Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Voidwalkin]

He's borrowed his basic delivery from a certain kind of comedian, the set-up for whose jokes is some daily annoyance.


I often think of Paul Reiser, the "tea" part at the end of this clip:

Sometimes Trump handles it as a joke, as in the clip we're discussing. A lot of times its one of his actual political grievances. He still uses the comedian-annoyed set-up patter.

I hate that guy and couldn't figure out why. Then I realized it's Burke from Aliens.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

It's actually because they're not American and their political opinions on many things like national sovereignty, healthcare or employees' rights can be totally outside the narrow range of American political discourse, and can often be conservative on one thing while way left of Sanders on other. You're just projecting the, for many non-Americans insane and one-dimensional, American political axis on them.

This. Absolutely this.

Every country has its own internal politics that will uniquely skew the perspective of those living in it. But americans are unique in that everyone else in the world is bombarded by their politics where as they are utterly insulated from ours. So they become incredibly blind as to just how massive the difference is and how great of a folly it is to try and map our politics to their spectrum or vice versa.

To give just one example. The word "conservative" which is so prevalent in american politics exists where I am from. But it is not something anyone would ever use in the context of contemporary politics. If I was discussing politics with my someone and used the word "conservative" to describe a political figure or organization they would look at me as if I had said something ridiculous like "aubergine".

Any americans reading this just imagine walking up to someone and asking what they think of the aubergine party with a complete strait face. Now use that image to project how strange and alien our political alignments look to yours and vice versa.

Because it really is that different. Things that for you are massive issues are mostly non issues over here either because they have been long resolved or, far more commonly, because the people just don't care. And things that are critical battlegrounds of political discourse where I am from are not even mentioned in your politics. And it's the same situation in most any pair of countries worldwide unless they are deeply linked.

 

[Samson]

This. Absolutely this.

Every country has its own internal politics that will uniquely skew the perspective of those living in it. But americans are unique in that everyone else in the world is bombarded by their politics where as they are utterly insulated from ours. So they become incredibly blind as to just how massive the difference is and how great of a folly it is to try and map our politics to their spectrum or vice versa.

To give just one example. The word "conservative" which is so prevalent in american politics exists where I am from. But it is not something anyone would ever use in the context of contemporary politics. If I was discussing politics with my someone and used the word "conservative" to describe a political figure or organization they would look at me as if I had said something ridiculous like "aubergine".

Any americans reading this just imagine walking up to someone and asking what they think of the aubergine party with a complete strait face. Now use that image to project how strange and alien our political alignments look to yours and vice versa.

Because it really is that different. Things that for you are massive issues are mostly non issues over here either because they have been long resolved or, far more commonly, because the people just don't care. And things that are critical battlegrounds of political discourse where I am from are not even mentioned in your politics. And it's the same situation in most any pair of countries worldwide unless they are deeply linked.

I have to say, of all the weird things about american politics you could have chosen "conservative" is an odd one. It has been a well understood descriptive term of contemporary British politics for centuries, being the actual name of the most important party during the last two.

It may be different where you are, but in actual England where English is "defined" conservative is a very usual word to describe a political figure or organisation. I do not actually disagree with your main point, american politics is weird, but their use of conservative is a fairly normal bit. Their use of liberal is more weird, someone said to me in a bar "You lot have really liberal gun laws" meaning highly restricted

 

[Birdjaguar]

But americans are unique in that everyone else in the world is bombarded by their politics where as they are utterly insulated from ours.

I agree, It would be far better if US politics were ignored by the rest of the world.

 

[Gori the Grey]

What set of terms could be more globally applicable for the two broad dispositions: 1) comfortable with progress vs 2) thinks traditional ways shouldn't be hastily discarded but preserved?

 

[Samson]

What set of terms could be more globally applicable for the two broad dispositions: 1) comfortable with progress vs

Progressive seems a much more accurate term for this than liberal.

2) thinks traditional ways shouldn't be hastily discarded but preserved?

For actually this I think conservative is suitable. Quite how this translates to opposition to tackling climate change, as that will change traditional ways more than anything the liberals are doing I do not really get.

 

[Sarin]

I agree, It would be far better if US politics were ignored by the rest of the world.

I'd be all for that, if the consequences of US politics ignored us. But US is simply too big, has too much impact on other countries, so the crazy stuff that goes on there inevitably ends up affecting us.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If I was discussing politics with my someone and used the word "conservative" to describe a political figure or organization they would look at me as if I had said something ridiculous like "aubergine".

So what would you use for what English speakers mean by "conservative"? Right-leaning? Traditionalist?

 

[PPQ_Purple]

What set of terms could be more globally applicable for the two broad dispositions: 1) comfortable with progress vs 2) thinks traditional ways shouldn't be hastily discarded but preserved?

There really are no political movements that can be characterized as having that sort of thinking as the basis of their program over where I am from.

Yes, they might be opposed to changing one thing or another but that is issue specific. We might say have a party that is against hiring more doctors and is for giving teachers the extra money instead. Or some such. But you would not call them the health care system employee count conservative party. Because that would just come off as... well odd. It's not like their entire reason d'etre is just to not hire more doctors.

Plus for some reason over here the parties tend to emphasize the things they want to change rather than the things they want to stay as they are. Nobody ever talks about that part. I guess mostly because it would mean admitting that something in society is actually good. And if they are not in power that means admitting that the ones that are in power are in fact not utterly incompetent. Can't have that.

Now, there are some parties that you might call regressive. As in they want to turn back the clock and go back to a "better" good old time. But you would not call those conservative.

Obviously we use the term conservative to refer to american conservatives. But that's because that is their name.

 

[Gori the Grey]

There really are no political movements that can be characterized as having that sort of thinking over where I am from.

Not even relatively?

Or if not, what does characterize your primary polarity?

The quality that most equally splits your citizenry: the people on one side call/consider themselves X, and the people on the other side call themselves Y?

I thought openness-to-change / resistance-to-change was the universal dividing line.

I hate that guy and couldn't figure out why. Then I realized it's Burke from Aliens.

He played against his usual type in Aliens--and did a good job, I thought. His usual type is the sit-com Mad About You.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Not even relatively?

As said, there is no broad "everything is just fine, change nothing" party.

Or if not, what does characterize your primary polarity?
The quality that most equally splits your citizenry: the people on one side call/consider themselves X, and the people on the other side call themselves Y?

Whether they like the current government or not. So position vs opposition.

Individually, we of course split into many camps depending on what particular party one supports. But fundamentally the primary universal dividing line is literally just whether your party of choice happens to be in the ruling coalition or not.

And yes, people who broadly agree on issues will still get in fights over each other if they support different parties that both hold the same or similar view on those issues but one happens to be in power while the other is out of power. The old sellout vs obstinate idealist story.

Because of course. Again, I ain't making a claim of sanity here. Just that it is very different.

I thought openness-to-change / resistance-to-change was the universal dividing line.

Nope. Over here everyone is openly and constantly claiming that they are the one change needed to make the country great again. You just vote for them and wait. Even if that change is some times turning the clock back 100 years. The only thing that everyone agrees on is that something needs to change.

And it's not that things are terrible or anything. This isn't them capitalizing on an unhappy people. It's just that there is a social expectation that the people who enter politics are the sort who are driven by the desire to enact some sort of change. What ever that change might be. That is what drives you. If not, than what exactly is your motivation?

So if you entered politics with the broad agenda that things are mostly fine and nothing much needs changing people would just stare at you blankly and ask "Well ok. But what do we need you for? We can change nothing just by voting for who ever is currently in power." Emphasis on the "who ever" in the most literal, generic sense of the phrase.

And if you are the one in power the expectation is that you will over hype your achievements to 13 out of 10 even if they are like 2/10 and than humbly claim that this is just step 1 of your master plan and the people need to keep you in power to see the rest.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Interesting.

 

[Kyriakos]

Sometimes Trump handles it as a joke, as in the clip we're discussing. A lot of times its one of his actual political grievances. He still uses the comedian-annoyed set-up patter.

It has been suggested, by a number of commentators, that he picks his slogans/lines by trying (like a stand-up comedian) to see what makes his crowd at the rally react.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Interesting.

What is interesting is the lack of opportunism I some times see in american politics. Like say for example if Trump was to suddenly declare he wants to join as the Democratic candidate. To americans this is unthinkable. But over here, the "democrat" equivalents would have happily worked something out to make some sort of Trump/Harris combined ticket just so that they can get the overwhelming majority of votes and win at any cost while leaving their opposition gutted without their front runner. Because at the end of the day ideology is nice but victory is better.

Just a quirk of coalition governments I suppose.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Whether they like the current government or not. So position vs opposition.

Individually, we of course split into many camps depending on what particular party one supports. But fundamentally the primary universal dividing line is literally just whether your party of choice happens to be in the ruling coalition or not.

How many parties do you have and are there some more dominant than others? Has one party been in control for an extended time or does power move around a lot like in the US?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Today from NYT

Opinion | The Editorial Board
You already know Donald Trump. He is unfit to lead. Watch him. Listen to those who know him best. He tried to subvert an election and remains a threat to democracy. He helped overturn Roe, with terrible consequences. Mr. Trump’s corruption and lawlessness go beyond elections: It’s his whole ethos. He lies without limit. If he’s re-elected, the G.O.P. won’t restrain him. Mr. Trump will use the government to go after opponents. He will pursue a cruel policy of mass deportations. He will wreak havoc on the poor, the middle class and employers. Another Trump term will damage the climate, shatter alliances and strengthen autocrats. Americans should demand better. Vote.

 

[EnglishEdward]

But will he make the sun go supernova ?

 

[Samson]

Like say for example if Trump was to suddenly declare he wants to join as the Democratic candidate.

You know this kind of did happen, in that Trump used to be a democrat.

 

[Gori the Grey]

But will he make the sun go supernova ?

If he could, and it would own the libs, he would.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

How many parties do you have and are there some more dominant than others? Has one party been in control for an extended time or does power move around a lot like in the US?

That depends on if you want to count the many smaller parties or just the big ones. And yes, there have been periods when one party, or one coalition holds control for an extended period. But I can't go into much more detail without giving up too much about my personal location.