that you - and others - need to recognize certain battles aren't worth fighting.

This is where I'm always going to disagree. Any battle not fought is a battle lost. It's like saying "Well, yes, it's definitely broken, but we just can't bother fixing it."

Even assuming that establishment Democrats and I have the same goals, there is a fundamental disagreement on tactics, because establishment Democrats are stupid when they have power, because they don't use it to accrue more power, which puts them at a fundamental disadvantage to Republicans.

And it appears that establishment Democrats aren't going to learn the lessons of 2009, and that they're going to keep trying to "deal" with Republicans, who have absolutely zero reason to ever deal. They just run farther to the right. So where exactly is that merry-go-round supposed to stop?

[Kalbear]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

This is where I'm always going to disagree. Any battle not fought is a battle lost. It's like saying "Well, yes, it's definitely broken, but we just can't bother fixing it."

No, it's not! You can recognize that a problem exists and that you want to fix it and realize that for a variety of reasons it is not nearly worth the effort it would take to fight it, and will cause you to lose in other places. You do not have unlimited energy to fight everything, and you have to recognize that your foes are fighting too. 

If, for instance, you decided to support funding the police by providing double the funding to police, most of which would go to police-run social workers, aid systems and restorative justice and weakening of police union power - would you consider that a loss because you didn't defund the police?

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Even assuming that establishment Democrats and I have the same goals, there is a fundamental disagreement on tactics, because establishment Democrats are stupid when they have power, because they don't use it to accrue more power, which puts them at a fundamental disadvantage to Republicans.

This is a weird thing that I don't get. You're advocating that people in power take unpopular opinions (which will almost certainly get them out of power) AND that when they get into power they do things to accrue more power. You don't see the disconnect there? 

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

And it appears that establishment Democrats aren't going to learn the lessons of 2009, and that they're going to keep trying to "deal" with Republicans, who have absolutely zero reason to ever deal. They just run farther to the right. So where exactly is that merry-go-round supposed to stop?

I don't understand this. Why do you think that they are attempting to 'deal' here? Biden is saying some things - just like every POTUS has - but nothing in his first 100 days is reliant on a single thing in dealing with Republicans. In fact, he's doing more with EOs than any POTUS has scheduled before this, including Obama. 

The only 'deal' I see is that Warren and Sanders aren't going to get cabinet positions, because they can't get the votes. And that's not a deal so much as an acceptance of reality. 

[Lollygag]

19 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Abolish ICE

Yes.

ICE has been turned into training/desensitization for a nationalist and fascist army to use against American citizens. There's only a thin line between dehumanizing and abusing immigrants and dehumanizing and abusing the "un-American", being anyone who is inconvenient.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/17/17364562/trump-dog-omarosa-dehumanization-psychology

Quote

Dehumanization is a mental loophole that allows us to dismiss other people’s feelings and experiences

If you think of murder and torture as universally taboo, then dehumanization of the “other” is a psychological loophole that can justify those acts.

Look back at some of the most tragic episodes in human history and you will find words and images that stripped people of their basic human traits. During the Nazi era, the film The Eternal Jew depicted Jews as rats. During the Rwandan genocide, Hutu officials called Tutsis “cockroaches” that needed to be cleared out.

In the wake of World War II, psychologists wanted to understand how the genocide had happened. In the 1970s, Stanley Milgram’s infamous electroshock experiment showed how quickly people cave to authority. Also in that decade, there was Philip Zimbardo’s “prison experiment,” which showed how easily people in positions of power can abuse others.

At Stanford in 1975, Albert Bandura showed that when participants overhear an experimenter call another study subject “an animal,” they’re more likely to give that subject a painful shock.

From these experiments and others that followed, it became clear that “it’s extremely easy to turn down someone’s ability to see someone else in their full humanity,” Adam Waytz, a psychologist at Northwestern University, told me in 2017.

 

 

The cages weren't just about how the immigrants were treated, but how to condition ICE to see them. ICE agents may need evaluation.

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

This is a weird thing that I don't get. You're advocating that people in power take unpopular opinions (which will almost certainly get them out of power) AND that when they get into power they do things to accrue more power. You don't see the disconnect there? 

I'm saying that Democrats aren't now and never have been willing to play hardball with Republicans. They had a once-in-a-generation opportunity in 2009 to counteract some of the strutural electoral disadvantages like the Senate, which they chose to squander because they kept trying to play nice with the people telling them to fuck off.

That failure is then glossed over and those same structural electoral disadvantages are used as the reason why lefties can't have nice things. That feels like a racket to me.

Quote

I don't understand this. Why do you think that they are attempting to 'deal' here? Biden is saying some things - just like every POTUS has - but nothing in his first 100 days is reliant on a single thing in dealing with Republicans. In fact, he's doing more with EOs than any POTUS has scheduled before this, including Obama. 

The only 'deal' I see is that Warren and Sanders aren't going to get cabinet positions, because they can't get the votes. And that's not a deal so much as an acceptance of reality. 

Okay, I'll concede that I'm jumping the gun on any dealing, but his Cabinet picks thus far aren't inspiring confidence and I have no doubt that I'll be here complaining soon about the shitty deals he's trying to make.

[Mindwalker]

Are there really no competent, eligible progressives for cabinet positions besides Sanders, Warren or other senators?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm saying that Democrats aren't now and never have been willing to play hardball with Republicans. They had a once-in-a-generation opportunity in 2009 to counteract some of the strutural electoral disadvantages like the Senate, which they chose to squander because they kept trying to play nice with the people telling them to fuck off.

I think that's a huge loss, yes. Though I don't think that anyone understood precisely how much hardball McConnell was going to play there. It sucks, and in retrospect a massive, massive loss given how much power Obama had then and how much power Dems are almost certainly never going to have more than once a generation. 

If Biden gets that advantage somehow AND he squanders it, that's a reasonable thing to blame him for - but even Obama learned that he wasn't going to wait for Republicans to get on board, and Garland absolutely nailed that coffin. 

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

That failure is then glossed over and those same structural electoral disadvantages are used as the reason why lefties can't have nice things. That feels like a racket to me. 

Again, I don't think anyone in 2009 was talking about these structural failures because it wasn't clear that these were so, well, failing. The dem before that - Clinton - was able to get things done with Republican congressional support, and wasn't impaired nearly to the extent Obama was. Bush hadn't been either, for that matter. We understand now why Lefties can't have nice things, but we didn't understand then the urgency or the lack of chances we were going to have. 

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Okay, I'll concede that I'm jumping the gun on any dealing, but his Cabinet picks thus far aren't inspiring confidence and I have no doubt that I'll be here complaining soon about the shitty deals he's trying to make.

I'm personally super worried about Yellen given her budget hawk bullshit and her desire to raise the interest rates in 2016 despite, ya know, no goddamn reason to do so. I think she's super qualified, but I don't like that policy view at all. The rest I think is either just fine or actively great - Sullivan at NSA should be excellent, and the UN ambassador should be good, and Kerry on the NSA council is great for a whole lot of reasons. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Mindwalker said:

Are there really no competent, eligible progressives for cabinet positions besides Sanders, Warren or other senators?

Not really! Again, this is why I keep saying that progressives need to start at state and local levels and gain popularity, and then start working into the bureaucracy. There is just a massive hole in the bench for progressives. I will say Obama didn't exactly help this, and DWS's disaster of a performance as chair helped this even less, but progressives have to start doing this on their own too. Get more mayors, more governors, more SoS, more positions in State and economic positions. Or...don't, and then watch as you don't get people in place because the next best person is, like, one of the young Turks or some shit. 

[Week]

13 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm saying that Democrats aren't now and never have been willing to play hardball with Republicans. They had a once-in-a-generation opportunity in 2009 to counteract some of the strutural electoral disadvantages like the Senate, which they chose to squander because they kept trying to play nice with the people telling them to fuck off.

The ACA took far more political capital for less payoff than hoped - that said, it's a mistake to call it's passage a "squander"ed opportunity. Fuck Lieberman for blocking the public option - we'd be in a different place if it could have passed fully as it could have. Alas, it didn't. It takes some 20/20 hindsight to view the response to economic calamity as only a failure.

[Zorral]

8 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

his Cabinet picks thus far aren't inspiring confidence

Well, in our casita, we're happy with his choice for Homeland Security Chief.  

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm saying that Democrats aren't now and never have been willing to play hardball with Republicans. They had a once-in-a-generation opportunity in 2009 to counteract some of the strutural electoral disadvantages like the Senate, which they chose to squander because they kept trying to play nice with the people telling them to fuck off.

Enough with this revisionist bullshit.  Obama and Reid didn't entertain abolishing the filibuster because they did not have the votes to do it, bottomline.  And employing their political capital on stimulus, the ACA, Dodd/Frank, and (along with Pelosi) cap-and-trade meant it was already spent anyway.  They were able to unite their caucus and party-in-the-elite on the first three even though it cost many of those members their political careers.

13 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Are there really no competent, eligible progressives for cabinet positions besides Sanders, Warren or other senators?

Well, there weren't gonna be any "progressives" in Biden's national security picks.  I'm not even sure who that is.  Gabbard?  Even then, no leftist should have a problem with Linda Thomas-Greenfield at the UN.  Yellen isn't really offensive to leftists, albeit as I've said I preferred Bloom Raskin or even Brainard - so yeah, I think that pick was feckless.  Kerry has been good on climate change but I would have preferred someone with a..fresher approach.  Either way the leftists had no problem there.  And as I've mentioned, Mayorkas was about as good as leftists were gonna get on Homeland.  

Most of the Cabinet-level picks that Biden could appoint leftists to - HHS, Labor, HUD, Transportation, Education, Energy, EPA - haven't been announced/leaked yet.

[Mindwalker]

Not a "progressive", but I'm surprised they didn't offer that ambassador post to Buttigieg, who seemed to be interested.

[Lollygag]

I notice quite a few similarities in psychology between the evangelical far right, and yes, the differently evangelical far left. For the far right, they just like being angry for the sake of being angry and if it's not one thing, it's another. Speaking different languages. 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-supporters-maga-fundamentalist-christian_n_5fb54f82c5b66cd4ad410877

Quote

The collective emotional high I recognize in Trump’s most ardent supporters is the kind of mass hysteria we typically associate with the Salem witch trials, and, as history shows us, it never ends well. It’s a cult mentality populated by True Believers. Having grown up surrounded by True Believers, I know firsthand that the danger comes from the origin of their beliefs. Their worldviews are not shaped by facts or research, but by the good feeling they derive from their sense of belonging and the rush of being right, even if no one outside their group agrees ― perhaps especially if no one outside their group agrees. 

This contrarian groupthink is why I feel less amused than afraid when I see thousands marching in the streets of D.C. in support of the current administration or Donald Trump refuting irrefutable facts from the Oval Office, or Kenneth Copeland maniacally laughing in the face of the president’s defeat. Not all Trump voters are MAGA-hat-wearing Trump devotees, but all MAGA-hat-wearing devotees are members of a radical group that gets an emotional high from their own perceived subversion, and like any great high, this kind of fervor can lead to an aggressively protected addiction. 

 

[DMC]

Just now, Mindwalker said:

Not a "progressive", but I'm surprised they didn't offer that ambassador post to Buttigieg, who seemed to be interested.

Me too.  But in that example, Thomas-Greenfield is much more progressive/leftist than Buttigieg.  Looks like it's either VA or bust for Pete, which I'm surprised about.

[GrimTuesday]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Obviously self-interest guides any elected official's public posture.  That self-interest, or reelection, is inextricably fused with the public-interest - how the elected official wants to govern in order to align with their policy preferences.  You can't affect change without being in power.  This tug-of-war is at the root of millennia of political theory, we're not gonna solve it in this thread.  My point is basically don't demonize your friends or those that can help you achieve your goals - and especially don't assume such motives.  The latter often does make an ass out of..ya know.  

As for the general point about the wealthy exploiting and dividing the working/lower classes, sure.  That's just how the world, and subsequently politics, works.

Everything you said is true and correct, but the fact is that I think Democrats in particular do not understand  (if we're assuming that they aren't doing this purposefully) the power that they have in determining what is politically popular. Republicans understand this, and they know that even if something is unpopular, they can make it popular. Using both their members, as well as their media allies, the Republicans are able to completely reframe a policy in such a way that even if they thake a beating electorally, they will be back in the next cycle with a new weapon. Democrats don't do this, as far as I can tell, they take a look at polls, and they use that to determine what position is popular and take that. It's kind of like the Breitbart doctrine, that politics are downstream from culture, where you change the political calculus by changing the culture.

1 minute ago, Mindwalker said:

Not a "progressive", but I'm surprised they didn't offer that ambassador post to Buttigieg, who seemed to be interested.

I'm super petty so I'm fine with him getting nothing.

 

[Mindwalker]

1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

I notice quite a few similarities in psychology between the evangelical far right, and yes, the differently evangelical far left. For the far right, they just like being angry for the sake of being angry and if it's not one thing, it's another. Speaking different languages. 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-supporters-maga-fundamentalist-christian_n_5fb54f82c5b66cd4ad410877

 

Any sources/ reseach for this assumption about leftists?

[Lollygag]

1 minute ago, Mindwalker said:

Not a "progressive", but I'm surprised they didn't offer that ambassador post to Buttigieg, who seemed to be interested.

The world's in a very delicate place and this isn't the time to put in inexperienced 30-somethings, no matter how impressive.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Enough with this revisionist bullshit.  Obama and Reid didn't entertain abolishing the filibuster because they did not have the votes to do it, bottomline. 

And that's the problem I'm talking about, perfectly illustrated. And there's no guarantee they would even if they'd done as well as they'd hoped. 

I'd argue not being as ruthless as your opponent when you have power compared to when they do is an irresponsible use of power. Why should I continue to support people who are committed to irresponsibly using power?

Does anyone really think that a Democratic Senate would ever block the Supreme Court nominee of a Republican president, even now? I surely don't, because they'll be fecklessly worrying about using the power they have instead of exercising power when they have it.

[Mindwalker]

6 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

'm super petty so I'm fine with him getting nothing.

 

Heh. I'm not invested in him, but I do think he'd be an asset as a press secretary or something in that vein (I  know that's beneath his ambitions, even though he did state he'd be happy to help in any capacity inside or outside the administration).

ETA: Why the pettiness, exactly?

Agree he is quite young, if they wanted to use someone as young, they should go for AOC. (Yes, I know they wouldn't.)

 

Ideological questions aside, while I understnd Biden wants experienced folk and people he's worked with/ from the Obama admin (particularly when he couldn't even have someone thoroughly vetted until today), he should also try to find some younger/ fresher people for a healthy mix.