Author Topic: Politics  (Read 511248 times)

Will

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 912
  • Justice for Elijah McClain
    • The Alice Guy Blache Show
Re: Politics
« Reply #6390 on: February 28, 2020, 05:23:03 PM »
Enlighten me, how is that an answer to my question?

We are at an absurd moment in history where many (if not most) Evangelical Christians are sacrificing their "values" to support Trump 100%. When the basic notions of civility and logic in one party completely break down, then that party either needs to self-destruct or be wiped away completely. I have absolutely no faith that the Republican party isn't filled with anything other than narcissists and nihilists - and that includes every single Christian (what appears to be the majority of Christians in the US) that continues to support that side. I would gladly accept one party rule that is founded on principles and values found in science than one that is so increasingly petty and mad over losing some form of a culture war (that is ultimately based on free market capitalism that their party ironically supports). There are cons of the Soviet Union - I won't deny that - but to suggest even one positive about the Soviet Union or communism is met with negative over-reaction here. That is equally absurd.

Will

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 912
  • Justice for Elijah McClain
    • The Alice Guy Blache Show
Re: Politics
« Reply #6391 on: February 28, 2020, 06:04:54 PM »
If there was no such thing as scarcity of resources, both the United States' industrial revolution and Chinese reformations would be resounding victories for human progress. In the short term, there is a great easing of misery. You cannot discount how meaningful that is to people directly involved. I'm not as up on India, but it seems like they are going down a similar path.

The problem is we now know what the long-term consequences are, but the idea of a forever-growing economy as a pathway to further prosperity is something that seems hardwired into our philosophies of being. I think in a multi-party democratic system, there is more room for protest, education, consciousness-building; whereas, in a one-party system, if that party is not prepared to do something about the path of environmental degradation down which we've already gone pretty far, and dissidents are jailed and killed, you're totally screwed. Our fanatical wing of science deniers are just people totally consumed by the idea of forever-growth. They aren't empowered by democracy, they're using the anti-democratic institutions Bondo mentioned (the Senate, the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court) to undermine a majority that at least understand it's a problem, a surging plurality that think it's a crisis, and a large majority that knows there will need to be sacrifices made.

I still think we need to look outside the super powers for real answers about how to live now that we know forever-consumption is at odds with human longevity. And we need to look at countries that are full democracies* with many parties that ultimately make life better for great numbers of people without consuming at an outsized rate. We have to look there to start formalizing a plan to get the world to zero-growth, which would likely include job shares and some material sacrifices, but that we'd all still be provided for and have freedom to dissent, to question, to form counter-arguments and organizations that put pressure on the status quo. Denmark, Findland, Sweden, Switzerland, and Norway have always been fascinating case studies on multi-party democracy eventually leading to a commitment to slowdown consumption and prepare themselves for a post-growth world.

On Sandy's remarks about Trump being the guru for the evangelicals, I think that's down to the embracing the "prosperity gospel." That's much easier to swallow than Matthew 19:24, New International Version: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

*Democracy Index Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

I want you to know that I read this and I've considered your point. I haven't considered the idea that we haven't come to terms with the fact that we are in a post-growth society, but it makes sense when innovation has slowed down considerably since the Silicon Valley age in the 80s.

Perhaps part of me is thinking that socialism could win the political war but not the culture one and, because of that, far-left candidates will end up losing. We need to stop associating socialism with pure evil. To do that, I think you have to destroy whatever belief that the model of government created for the United States isn't morally superior to other forms of government, in this case, communism, because this current model is far more rooted in conservative ideology than most would like to admit (instead we appear to insist that it is truly the centrist, fair and balanced view which just reinforces the status quo). I have my way, you have yours, but your way makes me question mine.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Politics
« Reply #6392 on: February 28, 2020, 06:58:27 PM »
Is there anything to the idea that within the religious community the concept of faith is more prevalent and more revered as a value? The idea of having an unshakeable faith is regarded a tremendous virtue. And within a religious context it certainly can be. And as a tool to process difficulties in life I imagine it can great value also. And it becomes a habitual thing, something you actively cultivate and use every day, and something you see great value in because of how much it has done for you in the past. It just feels like some of these people must be bringing this faith to their support of Trump. Like they've picked their road, and now the task is not to ask questions but to have unshakeable faith. Scandals and impeachment and lies and terrible behaviour trigger different coping mechanisms in different people, but if you're accustomed to meeting adversity with faith, then perhaps that is how they interpret these events. As a test of faith, not a act to be judged. It just seems like a different mentality, where no amount of hypocrisy or facts can get through because it's not dealt with the same way. I don't know what actually could shake their faith in Trump, but apparently nothing so far has.

I used to think the 2nd amendment was a line in the sand, but now I think Trump could get his supporters to give up their guns in a single speech if he had a mind to. They're THAT on board.

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Politics
« Reply #6393 on: February 28, 2020, 08:18:09 PM »
I believe you are right, smirnoff, except for maybe the gun issue. Guns are a higher power than Trump in some circles and there might be some major meltdowns as people try and choose which god to follow.

The backfire effect is alive and well all around me. The faith conditioning is so complete that any contrary information is summarily dismissed, whether it is about the church's misdeeds, or Trump's misdeeds. What etdoesgood said about the "prosperity gospel" is another aspect of this rabid religious fervor.

Will, I can see how you are experiencing this confirmation bias, when you bring up communism, but my question was specifically, how is is useful to compare the best of Russia to the worst of the US? That approach is untenable. Lay all of it out and then there can be a discussion.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 08:20:57 PM by Sandy »

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Politics
« Reply #6394 on: February 28, 2020, 09:05:18 PM »
I missed most of this discussion, but I'm 99% sure that jdc is correct about that button just being there because it's there, it's not actually supposed to close the elevator door due to, as they said, the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act).

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Politics
« Reply #6395 on: February 28, 2020, 10:47:32 PM »
If there was no such thing as scarcity of resources, both the United States' industrial revolution and Chinese reformations would be resounding victories for human progress. In the short term, there is a great easing of misery. You cannot discount how meaningful that is to people directly involved. I'm not as up on India, but it seems like they are going down a similar path.

The problem is we now know what the long-term consequences are, but the idea of a forever-growing economy as a pathway to further prosperity is something that seems hardwired into our philosophies of being. I think in a multi-party democratic system, there is more room for protest, education, consciousness-building; whereas, in a one-party system, if that party is not prepared to do something about the path of environmental degradation down which we've already gone pretty far, and dissidents are jailed and killed, you're totally screwed. Our fanatical wing of science deniers are just people totally consumed by the idea of forever-growth. They aren't empowered by democracy, they're using the anti-democratic institutions Bondo mentioned (the Senate, the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court) to undermine a majority that at least understand it's a problem, a surging plurality that think it's a crisis, and a large majority that knows there will need to be sacrifices made.

I still think we need to look outside the super powers for real answers about how to live now that we know forever-consumption is at odds with human longevity. And we need to look at countries that are full democracies* with many parties that ultimately make life better for great numbers of people without consuming at an outsized rate. We have to look there to start formalizing a plan to get the world to zero-growth, which would likely include job shares and some material sacrifices, but that we'd all still be provided for and have freedom to dissent, to question, to form counter-arguments and organizations that put pressure on the status quo. Denmark, Findland, Sweden, Switzerland, and Norway have always been fascinating case studies on multi-party democracy eventually leading to a commitment to slowdown consumption and prepare themselves for a post-growth world.

On Sandy's remarks about Trump being the guru for the evangelicals, I think that's down to the embracing the "prosperity gospel." That's much easier to swallow than Matthew 19:24, New International Version: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

*Democracy Index Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

I want you to know that I read this and I've considered your point. I haven't considered the idea that we haven't come to terms with the fact that we are in a post-growth society, but it makes sense when innovation has slowed down considerably since the Silicon Valley age in the 80s.

Perhaps part of me is thinking that socialism could win the political war but not the culture one and, because of that, far-left candidates will end up losing. We need to stop associating socialism with pure evil. To do that, I think you have to destroy whatever belief that the model of government created for the United States isn't morally superior to other forms of government, in this case, communism, because this current model is far more rooted in conservative ideology than most would like to admit (instead we appear to insist that it is truly the centrist, fair and balanced view which just reinforces the status quo). I have my way, you have yours, but your way makes me question mine.

I think that democratic socialism can win on both political and cultural fronts, and that's why we're seeing a surge for Sanders and the negative connotations attached to socialism start to wane. Polls (see below) show that young people like socialism at a similar rate as they like capitalism. Honestly, I'm still coming around to the difference between communism and socialism, and I think that in our modern day it's because communism is more closely associated with totalitarianism and a closed society, and socialism seems now possible without that. That's how I'm now using those terms, and again, that seems like how a lot of younger voters are seeing it. Thus, I actually think what you're ultimately after, a leftward shift in politics and a departure from Cold War era red scare thinking/paranoia, is occurring, it's just a matter of whether or not it can get to the majority and start setting the agenda in our government, and what ultimate form it takes. And I still think it's important to steer clear of evoking communist governments of old, if only because it sets off old fears and anxieties, and it's not useful for forwarding a progressive agenda. You can make the argument that unfettered capitalism is immoral and leads to oligarchy, thus needs to be regulated, while social programs that provide universal access to health care, education, good jobs, and a pension are both moral and necessary, without relitigating the Cold War. Let's (not you and me, but the capital-L Let's) agree that we need something better and figure out what that better is without feeling trapped by history, BUT making sure we always have an open society where the people can vote, make decisions, protest and demonstrate, and make great movies freely and without fear of retribution (that's where the learning from collectivist failings from the past can help inform a better, more collective future in the U.S.A., which, as you well stated, has a right-wing bent compared to other developed countries.). And, I won't deny, I think our country, with its diversity, with its evolution into a more inclusive society for more than just white, male, Christian people, its big economy and penchant for innovation is uniquely positioned to really make a bigger, better something, as opposed to just being a huge hurdle toward worldwide progress on important issues.

Sorry if I ramble too much. Always trying to figure out just the best way to word this.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capitalism-among-young-adults.aspx
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Politics
« Reply #6396 on: February 28, 2020, 11:04:52 PM »
It's ironic. The Republicans fear mongered socialism so much that they ended up just associating it with things like affordable education and health care that people really like. If those are socialism, than I love socialism. Thus we have a whole generation of socialists.

Ten years ago when I was teaching, I would teach generational replacement theory. Note the strong contrast between Millennials and the slightly less liberal Xers vs the Boomers and the slightly more conservative Silent Generation. I'd note that Millennials are the largest generation in history. I'd note that ideology tends to remain fixed after 30. The kicker is that young people just don't vote, so they are ceding their power, but eventually they too will be middle-aged people who reliably vote. So it was just a question of waiting for the change to happen.

I am less optimistic, both because the Republicans are so aggressively rigging the game and because I have a lot of concerns about the politics of those after me. Not per se an ideological one but a temperamental one. I see a generation that has succumbed to conspiracy theory level thinking about society, focused not on the real efforts of the Republicans to hold onto power in the face of declining vote shares, but on perceived corruption of the Democrats that simply isn't there in any real shape or form. This leads them to any manner of self-defeating methods (voting third-party, not voting, resisting any manner of incrementalism or moderation). Everything was setting itself up for them to take over the world and I well and truly worry they are going to give it away in favor of niche tribalism.

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Politics
« Reply #6397 on: February 28, 2020, 11:07:40 PM »
On the whole the Supreme Court is garbage and not just anti-democratic but anti-progress.

Going to have to disagree with the Supreme Court being anti-progress. Here are a few examples I would use: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (segregation); Row v Wade (abortion); Obergefell v. Hodges (same sex marriage)

As to the Supreme Court being anti-democratic, it was never built to be democratic, rather it is a court of law. Hence it is a tool of democracy or dictatorship or whatever in between. Further it does not have the power to rule on "non-justiciable political questions".

Our Supreme Court is no simple court of law. If it were, we wouldn't have these intense fights over the president appointing and the senate confirming the justices. We would just put the most experienced people with the highest level of experience in law on the court. But since it's so partisan (i.e. the 5-4 party-line splits on some huge issues), the justices wield so much power (think about what a radical change the cases you mentioned have made, and how plodding our Congress seems to be in comparison), and they serve for life, and you have something so much bigger than a court of law.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Politics
« Reply #6398 on: February 28, 2020, 11:34:54 PM »
The Court acts for progress, occasionally, not because it is good, but because Congress is broken. Most of the breakthroughs cited are things that had majority support at the time so a properly constituted legislature could have brought them into being. If anything the court further breaks Congress because it makes us look to the court instead of our representatives.

Nothing the Supreme Court has done would prevent Congress from establishing civil rights protection. But because we have decided the court is our great savior Congress ratchets only in one direction and the courts have been horrible at maintaining the Fourth Amendment.

Dave the Necrobumper

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12730
  • If I keep digging maybe I will get out of this hol
Re: Politics
« Reply #6399 on: February 29, 2020, 03:52:37 AM »
etdoesgood: The most experienced as what? as judges, time doing law, so only the oldest lawyers would be on the court regardless of their legal abilities, so if Michael Cohen or Rudy Giuliani does law for long enough he would get a spot?

Both: What would you replace the supreme court with?

 

love