United States Politics Thread 46

[Raphael]

The Democrats may not be ideal, but anyone who thinks that the Republicans are somehow better than them (including the people who think that the Republicans somehow favor the working class or that the Democrats should not be voted for because they are "elitist") [...]

I don't have the impression that jcb was claiming that.

[Travis B.]

The Democrats may not be ideal, but anyone who thinks that the Republicans are somehow better than them (including the people who think that the Republicans somehow favor the working class or that the Democrats should not be voted for because they are "elitist") [...]

I don't have the impression that jcb was claiming that.

I got the impression that jcb was engaging in the sort of both-sides-ism where the center-left is lumped in with the right and both are seen as not that different from one another. To be honest, I get this impression from a lot of jcb's posts. And of course, this point of view is precisely what leads to people not voting, and as a result the Republicans winning elections, with the obvious results.

[jcb]

The Democrats may not be ideal, but anyone who thinks that the Republicans are somehow better than them (including the people who think that the Republicans somehow favor the working class or that the Democrats should not be voted for because they are "elitist") is frankly either a fool or an enemy of humanity.

I am very well aware that the Republicans suck more than the Democrats, and that despite how they claim to help working class people, they hurt them instead. I vote Democrat, even though the Republicans control everything at the state-level in my state.

Watch this video (that I already posted in the other thread earlier): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqceHviNBC4

For a moment, put yourself in the shoes of an uneducated former coal miner living in that town. Would you be persuaded by Democrats saying that coal mining again isn't possibly because "global economics tell you that [it] can't come true" or that you're going to be retrained to become a software engineer to work at Google or Amazon (or more likely: you'll be displaced after the town gentrifies after Google and Amazon "take over [the] town". (Apparently, Democrats these days don't even know what company towns are anymore, and why they suck. Also, convincing Google and Amazon to come to town sounds like a long shot in itself.)) Or would you be persuaded by Trump saying that he's going to "put the coal miners back to work"? ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7ei-BFM6c8 )

And I can already hear the objections of "But Trump didn't actually help the coal miners!". You're missing the point that although Republicans are lying why they say they care and are going to help, from the point of view of the worker, the Democrats are effectively saying that they don't care, and won't help.

I got the impression that jcb was engaging in the sort of both-sides-ism where the center-left is lumped in with the right and both are seen as not that different from one another. To be honest, I get this impression from a lot of jcb's posts. And of course, this point of view is precisely what leads to people not voting, and as a result the Republicans winning elections, with the obvious results.

I point out how the Democrats suck, because the ways in which the Republicans suck are much more numerous, extreme, and obvious, and this being a left-leaning board, you're probably already aware of them. The Democrats suck in more subtle and sophisticated ways, and professionals (the people that run the party) often won't admit that they suck at all, because these biases favor professionals. IMO, the current Democrats are at best a center, not center-left party.

And, again, as I said before, I'm not a cheer leader! I'm not obligated to run propaganda for the Democrats. I'll criticize whoever deserves it! Furthermore, I did not create the problems in the Democratic party; I'm merely pointing them out. Criticizing and silencing the messenger will not fix these problems. If the Democrats are worried that people won't vote for them, then they should come up with a better platform. People are not obligated to vote for them.

[masako]

People are not obligated to vote for them.

People aren't obligated to vote at all, so what's your real point? What is your actual substantive goal?

Yes, there is a long standing political establishment that tends to focus much more on remaining in office rather than producing tangible results...that is *not* news to anyone who has any political awareness. What's insanely important this cycle, and for almost the last decade, is that a portion of that establishment is leaning toward fascistic authoritarianism and one isn't. They are no longer the same.

Some I've seen have argued that the shift toward fascism is a symptom of late-stage-capitalism, and therefore cannot be solved by electing the DEMs due to their own ties to capitalism, but there are real, immediate consequences that have been advertised by the GOP that the DEMs have at least said they will oppose. Based on this alone anyone who suggests that the GOP is an acceptable party (as it exists right now) is essentially accepting the openly discussed plans that the GOP and their presumptive nominee want to implement.

So, I ask again, what is your goal in pointing to DEMs' shortfalls?

[Travis B.]

I personally am a socialist, and really only vote Democrat because due to how our electoral system works, any non-vote for the Democrats equals a vote for the Republicans, who are infinitely worse as we all know. But at the same time, criticizing the Democrats without criticizing the Republicans sounds to me like something that certain sorts of people (you know who they are) would interpret as a call to not vote, or a call to vote for a third party ─ i.e. effectively vote Republican ─ and certain very misguided sorts of people may very well interpret rhetoric that the Democrats are "elitist" or like as even a call to actually vote Republican.

[Linguoboy]

Anyone who thinks the Democrats are "elitist" is regurgitating Republican propaganda, if perhaps second-hand.

Really? You don't understand how the likes of:
Bill "NAFTA" Clinton
Barack "Go to school!" Obama
Hillary "$12 is enough" Clinton
Joe "Stop striking!" Biden
could be seen as elitist?

I just want to take a moment to admire this spectacular own goal.

*accused of regurgitating Republican propaganda secondhand*
*refutes this by regurgitating Republican propaganda firsthand*

[Travis B.]

Anyone who thinks the Democrats are "elitist" is regurgitating Republican propaganda, if perhaps second-hand.

Really? You don't understand how the likes of:
Bill "NAFTA" Clinton
Barack "Go to school!" Obama
Hillary "$12 is enough" Clinton
Joe "Stop striking!" Biden
could be seen as elitist?

I just want to take a moment to admire this spectacular own goal.

*accused of regurgitating Republican propaganda secondhand*
*refutes this by regurgitating Republican propaganda firsthand*

I cannot help but roll my eyes whenever anyone calls the Democrats "elitist" because of just that. I naturally presume they are Republicans from that point on once they say that.

[Ares Land]

ultimately the position of global hegemon is a bit like the position of a mafia boss: a good mafia boss can stay in power for decades, but a bad one... if you're perceived as incompetent or cause your underlings too much trouble they may pick a different one, or go their own way: this sort of obedient in good times but suddenly rebellious sort of behaviour has been typical aristocrat behaviour throughout history, at least in historical hindsight.

I think good analysis needs to go beyond "which policies I prefer". [...] Unwise is the gaul who wishes for a good caesar, unwise the xiongnu who wishes for a good huangdi.

Moving my answer to the US politics thread

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure we had that discussion back in 2016.
And let's be honest, did things improve between 2017 and 2021? American hegemony didn't noticeably recede.

What hurt is that the Trump presidency normalized fascism. There was already a general trend towards the right, but precisely due to US political and cultural hegemony/dominance the global move towards fascism was greatly accelerated.

And the trouble with having a fascist in power is that first, you get fascist policies (which do hurt people) and the political debate immediately shifts right. It's not like pro-business centrists get crushed by their defeat, it's more like politics becomes a choice between fascism and non-fascism, which means outlying ideas like socialism are quickly forgotten.
And that's assuming there still is a political debate. What happens when the Republicans decide this democracy thing is just too much trouble?

I can definitely see a scenario where the US turns full authoritarian fascist and most countries just... follow suit. Given that the other two models, Russia and China, are also authoritarian fascist. I mean, the worst case scenario is pretty bleak.

[zompist]

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure we had that discussion back in 2016.
And let's be honest, did things improve between 2017 and 2021? American hegemony didn't noticeably recede.

Didn't it? How would you measure this? What would it look like if "American hegemony" was lessening?

It did recede in the sense that the US finally washed its hands of Afghanistan, after two decades. Though Trump ratcheted US support for Israel into hubris-inducing levels, and Biden has only slightly retreated from that.

On the other hand, one Mr. Putin guaranteed that the US looked far more valuable to Europe... though it's hardly clear that this is a form of "hegemony." Geopolitically the Ukraine war has probably made Europe more important and far more interested in its own defense, and also increased the importance of Eastern European states. And hopefully decreased Chinese adventurism re Taiwan.

I think it's pretty outdated to talk about "American hegemony" without noticing that China is increasingly rich and assertive. In the last 20 years, China's share of the world economy has gone from 8% to 20%-- the US from 20% to 16%. (All in PPP, not raw dollars.)

Or take a random factoid: exports of China to Nigeria (the largest country in Africa by population) are 3 times those of the US. And just to make sure this isn't a fluke, let's look at the factor in some other countries. Indonesia: six times the US imports. Argentina, it's 1.67 times. (But Argentina's largest trading partner is Brazil.)

BTW, not to be too apocalyptic: China's annual growth rate was usually 10-15% from 1990 to 2010; more recently it's been more like 6%. What's kind of wild is that the US rate has been higher in the last 5 years... and yes, under Biden and not under Trump. It's possible China is not going to crash as people keep expecting, but to become a 'normal country'. But one that overshadows the US... though not the US + EU.

What hurt is that the Trump presidency normalized fascism. There was already a general trend towards the right, but precisely due to US political and cultural hegemony/dominance the global move towards fascism was greatly accelerated.

I think it was a global trend, but yeah, Trump made it far worse and would do so again.

[Ares Land]

It did recede in the sense that the US finally washed its hands of Afghanistan, after two decades. Though Trump ratcheted US support for Israel into hubris-inducing levels, and Biden has only slightly retreated from that.

Yes, exactly, and all in all US foreign policy was more objectionable I think, during the Trump presidency.

On the other hand, one Mr. Putin guaranteed that the US looked far more valuable to Europe... though it's hardly clear that this is a form of "hegemony."

Plus this is further complicated by the fact that Trump (and I guess many, many American conservatives) have no real issue with Putin. For that matter, so do European conservatives.

I think the relevant divide these days is fascist vs. non-fascists, not based on any geopolitical blocs. A world under Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping isn't really multipolar; what ideological difference there may be isn't terribly important.

[Raphael]

A world under Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping isn't really multipolar; what ideological difference there may be isn't terribly important.

THIS. This, this, this. It's completely ridiculous to support that trio, or any one or two of that trio, and claim that you're doing it because you want a "multipolar" world. Those three want themselves to be the one pole that dominates everything in the world and crushes all dissent.

[Travis B.]

As mentioned above, the real choice is between fascism and non-fascism, not between American hegemony and a "multipolar" world -- seeking a "multipolar" world by installing a fascist in America will only result in a fascist-dominated world not the desired "multipolar" world.

[Torco]

this feels like that fps game where north korea invaded the us (fun game, silly premise)... they may want to supplant the us as sole superpower, but they're so just fantastically far from being able to get there it's like a minimum wage millenial wanting to buy a house in a good neighbourhood. the us, by contrast, already *is* the one pole that dominates everything and crushes all dissent (or tries to). if one wants a multipolar world, this kind of entails other countries becoming more powerful and the one pole becoming less so. china is unable to project significant power anywhere other than the south china sea and countries directly bordering it, and russia is locked in a forever war with a country that, in 2010, had a percapita gdp that was one fourth that of a latin american country (mine). These are weak countries, and I don't think the world is in any danger of global unipolarity with russia or china at the helm. the whole world is covered in american military bases: by contrast, china has... one in djibouti, I think?

Is the us hegemony lessened vis a vis what it was in 16? I'd say so, yeah: besides what zompist says here pew has interesting data on the matter of public opinion of the us and the potus in europe. Also, apparently young people are more open to working abroad than others, net migration is dropping, there's a land war going on in europe where the US-aligned country is not winning... still, these things are complicated, though: the us economy is not even twice as big as the Chinese one, but that shouldn't mislead us into thinking china is nearly as strong: economically, militarily, politically and culturally the US way, way, waaaay stronger than twice China: as so often, GDP is just an indicator, and not a great one at that.

As mentioned above, the real choice is between fascism and non-fascism, not between American hegemony and a "multipolar" world -- seeking a "multipolar" world by installing a fascist in America will only result in a fascist-dominated world not the desired "multipolar" world.

I hope (and think) you're wrong, mostly cause it doesn't seem like the US military leadership is enthused about turning the US into a fascist regime (and for such things, historically, it's the guys with the guns that have the final word), but honestly one never knows: if i could predict history I'd be a millenial with a house, that's for sure.

[doctor shark]

Well, this afternoon's events might make things interesting: the (presumptive) Republican candidate for president was convicted of 34 counts of felony falsifying business records in New York.

I hope (and think) you're wrong, mostly cause it doesn't seem like the US military leadership is enthused about turning the US into a fascist regime (and for such things, historically, it's the guys with the guns that have the final word), but honestly one never knows: if i could predict history I'd be a millenial with a house, that's for sure.

I think with the US military, it's quite iffy. Officially, the military is neutral: the oath is sworn to the Constitution of the United States of America, not to the president, and military officers do at least uphold that. There is, for enlisted members, an additional clause to obey all orders in accordance with law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and sedition is a pretty serious crime. But the military, in my experience, often leans quite right, so it's hard to tell.
TLDR: Highly unlikely, but not impossible, that that would happen. At least I should hopefully have a pretty red passport next year, so no matter how things go in November...

[Torco]

yeah, the rightwards turn in my own country motivated me to finally go and get my burgundy one so i get the feeling. it's pretty and has a bunch of pictures of vehicles inside.

[jcb]

People aren't obligated to vote at all, so what's your real point? What is your actual substantive goal?

So why do people here criticize me when I remind people of that fact, and suggest that Democrats should improve their platform to garner more votes so they can win more?

Anyways, my point is that Democrats would benefit (AKA gain votes) from adopting more policies that support uneducated blue-collar workers.

Yes, there is a long standing political establishment that tends to focus much more on remaining in office rather than producing tangible results...that is *not* news to anyone who has any political awareness. What's insanely important this cycle, and for almost the last decade, is that a portion of that establishment is leaning toward fascistic authoritarianism and one isn't. They are no longer the same.

Some I've seen have argued that the shift toward fascism is a symptom of late-stage-capitalism, and therefore cannot be solved by electing the DEMs due to their own ties to capitalism, but there are real, immediate consequences that have been advertised by the GOP that the DEMs have at least said they will oppose. Based on this alone anyone who suggests that the GOP is an acceptable party (as it exists right now) is essentially accepting the openly discussed plans that the GOP and their presumptive nominee want to implement.

Yes, that is the conundrum. The Democrats are beholden to capital. My suggestion is to break that bond, and rebuild their bond with organized labor. Merely voting Democrat hard enough is not going to let us escape from this situation. Hence my criticism of the Democrats, urging them to change.

So, I ask again, what is your goal in pointing to DEMs' shortfalls?

You act as if I never criticize Republicans, but when I'm around Republicans, I criticize their leaders and point out how awful and odious they are all the damn time. Again, I'm sure most people in this thread are already very aware of how much the Republicans suck, so do I really need to repeat it? (Apparently so, as some kind of trust-building exercise, because it seems that people here can't tell the difference between a socialist and a fascist otherwise.)

I'm sensing a vicious cycle here: Dems have a bad platform -> Dems lose the election, Repubs win -> Fascism increases -> Dems really need to win to stop fascism -> In order to help the make Dems look good to help them win, criticism is forbidden -> Dems' platform doesn't change/improve -> Dems have a bad platform -> Dems barely win, helped by seminormal oscillation between the parties (not much gets done because they don't control the house/senate) -> "See, we won! Our platform doesn't need to change!" -> Dems have a bad platform -> [repeat]

I refuse to participate in this cycle. It must be broken. Criticism of the Democrats is necessary so that they get feedback on how to change/improve their platform. No organization improves if dissent is not allowed.

And if you say "But the Democrats win about 50% of the time, so we don't need to change anything!", why are you satisfied with winning only 50% of the time when the other party is a fascist party that can destroy things faster than you can fix them, and is in the process of setting up laws to let them legally overturn the next election that the Democrats win, thus turning that 50% into less than that, maybe 0%.

The Democrats may not be ideal, but anyone who thinks that the Republicans are somehow better than them (including the people who think that the Republicans somehow favor the working class or that the Democrats should not be voted for because they are "elitist") is frankly either a fool or an enemy of humanity.

So how are you going to convince those fools, as foolish as they are? Why are you satisfied with losing their vote? Don't you want to win and stop fascism? Or would you rather turn your nose at them and lose? It looks like you're doing the latter. You say that you're a socialist, but yet you hold the same idea of "they're just a basket of deplorables" as Hillary Clinton!

I just want to take a moment to admire this spectacular own goal.

*accused of regurgitating Republican propaganda secondhand*
*refutes this by regurgitating Republican propaganda firsthand*

I'm baffled. Are you (1) denying that these things happened? Or (2) admitting that they happened, but deny that they're elitist? Or (3) admitting that they happened and are elitist, but saying that I'm the problem for bringing attention to them?

[MacAnDàil]

the us, by contrast, already *is* the one pole that dominates everything and crushes all dissent (or tries to)

This is an inaccurate representation because, while the US is strong economically, culturally, diplomatically and militarily, it is more soft power than hard. Xi and Putin make much more effort to crush dissent than the US ever have, it's just that they fortunately are not in the position to do so much outwith their borders.

[Ares Land]

it's just that they fortunately are not in the position to do so much outwith their borders.

I'm not so sure about that. I don't know exactly how effective the troll farms and propaganda are, but given the popularity of regressive authoritarianism they're evidently accomplishing something.

[zompist]

Yes, that is the conundrum. The Democrats are beholden to capital. My suggestion is to break that bond, and rebuild their bond with organized labor. Merely voting Democrat hard enough is not going to let us escape from this situation. Hence my criticism of the Democrats, urging them to change.

The reason you're getting pushback isn't because you're criticizing the Democrats, it's because a) you do so in apocalyptic terms that make it sound like you haven't done any research, and b) you use Republican talking points.

Here, for an example, is a story about how Biden personally intervened in the auto strike last year, walking the picket line, a first for a US president. He pissed off business— one industry guy said “It’s not only anti-business, it kicks 90 years of impartial mediation by a president to the curb.” Probably related: the companies signed a better deal with the UAW a month later. Biden also supported the striking screenwriters and actors. Here's an article summarizing the many things the Democrats have done for labor. But according to you the Democrats are "beholden to capital" and have no bond with organized labor.

Obviously you feel that the Democrats would get more votes if they did precisely what you want. Most of us think the Democrats should do more of what we want! But there are reasons parties in a winner-take-all system (like ours and the UK's) avoid going too far left: the voters punish them. That can be infuriating, sure, and sometimes they miscalculate badly.

It may be sad, but parties go after centrist voters because those people vote. The whole Sanders thing was a bet that new voters would show up and win elections... hey, it was worth trying, and I voted for Sanders, but it wasn't an uproarious success.

[Torco]

I'm not so sure about that. I don't know exactly how effective the troll farms and propaganda are, but given the popularity of regressive authoritarianism they're evidently accomplishing something.

yes! though they're by no means the only source thereof.

I think zomp's model here is too simple as it assumes voters is the only thing that pushes parties to and fro: public opinion is part of it, sure, but you could easily have a situation where 60, 70, 80% of people want X and no party pushes for X simply cause someome be it the political class, billionaires, some lobby or other or whoever else other than the citizenship at large don't want X. indeed this seems to be a routinely observable phenomenon. and because politics is multy-issue, and there's definite clusters, then you can have however many Xs as you want, as a ruling party, and as long as you align with your base on enough issues they're not willing to bend on you're golden: at the limit you can have just one issue Y where you align with you base and all the other ones X...where you're doing exactly the opposite of what your base wants, but because the other guys aren't willing to capitalize on that opening (i.e. they don't want to push for X either) you're golden, elections are all about Y. of course, this extreme scenario of almost complete Xness is both unstable and unlikely, but there's no reason, say, you can't have a majority of X. Sure, every X issue is a chance for a third party to emerge and capitalize, but third parties in the US don't do well for many reasons

prima facie we don't know whether the democrats would, in fact, do better if they went for things that benefitted the working class, or that most people would like, or anything else simply cause they don't, politics is a lot more complicated. there's also agenda setting, the media pushing some narrative or other that distracts from the issues, a bunch of stuff.

edit: left this in draft

the us, by contrast, already *is* the one pole that dominates everything and crushes all dissent (or tries to)

This is an inaccurate representation because, while the US is strong economically, culturally, diplomatically and militarily, it is more soft power than hard. Xi and Putin make much more effort to crush dissent than the US ever have, it's just that they fortunately are not in the position to do so much outwith their borders.

I think that the 'more soft than hard' is more theodicy than fact: is the US not the strongest military in history by every metric imaginable? does it not routinely engage in regime change abroad? does it not routinely outright invade other countries, costing thousands of lives each time? when's the last time it wasn't at war? is it not giving carte blanche to a genocide? has it not invaded (insert long list of countries)? does it not have hard military bases (with guns, not influencers) everywhere? maybe if one lives in western europe, canada, australia etcetera its power may look mostly "soft", but i get the feeling the people that power is or has been exerted upon (latin americans, palestinians, afghans, yemenis, pakistanis, iranians, the list goes on) might have something to say. xi and putin, domestically, are harder than the us, though, this much is true... though not by metrics one would think should correspond to being less authoritarian, like prison population.