United States Politics Thread 46

[Linguoboy]

As exhilarating as this day as been, it still won't feel real until I wake up tomorrow morning, ask myself for a split second, "Wait, was that just something I dreamed?", and the conclude that it wasn't.

It all happened so quickly I still haven't had a chance to catch up on all the awful bullshit the outgoing administration pulled in its last 24 hours. I did look over the list of pardons early this morning when I couldn't sleep and was surprised to find it rather less terrible than I'd expected. I hope someone does a comprehensive breakdown, because among the various white-collar criminals and corrupt politicians were a fair number of nonviolent drug offenders and other victims of overpolicing. (Of course, the fact that they even need to be pardoned this way at all instead of having their convictions expunged as part of a more comprehensive post-legalisation amnesty is a whole nother huge issue, but I'll take what I can get.)

On the plus side, this also means I haven't caught up on all the terrible policies Biden has already reversed. That should help balance things out in the shorter term.

[zompist]

Seems like a good time to start a new thread.

I don't think politics will be boring for awhile. But I hope it will be far more boring than it has been for the last four years!

[Raphael]

I don't think I've ever felt so bad about someone whom I supported taking office after winning an election before. Not because of the Inauguration itself - ok, I had all kinds of quibbles, but those aren't really the problem. No, because I'm still so worried about what kind of shit certain parts of the Right, in the USA and elsewhere, will pull next.

There are many things that are important now, but IMO one of them is that we take care not to forget how long the last four years felt while they were going on.

On a trivial note, elsewhere on the web, I just saw a Trump supporter say that his opponents are bad because they say so many mean things about him and his supporters. Some people should really listen to themselves and their friends more often.

[Vardelm]

I don't think politics will be boring for awhile. But I hope it will be far more boring than it has been for the last four years!

I watched the press conference today. It was mostly boring. And that was fantastic.

[Linguoboy]

I don't think politics will be boring for awhile. But I hope it will be far more boring than it has been for the last four years!

I watched the press conference today. It was mostly boring. And that was fantastic.

Just having a press conference is a welcome return to normalcy.

I hear you, though, Raphael. I just watched Katy Perry's performance of "Firework" and my mind was careening all over the place. Each time I caught sight of the Biden's standing behind the Presidential seal or the Harrises in front of the Lincoln Memorial, my eyes welled up. At the same time, I thought (a) I'm glad they're in separate locations and (b) that's an awfully exposed and brightly-lit vantage point for Harris and her husband to be watching from. And those kinds of thoughts aren't going away any time soon.

I have to remind myself that I had a lot of the same worries when Obama was elected and they diminished with time. When he gave his victory address in Grant Park in Chicago in 2008 I just kept thinking of all the hotel windows facing his podium. But as each additional month went by without him being taken out with a sniper rifle, I began to believe it wouldn't ever happen. I suspect it will be the same this time around as well.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I don't think politics will be boring for awhile. But I hope it will be far more boring than it has been for the last four years!

I watched the press conference today. It was mostly boring. And that was fantastic.

I am extremely fond of boring in my politicians. They should be the most uninterestingly competent uncharismatic and functional people ever.

[Travis B.]

I didn't watch the press conference, but I sure am looking forward to a boring presidency myself.

[Ares Land]

That new Citizenship Act looks very much not boring, in a good way!

[Linguoboy]

I am extremely fond of boring in my politicians. They should be the most uninterestingly competent uncharismatic and functional people ever.

I can't agree. The trouble with dull technocrats is that they are terrible at explaining the justifications for their policies, which leaves too much room for demagogues to distort their aims and effects and get the public opposed to measures they should be supporting. A major criticism of liberal leaders (particularly in North America and Europe) is that they haven't done enough to make a positive case for such policies as free trade and free movement, holding the benefits to be self-evident, and that's left too much room for charismatic right-wing figures to espouse protectionism and immigration restrictions.

Maybe what you're saying is that finding someone who's both a policy wonk and people person is too tall an order and that these functions should be separated? I don't really agree--I've had my share of brilliant teachers who were both--but even assuming that's true, I think we need to include both types in our political class. Having nothing but boring technocrats run the government while an unelected class of pundits argues before the public which of their measures have merit and which don't strikes me as a worse version of what we have already.

Or maybe I've misunderstood you and you're proposing something else entirely? If so, what?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I am extremely fond of boring in my politicians. They should be the most uninterestingly competent uncharismatic and functional people ever.

I can't agree. The trouble with dull technocrats is that they are terrible at explaining the justifications for their policies, which leaves too much room for demagogues to distort their aims and effects and get the public opposed to measures they should be supporting. A major criticism of liberal leaders (particularly in North America and Europe) is that they haven't done enough to make a positive case for such policies as free trade and free movement, holding the benefits to be self-evident, and that's left too much room for charismatic right-wing figures to espouse protectionism and immigration restrictions.

Maybe what you're saying is that finding someone who's both a policy wonk and people person is too tall an order and that these functions should be separated? I don't really agree--I've had my share of brilliant teachers who were both--but even assuming that's true, I think we need to include both types in our political class. Having nothing but boring technocrats run the government while an unelected class of pundits argues before the public which of their measures have merit and which don't strikes me as a worse version of what we have already.

Or maybe I've misunderstood you and you're proposing something else entirely? If so, what?

I was simply stating a matter of preference of personality. I'm immediately mistrustful of anybody with a big personal following. I didn't mean to imply that they were the best at making their own cases or defeating evil, merely that they were what I, personally, prefer.

[Travis B.]

I am extremely fond of boring in my politicians. They should be the most uninterestingly competent uncharismatic and functional people ever.

I can't agree. The trouble with dull technocrats is that they are terrible at explaining the justifications for their policies, which leaves too much room for demagogues to distort their aims and effects and get the public opposed to measures they should be supporting. A major criticism of liberal leaders (particularly in North America and Europe) is that they haven't done enough to make a positive case for such policies as free trade and free movement, holding the benefits to be self-evident, and that's left too much room for charismatic right-wing figures to espouse protectionism and immigration restrictions.

Maybe what you're saying is that finding someone who's both a policy wonk and people person is too tall an order and that these functions should be separated? I don't really agree--I've had my share of brilliant teachers who were both--but even assuming that's true, I think we need to include both types in our political class. Having nothing but boring technocrats run the government while an unelected class of pundits argues before the public which of their measures have merit and which don't strikes me as a worse version of what we have already.

Or maybe I've misunderstood you and you're proposing something else entirely? If so, what?

I agree completely with this, even though I do not support free trade per se (as I think that limitations should be put on trade so as to ensure that people producing products imported into the US are given the same standards of living as people working on the same products in the US).

[Linguoboy]

I agree completely with this, even though I do not support free trade per se (as I think that limitations should be put on trade so as to ensure that people producing products imported into the US are given the same standards of living as people working on the same products in the US).

As I'm sure you know, the classic free trade argument was that free trade would automatically raise standards of living in poorer regions by spurring economic development and political liberalisation. Of course, the experience of much of the world (notably China) has demonstrated otherwise.

What I was basically doing was just parroting the argument made by the Economist, which frequently faults liberal elites for failing to make the case for liberalism and thus opening the door to far-right populism. But the same argument should apply to any political programme. (Those populists often get voted out again when it turns out they can't articulate or implement any kind of coherent programme themselves.) Even when the rising tide lifts all boats, it doesn't lift them all equally, which leads to resentment. If you don't manage that carefully (e.g. by providing some concrete sort of compensation or making a really compelling argument for why this is a just outcome), those malcontents will look for champions and scapegoats, and they almost certainly won't be the ones you would have chosen.

That's essentially what happened to the Republicans. Trump wasn't the candidate they wanted but he was the one they got in part because they failed to make the case for their economic policies. Despite espousing political populism during the campaign, however, he mostly supported those policies in office (e.g. deregulation, the tax cut), but where he didn't, it was pretty devastating (just ask the soybean farmers)--not to mention the fact that he ultimately rent the party, undermined democracy, and lost them control of two out of three branches of government.

[zompist]

That's essentially what happened to the Republicans. Trump wasn't the candidate they wanted but he was the one they got in part because they failed to make the case for their economic policies. Despite espousing political populism during the campaign, however, he mostly supported those policies in office (e.g. deregulation, the tax cut),

The GOP's fundamental problem is that there is no case for their policies— that is, no case that the public would support. If they honestly said they were for making the rich pay no taxes, eliminating Social Security and Medicare, ending health care, and removing all restrictions on big business, they would lose everyone but the editors of the Economist, who can't vote in this country anyway.

It's darkly humorous to see the GOP's attempts to fake economic populism. E.g. the last few days there was a Twitter meme that attacked the idea of raising the minimum wage, because a fast food worker could end up making more than an associate professor. A nice self-own: they show that a) they hate the actual working class, and b) professors don't make enough money either.

This is why they always need to have a culture war and change the subject to it as much as possible. And why they put so much effort into voter suppression.

but where he didn't, it was pretty devastating (just ask the soybean farmers)--not to mention the fact that he ultimately rent the party, undermined democracy, and lost them control of two out of three branches of government.

There's not going to be any kind of reckoning within the GOP though. Maybe they go with Trump again because no one is more popular with the base. Who else is waiting in the wings? Ted Cruz?

[Linguoboy]

There's not going to be any kind of reckoning within the GOP though. Maybe they go with Trump again because no one is more popular with the base. Who else is waiting in the wings? Ted Cruz?

Josh Hawley. It's 100% clear to me that he's got his eyes laser-focused on the presidency and he sees capturing Trump's base as the springboard he needs.

[zompist]

There's not going to be any kind of reckoning within the GOP though. Maybe they go with Trump again because no one is more popular with the base. Who else is waiting in the wings? Ted Cruz?

Josh Hawley. It's 100% clear to me that he's got his eyes laser-focused on the presidency and he sees capturing Trump's base as the springboard he needs.

He's from your home state... you must be so proud. I think he has some obstacles in his way though:

1. Trump. You can't get Trump's base if Trump is still in play.
2. Cruz.
3. He's not that popular with the GOP. His favorability among Republicans in Missouri is currently negative.
4. Nationally (see the same link) he's less popular than Trump, which is really something.

[Ares Land]

I can't agree. (...)

I generally agree with you on charisma, and the general idea that politicians have a general duty to be convincing, able to engage the electorate, and able to explain their policies.
What peoplel rejecting charismatic politicians (including me at times, I must confess) are picking up is that narcissism or sociopathic traits are easily confused with genuine charisma.
Playing armchair psychiatrist: Trump could likely be diagnosed with NPD, ditto with Boris Johnson, Nicolas Sarkozy and Emmanuel Macron.

[Linguoboy]

There's not going to be any kind of reckoning within the GOP though. Maybe they go with Trump again because no one is more popular with the base. Who else is waiting in the wings? Ted Cruz?

Josh Hawley. It's 100% clear to me that he's got his eyes laser-focused on the presidency and he sees capturing Trump's base as the springboard he needs.

He's from your home state... you must be so proud.

Every bit as proud as John Danforth!

1. Trump. You can't get Trump's base if Trump is still in play.

Which he won't be if he gets convicted by the Senate or indicted on one of the many criminal charges he's now facing.

2. Cruz.

I tend to discount Cruz because I find him devoid of charisma. Republicans still love him, but he's tanked with Independents since going all-in for StoptheSteal.

3. He's not that popular with the GOP. His favorability among Republicans in Missouri is currently negative.

The question, though, is why? And will this still be the case three or four years from now? He upset a lot of folks by getting elected AG solely to use that as a stepping stone to Senator, but (a) no one outside the state cares and (b) he's got another two years in the Senate before he launches his campaign in earnest. At that point, he'd only be following in Obama's footsteps which should insulate him from a lot of criticism.

If it's because of his support of the insurrectionists, again, how much will that be on people's minds after the eternity that is two years from now? Hopefully some polling firms are working on richer data so we can begin to answer some of these questions.

4. Nationally (see the same link) he's less popular than Trump, which is really something.

See above. Is this a temporary effect of his fist-pump-photo-op (now that Republicans have suddenly decided they didn't like yahoos storming the legislature after all) or something more lasting?

If it does get censured, it will be interesting to see what that does. I would expect the conservosphere to spin it as a vindictive move by the Democrats against a Republican "maverick", which should boost his stock with Trumpers.

[Moose-tache]

Who will the next big right-wing demagogue be? Probably not anyone we know well today. Just as before, the old guard will carry on, and the energetic movements will rise and fall quickly. Here are my guesses for what we can expect in the near future:

La Raza Informada - After forgetting that you have to actually ask people to vote for you if you expect them to vote for you, the Democrats haemorrhage Latino voters. Top Democrats don't understand why their policy of doing nothing and taking brown votes for granted isn't working. Meanwhile right-wing groups take the radical, unexpected step of actively campaigning for Hispanic votes. It turns out that traumatized, forgotten communities with their own media networks are tailor-made for conspiracy theories. In the future few Latino-Americans believe in the moon landing, vaccines, or fluoridated water, and Americans take it for granted that Democrats must "overcome" the inherent hostility of the Latino vote.

Ruby Ridge, But Flat - the rural Midwest is slowly becoming a hive of regressive white people. People in these states still assume they are immune to racism because they're not Southern and everyone knows the North isn't like that. When the government tries to force common sense on the sturdy, corn-fed locals they take up arms and start quoting Thomas Jefferson out of context. Various short-lived Republics (and a few unironically named "Confederacies," but still not racist because North) pop up and are swatted down by the Federal government. Michigan briefly tries to sell itself to Canada before realizing that this would actually result in more liberals telling them what to do.

Kid's Gop - The Republican Party's experimental program of algorithm-designed youtube videos exceeds their wildest expectations by launching a new movement. Teenagers, who totally aren't like the other girls you understand, express their youthful rebelliousness by promoting flat tax proposals and deregulated soy exports. High school and even middle school hallways are covered in graffiti that proclaims "Skateboarding and pillaging the Earth's natural resources are not illegal!" Their leader, Timmy from First Period, has focused his campaign on lowering the voting age to 12, and raising tariffs on all vegetables that taste gross.

[Vardelm]

...Michigan briefly tries to sell itself to Canada...

I'd be OK with this.

[Linguoboy]

La Raza Informada - After forgetting that you have to actually ask people to vote for you if you expect them to vote for you, the Democrats haemorrhage Latino voters. Top Democrats don't understand why their policy of doing nothing and taking brown votes for granted isn't working. Meanwhile right-wing groups take the radical, unexpected step of actively campaigning for Hispanic votes. It turns out that traumatized, forgotten communities with their own media networks are tailor-made for conspiracy theories. In the future few Latino-Americans believe in the moon landing, vaccines, or fluoridated water, and Americans take it for granted that Democrats must "overcome" the inherent hostility of the Latino vote.

So this is a cartoon reality where Odio and Valencia didn't found Equis and that organisations like Living United for Change, She Se Puede, Latinos for Democracy, GALEO, and Mijente simply don't exist and weren't instrumental in delivering Georgia to the Democrats on November 3rd and again on January 5th? Cool historia, mano.