United States Politics Thread 47

[alice]

malloc, can you explain to this non-American the process by which $amount spent by someone you don't like guarantees a certain number of votes for the Republicans, when the voters are not the recipients of the money? When you've done that, do you have an idea of how big $amount has to be to persuade the voter to ignore the realites of their day-to-day living?

[malloc]

malloc, can you explain to this non-American the process by which $amount spent by someone you don't like guarantees a certain number of votes for the Republicans, when the voters are not the recipients of the money? When you've done that, do you have an idea of how big $amount has to be to persuade the voter to ignore the realites of their day-to-day living?

You have to consider the sheer volume of political ads that all that money can buy. When ninety-nine percent of the ads you see favor one candidate over another, that will almost certainly influence your vote. Imagine if you heard thousands of times about how horrible someone was with almost no pushback and so forth. This doesn't guarantee that they will win based on that alone, but it seems incredibly naïve to hope that overwhelming spending will fail enough to turn the tide.

[zompist]

[When ninety-nine percent of the ads you see favor one candidate over another, that will almost certainly influence your vote.

You need to be bold when you're pulling numbers out of your ass to glorify your God-Emperor. 99 to 1? Why not say 9999 to 1? Why not say ONE BILLION TO ONE?

[zompist]

In the real world, one thing to worry about is the fundraising apparatus. Both parties do this, but the article focuses on the Democrats. Of $390 million raised by the Pascal network of PACs, $249 million went into more fundraising, and only $70 million (18%) went to individual candidates or to general turnout or organizing efforts.

If you're in the US, avoid donating to PACs or general organizations: donate to specific candidates. I've also heard that traditional grassroots organizing is far more effective than ads.

(FWIW the only political ads I've seen are on Youtube, and they're all Democratic. But I keep my Youtube watching apolitical.)

[MacAnDàil]

One thing that worries me is that Musk has already committed to spending $200 million on helping the Republicans win the midterms, alongside all the money they're already raising themselves. Despite their currently dire polling, they could easily hold Congress just through extreme outspending. Much as we might enjoy gloating at their ongoing incompetence, things might well look quite different in the next few months.

Also, it underscores just how well the MAGA movement has won the culture wars that even notionally far left people like AOC have come out against "woke" and dismissed it as crazy. It makes me worry that the relative tolerance and progressive climate that characterized the 2010s is lost forever.

Please take into account when Musk invested 25M$ in a losing candidate: https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-wisc ... ss-2053668

[rotting bones]

A thought: how will he be regarded once he's gone and people don't have to worry about incurring his wrath by criticising him?

I've noticed that when they believe someone is fighting for them, most people often find incompetence to be charming. His incompetence made Modi seem more endearing to most Indians. Competence is endured as being necessary, but most people are more likely to fear it than to love it.

[Travis B.]

One thing that worries me is that Musk has already committed to spending $200 million on helping the Republicans win the midterms, alongside all the money they're already raising themselves. Despite their currently dire polling, they could easily hold Congress just through extreme outspending. Much as we might enjoy gloating at their ongoing incompetence, things might well look quite different in the next few months.

Also, it underscores just how well the MAGA movement has won the culture wars that even notionally far left people like AOC have come out against "woke" and dismissed it as crazy. It makes me worry that the relative tolerance and progressive climate that characterized the 2010s is lost forever.

Please take into account when Musk invested 25M$ in a losing candidate: https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-wisc ... ss-2053668

If anything, Musk's effort to buy the election was turned against him, contrary to malloc's view that pouring in $M USD guarantees N votes. Same thing happened with AIPAC and their effort to buy the Michigan US Senate Democratic primary.

[alice]

Both parties do this, but the article focuses on the Democrats. Of $390 million raised by the Pascal network of PACs

Pascal? You'd think they had at least graduated to Java. This suddenly explains an awful lot.

Moving swiftly on...

I've noticed that when they believe someone is fighting for them, most people often find incompetence to be charming. His incompetence made Modi seem more endearing to most Indians. Competence is endured as being necessary, but most people are more likely to fear it than to love it.

See also: Alexander Boris dePfeffel Johnson and, to a lesser extent, Jeremy Bernard Corbyn.

[malloc]

Meanwhile aside from Musk's attempts to buy the election, Trump is looking for ways to delegitimize the results.

[Raphael]

Bret Devereaux has an interesting thread about fascism on Bluesky:

https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux. ... sb62mvac2g

https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux. ... sb62ncw62g

[rotting bones]

Bret Devereaux has an interesting thread about fascism on Bluesky:

https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux. ... sb62mvac2g

https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux. ... sb62ncw62g

My proposal follows the explanation that political scientists give for it (https://snapshotsofthelabyrinth.photo.b ... -planning/).

I feel like the "human nature" explanation is doomering. It also doesn't explain anything. What was the parody of Platonic science? "Sleeping pills work because of their soporific quality"?

[Raphael]

Bret Devereaux has an interesting thread about fascism on Bluesky:

https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux. ... sb62mvac2g

https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux. ... sb62ncw62g

My proposal follows the explanation that political scientists give for it (https://snapshotsofthelabyrinth.photo.b ... -planning/).

I feel like the "human nature" explanation is doomering. It also doesn't explain anything. What was the parody of Platonic science? "Sleeping pills work because of their soporific quality"?

Explaining human behavior through the structure of the human mind and human brain sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[rotting bones]

Explaining human behavior through the structure of the human mind and human brain sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Is there an explanation from the structure of the brain? It sounds to me like: Certain historical events can be interpreted as analogous to current events. Based on this apparent uniformity, I hypothesize some structure of the human brain is responsible for it. Therefore, the same behavior will continue.

A true structural explanation would distinguish between environmental and inherent effects. Even if the effect is inherent, knowing the actual structure will explain how medical, surgical or genetic interventions can change it.

Previously, I have argued at length about why the effect is environmental rather than inherent. There are certain ways media can be manipulated that the fascists use to propagate their ideas. This is helped along by the artificial scarcity created by capitalism.

Maybe you feel like fascism is natural because German Romantic literature has had fascist leanings for centuries.

[Raphael]

Previously, I have argued at length about why the effect is environmental rather than inherent. There are certain ways media can be manipulated that the fascists use to propagate their ideas. This is helped along by the artificial scarcity created by capitalism.

Again, no matter how useful fascist ideas are for some people, they wouldn't ever get anywhere if they wouldn't appeal to something in many people. If the capitalists would built their propaganda around telling people of the glory of literally, and not just metaphorically, eating shit, that propaganda would never succeed, because there aren't enough people around who like to do that.

Quoting one of my own earlier posts on the matter,

Again, my point is that yes, of course it's propaganda by the paid propagandists of the elites. What I'm talking about is why that propaganda works: because it appeals to ancient aspects of human brains.

In computer terms, you're talking about who the hackers are and how good they are at their work and who pays them; I'm talking about the vulnerabilities deeply embedded in the hacked system that the hackers take advantage of to do their hacking.

[rotting bones]

Previously, I have argued at length about why the effect is environmental rather than inherent. There are certain ways media can be manipulated that the fascists use to propagate their ideas. This is helped along by the artificial scarcity created by capitalism.

Again, no matter how useful fascist ideas are for some people, they wouldn't ever get anywhere if they wouldn't appeal to something in many people. If the capitalists would built their propaganda around telling people of the glory of literally, and not just metaphorically, eating shit, that propaganda would never succeed, because there aren't enough people around who like to do that.

Quoting one of my own earlier posts on the matter,

Again, my point is that yes, of course it's propaganda by the paid propagandists of the elites. What I'm talking about is why that propaganda works: because it appeals to ancient aspects of human brains.

In computer terms, you're talking about who the hackers are and how good they are at their work and who pays them; I'm talking about the vulnerabilities deeply embedded in the hacked system that the hackers take advantage of to do their hacking.

Under my explanation, we don't always have to be fighting fascists the way we are today.

Undeveloped tribes habitually share resources. They go to war when one of their number is killed. Fascist frame crime by the urban poor and tribe on tribe violence rather than a law and order issue. This narrative is effective when resources are scarce. When resources are scarce, tribes are more antagonistic.

[Raphael]

Under my explanation, we don't always have to be fighting fascists the way we are today.

I don't think people should assume a claim is true if it would be desirable for it to be true.

[rotting bones]

Under my explanation, we don't always have to be fighting fascists the way we are today.

I don't think people should assume a claim is true if it would be desirable for it to be true.

It's not an assumption. I have an explanation based on anthropological scholarship. Gesturing at history looks vague to me. You can do that with any ideology. Capitalists read capitalism even into periods when the powers of merchants were severely curtailed. Although you can find all human behaviors in all historical periods, the proportions in which they are prevalent differ so greatly that the people from these periods might very well see each other as different species. Seeing premodern behavior as fascist is like a future mass murderer overlord of humanity gesturing at 21st century street crime as a precursor to his actions.

[Ares Land]

Bret Devereaux has an interesting thread about fascism on Bluesky:

https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux. ... sb62mvac2g

https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux. ... sb62ncw62g

I don't entirely agree with the idea. My main objection is that fascism by nature relies on the full power of the state, so it can only be a modern phenomenon. But it's a relatively small quibble.
That said, I feel that the far-right is, basically, a scam -- it relies on the same mechanisms and human cognitive biases and lower instincts. So my views aren't terribly different from Devereaux's either.

And just like Devereaux, I don't believe it's a product of hyper-capitalism either. You get fascists in social democracies which may still be capitalist but really not in the same way the US is capitalist.

I feel like the "human nature" explanation is doomering. It also doesn't explain anything. What was the parody of Platonic science? "Sleeping pills work because of their soporific quality"?

I don't think it's doomerism. It's not like there's nothing we can do, quite the contrary. Again, the analogy is scams; which we can't get rid of entirely but can also fight effectively.

My proposal follows the explanation that political scientists give for it (https://snapshotsofthelabyrinth.photo.b ... -planning/).

I don't see how that explains fascism though?
Getting rid of capitalism will not get you rid of fascism, anymore that it'll get you rid of con men, or in fact any kind of crime.
There's really no single villain or ideal organization that would solve all problems.

Although of course economic hardship is part of the causes, but not entirely.

[rotting bones]

I don't think it's doomerism. It's not like there's nothing we can do, quite the contrary. Again, the analogy is scams; which we can't get rid of entirely but can also fight effectively.

It's partial doomering with respect to our ability to get rid of fascism. Absolute doomering is rare.

I don't see how that explains fascism though?

I summarized it here:

Undeveloped tribes habitually share resources. They go to war when one of their number is killed. Fascist frame crime by the urban poor and tribe on tribe violence rather than a law and order issue. This narrative is effective when resources are scarce. When resources are scarce, tribes are more antagonistic.

Getting rid of capitalism will not get you rid of fascism, anymore that it'll get you rid of con men, or in fact any kind of crime.
There's really no single villain or ideal organization that would solve all problems.

Although of course economic hardship is part of the causes, but not entirely.

Fascism is not all problems. It's a problem specific to capitalism generated by artificial scarcity. Humans naturally share resources. In times of hardship, they become more culturally and economically conservative. Capitalism works through a penny-pinching mechanism called "austerity" that's not necessary for physical reasons, only for reasons generated by rules of the game that were invented by humans.

[Ares Land]

I don't think it's doomerism. It's not like there's nothing we can do, quite the contrary. Again, the analogy is scams; which we can't get rid of entirely but can also fight effectively.

It's partial doomering with respect to our ability to get rid of fascism. Absolute doomering is rare.

Then doomerism might be the saner option? We've operated under the assumption that fascism was over and done with so it snuck up on us. It seems safer to operate under the assumption that fascism is always kind of lurking there.

Fascism is not all problems. It's a problem specific to capitalism generated by artificial scarcity. Humans naturally share resources. In times of hardship, they become more culturally and economically conservative. Capitalism works through a penny pinching technique called "austerity" that's not necessary for physical reasons, only for reasons generated by rules of the game that were invented by humans.

I'd love to believe that. But I don't see that hypothesis confirmed by fact.

A few weeks ago, in another thread, I compared a number of indicators between 2000 and 2025. My point was that 2025 is disappointing, but you can't seriously argue there is more hardship and scarcity than in 2000. In fact the poverty rate is about the same. So why was MAGA a thing in 2025 and not in 2000?
If you want to count Gingrich and Bush as fascist, fine. Let's check France or Germany instead.
You'll find a huge rise in the popularity of fascism; In the meantime, yes, as in the US, the economy is disappointing, but we can't speak of hardship or scarcity. Not to say that 2025 was ideal, but neither was 2000 and yet the fascist vote was weaker back then.

It also fails to explain why a significant share of far-right voters are doing relatively well. (In fact the median income of Trump voters was higher in 2017, though not in 2024).

Also, assuming this is created by capitalism, how socialist do you have to be? Why do we see the same phenomenon in Western European countries where institutions are far more likely to be run on socialist lines? Or, in other words, why doesn't socialized healthcare make a difference? It certainly does relieve economical hardship!

Or you know, maybe I'm looking at the wrong things. Then what are the relevant indicators? Can we graph a correlation?