United States Politics Thread 46

[Emily]

what is your plan to get them to get them to move back to the left?

My plan for it to move to the left is for Trump to bite the dust (he's old, it'll happen sooner or later), so the MAGA personality cult dissolves without its epicenter.

that's arguably a way the republicans can dance slightly back from the edge (though keep in mind the republican agenda they're working on was formulated decades before trump), but how would that move the democrats to the left?

[Torco]

Obviously, as you are not an American, you can pick and choose your issues because you feel you won't have to live with them (except for the ones that you specifically think matter). You're not going to be under a fascist dictatorship, are you? So you can think that it is worth it to vote against the Dems just to make a point, even though Trump et al certain are no better on basically any issue you can think of (even your chosen issue -- do you seriously believe that Trump will stay the hand of Netanyahu, considering how he was celebrating October 7th?).

no, read the post again, I did not say that trump will stay the hand of netanyahu, I said blue-no-matter-who allows the democrats to become a party that's to the right of reagan. and you think I'd vote for a concertacion-backed jose antonio kast if the alternative was johannes kaiser? the only thing you get to do with your vote is to make a point, that's what voting is.

my argument (i don't want to speak for torco but it seems like it's their argument too) is that those are not the only legitimate options in this election. i feel and have been arguing that it is completely reasonable for someone who does not want to vote for harris for whatever reason—we've been talking about palestine in this thread because someone posted an article about arabs in a swing state refusing to vote for her on those grounds, but it could be any other reason or combination of reasons—to not vote for her, whether that means voting for someone who they feel is better or just sitting the election out

I don't know if I'd go as far as "all votes are morally valid" (for example, not voting for harris cause you think she's a jew would be, yeah, wrong). but there are good reasons to not vote for harris, such as, oh I don't know, funding a lebensraum-seeking ethnostate systematically exterminating of two million people on the basis of their race , for example. you may apologize for israel and defend the position that what it is doing is somehow not a genocide (and we've had that convo, I don't know what else to call bombing two million trapped people for an entire year, stopping food aid from reaching them, cutting off their water and all the rest of it). you may think it's not a genocide, but that's between you and your consciousness: surely it can't be so hard to grasp that if one thinks it is, then that qualifies as good reason to not vote for the woman.

Your points 1, 1A, and 1B simply follow from the fact that the US has a first-past-the-post system.

see, but there are more things in the world than who wins the next US election: what's the lesson the democrats are learning if they win this time? that they can fund genocide openly and still win on being progressive. that has consequences down the line, not only for the two million palestinians at risk of extermination, but for the lebanese, for the syrians, for the iranians, for the peruvians, the bolivians, and yes, for us chileans as well: it's a lot more abstract than next election who wins, but it is still a relevant outcome: imagine I'm a yank: what am I to say to the five million people israel will have exterminated by, lets say, 2030 with the weapons the person i voted for gave them? "sorry, it was the best option at the time" ? for some people, that might not be a tenable position, internally. again, you may think israel won't do this, but again, some of us do.

what is your plan to get them to get them to move back to the left?

My plan for it to move to the left is for Trump to bite the dust (he's old, it'll happen sooner or later), so the MAGA personality cult dissolves without its epicenter.

almost all presidential elections since reagan have been, in fact, not won by trump: the democrats have kept going right. harris and whatever democrat comes after her, if she wins this one, will be more right-wing than obama, who was more right wing than the last guy etc etc. do you doubt this? the ratchet effect is a lot older than trump's admittedly fanatical personality cult.

[Travis B.]

what is your plan to get them to get them to move back to the left?

My plan for it to move to the left is for Trump to bite the dust (he's old, it'll happen sooner or later), so the MAGA personality cult dissolves without its epicenter.

that's arguably a way the republicans can dance slightly back from the edge (though keep in mind the republican agenda they're working on was formulated decades before trump), but how would that move the democrats to the left?

By helping the Overton window move further to the left. The reason why the Democrats have moved to the right is that they have been forced to by the steady movement of the Overton window to the right.

[bradrn]

you may think it's not a genocide, but that's between you and your consciousness: surely it can't be so hard to grasp that if one thinks it is, then that qualifies as good reason to not vote for the woman.

For what it’s worth, I agree with this logic. (Although I think Donald Trump would be even worse in this regard, so it’s a somewhat futile decision to make if you do believe in the premises.)

[Travis B.]

(The following will sound like a broken record, for good reason.)

Torco, what matters to me is the practical consequences of the vote, not what feels I may have about the particular candidates -- and the matter is that one candidate is decidedly worse than the other across the board, so that obviously means the only rational choice is to vote for the less-worse candidate out of the two top candidates (thanks to FPTP). Sure, that candidate may be more right-wing than I would care for, but if I did not vote for her I would be effectively voting for the (significantly) worse candidate. To not do so would be to demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of how the political system works here in the United States. Not voting for her "to send a message" would only be self-destructive in reality. But again, you have the luxury of not having to care about the practical consequences of this election here in the US, so you get to advocate "sending a message" all you want.

And yes, I do not deny that the wars in Gaza and Lebanon are horrific -- but frankly I am not a single-issue voter on those, and there are many other ways in which Trump would be horrible right here in the US where Harris is and would not be, ways which I and all other Americans would have to live with and you would not. Also, as I have pointed out, Trump would be no better than Harris on these wars, so Trump being elected would not help here one bit.

(It should be noted that the main source of leverage the US gov't has over Netanyahu at this point is to threaten to stop sending arms, something that has been attempted, to little success. Now, I do wish that the US would cut them off altogether rather than simply make threats to do so or cut them off in a limited fashion, but considering the level of support for Israel in the US, that would be difficult politically in reality.)

[Torco]

no, I get it, reals over feels. but it's not just feels: and anyway our feels often tell us important things, but of course reality is first: well I agree with you on the basic calculus of trump worse. it's just I really think the reality is more complex here: trust me, I work in this industry, powerful political actors pay a fuckton of dollars to understand what voting numbers *mean*. voter behaviour determines a sort of phase space of posibility to a party, and if a party knows it loses enough of its voter base, well, that's going to affect how it behaves. I think you believe that the dems are turning to the right for the last half a century or so as passive actors: i.e. the overton window shifts and they have to follow it: but this is not how politics works, parties can and do move the window, by pushing. ultimately this is politics, the pushing and pulling. and the democrats don't pull, they get pulled. why? because there are two forces operating, here, right? over every party? donors and voters. a party needs both... lmao tbh I feel like good old Salmoneous right now, explaining shit from first first principles, but it's important, I think.

a party needs both donors and voters: if it can take donors for granted, then it'll shift left (or, well, wherever its base pushes, ostensibly for a "centerleft" party that's to the left), whereas if it can take voters for granted, it'll shift right, for more or less obvious reasons, and ultimately, that's what matters. or, okay, no, that's not the only thing that matters, but it is an thing and it matters.

and, again, you do see how voting is nothing more than sending a message, right? one that the system will interpret however it will, especially in the US, where actually you don't vote for president, you have delegates voting for superdelegates voting for seats in the hogwarts college of might and magic which then elects a representative stand in fron of a burger and throw a die and whoever gets more yazhees wins. the point being, what else did you think voting was ?

[rotting bones]

Travis: If most voters don't care about Israel, you should listen to the small number that does. Zionists are more influential in America than Anti-Zionists, whether Jews or Arabs.

What do you think of the leaks suggesting the Biden White House secretly greenlit the IDF operations while voicing Serious Concerns in public?

[rotting bones]

that's arguably a way the republicans can dance slightly back from the edge (though keep in mind the republican agenda they're working on was formulated decades before trump), but how would that move the democrats to the left?

Well, you would have to build consensus at the grassroots level in any case. Trump's promises to turn the military loose on "internal enemies" could make this harder. You can't reason with people who hunt down FEMA workers.

[rotting bones]

Literalism strikes again. When people report believing things that are false (like that the president controls the price of gas), it's probably an expression of some real anxiety. The solution, against liberal instinct, is not to chide them for being stupid, but to agree that their anxieties are real, and redirect their energies to achieving policies that actually address the very real economic anxieties that exist in America today. The problem with chiding them is that although it sets them right about what's true, it also communicates to them that you don't care about their underlying anxieties, and therefore they feel alienated from you. It's like how in improve comedy you are encouraged to say "yes, and..." instead of "no".

Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH_I5dgFlFc

Furthermore, chiding people for these things contributes to the deletion of economics from politics, teaching people that politics has nothing to do with economics, and that no matter who they vote for, they will get the same economic policy. Instead, it teaches them that politics has to do with only things like abortion, gay marriage, and trans rights, so they should be voting according to what they think about those things, and not economics!

I've been the leftist economics rant guy here from around 2019. lol Once more a taste of my spiel:

I used to think the right's proto-Marxist rhetoric can be developed into scientific socialism. This might be possible in some cases. Nowadays, I'm inclined to think it's an adaptive mind virus that's more trouble than it's worth.

I suspect that fascist conspiracy theories (including theology) memetically evolve to be suggestive about the interests of all classes, poor workers as well as the small proprietor peasant class. This is why Jesus can be made to sound like a socialist as well as an apologist for tyranny at the same time. That mystification is what these theories are. Their purpose is to preclude scientific analysis that would let people actually solve their problems.

Trumpists have told reporters that they don't think they will ever make friendships as tight outside the movement. What these beliefs offer their adherents is a vision of Communism based on shared insanities. This is why, once established, it's hard to get rid of them. The lies are actually solving the problem of social alienation by uniting people from across all classes against the sane. (Trumpists say they oppose Communism, but they think Communism means "pointing fingers" (direct quote). I also oppose "Communism" in that sense. I think Communism means building up the community.)

In the case of Trump, what is it exactly about giving tax cuts to billionaires that make people think it will make goods cheaper? The Democrats don't have a good case either. I have read analyses suggesting the US has reached a tipping point between redistribution and capital flight. That's why I've been arguing for years that the government should measure demand by popular vote and create the jobs to produce those goods by command from on high.

Remember, there is no "economy", only particles interacting in space. If you produce more goods, the prices will fall. What's the bottleneck on producing goods? Investment by billionaires. What do billionaires invest? Bits on a machine that are worth nothing. Create jobs that produce the goods by popular vote, and the so-called "economy" can be sidestepped altogether.

The illusion of the "economy" is that if producing more goods were beneficial, the billionaires would have done it already. This is false. Billionaires would have done it already if it were conducive to maximally efficient profit extraction. You see, if you lower the scarcity of goods, then they will become cheap. If they are cheap, then it wouldn't be profitable to produce them. This "profitability" is not the same thing as social benefit. The only thing profitability cares about is getting more bits on the machine out of the transaction than you invested in the first place.

What actually benefits society is making goods cheap. It's unprofitable to do this.

It's not enough for this vision of an economy that works for the people to be combined with liberal individualism. Individualism has an important place in society. However, without a vision of Communism rooted in science, people won't find the connection they are expecting from socialist transformation. This requires human rights because you can't hold politicians accountable without them.

(When I made these arguments, I was told that market socialism is a better idea since weakening the power of the markets will cause the capitalist class to effectively sanction that country which does it. This makes no sense to me. Bits on a machine are useful IF you are creating jobs based on market efficiency. Besides, those capitalists will sanction any country that challenges the power of markets, including market socialists. I think there are some countries which should be libertarian: tiny tax havens that don't have the resources and/or the population to manufacture goods by themselves.)

[rotting bones]

Questions:

1. Will international businesses do as much business with the US even if Trump turns the military loose on "internal enemies" like he promised? Maybe the whole world will finally be united under a shared hatred of human rights, but only a fake traditionalist rather than progressive sense.

2. Given that Trump has literally praised Hitler, will his victory make being a leftist dangerous again? Should we be taking writing classes so that we can churn out Nobel Prize winning novels based on our experiences?

3. If media with crossdressing is banned, does that mean Ranma 1/2 and Ouran High School Host Club will be banned? Honestly, those books have been more meaningful to me than any sacred text I've ever read.

[bradrn]

Zionists (Jews and Nazis)

I would encourage you to think very carefully about statements like this.

[rotting bones]

Zionists (Jews and Nazis)

I would encourage you to think very carefully about statements like this.

I was trying to say there are Jewish people on both sides of the Zionist divide. How should I have worded it?

[bradrn]

Zionists (Jews and Nazis)

I would encourage you to think very carefully about statements like this.

I was trying to say there are Jewish people on both sides of the Zionist divide. How should I have worded it?

Um… like you just did there? There is absolutely no call for grouping together Jews and Nazis, or for making such an implication.

[rotting bones]

I would encourage you to think very carefully about statements like this.

I was trying to say there are Jewish people on both sides of the Zionist divide. How should I have worded it?

Um… like you just did there? There is absolutely no call for grouping together Jews and Nazis, or for making such an implication.

Edited it.

[bradrn]

I was trying to say there are Jewish people on both sides of the Zionist divide. How should I have worded it?

Um… like you just did there? There is absolutely no call for grouping together Jews and Nazis, or for making such an implication.

Edited it.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

[Torco]

Zionists (Jews and Nazis)

I would encourage you to think very carefully about statements like this.

then again, jewish nazis (or something close enough) do exist, and many of them are currently ruling israel (of course not every zionist is a nazi, i'm not saying this, but some zionists are nazis is obviously true). I know it's very offensive to hear a jewish state and parts of a jewish movement being accused of nazism, but one must face reality and evaluate such a claim on its merit, not on whether or not it's offensive.

to disambiguate, i don't here mean that yoav gallant and the rest of them are literal members of the NSDAP, obviously: but you don't have to be an 1938 italian to be a fascist. I'm also not saying all jews are nazis, nor that all israelis are nazis, nor that all supporters of israel are nazis, or any of those things that often zionists equivocate in order to make it rhetorically inviable to make this claim: I'm saying what i'm saying: some zionists are, effectively, nazis

[bradrn]

Zionists (Jews and Nazis)

I would encourage you to think very carefully about statements like this.

then again, jewish nazis (or something close enough) do exist, and many of them are currently ruling israel (of course not every zionist is a nazi, i'm not saying this, but some zionists are nazis is obviously true). I know it's very offensive to hear a jewish state and parts of a jewish movement being accused of nazism, but one must face reality and evaluate such a claim on its merit, not on whether or not it's offensive.

to disambiguate, i don't here mean that yoav gallant and the rest of them are literal members of the NSDAP, obviously: but you don't have to be an 1938 italian to be a fascist. I'm also not saying all jews are nazis, nor that all israelis are nazis, nor that all supporters of israel are nazis, or any of those things that often zionists equivocate in order to make it rhetorically inviable to make this claim: I'm saying what i'm saying: some zionists are, effectively, nazis

And I would encourage you to think carefully also. ‘Nazi’ is not a synonym of ‘fascist’. The chief characteristic of the Nazis, as you may recall, was their genocidal hatred of the Jewish people. To repeatedly and specifically associate the Jews with Nazism is odious and, yes, it is an antisemitic comparison.

Also, might I point out that you can’t get out of being offensive by saying ‘I know this is offensive, but…’. That just means you know perfectly well what you’re doing and doing it anyway.

(That some Jews are fascist… sadly that’s something I cannot deny. I would argue that the current government is not fascist, though it is worrying close to that point. But we’ve been over this before.)

(I will add that I am attempting to keep as calm as I can during this conversation. It takes a considerable amount of effort given the stuff you guys keep on confronting me with.)

[Torco]

I disagree, but you're not far off: the relevant feature of the original nazis here was, amongst others, a genocidal hatred of specific ethnic and nonethnic groups, including the jews but also ethnicities like the roma, the sinti, blacks and slavs. the jews are people just like everyone else, from which it follows that genocidal hatred of jews is morally equivalent to genocidal hatred of, say, indonesians or the mapuche. hitler iirc said explicitly that the native american genocide by the us was a model for what he wanted to do in securing more lebensraum for the german volk. If by some accident of history the german nazis had not focused on jews but on, say, catalans, croats or slovenians, would it have changed anything substantial? are jews special in this sense that exterminating them is very bad, whereas exterminating anyone else is not bad or less bad? I'd say no.

I know that saying something may be offensive doesn't make it non-offensive, but offensive does not mean untrue: If a jew is genocidally hateful against whatever ethnic group, and intends to get lebensraum for his race through displacing and exterminating that group and all the rest of it, then they are a jewish nazi just like if those characteristics were to obtain for a given uruguayan, then he would be an uruguayan nazi. that's the whole point of never again, isn't it ? not just never again for the jews, never again for anyone!

(I know, and i appreciate your chill tbh. I can I think imagine how distressing a lot of the claims made by us antizionists must be to a zionist's ears)

[Travis B.]

Despite our disagreements on US politics, I have to agree with Torco here. Nazism is characterized by the combination of fascism and genocidal hatred (unlike fascism alone, which need not be genocidal), and while the original Nazis had a genocidal hatred of Jews, the same logic can be extended to other groups. That said, despite what Israel is doing right now, I cannot necessarily call most Israelis today "Nazis", because I don't see the level of genocidal hatred to truly qualify as Nazism from them (as Nazism is based on one's hatred and one's ideology rather than merely the consequences of one's actions).

[Torco]

maybe should we talk about capital n Nazis (NSDAP members in the interbellum and WW2 and those supporting that specific social movement at that specific time and place) and lowercase nazis (lebensraum-through-extermination-and-displacement-against-particular-genocidally-hated-groups supporters)

to be clear I don't think most israelis are nazis either. that'd be a hard thing to prove... man I'd love to see that pew survey: "the palestinians should all [redacted] or be militarily expelled and that land should go to good, hard-working israeli citizens", strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree.

but then again, it's probable most germans back then weren't Nazis either.