2020 US Election (Part One)

[Mouthwash]

You want to have Owen mobbed to death and then thrown off a tall mountain for good measure?

That seems like a deliberately dishonest reading... my opinion is that we're heading for a situation much like that of the late Republic and Owen's strategy will likely be used, empowering the worst people and creating endless civil strife.

 

[Lexicus]

That seems like a deliberately dishonest reading... my opinion is that we're heading for a situation much like that of the late Republic and Owen's strategy will likely be used, empowering the worst people and creating endless civil strife.

"That, too, has already happened" (@Sommerswerd lol)

 

[Kyriakos]

Trump sat alone in a boggy swamp,
totally emotionless except for his chart
Mud flowed up into Trump's mobile phones
he's totally confused about all passing cyclones
He's Trump, he's Trump
He's in my head

 

[Ferocitus]

The first tranche of emails and messages have been released after Kurt Volker's closed door meeting before the Intelligence, Oversight and Reform, and Foreign Affairs Committees.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016d-94d6-dfb2-afef-f7f7b74f0001
Fun, fun, fun!

 

[sophie]

You were doing well until that last part. Eternally angry mobs result in more and more people getting tired and leaving in extremists. That's how you get Ulster unionists, the NRA and various self-proclaimed dictators or would-be dictators who only listen to their own base who are really just the echoes inside their own head.

'Keep them perpetually angry by finding new hate-targets' seems very dangerous to the health of a functioning society.

Just want to clarify - "burn your house down" is a metaphor here. I don't, as a general principle, advocate literal physical violence. What I do advocate is direct action: organization, general strikes, picketing, boycotts, protests and the like. By the latter part of that line, to stay angry after you get what you want, I mean in the sense of maintaining solidarity and being hyper-vigilant about any sign of recalcitrance, because that is, in a word, why the Left always loses in the end. People get fed up with the state of affairs, people form a mob and demand their rights, the political system gets scared and concedes those rights (or, more typically, a watered down version that kind of extends those rights), the mob is satisfied and disperses, and then what follows is many years of chipping away and eroding those extended rights until we're right back to square 1.

Moreover, the project doesn't revolve around fomenting anger against individual people. Leftism isn't anger at individuals, but rather righteous anger at a system which denies people their dignity, which systematically prohibits them from even the minimal levels which might constitute a decent life. I am not angry at Jeff Bezos. I am angry that in this country currently there are more unoccupied houses than homeless people. I am angry that 49.1 million Americans are food insecure while food rots on the shelves of grocery stores every day. I am angry that 80 million Americans have to convince themselves "you know, maybe that ache isn't such a big deal, I can manage" because healthcare in this country is treated as a commodity, rather than a basic human right. I am angry that graduate students, who teach classes, grade papers, perform research, and attend conferences - and nominally for this labor receive a salary - have to every day justify their existence to administrative staff and faculty. That they should give their 50+ hours of weekly labor freely and accept what scraps admin decides to throw their way with a nod and a smile and a "thank you sir," because they should consider themselves lucky to be receiving such direct "on-the-job experience." The Leftist project is the eternal struggle to right these injustices, and the promise to not be satisfied and never rest until every human being is able to live in the dignity and comfort to which they, as human beings, are entitled.

To quote MLK:

Let us be dissatisfied until America will no longer have a high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds.

• Let us be dissatisfied until the tragic walls that separate the outer city of wealth and comfort from the inner city of poverty and despair shall be crushed by the battering rams of the forces of justice.
• Let us be dissatisfied until those who live on the outskirts of hope are brought into the metropolis of daily security.
• Let us be dissatisfied until slums are cast into the junk heaps of history, and every family will live in a decent, sanitary home.
• Let us be dissatisfied until the dark yesterdays of segregated schools will be transformed into bright tomorrows of quality integrated education.
• Let us be dissatisfied until integration is not seen as a problem but as an opportunity to participate in the beauty of diversity.
• Let us be dissatisfied until men and women, however black they may be, will be judged on the basis of the content of their character, not on the basis of the color of their skin. Let us be dissatisfied.
• Let us be dissatisfied until every state capitol will be housed by a governor who will do justly, who will love mercy, and who will walk humbly with his God.
• Let us be dissatisfied until from every city hall, justice will roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. Let us be dissatisfied until that day when the lion and the lamb shall lie down together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid. Let us be dissatisfied. And men will recognize that out of one blood God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. Let us be dissatisfied until that day when nobody will shout "White Power!" — when nobody will shout "Black Power!" — but everybody will talk about God's power and human power.

The LGBT struggle didn't end in 1958, and it didn't end in 1977, and it didn't end in 2010, and it didn't end in 2012, and it didn't end in 2015 it continues through today. Likewise, the Civil Rights struggle didn't end in 1954, and it didn't end in 1964, and it didn't end in 2008. The Union Organizer understands this. Laws are fickle and subject to change. What matters is power, and people are powerful so long as they are united, committed and vigilant. If you lose that power, then it doesn't matter what the courts once said. It doesn't matter what the old legislation guarantees, those hard-fought rights will be rolled back at the snap of a finger. To me this is a big ideological difference between Warren and Sanders, and mostly what I meant by the mob comments. Warren's plan is to implement some rules and is confident that they'll be respected and maintained going forward. Sanders knows that such confidence is misplaced, and instead is focused on building an organized, committed base of power that will make sure of it.

That's pretty far from the way I understand technocratic. I've always understood technocratic governance to effectively be 'politics shouldn't be allowed to interfere with the correct policy', like when the ECB told Yanis Varoufakis that the results of the Greek election -landslide win for an anti-austerity government- would have no effect on the crippling austerity measures the ECB wanted, that the 'will of the people' was immaterial to the 'correct policy'.
Telling voters in an election "Here is my plan, I want your support for these clear policy objectives" is only technocratic if you reject the idea that politicians should have clear policy proposals and put them before voters. I know in conversations with Lexicus I've expressed my dislike of technocratic governance or the idea that policymaking is too complex for the plebs to understand. Warren seems to be treating the voter as a person with enough intelligence to learn about her policies on an issue when deciding if they should support her.

I was using the word in the sense of esteeming people who are considered policy experts.

I mean, there isn't anything wrong with consulting experts when creating policy. If you were to ask me what reforms should be made to reduce corruption in the federal government and administration, at best you would get an "I dunno, something about lobbying and the revolving door in regulators?". The issue emerges when the idea that politics and democratic mandates should not affect implementation of the 'correct' policy.

By technocrat is meant here essentially what Lexicus said. The problem isn't "having a plan," nor is the problem in "consulting experts to create those plans." The problem is in framing your platform around your expertise/qualifications qua expertise/qualifications. I think this is a big distinction between Warren and Sanders, and indicative of the sorts of reasons why I'm bugged by Warren. Look at the way their campaigns are framed. Bernie's got plans. Bernie's got a ton of plans. Contrary to popular narrative, most of them are quite well fleshed out. But the thing about Bernie's campaign is that the platform is based on the content of the plans themselves: Green New Deal, Medicare for All, Housing for All, Free College, Workplace Democracy. It's pretty routine to be able to rattle off the core plans of his platform, and you are ultimately evaluating Bernie on the basis of whether or not you agree with the content of those plans. The difference with Warren is that the focus isn't on the content of her plans, but the fact that she has plans. Nevermind that many of her plans are, in fact, extremely vague (at least going by the Medium posts that constitute her Issues page). The important fact is that she has them. What are they? Who knows, who cares, you need simply take solace in the fact that she has a plan for that. It's that fetishization of expertise or qualifications for their own sake that I take issue with. Had the same problem with the Hillary campaign. See also: the deification of Mueller by the r/esisters slash Mueller Time-ers

@Owen Glyndwr, that was a truly excellent post!

The one thing I want to add about my own misgivings on Warren is that I'm even more skeptical than you on her credibility. Can't prove it of course, but I feel she's kind of another Clinton.

I don't know if I would go quite so far. I agree with Nathan J. Robinson in that if the Democratic candidate isn't going to be Bernie, then it had better as hell be Warren or we are utterly screwed. Warren is much further to the Left than Hillary was, and unlike Hillary, she actually has commendable policy ideas beyond "I won't f-- over LGBTs and abortion rights and I won't appoint literal ghouls to the Supreme Court." But in terms of messaging, framing, and ideological conceptualization of politics, I absolutely agree there are some deeply troubling parallels.

Does not sound like Bernie's way is a good fit for the US, as you describe it. For various reasons, most of the country does not participate in direct action of this kind. For example only the few can afford/schedule themselves to be part of the mob standing outside Congress, or camp on Wall Street, and they are representing only themselves or, worse, sponsors, whoever those might be. They are not representing anyone else in particular who is not present. A civilization driven by this is distinct from a civilization driven by voting.

What gives the mobs or their sponsors the moral wherewithal to wrestle the voters' power away and transform the government into something driven only by constant direct actions?

The current system is also decentralized, which is important in a country of 4 million square miles where people worry about foreign influence. In a sense, the high incumbency rate in Congress, normally seen negatively, highlights this useful aspect of the system. Congress recesses all the time because the reps go back to their district, and they get reelected all the time because they sink 90 percent of the year in efforts to get reelected, not in occupying the Capitol. I believe you allude to a direct action quality imparted by localization when you mention Trump and his maga rallies. Note that the politician flies to them, not the other way around.

Yes exactly. Bernie has promised to be the "Organizer In Chief," which basically entails doing what Trump does, but instead of flying to various locales for self-aggrandizement in service of his own ego, Bernie'll be signal boosting unionization efforts, strikes, and social justice projects. And then the other part is that he won't be repeating the same mistake as Obama, viz. building a massive, energized, well-organized grassroots political movement and abandoning it literally from the moment he got elected, he'll actually keep that movement around to effect his policies through collective direct action.

As to "that's not how America works," I would unequivocally disagree. Such direct, organized action from below is baked into our very DNA. From the very beginning with the protests and boycotts against the Stamp Act, mass, organized direct action movements have been a HUGE part of our social and labor history. Every major social victory in our history has come directly from such movements.

 

[Lexicus]

As to "that's not how America works," I would unequivocally disagree.

It's just laughable because the country is currently governed not by voters but by "direct action" taken by the organized business class. The right organized in just this way, in a sustained manner to promote its causes on decades-long timescales. The end result of that process is President Donald Trump.

 

[rah]

The left should do a similar long term plan. But that would require agreeing to one. A critical weakness that the right has seemingly exploited.

 

[AmazonQueen]

The left should do a similar long term plan. But that would require agreeing to one. A critical weakness that the right has seemingly exploited.

I dunno, last time the left had a 5 year plan

 

[sophie]

The left should do a similar long term plan. But that would require agreeing to one. A critical weakness that the right has seemingly exploited.

I mean, we used to have that. Then the unions got smashed in the 80s and that was that. It's a major part of why I'm such a big believer in Bernie.

 

[rah]

That's a long time not to have a plan. I don't think full blown pseudo socialism is gonna do it. Which is my fear since most of the current crop of candidates seem to be pushing it. Unless you're look out 30 years or so.

 

[innonimatu]

That's a long time not to have a plan. I don't think full blown pseudo socialism is gonna do it. Which is my fear since most of the current crop of candidates seem to be pushing it. Unless you're look out 30 years or so.

Full blown pseudo-socialism? I'm not paying too much attention from afar but, apart from some kind of national healthcare system, it seems to be that they're not pushing for any more "socialism" than the old New Deal consensus that got the US into being the most prosperous country in the world.

 

[sophie]

Maybe a better term would be proto-Socialism in that Meidner Plan sort of way?

 

[Takhisis]

empowering the worst people and creating endless civil strife.

Donald Trump's presidency.

As in, seriously, Mouthwash, you preach family values but you keep posting his rantings in the Great Quotes thread when he's a serial womaniser and rapist who's had children with three women that we know of and cheated on all of them.

 

[Mouthwash]

Donald Trump's presidency.

Donald Trump is pretty bad, but not an example of the worst (but yes, Owen's strategy will legitimize people like Trump).

As in, seriously, Mouthwash, you preach family values but you keep posting his rantings in the Great Quotes thread when he's a serial womaniser and rapist who's had children with three women that we know of and cheated on all of them.

I... I what? Posted Trump quotes in the quote thread? You won't have any trouble linking to them, then.

 

[Estebonrober]

Donald Trump is pretty bad, but not an example of the worst (but yes, Owen's strategy will legitimize people like Trump).



I... I what? Posted Trump quotes in the quote thread? You won't have any trouble linking to them, then.

Trump is president of the US. I don't know how much more legitimate you can get. He is running the free world. Into the ground.

 

[rah]

Full blown pseudo-socialism? I'm not paying too much attention from afar but, apart from some kind of national healthcare system, it seems to be that they're not pushing for any more "socialism" than the old New Deal consensus that got the US into being the most prosperous country in the world.

Free health care
Free education
Absolve from education debt
Guaranteed housing
UBI
Guaranteed employment
And whatever other give away they think will bribe people to vote for them
Democracy always have a problem once people realize the can vote themselves everything for free.
And the rest of the discussion is about how they plan to pay for all of it to make it sound more probable.

While all good things, I don't think the whole package is possible. I'm sure there are many here that will disagree.

 

[Takhisis]

I... I what? Posted Trump quotes in the quote thread? You won't have any trouble linking to them, then.

Of course I don't:

"Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!"

- the smartest thing Donald Trump has ever said. I know it's not a high bar, but he is absolutely correct and insightful here.

 

[Zardnaar]

Free health care
Free education
Absolve from education debt
Guaranteed housing
UBI
Guaranteed employment
And whatever other give away they think will bribe people to vote for them
Democracy always have a problem once people realize the can vote themselves everything for free.
And the rest of the discussion is about how they plan to pay for all of it to make it sound more probable.

While all good things, I don't think the whole package is possible. I'm sure there are many here that will disagree.

Problem with absolve from student debt is it annoys people who have paid it off.

Interest free student debt and/or dollar for dollar repayments tend to be a bit more doable.

 

[Tristan_C]

As to "that's not how America works," I would unequivocally disagree. Such direct, organized action from below is baked into our very DNA. From the very beginning with the protests and boycotts against the Stamp Act, mass, organized direct action movements have been a HUGE part of our social and labor history. Every major social victory in our history has come directly from such movements.

I doubt the revolution has a direct bearing on how the government afterwards should run, but I do see your point.

The civil rights movement probably would have been a better example. It's nearly the only example of "direct action" democracy, applied to the federal government, that I can think of where I agree with the results. Emancipation is a counter example. It advanced by way of hundreds of congressmen incorporating the issue into their policy planks, campaigning on it, securing freedom in states and winning elections over decades. Even though the rift obviously could not be resolved, since it required the South dissolve half its net worth, abolition "won" the 1860 election by playing within the republican system.

Denigrating Trump voters the way you did is probably fun, but not logical when you are trying to make this argument.

 

[Zkribbler]

Problem with absolve from student debt is it annoys people who have paid it off.

As one who has paid off my student debt, allow me to say I am all for tuition free higher education and public colleges, universities, and trade schools. An educated citizenry is good for democracy and good for the economy. We used to be the "Land of Opportunity." We are now the "Land of Perpetual Debt."