United States Politics Thread 46

[Nortaneous]

the last Republican president was against bathroom bills on the campaign trail, but everyone was all "fuck that guy, we need to make sure he doesn't reshape American politics in the slightest", and the monkey's paw curled.

Nah, when I talked about bathrooms I was more thinking of the oddly specific moral panics about how trans women are gonna rape you in the bathroom, the stuff you get from TERF-adjacent circles.

I'm not sure this is specific to America, or to the religious right. Recently I read an utterly insane rant in an anti-religious French rag.

FWIW Trump did reshape American politics (in a very slight way) on that particular subject: bathroom bills were rescinded. Though TBH he never struck me as being particularly interested in the subject.

Wasn't particularly interested, didn't rule in accordance with it, and couldn't have - there was no "Trump faction" of the Republican party to field appointees, media coordinators, and so on.

The Goldwater realignment took until Reagan to really materialize, but they had institutions and powerful, self-interested backers, and the "socially liberal, economically neo-mercantilist" platform doesn't.

[Ares Land]

Wasn't particularly interested, didn't rule in accordance with it, and couldn't have - there was no "Trump faction" of the Republican party to field appointees, media coordinators, and so on.

The Goldwater realignment took until Reagan to really materialize, but they had institutions and powerful, self-interested backers, and the "socially liberal, economically neo-mercantilist" platform doesn't.

*nods* That is a very good point.

[Moose-tache]

The fact is, there are no economic issues. There are no social issues, except one: tribal loyalty. That's ultimately the only thing that motivates 99.9% of voters. All the rest of it, bathrooms, minimum wage, capital gains taxes, refugee quotas, is just a bunch of flags and banners that we use to mark each tribe so we can keep track of who the good people are. If you could convince Conservatives that true conservatism means raising the minimum wage, they would support it. If you could convince Liberals that true liberalism means lowering minimum wage, they would do that.

So Libertarians are basically riding into battle with a white rose in one hand and a red rose in the other, wondering why nobody is following them. Nobody cares if the white rose smells nice while the red rose has good frost resistance or whatever. They're symbols of two contradictory tribes, and that's their only significance in that context.

[Ares Land]

I don't think so, or at least I don't think this applies to 99.9% of voters.
I mean some of us actually care what the issues are and pay attention to what actually gets done. We may not be a majority, but numerous enough to matter. In both French and Germany, the mainstream left-wing parties tried the strategy of sending the right signal but governing as, or with conservatives. Look at them now: they may emit the right noises, but nobody's going to touch them with a ten foot pole now.

Generally, of course, people will put up with 90% tribal signaling and 10% stuff they care about. Which is understandable, really; we all have complex positions on many issues and there's no political platform that's going to satisfy everyone. Especially on the left where you can and do have mutually incompatible viewpoints for each voter. But the remaining 10% still matter.

Nobody follows the Libertarians because, well, to carry your metaphor further, what they're doing is riding into battle stark naked with a snake in each hand screaming something unintelligible. There's no great mystery to their lack of success: they're loonies. Not in possession of a full set. I mean, Count Binface seems to have a saner head, er, I mean bin on his shoulder. Plus, for all their talk of coming from outside the political spectrum entirely, they actually agree with conservatives on every single issue, except more so. With the possible exception of pot.


OK, I feel bad saying it out loud, because my best friend is a libertarian, and he's not really crazy. He's in fact the smartest, kindest people I know. In fact I do believe he just believes in libertarianism because it just doesn't occur to him that not all people are as kind as he is.

[Raphael]

*agrees partially with Moose-tache and partially with Ares Land*

[Moose-tache]

I mean some of us actually care what the issues are and pay attention to what actually gets done. We may not be a majority, but numerous enough to matter.

Depends on your definition of "matters." If that means "has a meaningful impact on who wins an election and what winners do once in power," then we clearly do not matter, at least in the US. Take fossil fuels for example. Every Republican knows that global warming is a scam, and every Democrat knows that the seas will swallow us tomorrow. So what's the solution for a Democrat once they're elected? You and I know that the only realistic solution is to sink trillions of dollars of taxpayer money into building solar, wind, geothermal, possibly nuclear, and other energy sources. But the Democrats are just smart enough to understand that talking about climate change is what signals to the voters that they are good people, not actually spending their hard-earned money by the trillions. If nerds like us were a meaningful voting bloc, this strategy would not work as perfectly as it does.

Nobody follows the Libertarians because, well, to carry your metaphor further, what they're doing is riding into battle stark naked with a snake in each hand screaming something unintelligible.

Is that even a metaphor? Sounds like a literal description.

[MacAnDàil]

I disagree: one, Biden has a plan for the climate crisis. two, the main source of climate crisis denial are fossil fuel corporation donors to the Republican party. three, if there is one best way to address the climate crisis, it's reducing waste.

[zompist]

The fact is, there are no economic issues. There are no social issues, except one: tribal loyalty. That's ultimately the only thing that motivates 99.9% of voters. All the rest of it, bathrooms, minimum wage, capital gains taxes, refugee quotas, is just a bunch of flags and banners that we use to mark each tribe so we can keep track of who the good people are. If you could convince Conservatives that true conservatism means raising the minimum wage, they would support it. If you could convince Liberals that true liberalism means lowering minimum wage, they would do that.

This is not entirely wrong, according to political scientists, but I think like most nerds you're overly dismissive of non-nerds.

It's true that particular issues are politicized for no reason other than history. As just one example, in 1999 political people had pretty much zero opinion on recounts, so they could be left to a largely apolitical process. In Dec. 2000, Republicans suddenly felt that recounts were completely evil and had to be stopped by the Supreme Court.In Dec. 2020, Republicans suddenly felt that recounts were their God-given right and had to be demanded by the Supreme Court.

It's stupid to politicize recounts, but it's not irrational or merely symbolic: Republicans in both cases wanted their guy to win.

And that in turn is because the constellation of issues that make up a US political party are not all arbitrary or symbolic. Capital gains taxes are very important to people who make capital gains. Minimum wages are very important to people who make only that. It's not some random allotment of issues that could have all gone the other way.

What poli sci will tell you, IIRC, is that political junkies (e.g. all of us who argue in this thread) are rare— most people are not very well informed and don't vote by "considering the issues". And most of the time, they've made up their mind long ago and vote as they always have.

For issue junkies, that's stupid and baffling. But I would put it to you that a) most of the time, The People are pretty good at deciding, by whatever non-issue intuitions they have, which party will do better for them; and b) politics junkies often get so caught up in the issue-of-the-moment that their political decisions become irrational.

So, maybe some dude in the north of England comes from the working class, and votes Labour because his father did and his mates do, and his impression is that the Tories are a bunch of wankers. Is it your contention that he is wrong and that the Tories would serve his interests better? I invite you to look at the last 40 years of Toryism. By intuition and caring for things that you don't think he should care about, he votes for his interests and saves all the time that political junkies spend on reading and arguing about the news.

The people can be fooled— but so can the intellectuals, and probably far more dangerously. For proof, just look at politicians you disapprove of in the last hundred years.

[Ares Land]

Depends on your definition of "matters." If that means "has a meaningful impact on who wins an election and what winners do once in power," then we clearly do not matter, at least in the US. Take fossil fuels for example. Every Republican knows that global warming is a scam, and every Democrat knows that the seas will swallow us tomorrow. So what's the solution for a Democrat once they're elected? You and I know that the only realistic solution is to sink trillions of dollars of taxpayer money into building solar, wind, geothermal, possibly nuclear, and other energy sources. But the Democrats are just smart enough to understand that talking about climate change is what signals to the voters that they are good people, not actually spending their hard-earned money by the trillions. If nerds like us were a meaningful voting bloc, this strategy would not work as perfectly as it does.

But it's not a bug, it's a feature! The problem here isn't tribalism or issues voting.
With respect to climate change, democracy is working exactly as intended. Doing anything meaningful against climate change is extraordinarily difficult, complex, and politically expensive. It's only a tiny minority that really cares that much about it. The Democrats are in fact adequately reflecting the will of the people here!

People aren't swayed by tribalism, they get exactly what they want, which is a minimal response to the problem.

(My impression overall, though, is that the situation is slowly improving, which means our votes still matter somewhat.)

So, maybe some dude in the north of England comes from the working class, and votes Labour because his father did and his mates do, and his impression is that the Tories are a bunch of wankers. Is it your contention that he is wrong and that the Tories would serve his interests better?

A counter-example: working class folk in the north of France (sociologically like the north of England, except worse) vote RN because their father does and their mates do, and his impression is that the Arabs are a bunch of wankers and the socialists are faggots. They are wrong and just about any other option would serve their interest better.

[zompist]

So, maybe some dude in the north of England comes from the working class, and votes Labour because his father did and his mates do, and his impression is that the Tories are a bunch of wankers. Is it your contention that he is wrong and that the Tories would serve his interests better?

A counter-example: working class folk in the north of France (sociologically like the north of England, except worse) vote RN because their father does and their mates do, and his impression is that the Arabs are a bunch of wankers and the socialists are faggots. They are wrong and just about any other option would serve their interest better.

There are certainly cases where someone votes for the right without realizing what it means. Here, there was a story of a guy who voted for Trump because he didn't like "immigrants", but was dismayed when his wife was deported.

A lot of people vote for the right because they're afraid of change, or smallish businessmen, or they're bigots or authoritarians. They're likely to get more or less what they want.

You can say "they shouldn't want that", and I agree, but that's not the problem voting is intended to solve.

[Travis B.]

There are certainly cases where someone votes for the right without realizing what it means. Here, there was a story of a guy who voted for Trump because he didn't like "immigrants", but was dismayed when his wife was deported.

A lot of people vote for the right because they're afraid of change, or smallish businessmen, or they're bigots or authoritarians. They're likely to get more or less what they want.

You can say "they shouldn't want that", and I agree, but that's not the problem voting is intended to solve.

The thing to consider is when people vote in a fashion that actually hurts their own self-interest, e.g. working class people who vote for conservatives who help primarily the very rich while doing much to hurt the working class.

[Moose-tache]

The thing to consider is when people vote in a fashion that actually hurts their own self-interest, e.g. working class people who vote for conservatives who help primarily the very rich while doing much to hurt the working class.

Lord we love to say the right working class is "voting against their interest" here on the left, don't we? I think it's time to put that one to bed. For one thing, it's unconvincing, and for another it's largely meaningless. Future generations will see us voting for candidates who failed to replace Capitalism or failed to address climate change, or failed to heal addicts, and say we're all voting against our own interest. I heard at least one liberal on youtube asking black McCain voters why they were voting against their own interests in the 2008 election. Very gross. The truth is, people vote for complicated reasons. They generally feel like they're voting for their guy/gal who holds their values and cares about them. Whether or not that means specific policies that benefit them in the short term is another thing entirely. Are wealthy liberals "voting against their own interests" when they ask to pay higher taxes or face more environmental regulations? Or are they focusing on a larger set of values?

[masako]

Or are they focusing on a larger set of values?

Nah. The overwhelming majority of voters vote based on party allegiance, followed very closely by selfish, short-term reasons. This group of ideal voters, voting because of a wide array of grand values, is miniscule, and I would argue, frequently kidding themselves regarding their (professed) reasoning.

[Moose-tache]

Or are they focusing on a larger set of values?

Nah. The overwhelming majority of voters vote based on party allegiance, followed very closely by selfish, short-term reasons. This group of ideal voters, voting because of a wide array of grand values, is miniscule, and I would argue, frequently kidding themselves regarding their (professed) reasoning.

Well, when I said "larger set of values" I meant exactly what you said: not lofty idealism but abstractions about identity and loyalty. I guess I could have worded it better. As for short-term personal advantage, I think this one is a wash, since within a rounding error no voter actually understands which party will bring them personal short term gains, and so they perceive the party that Says The Right Things to be the one that will naturally provide them with abundance. i.e. just another way of loyalty voting.

[Ares Land]

A lot of people vote for the right because they're afraid of change, or smallish businessmen, or they're bigots or authoritarians. They're likely to get more or less what they want.

You can say "they shouldn't want that", and I agree, but that's not the problem voting is intended to solve.

Good point!

A lot of people vote for the right because they're afraid of change, or sThe thing to consider is when people vote in a fashion that actually hurts their own self-interest, e.g. working class people who vote for conservatives who help primarily the very rich while doing much to hurt the working class.

The problem here, I think, is that left-wing people aren't very good at explaining why voting for them would be in the voters' self-interest.
Conservatives are at an advantage here: keeping thing more or less as they are feels safer than schemes with obvious flaws.

[Travis B.]

The problem here, I think, is that left-wing people aren't very good at explaining why voting for them would be in the voters' self-interest.
Conservatives are at an advantage here: keeping thing more or less as they are feels safer than schemes with obvious flaws.

The thing is that conservative politicians, once in power, favor policies that directly hurt the working class; they are not actually for keeping things as is. Of course they don't say this when running for office; when they run for office they attack immigrants, minorities, and like and tell white working class people that the Other threatens them and needs to be held down, without mentioning that the policies they would enact (e.g. anti-labor policies) would hurt white working class people too.

[rotting bones]

Social science is a lie. There are no tribes whatsoever. Whatever happens just happens by the math.

I grant that people try to vote for their tribe. However, they frequently end up voting for a different tribe by mistake. How is that possible? Well, each nominal tribe X is divided into a populist and an elitist faction (if not others), and the tribe that people really identify with is "populist X" or "elitist X".

Unfortunately, candidates only go by labels like X, not real descriptors in terms of power structures like populist and elitist. Even when X = "populist" or "elitist", this X is only a label. It doesn't say whether the candidate is a populist "populist", elitist "populist", populist "elitist" or elitist "elitist". People vote for the X candidate, but it frequently turns out they voted for a populist or an elitist by mistake.

Add to this the next turn of the screw, which is that populism is desired yet unimplementable under capitalism, and it turns out that tribes are a distraction that explain nothing about underlying power dynamics. Perhaps teaching students the rudiments of game theory and analytical history from a young age will make people better equipped to see what's really going on beyond the things commonly said by people who use words like "what's really going on". Then again, maybe not.

That is the whole truth. I'm sorry if it's weird and unconvincing. Humans were born as condescension-worthy beings, and we deserve to be condescended to.

[Creyeditor]

Sounds like social science to me ...

[Ares Land]

The thing is that conservative politicians, once in power, favor policies that directly hurt the working class; they are not actually for keeping things as is. Of course they don't say this when running for office; when they run for office they attack immigrants, minorities, and like and tell white working class people that the Other threatens them and needs to be held down, without mentioning that the policies they would enact (e.g. anti-labor policies) would hurt white working class people too.

It's seldom that straightforward.
First, you can get competent conservatives. Generally right wing politicians screw things up, but more than you'd think are good at what they do.

Say you lower taxes for the highest percentile. This doesn't hurt directly the average voter. In the short term, it may even help working class people. Given the right circumstances, it could help economic growth, you may be smart enough to enact some kind of symbolic tax cut for everyone, ...
Of course this means inequalities will be rising, you'll probably run a deficit or increase the public debt. But by the time you get serious consequences, ten years or more have elapsed, and finding a link between those consequences and the original policy takes some serious work.

Or you can take anti-union legislation. Working class people may very well have no objections: they feel the union isn't representing their interests. Or the subway workers are on strike right now.
Again, many people will feel the conservatives are acting in their interest! It takes again, ages, to see the long term consequences, by which time if your job sucks, hey, it's the economy.

And finally... class solidarity is a myth. (I'd even argue the working class doesn't exist). Maybe the working class as a whole is hurt by right-wing policies, but there'll always be a significant proportion who's not.

[Moose-tache]

(I'd even argue the working class doesn't exist)

It's a long-established truth that in the US there is no self-aware working class. There's a quote often attributed to Steinbeck that "Socialism never caught on in America because the working class see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." There are plenty of working class signifiers ("Wonder Bread is good enough for me, not this fancy organic stuff with seeds in it!"), but they don't add up to a consciousness of economic class within an adversarial framework. Part of this is the insistence on social mobility. In Slaughterhouse 5, Vonnegut talks about a sign in a bar that reads "If you're so smart, how come you're still poor?" and points out that in most countries there are treasured stories of heroic peasants outsmarting and outmaneuvering the wicked rulers, but this genre of story is almost completely absent from American imagination, except when imported form Europe in its most superficial form (e.g. Robin Hood).

So asking the working class to vote according to their interests is meaningless. You're asking people to read a book in a language they don't speak.