General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

[Farm Boy]

"When you're cool, that's the road to uncool?"

Was it?

 

[Hygro]

Seems like a more direct way to balance democratic social weights vs financial social weights than privileging the rural rich, if we think we can do better than a 1-person 1-vote direct democracy.

 

[Farm Boy]

It would be. A problem is then that somebody tweaks the equation. There has to be somebody doing that step. Like setting the prime rate. The best thing state borders have going for them is that they're political when they're set, but it usually requires widespread murder to move them, so they tend to stay put, becoming relatively apolitical political lines. In this context.

There are some richies out there, but yo're going to need to sell me on the generalization of rural rich of we're keeping with social outcomes. Or, if that doesn't work out on the measures for your argument(it won't), hell, pick a different metric of social welfare. Life expectancy? Medical access? Diet? Suicide? What do you want to use to demonstrate our "society's systemic overweighting of rural influence" such that representation and political power should be removed from them and set zero sum in the hands of thier political adversaries?

 

[Cutlass]

It would be. A problem is then that somebody tweaks the equation. There has to be somebody doing that step. Like setting the prime rate. The best thing state borders have going for them is that they're political when they're set, but it usually requires widespread murder to move them, so they tend to stay put, becoming relatively apolitical political lines. In this context.

There are some richies out there, but yo're going to need to sell me on the generalization of rural rich of we're keeping with social outcomes. Or, if that doesn't work out on the measures for your argument(it won't), hell, pick a different metric of social welfare. Life expectancy? Medical access? Diet? Suicide? What do you want to use to demonstrate our "society's systemic overweighting of rural influence" such that representation and political power should be removed from them and set zero sum in the hands of thier political adversaries?

You have the fact that most of the very wealthy in blue states work to elect the furthest right people they can in red states. The direct and indirect money being spent to influence elections that the individual directing the money cannot vote in is vast. Big money takes advantage of the rural electoral advantage for it's own interests. Big money does not support the policies that the blue state voters want.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, that's the nature of resource extraction. Stinks. It doesn't mean they get served well, but their allotment of clout does give them at least some margin of control over selecting who screws them the way they like it least worst. And we're back to the cruelty of needing Somebody to Watch Over You. I don't think it's going to be best for them if it's the one that wants to take away the representation and keep it for themselves. Just not how it works. Though... gotta admit. I'm liking the last couple pages. We currently have arguments regarding the situation of political clout allocated to states via senators(and this is from different people, mind, so it's not an attack, just genuine amusement) is: (1) simply unfair - some people have too much relative to others, it needs to be equalized for the simplicity of abstraction (2) Ineffective - the allocation of senators does no concrete and measurable good to the citizens of the states they are allocated to, they should be reallocated away from them and to others, and (3) Actively harmful - citizens of smaller states actively harm themselves with their political representation, it should be reallocated to others for their own good.

Man, I love Ella. What a voice. It's good to remember what love feels like, every now and then.

Politics? Yeah, that aint it.

At least not that type of it.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes, that's the nature of resource extraction. Stinks. It doesn't mean they get served well, but their allotment of clout does give them at least some margin of control over selecting who screws them the way they like it least worst. And we're back to the cruelty of needing Somebody to Watch Over You. I don't think it's going to be best for them if it's the one that wants to take away the representation and keep it for themselves. Just not how it works. Though... gotta admit. I'm liking the last couple pages. We currently have arguments regarding the situation of political clout allocated to states via senators(and this is from different people, mind, so it's not an attack, just genuine amusement) is: (1) simply unfair - some people have too much relative to others, it needs to be equalized for the simplicity of abstraction (2) Ineffective - the allocation of senators does no concrete and measurable good to the citizens of the states they are allocated to, they should be reallocated away from them and to others, and (3) Actively harmful - citizens of smaller states actively harm themselves with their political representation, it should be reallocated to others for their own good.

Man, I love Ella. What a voice. It's good to remember what love feels like, every now and then.

Politics? Yeah, that aint it.

At least not that type of it.

It's not about the states. It's about class. When Republicans win, it's people who work for a living who lose the most. Doesn't matter where you are. The same Republicans who fight for lower wages also fight to cut veterans benefits, school lunches, rural healthcare, and far too many other things to list. Every time a Republican talks about entitlement reform, that's an attack on the rural working class. When veterans benefits are cut, how many of those veterans are rural working class? The number ain't small. So far they've always had to walk it back when one of them talks about cutting Social Security. Or just quietly drop it. But the subject never goes away. What happens to the rural working class if they do do it someday? The answer is that it'll be the worst thing to hit the rural working class since the Dust Bowl.

Now all of these things also harm the urban/suburban working class. But the urban/suburban working class generally isn't voting to make it happen. And the rural working class is. And that, ultimately, is what we do not understand about you.

We know that big money coastal elitists are hostile to our interests. And yet the rural working class call us the very thing that we are fighting against, and saying that since we are the thing that we are fighting against, we are hostile to their interests.

Which is one hell of a lot of talking past one another, rather than to one another.

We not only do not vote for those who harm us, we do not vote for those who harm you. You not only do vote for those who harm us, you vote for those who harm you.

While I don't know anything in particular about farm policy, I do know some things about federal policy as a whole. The Republicans have held the balance of power in the US government since Reagan took office. And I can't in all that time think of a single policy by the US government that harmed rural America that Republicans did not push to make happen. There's probably a few. But the budget crisis, and all the services cuts and other cuts resulting from them, that's all Republicans. The Great Financial Crisis was the Republicans. The Great Recession was the Republicans. The opioid crisis was the Republicans.

Now some things just happen, not really under the control of anyone, and not with any specific acts. Things evolve. But the intentional harm being done, that's being done by Republicans. And it is being done because that is what the big money coastal elites want done. And it is being done equally to the people who work for a living, no matter where they are.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The fastest way to change the toxic US election process is cap political campaign spending, prevent campaign donations --> spending from crossing state lines. Do away with PACs and their variations.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The fastest way to change the toxic US election process is cap political campaign spending, prevent campaign donations --> spending from crossing state lines. Do away with PACs and their variations.

I forget who it was, but some political analyst I listen to or read said that Citizens United could be one of the most consequential SCOTUS decisions in history.

 

[Cutlass]

The fastest way to change the toxic US election process is cap political campaign spending, prevent campaign donations --> spending from crossing state lines. Do away with PACs and their variations.

SCOTUS ended that in some of the earlier landmark decisions of the Roberts Court. Congress has essentially no latitude to make laws in that regard, until the Court composition changes by at least 3.

But it's not just the election finance laws and Citizen's United. There's also the softer big money in politics. Many think tanks like Heritage Foundation, CATO, American Enterprise Institute, there are 100s of them, exist for the purpose of building the rhetorical case for persuading people that the Right is right. Talk radio is mainly funded to put out right wing talking points, and to stir people up. The press has mostly been taken over by the right. All those local and area newspapers bought up, ruined, or put out of business, all that serves to deprive the populace of accurate information. Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting, iHeart Radio, all these media conglomerates were put together to control the narrative for the Right. All the major networks are owned and run by for profit companies. Independence in media has been bought out. And that control of what people hear is a big influence on what they believe.

 

[Hygro]

It would be. A problem is then that somebody tweaks the equation. There has to be somebody doing that step. Like setting the prime rate. The best thing state borders have going for them is that they're political when they're set, but it usually requires widespread murder to move them, so they tend to stay put, becoming relatively apolitical political lines. In this context.

There are some richies out there, but yo're going to need to sell me on the generalization of rural rich of we're keeping with social outcomes. Or, if that doesn't work out on the measures for your argument(it won't), hell, pick a different metric of social welfare. Life expectancy? Medical access? Diet? Suicide? What do you want to use to demonstrate our "society's systemic overweighting of rural influence" such that representation and political power should be removed from them and set zero sum in the hands of thier political adversaries?

I agree that a problem would be that someone tweaks the equation, which is why I think it's safer 1 person has 1 vote that is counted equally as 1 vote among all the votes.

My sister has been a specialist doctor for much of Montana and parts of North Dakota. She's leaving. She invented the position as the region was a big dark hole in the heatmap of where her specialty is performed. They started to look to leave when Republican crazies started fighting covid efforts. So it's not just policies, but the people fighting against those who literally help on your suggested metrics. Those are great metrics if people are trying, not trying against. Then there's the guys at the top. The guys covering up smoking's harm, the ones who knew better, were still smoking and still dying.

Voters are choosing what they want in spite of what's "good" aka life expectancy, medical access, etc. They are literally electing republican leaders who turn down federal funds for medical access and then blaming national democrats for their lack of access. You can't it up.

So we can't measure their voting privilege accordingly, they are skewing their own results negatively by political choice. What we can measure is what do people want when polled in non-partisan language, like "would you pay more in taxes for x if you got y" and you'll get 60%-90% of Americans agreeing. Then we can look at which party supports that stuff, which one opposes it, and who gets extra votes. It's quite simple. Rurality gets a giant boost both in total legislators and in the "overton" window of electability of legislators. That's a 2-dimensional advantage! And it measurably hurts your suggested metrics, which is really all you need to know about that system's self-oppression.

But what about federal money going disproportionately to rural states? It would have to still happen just by virtue of equal services being legislated for those who live where its expensive to provide services, and where it is cheap (cities make distributing goods and services cheaper by nature, it's why they exist). That's just ratios before we get to subsidizing resource extraction, food, and other things most people are for even if they are removed from those industries.

 

[Farm Boy]

Of course they're for it when they're removed from it. It gets the market price it down below cost of production at point of consumption. But then it's the dole. 2 dimensional advantage. Queenly!

I think we're still at party 1245, but I appreciate the efforts to sell it!

 

[Hygro]

Well the red state leadership is even more super duper for it and they're there.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes yes. If only they had heroes in blue letting them know what states are too backwards to associate with(it's totes not business as usual. The poors did it.)

The appreciation isn't snide. It takes some cahones to get behind the idea that it's progressive to support derepresenting peoples who aggregate behind on all health and economic measures in favor of greater representation for thier social superiors, then to layer it behind moral education and simple utilitarian efficiency of distribution!

 

[Hygro]

At some point if your measure of privilege is life expectancy, the voting block is voting for less life expectancy, and then claims less life expectancy merits them more votes, there's shenanigans.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes yes. If only they had heroes in blue letting them know what states are too backwards to associate with(it's totes not business as usual. The poors did it.)

The appreciation isn't snide. It takes some cahones to get behind the idea that it's progressive to support derepresenting peoples who aggregate behind on all health and economic measures in favor of greater representation for thier social superiors, then to layer it behind moral education and simple utilitarian efficiency of distribution!

And yet, if you switched your vote, your children, families, communities, would live longer.

But it's easier to hate us for telling you that than it is to take responsibility for your own actions.

 

[Farm Boy]

Hey, just tracking the arguments for what they are. There is always an argument that those with more need evermore power. Always.

I'm not the one with an argument for regressive allocation of political power.

 

[Hygro]

Hey, just tracking the arguments for what they are. There is always an argument that those with more need evermore power. Always.

I'm not the one with an argument for regressive allocation of political power.

Yes you are. You literally are.

 

[Farm Boy]

No, you're talkimg your politics and making the argument for why they are important enough to enact systemically regressive policies regarding the allotment of political power*. I'm not finding them compelling, but I appreciate they're being made. They're pretty solid, as far as political arguments for this sort of thing go.

*regressive may be a chance, or a natural development over time(I don't agree, but I recognize the argument made), but either way they'd be changes to the entire basis for the federal entity. The union itself, the accord, is ultimately a federation.

 

[Cutlass]

Hey, just tracking the arguments for what they are. There is always an argument that those with more need evermore power. Always.

Yes, that is the argument that you have been making.

I'm not the one with an argument for regressive allocation of political power.

You have been continually the one with an argument for regressive allocation of political power. I've been arguing for balancing the allocation of political power.




You know, it occurs to me, maybe major part of us talking past one another is that you are generalizing the nature of Illinois state politics to US politics. These things do not opperate the same.

 

[Farm Boy]

No, I'm not confusing the federal for the state. Progressive taxation is the intentional misbalance of tax rates off of a 1:1 ratio in order to account for the realities of the world not being themselves 1:1. The skew is intentional and progressive. A flat, vice, consumption, or toll tax, dispite being simpler and possessing a prima facie fairness people like and understand, is nonetheless regressive. The low income and end consumer pay relatively more of thier contribution to the system under these paradigms.

Political allotment of power, of clout, is no different. With power comes many things. In the issue of income it comes with social status, availability of services, marriage rates, any number of real outcomes. So, I'm not picky on the metric we use, it doesn't need to be income, but I'm looking for a broad measure of social privilege, the sort that comes with political power and social influence, that indicates that the residents who receive the political skew that comes from the nature of the federal congress and its presidential electors are indeed overprivileged at least to the point that an even 1:1 ratio would not be regressive. The end results, the real results would seem to be the opposite on every measure(of the few suggested)!

"Well they suck and would be better off if we had thier political power" is indeed a political argument, but it's like vice taxes. They're too stupid to spend thier capital wisely, so they must be more ruled in this fashion. In the case of power, I think it's preposterous that this would be true, but i can humor* the concept that disempowering Kansas to the benefit of New York would yield longstanding tangible privilege to residents of Kansas.

Just because the inputs are complicated doesn't mean power only comes from this one little thing. Proximity, social, economic, and infrastructure clearly matter too. Which is how a district with no senators whatsoever or valuable resourse extraction manages to be the median population in the country with the highest level of overall privilege(accounting, of course, for the fact that this does not mean they themselves distribute it equitably amongst themselves more than any other).

*I think Ella makes a good pitch. But I think we can recognize it's sort of out of place, post women's lib.