- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,068
- 190,294
- 113
Can we have the Crowleys from Downton Abbey? Sure, they are a little stuffy, but deep down, they seem like nice folks.
The single-most cynical political essay I've ever read . . . but I also think it's almost 100% accurate
- Thread starter torbee
- Start date
I think the sad truth is is that given the partisan divide and the current trajectory, it would/will only be a matter of time before a radical leftist populist becomes a similar "cult of personality" leader a la Trump but on the liberal side. It's not like there isn't plenty of global historical examples of that happening as well. I think the GOP just got to the full shark-jumping a little faster.
GOP is definitely out front on this, but team blue is playing the same game now and making real progress. GOP figured out that that catering to idiots is profitable. This allowed them to be captured and controlled by said idiots. Now they're stuck with them. It'll be interesting to see how long team blue can holdout before this happens.
Some don’t like state’s rights when it comes to abortion but they want the country to break up.
it’s like you can’t be happy unless everything is how you want it.
Much to do about nothing for a very very large percentage of America. Most of this is social media chest thumping.
it’s like you can’t be happy unless everything is how you want it.
Much to do about nothing for a very very large percentage of America. Most of this is social media chest thumping.
I agree with a ton of this.
The most important point of all is his opening. This whole thing is rigged. The politics is rigged, the media ecosphere, the rewards system...it's all rigged to deliver EXACTLY the outcome that he's predicting. Maybe not intentionally, but it's all but locked in. Most of all, NEITHER party is interested in un-rigging it.
You can definitely choose which party you think favors good policies, and which ones favor bad policies. But both parties are absolutely all in on reducing competitive districts to near zero, undermining the integrity of elections they don't like the results of, assaulting any and all institutions that don't deliver their preference, and silencing those who disagree with them. There is no "if my party wins, this will get better" because these structures are close to baked in at this point with zero help in sight.
I have a few quibbles with it.
One, I still think he overrates Trump a little bit, these factors are wreaking havoc with or without Trump, if he died tomorrow. Trump shines a light on more than he caused.
Also, it underrates the number of people that still don't give that much of a shit about politics. A third of people still don't vote in the most polarizing presidential elections in our lifetime, with the easiest voting ever. Only of a fraction of that vote for non-presidential races. A huge portion of those that do vote are barely informed. There's no question that social media has energized more people politically in the past, but these analysts still way over estimate how much this "division" plays out in the real world. This still describes a world where like 50 percent of people hate the other 50%, and I still think its much more like 20% at one extreme hate 20% at the other extreme. Most people aren't out here tearing their hair out about being a blue voter in a red state or vice versa.
The problem is that the rigged system allows the 20% on each side to fully control the agenda.
Here's the thing...any candidate that came out with an agenda like this would likely win 70% of the vote:
1. Abortion should be fully legal in the first trimester, restricted with some exceptions for rape and incest in the second trimester, and only to save the life of the mother or an unviable pregnancy in the third trimester.
2. The border should be secure and immigration laws enforced, and we should not have unknown numbers of people crossing the border. But we should welcome people from all over the world to become American citizens legally.
3. There are obviously two biological genders at birth and we can call people women and men, but we should not be discriminating against people who are trans and they should have the freedom to pursue happiness with protection.
4. Gay marriage is a right and gay people need to have every right as heterosexual. We should be protecting the rights of gay people to teach in our schools and do every other job, but elementary school kids do not need training in sexual orientation, gender identity, gender fluidity, pansexualism, etc. That's a job for parents at that age.
5. Schoolchildren need to be taught about this country's sordid record on slavery and racism and challenges that still exist. However, white supremacy is not the fundamental characteristic of the United States, and it's not the sole or primary feature of the United States. Your skin color is not your destiny.
6. The police should be fully funded and criminals prosecuted and crime addressed seriously. But cops who abuse that public and use of force should be dealt with and face consequences including jail time.
etc, etc, etc.
I don't like all those things, progressives on the board don't like all those things, but those are vastly winning propositions with likely 70% approval, pretty much across all ethnic groups. It's a severely broken system when you can not even get a sniff in either party with very mainstream views. If ONE party could advance mainstream candidates, they would absolutely crush.
It was as recently as Bill Clinton and GWB that moderates could face down the more extremes of the party. It's not like pining for Eisenhower for God's sake.
But it goes back to the rigged systems, and the fact that actually having to you know, win , is of decreasing importance. We've rendered as many house seats non competitive as possible, so even the most dramatic public repudiation from voters likely results in a deficit you can easily take back. You don't ever need to address the public outside of your side's media silo or ever be challenged on your positions or win voters. If you don't like the election results, just claim you didn't actually lose. We might be on the brink of actually rejecting election results at some point soon.
So what actually has to happen to put somebody with mainstream views in position at this point? Is it just a force of personality? Bill Clinton dragged the Democrats to the center by winning and basically stiff-armed the Dukakis wing of the party. Trump, while dragging the GOP more authoritarian, totally pulled them left on LGBTQ and stiff armed the warmonger hawks of the GOP. The rigged system is very problematic, but I have more hope than this author that there is a way forward with the right people, but it's going to get harder and harder.
The most important point of all is his opening. This whole thing is rigged. The politics is rigged, the media ecosphere, the rewards system...it's all rigged to deliver EXACTLY the outcome that he's predicting. Maybe not intentionally, but it's all but locked in. Most of all, NEITHER party is interested in un-rigging it.
You can definitely choose which party you think favors good policies, and which ones favor bad policies. But both parties are absolutely all in on reducing competitive districts to near zero, undermining the integrity of elections they don't like the results of, assaulting any and all institutions that don't deliver their preference, and silencing those who disagree with them. There is no "if my party wins, this will get better" because these structures are close to baked in at this point with zero help in sight.
I have a few quibbles with it.
One, I still think he overrates Trump a little bit, these factors are wreaking havoc with or without Trump, if he died tomorrow. Trump shines a light on more than he caused.
Also, it underrates the number of people that still don't give that much of a shit about politics. A third of people still don't vote in the most polarizing presidential elections in our lifetime, with the easiest voting ever. Only of a fraction of that vote for non-presidential races. A huge portion of those that do vote are barely informed. There's no question that social media has energized more people politically in the past, but these analysts still way over estimate how much this "division" plays out in the real world. This still describes a world where like 50 percent of people hate the other 50%, and I still think its much more like 20% at one extreme hate 20% at the other extreme. Most people aren't out here tearing their hair out about being a blue voter in a red state or vice versa.
The problem is that the rigged system allows the 20% on each side to fully control the agenda.
Here's the thing...any candidate that came out with an agenda like this would likely win 70% of the vote:
1. Abortion should be fully legal in the first trimester, restricted with some exceptions for rape and incest in the second trimester, and only to save the life of the mother or an unviable pregnancy in the third trimester.
2. The border should be secure and immigration laws enforced, and we should not have unknown numbers of people crossing the border. But we should welcome people from all over the world to become American citizens legally.
3. There are obviously two biological genders at birth and we can call people women and men, but we should not be discriminating against people who are trans and they should have the freedom to pursue happiness with protection.
4. Gay marriage is a right and gay people need to have every right as heterosexual. We should be protecting the rights of gay people to teach in our schools and do every other job, but elementary school kids do not need training in sexual orientation, gender identity, gender fluidity, pansexualism, etc. That's a job for parents at that age.
5. Schoolchildren need to be taught about this country's sordid record on slavery and racism and challenges that still exist. However, white supremacy is not the fundamental characteristic of the United States, and it's not the sole or primary feature of the United States. Your skin color is not your destiny.
6. The police should be fully funded and criminals prosecuted and crime addressed seriously. But cops who abuse that public and use of force should be dealt with and face consequences including jail time.
etc, etc, etc.
I don't like all those things, progressives on the board don't like all those things, but those are vastly winning propositions with likely 70% approval, pretty much across all ethnic groups. It's a severely broken system when you can not even get a sniff in either party with very mainstream views. If ONE party could advance mainstream candidates, they would absolutely crush.
It was as recently as Bill Clinton and GWB that moderates could face down the more extremes of the party. It's not like pining for Eisenhower for God's sake.
But it goes back to the rigged systems, and the fact that actually having to you know, win , is of decreasing importance. We've rendered as many house seats non competitive as possible, so even the most dramatic public repudiation from voters likely results in a deficit you can easily take back. You don't ever need to address the public outside of your side's media silo or ever be challenged on your positions or win voters. If you don't like the election results, just claim you didn't actually lose. We might be on the brink of actually rejecting election results at some point soon.
So what actually has to happen to put somebody with mainstream views in position at this point? Is it just a force of personality? Bill Clinton dragged the Democrats to the center by winning and basically stiff-armed the Dukakis wing of the party. Trump, while dragging the GOP more authoritarian, totally pulled them left on LGBTQ and stiff armed the warmonger hawks of the GOP. The rigged system is very problematic, but I have more hope than this author that there is a way forward with the right people, but it's going to get harder and harder.
I think the sad truth is is that given the partisan divide and the current trajectory, it would/will only be a matter of time before a radical leftist populist becomes a similar "cult of personality" leader a la Trump but on the liberal side. It's not like there isn't plenty of global historical examples of that happening as well. I think the GOP just got to the full shark-jumping a little faster.
So true. The rise of Trump obscures the fact that if you'd told someone in 2008 that Bernie Sanders would be within an arms length of being the Democratic nominee for president, you'd have been laughed out of the room.
Some really fvcked up times are afoot.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,068
- 190,294
- 113
I think Map 1 is far more likely than Map 2. \Tough break for Iowa in terms of company.
High-population liberal "city states" surrounded by low-density, right-wing swaths of rural land:
Why not make things really granular? Like... no abortions or gay marriage in Wayne County Nebraska. Wayne Country -- have it your way!
10k people the country. Nobody wants to live there anyway. Old, white, religious. Don't we have 100s of counties like this that consistently go red? Just give them their crap so they'll shutup. Nobody halfway gay or liberal lives there anyway. Just give them their way on all the hot button cultural topics that drive their voting on federal elections.
Could change the entire incentive structure for federal election voting.
10k people the country. Nobody wants to live there anyway. Old, white, religious. Don't we have 100s of counties like this that consistently go red? Just give them their crap so they'll shutup. Nobody halfway gay or liberal lives there anyway. Just give them their way on all the hot button cultural topics that drive their voting on federal elections.
Could change the entire incentive structure for federal election voting.
Texas would never agree to that. I would head to Oregon or Minnesota if that happened. I’m not associating with those trash states that NC would absorb.I think Map 1 is far more likely than Map 2. \
High-population liberal "city states" surrounded by low-density, right-wing swaths of rural land:
If people only cared about impacts to themselves and not also applying it onto others, that might work. But we don't seem to work that way.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,068
- 190,294
- 113
Not sure a state government would be a able to stop it. The money and power is concentrated in the cities.
Really thoughtful stuff. Do you think the electoral college system is a net positive or negative in terms of the rigged system theme you've touched on?
Said another way if there was no electoral college, just all Americans vote for someone for president and the most popular wins, is that more or less rigged?
I feel like they are losing ground on the right and you are kind of seeing that with these runoff elections and primaries. Still too many of them but change takes time
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
I pretty much have given up on my fellow citizens, so a proposal like this seems much more reasonable to me than it would have been pre 2016.
I’ll just move to a reasonable, progressive region….y’all can have Iowa in the race to the bottom
I’ll just move to a reasonable, progressive region….y’all can have Iowa in the race to the bottom
I hate to explain humor to you but your initial post was about divisiveness in society. Calling things “stupid”. Name calling. Etc.
I replied “that take seems stupid”.
I’m sorry that you didn’t get the joke. Carry on.
Really? Well golly gee whiz! Lame attempt on your part. Not very original either. That's why you got the response you did. Wondered if you would "get it.". I guess not.
I played you like a fiddle but apparently you don't realize it!
Carry on.
Do you think the two posters who liked your post thought it was humor? I know one of them didn’t, but not sure about the other.
Well you’re the comedian. You should know your audience. That’s the first rule of comedy.
Back to clogging up the board being a nuisance again just like clockwork or a Republican lying.
How? Simply asking the jokester if he was considering his audience. Hardly clogging the board.
One thing that we have going for us is that we demonstrated that even the most incompetent of leadership won't derail the country.
We're going to have a situation where the losing side in 2024, whoever it is, won't legitimize anything coming out of Washington. Laws will be passed that under normal circumstances would be struck down due to the seldom-used dormant commerce clause by the supreme court but when you have a supreme court that lacks legitimacy, half of the states won't care. The government can send in the military to enforce it, but nobody's going to listen to it. We're going to have a passive level of anarchy, which will make both sides dig in deeper
We've reached a point where we have no common ground - no values upon which we agree, which is reflected in the party line voting on almost every topic. Both sides are guilty of it
We're going to have a situation where the losing side in 2024, whoever it is, won't legitimize anything coming out of Washington. Laws will be passed that under normal circumstances would be struck down due to the seldom-used dormant commerce clause by the supreme court but when you have a supreme court that lacks legitimacy, half of the states won't care. The government can send in the military to enforce it, but nobody's going to listen to it. We're going to have a passive level of anarchy, which will make both sides dig in deeper
We've reached a point where we have no common ground - no values upon which we agree, which is reflected in the party line voting on almost every topic. Both sides are guilty of it
Some gridlock would be great but they still seem to be able to spend like crazy.
the biggest issue is neither side actually gives a shit about the people here in US. They just care about strengthening their political power and pandering to everyday people, some of which thinks these people in power have the people's best interests in mind.
I freaking hate politics. So divisive. So close minded
I freaking hate politics. So divisive. So close minded
Our government has, in large part because that is what the people want, tied itself to social media. Obama and especially Trump wouldn't have risen to where they did without it.
I don't necessarily think that it's a problem by nature. I think that there's some value to avoiding a situation where the entire heartland of the country can be made voiceless.
I also think that people overplay the electoral vs. raw vote totals considering that raw vote totals aren't the game. It's like a team going up 28-0 in the first quarter and then being outscored 10-3 the rest of the way...you can't claim that you were the better team because you won three quarters. Republicans know they don't have to do shit or spend shit in NY, CA, WA etc. Democrats can do the same in Mississippi and Alabama, but it's not the same population wise. Democrats haven't conceded big states like Texas and Florida, but if and when they do, that will depress their raw vote totals as well.
This is actually another thing affected by non-competitive districts...it wasn't that long ago that presidential candidates campaigned in states they couldn't win for the benefit of down state races. A Republican is no longer going to campaign in NY or CA when there might be 2-3 competitive house districts in a giant state. Same thing with a Democrat in states they can't carry.
I think it would be problematic if removing the electoral college resulted in campaigns basically in 8-10 states getting campaigned in, and would only much further cause the type of alienation from the rest of the country that this piece talks about. And it's no good for those who want more moderate candidates if the Democrat doesn't have to try to win Arizona and the Republican doesn't have to try to win Pennsylvania. I'm not sure increasing the weight of votes in Texas and California will lead to the more moderated voices people would prefer. I know it feels like it can't get worse, but it can.
HOWEVER, it's undeniable that the optics around how often the raw vs electoral totals have mismatched is bad optics and leads to ill will and debases trust in Democracy, whether or not it can be explained. It's not NOT a problem as is.
If you can come up with a reform that is less likely to end in conflicting totals AND compels candidates to have to still play most of the board, I'm open.
