2020 US Election (Part One)

[Broken_Erika]

Hillary 2020
Vote for Her or suffer you lowly peasants!
#YouOweHerAndYouWillVoteForHerBecauseSheCommandsIt!

 

[Gori the Grey]

If Hillary doesn't run, there's no need for any candidate to establish him or herself as a Hillary-killer. And there's little value in doing so even if she does run:

Hillary is dead, to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that.

She's been killed twice over.

So I hope she has the sense simply not to run.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Gavin Newsom has got to start upping his profile if he wants to make a bid. I watch a ton of political TV and I can't picture the guy.

Picture Flash Gordon... got it. Yup, there ya go

No? OK here ya go :

Flash, a-ah, saviour of the universe
Flash, a-ah, he'll save everyone of us
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Flash, a-ah, he's a miracle

 

[Lexicus]

Picture Flash Gordon... got it. Yup, there ya go

No? OK here ya go :

Flash, a-ah, saviour of the universe
Flash, a-ah, he'll save everyone of us
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Flash, a-ah, he's a miracle

G.O.A.T.

 

[Sommerswerd]

She's been killed twice over.

So has the Death Star... your point?

 

[Lexicus]

So has the Death Star... your point?

And they still brought it back again in Episode 7! They didn't care!

 

[Gori the Grey]

So has the Death StarPlagueis ... your point?

FTFY

Oh, I have no point, except that I don't want her to run.

 

[sophie]

If Hillary doesn't run, there's no need for any candidate to establish him or herself as a Hillary-killer. And there's little value in doing so even if she does run:



She's been killed twice over.

So I hope she has the sense simply not to run.

I take it to mean more that 2016 represented a firm rejection of the neoliberal/technocratic tack the Democratic party has been pushing for the past 30 years, both in the traction that Bernie got by explicitly adopting an anti-neoliberal, quasi-socialist platform, and by Trump emphasizing consistently his lack of familiarity with the political system. However disingenuous the appeal might have been, "Drain the swamp," represented, at least in part, doing away with the politicians and political bureaucracy that says some variation of "give me the power/listen to me because I am an expert," and that was definitely something that resonated with voters in that election.

This is a wing of the party that, at least from where I'm standing, has been crippling the Democrats for years. At least the Republicans are explicit about what they want and what they're going to do. The Democratic party is one which consistently makes promises for meaningful change and improvement, but which by-definition cannot fulfill them because the system functions extremely well from a Neoliberal standpoint. If the Dems run another Neoliberal/technocratic candidate in 2020 they will lose. Full stop.

 

[danjuno]

Honestly, I wonder even this country is even salvageable at this point. At this point elections have become a spectator sport for me.

 

[Gori the Grey]

doing away with the politicians and political bureaucracy that says some variation of "give me the power/listen to me because I am an expert,"

There's nothing wrong with experts. We live in a world that needs them at every turn. And one is not getting away from bureaucracy, either. I know the wing of the party you're talking about and how they've lost sight of laborers as they've drifted over to being the party of professionals. I'm in the very preliminary stages of trying to work out how the Democrats should position themselves on this issue of technocrats. Maybe the good minds at CFC can help me with the messaging I'm trying to envision. What if the Democratic party explicitly positioned itself as the party for people with "one mortgage or fewer"? That describes most laborers, but most technocrats, too. Most people who must work to earn an income, rather than being able to rely on investments for income. I'm trying to get a catchy way to name that group and give them a sense of shared identity. One has to find some formula through which to win back labor, but not at the expense of professionals. It's a natural coalition against Bernie's "millionaires and billionaires," but those millionaires and billionaires have effectively generated class ressentiment between those two groups that really serves the millionaires and billionaires.

 

[Berzerker]

damn, Biden is leading in polls among Democrats

another warmongering prohibitionist

 

[Lexicus]

There's nothing wrong with experts. We live in a world that needs them at every turn. And one is not getting away from bureaucracy, either. I know the wing of the party you're talking about and how they've lost sight of laborers as they've drifted over to being the party of professionals. I'm in the very preliminary stages of trying to work out how the Democrats should position themselves on this issue of technocrats. Maybe the good minds at CFC can help me with the messaging I'm trying to envision. What if the Democratic party explicitly positioned itself as the party for people with "one mortgage or fewer"? That describes most laborers, but most technocrats, too. Most people who must work to earn an income, rather than being able to rely on investments for income. I'm trying to get a catchy way to name that group and give them a sense of shared identity. One has to find some formula through which to win back labor, but not at the expense of professionals. It's a natural coalition against Bernie's "millionaires and billionaires," but those millionaires and billionaires have effectively generated class ressentiment between those two groups that really serves the millionaires and billionaires.

The decent standard of living of the professional class is subsidized by the ruthless exploitation of the 'blue-collar' (now almost all service industry people e.g. baristas, servers, nurses and so on rather than industrial workers) class. And the professional class has been conditioned over a number of years - notably by the scam of "individual retirement accounts", the treatment of homeownership as a financial investment, etc. - to identify its interests with the propertied classes, rather than with the "blue collar" workers.

At best it will take decades of political work to undo this false consciousness of the professional class. It might even be impossible without serious political-economic changes that subject the professional class to some precarity and insecurity.

There's nothing wrong with experts.

Not per se. But there is certainly something wrong with an ideology that sees "expertise" as a political argument. "Hillary Clinton should be President because she's most qualified for the job" was a sentiment that always made me nauseated because it is explicitly a rejection of democratic politics, a call for government by mandarins rather than by representatives.

 

[metalhead]

The decent standard of living of the professional class is subsidized by the ruthless exploitation of the 'blue-collar' (now almost all service industry people e.g. baristas, servers, nurses and so on rather than industrial workers) class. And the professional class has been conditioned over a number of years - notably by the scam of "individual retirement accounts", the treatment of homeownership as a financial investment, etc. - to identify its interests with the propertied classes, rather than with the "blue collar" workers.

At best it will take decades of political work to undo this false consciousness of the professional class. It might even be impossible without serious political-economic changes that subject the professional class to some precarity and insecurity.

It will take honesty. The elites have convinced themselves that we can make the country work for everyone if they are allowed to horde all of the wealth, and then feed a pittance of it back to the rest of society through "foundations" and private charity that primarily serve to ease their consciences and make them seem like good people.

The simple fact is that the elites - and I'm talking more broadly here about a class of people of which I am a member - need to take less. A lot less. Someone will need to come along like FDR who will basically go to the upper-middle and wealthy classes and tell them they will be taking much less so that we can give back to the people who actually work in this country, and treat them with humanity instead of as a resource to be exploited.

Not per se. But there is certainly something wrong with an ideology that sees "expertise" as a political argument. "Hillary Clinton should be President because she's most qualified for the job" was a sentiment that always made me nauseated because it is explicitly a rejection of democratic politics, a call for government by mandarins rather than by representatives.

Here I disagree. Not necessarily about Clinton herself, but the idea that expertise is not valuable. The whole idea of experts solving problems has been subverted to the will of market capitalism. We should want our representatives to be knowledgable, to govern based on facts, to be willing to make large amounts of resources available so that experts can solve big problems.

So much of what is missing these days is trust. Trust that government is capable of large scale mobilization to solve large problems like climate change. One party has spent decades specifically trying to destroy that trust, and the other spent those decades meekly going along with that destruction.

Expertise itself is now viewed with suspicion. The idea of deferring to experts is anathema to large swathes of our body politic, and the results are disastrous. We need leaders who will stick up for ideals of knowledge, of learning. We need leaders who will explain to people that government can solve problems, even if it is messy and inefficient.

 

[Lexicus]

The simple fact is that the elites - and I'm talking more broadly here about a class of people of which I am a member - need to take less. A lot less. Someone will need to come along like FDR who will basically go to the upper-middle and wealthy classes and tell them they will be taking much less so that we can give back to the people who actually work in this country, and treat them with humanity instead of as a resource to be exploited.

Well, the problem with this is that FDR wasn't having much luck until WW2 allowed his administration to essentially redesign the US economy from the ground up in the space of a few years.

Hopefully climate change can provide that degree of political mobilization but we have to hope it can happen soon.

Here I disagree. Not necessarily about Clinton herself, but the idea that expertise is not valuable.

I'm not claiming that expertise is not valuable. In fact, I (obviously) completely agree that Hillary was far more qualified to run the government than Trump is.

I'm claiming that "expertise" is not a political program - or rather, to the extent that it does represent a political program, that program is fundamentally ugly and should be opposed by anyone who wants to live in a democratic polity.

There is a big difference between Hillary Clinton saying, in essence, "the Presidency is the logical next step for my résumé, so vote for me because I'm more qualified than my opponent" and "here is my political program, this is why I want to be President, vote for me because I am an expert and I will appoint experts to be in charge of things and we will be effective in carrying this program out."

The problem is not valuing expertise, the problem is eliding the "political argument" part of the equation and elevating expertise to a good-in-itself. Rather like what has been done with "compromise," which is supposed to be a tactical approach to accomplishing a political goal. Instead the same wing of the Democratic Party has elevated it into a good-in-itself which is, frankly, stupid. The compromise thing is less pressing an issue though because unlike the "expertise" stuff it doesn't dovetail so hard into the intense resentment many blue-collar people feel for the professional-managerial class.

Now, I won't deny that to some extent Hillary Clinton did make appeals of the second sort I mentioned above - "I will be effective in carrying this program out" - but for a variety of reasons many people did not feel that her commitment to the program was credible. There were also many problems with the program itself (as we've discussed before, if you want five dollars you don't ask for two and hope that your obvious willingness to compromise will get you the other three) but that is a whole 'nother discussion.

 

[metalhead]

I'm not claiming that expertise is not valuable. In fact, I (obviously) completely agree that Hillary was far more qualified to run the government than Trump is.

I'm claiming that "expertise" is not a political program - or rather, to the extent that it does represent a political program, that program is fundamentally ugly and should be opposed by anyone who wants to live in a democratic polity.

It depends on the issue. Ironically, I support the withdrawal of troops from Syria (if it actually happens), but I'm very concerned that the person who made that decision - and did so in a unilateral manner without any process whatsoever, which is within his power - made it without understanding anything about the situation, or what it means for our allies (and enemies) in the region, including people who are in imminent danger without a U.S. presence to protect them.

Operating the levers of power itself is a job that requires specific knowledge to do well. "I am an expert" is actually itself a good argument for someone to be put in a place where they are able to unilaterally make decisions impacting millions of peoples' lives. The decisionmaking process is difficult, and complicated, and is so for good reason. Someone who doesn't understand that or doesn't take it seriously is extremely dangerous.

Obviously expertise is a poor substitute for democracy. Technocrats enacting programs for our own good without paying mind to the wants of the people is not democratic. I get that. But a lack of expertise and, especially, a manifest unwillingness to acquire any is a bad quality for anyone in any profession, let alone one where making good decisions requires a high level of expertise.

 

[Lexicus]

Again, the point is not that expertise is not a nice thing to have (although the greatest President this Republic ever had was "unqualified" compared to his opponent), the point is that failure to clearly articulate what you are using your expertise for is a problem. It's to some extent a cosmetic or "image" problem but it also represents an ideological problem for a certain wing of the Democrats who substitute expertise for politics because "I will use my expertise to craft policies that seem progressive but also keep Wall Street happy" is a political position that most voters will disagree with.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The decent standard of living of the professional class is subsidized by the ruthless exploitation of the 'blue-collar'

Not by the professional class.

the professional class to some precarity and insecurity.

It does. The only class that doesn't is Bernie's "millionaires and billionaires." I'm trying to get a name for the opposite of Bernie's "millionaires and billionaires."

"Hillary Clinton should be President because she's most qualified for the job" was a sentiment that always made me nauseated because it is explicitly a rejection of democratic politics, a call for government by mandarins rather than by representatives.

This is just silly (or hyper-sophisticated, which amounts to the same thing), and it's conjoint with the sentiment that got Trump elected.

 

[Lexicus]

Not by the professional class.

Actually, in many cases the people directly in charge of the blue-collar workers are members of the professional class.

It does. The only class that doesn't is Bernie's "millionaires and billionaires." I'm trying to get a name for the opposite of Bernie's "millionaires and billionaires."

The 99%? My preferred formulation is simply: 'ordinary people'

This is just silly, and it's conjoint with the sentiment that got Trump elected.

Poison-the-well fallacy. Rather beneath you, no? Of course it's not silly at all. There was even a push after the election to have electors defy the will of the voters in their states and refuse to elect Trump president. This was referred to, in a nod to one of the great anti-democratic crusaders of American history, as the "Hamilton elector project" or some such.

Now, bear in mind that my view is that the electoral college itself was undemocratic and Trump winning was an undemocratic outcome. But many liberals of the persuasion I'm talking about here do think the electoral college is democratic, and really do believe that democracy is a problem insofar as people succumb to 'populism' and vote for the 'less qualified' people.

The very identification of populism with right-wing politics is a sort of anti-democratic Freudian slip considering the actual history of Populism in this country.

 

[Gori the Grey]

"Candidate A is more qualified to be president than Candidate B" =/=

have electors defy the will of the voters in their states and refuse to elect Trump president.

All I was calling silly was your resistance to Clinton making the appeal that she is the more qualified of the two candidates to be president.

Qualification = non-populism, somehow, for you?

 

[Lexicus]

"Candidate A is more qualified to be president than Candidate B" =/=

Sure, my point is that I believe the impulse behind both of these things came from a similar place.

All I was calling silly was your resistance to Clinton making the appeal that she is the more qualified of the two candidates to be president.

Well, if you read my replies to metalhead, you'll see I don't object to qualifications or expertise. I don't even object to touting qualifications or expertise. What I object to is the elevation of qualifications and expertise into good-in-itself, as a sort of substitute for politics.

This is, in my view, a product of a broader liberal tendency of thought that maintains there are no inherent conflicts of interest in society, and as such any political problem can be resolved by a willingness to compromise and the application of properly credentialed expertise. As a person who comes from a much more Marxist intellectual background, I see that view of society as nonsense, I believe that society is constantly riven by insoluble political conflicts. At best the emphasis on expertise as a good-in-itself is naive and politically unsophisticated, at worst it is a conscious attempt to hide an elite-oriented politics whose adherents know perfectly well they cannot be honest with the voting public.

Qualification = non-populism, somehow, for you?

Insofar as populism can be defined as a style or practice of politics which juxtaposes "the people" with an elite and claims to represent the former as against the latter, I believe that emphasizing the importance of credentialed expertise is incompatible with populist politics, yes. The exception might be an emphasis on credentialed expertise to show that you will effectively fight for "the people" and against "the elite" - depends on how far we want to define credentialed experts as elites themselves.