Our political system can't solve problems anymore

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19979
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Our political system can't solve problems anymore

Post by Carpet_pissr »

YellowKing wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 8:23 am Even if 1%, 2%, 5% actually used it for drugs, isn't it worth getting the other 95% of kids out of poverty?
Of course not (to these people), which is why this stupid example is trotted out as some lame cover.

I’m only surprised that it’s not more blatant. These days, you seemingly don’t need that cover. Just say it outright and you’re probably fine: ‘we are not interested or in the business of getting kids out of poverty’
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8486
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Our political system can't solve problems anymore

Post by Alefroth »

YellowKing wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 8:23 am Even if 1%, 2%, 5% actually used it for drugs, isn't it worth getting the other 95% of kids out of poverty?
That's a rhetorical question, right?
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Our political system can't solve problems anymore

Post by Smoove_B »

I can't say I'm a fan of Bernie overall, but when you're right

A corrupt political system is 745 billionaires becoming $2.1 trillion richer during the pandemic, while 3.7 million children slipped back into poverty last month because corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats refused to extend the $300 a month Child Tax Credit.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 16434
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Our political system can't solve problems anymore

Post by Zarathud »

It’s not really corrupt as much as horribly unfair that 2 Senators can allow this to happen without paying a political price.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43492
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Our political system can't solve problems anymore

Post by Blackhawk »

Political price? They're being cheered for as heroes by as many people as are criticizing them.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Our political system can't solve problems anymore

Post by malchior »

Zarathud wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 5:14 pm It’s not really corrupt as much as horribly unfair that 2 Senators can allow this to happen without paying a political price.
I think Bernie is talking about corruption in the definitional sense:

Corruption is a form of dishonesty or a criminal offense which is undertaken by a person or an organization which is entrusted with a position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one's personal gain.

We can argue whether groups of billionaires are wielding power 'dishonestly' or promulgating 'abuses of power' but it isn't a meritless argument.
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Our political system can't solve problems anymore

Post by Fireball »

This is an interesting thread, sorry for arriving in it late. I spend a lot of time thinking about these issues. Our political system is fundamentally unstable, and always has been — we can look at every single other presidential system in the world that stupidly emulated our governing structure and see how they fared. America was able to get by with this terribly-designed government because of a fluke: our parties weren't ideological.

Given the nature of America's winner-take-all electoral system and unitary presidency that doesn't allow for run-offs, instant or otherwise, the political pressures to consolidate our politics into a two-party system was always going to be overwhelming. But it was very strange that when we finally fused down into two parties, they weren't particularly ideological. The Democrats were generally to the left of Republicans on business-vs-people issues, given their agrarian base, but beyond that the parties held a range of disparate, often contradictory positions.

Between 1865 and 1965 you basically had two national parties that each included two regional parties within them: the centrist Democrats containing across-the-board-liberals throughout the non-South and economic-left/social-right Southern Democrats, and the center-right Republicans containing economic-right/social-centrists throughout the non-South and hard-right Southern Republicans. The average "Northern Republican" was to the left on basically all non-economic issues compared to a "Southern Democrat". The weirdness of these non-ideological parties reached their peak in the 1950s when the okay-with-the-New-Deal Eisenhowerites took control of the Republican Party, and for about 15 years you had two parties whose positions on all but a few issues were broadly indistinguishable nationally, with huge disagreements on race issues within both parties regionally.

Strange as it sounds to our ears, but this was considered a bad thing. But the non-ideological bent of our parties actually enabled our government to work because it provided means around the structural veto points in the system (made worse by the filibuster in the Senate) — a Democratic bill could pass if it had almost all the Democrats and a fair chunk of the "liberal" Republicans on board. In the post-1965 era as conservatives began to sort into the Republicans and liberals into the Democrats, this began to break down. Today, when the most liberal Republican (probably Murkowski) in the Senate is still well to the right of the most conservative Democrat (Machin), all of the failures of our system are laid bare, made worse by the fact that they were overcomable in living memory, making people pine for "the good old days" when the system worked.

How do we fix it? With a Republican Party that is in the thrall, perhaps inescapably, of a neo-fascist movement, the situation is pretty grim. If we had two more Democrats in the Senate, we probably still couldn't get rid of the filibuster altogether, but we would likely have been able to muster the votes for the democracy protection legislation that Sinema and Manchin let die. So for now, the only hope to save the country comes from electing more Democrats. Which means that Democrats need to be better at politics, and Democratic voters need to allow their members to focus on policies that are popular. We need to focus on problems (for instance, the need for universal healthcare) instead of demanding fealty to specific solutions (Medicare for All) that may not be the best, or most feasible, way to achieve the overall goal. We need to find ways to connect to voters who feel rejected by us for cultural reasons, but without sacrificing our commitment to our progressive cultural values. That sounds hard, but it's not impossible: Bill Clinton was able to do that and defang issues like abortion in the 1990s by taking a position of "safe, legal and rare" that would get him pilloried in a primary today.

If the Democratic Party goes through a "purity purge" like the GOP has, the nation is doomed. And I say that as a very progressive Democrat who works for one of the most progressive Democrats in Congress.

Other nations function democratically with just as polarized, if not more polarized, than ours. But we are burdened with structures that make it hard for majorities to act and which also discourage compromise. We can ameliorate these challenges, and continue to hobble along, if Democrats are in a position to do so. To really fix our governance, we'd need to do what every well-functioning democracy has done and adopt a parliamentary system.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Our political system can't solve problems anymore

Post by noxiousdog »

Fireball,

Thank you for taking the time to do that write-up and analysis. It sounds very logical.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Our political system can't solve problems anymore

Post by Pyperkub »

Fireball wrote:This is an interesting thread, sorry for arriving in it late. I spend a lot of time thinking about these issues. Our political system is fundamentally unstable, and always has been — we can look at every single other presidential system in the world that stupidly emulated our governing structure and see how they fared. America was able to get by with this terribly-designed government because of a fluke: our parties weren't ideological.

Given the nature of America's winner-take-all electoral system and unitary presidency that doesn't allow for run-offs, instant or otherwise, the political pressures to consolidate our politics into a two-party system was always going to be overwhelming. But it was very strange that when we finally fused down into two parties, they weren't particularly ideological. The Democrats were generally to the left of Republicans on business-vs-people issues, given their agrarian base, but beyond that the parties held a range of disparate, often contradictory positions.

Between 1865 and 1965 you basically had two national parties that each included two regional parties within them: the centrist Democrats containing across-the-board-liberals throughout the non-South and economic-left/social-right Southern Democrats, and the center-right Republicans containing economic-right/social-centrists throughout the non-South and hard-right Southern Republicans. The average "Northern Republican" was to the left on basically all non-economic issues compared to a "Southern Democrat". The weirdness of these non-ideological parties reached their peak in the 1950s when the okay-with-the-New-Deal Eisenhowerites took control of the Republican Party, and for about 15 years you had two parties whose positions on all but a few issues were broadly indistinguishable nationally, with huge disagreements on race issues within both parties regionally.

Strange as it sounds to our ears, but this was considered a bad thing. But the non-ideological bent of our parties actually enabled our government to work because it provided means around the structural veto points in the system (made worse by the filibuster in the Senate) — a Democratic bill could pass if it had almost all the Democrats and a fair chunk of the "liberal" Republicans on board. In the post-1965 era as conservatives began to sort into the Republicans and liberals into the Democrats, this began to break down. Today, when the most liberal Republican (probably Murkowski) in the Senate is still well to the right of the most conservative Democrat (Machin), all of the failures of our system are laid bare, made worse by the fact that they were overcomable in living memory, making people pine for "the good old days" when the system worked.

How do we fix it? With a Republican Party that is in the thrall, perhaps inescapably, of a neo-fascist movement, the situation is pretty grim. If we had two more Democrats in the Senate, we probably still couldn't get rid of the filibuster altogether, but we would likely have been able to muster the votes for the democracy protection legislation that Sinema and Manchin let die. So for now, the only hope to save the country comes from electing more Democrats. Which means that Democrats need to be better at politics, and Democratic voters need to allow their members to focus on policies that are popular. We need to focus on problems (for instance, the need for universal healthcare) instead of demanding fealty to specific solutions (Medicare for All) that may not be the best, or most feasible, way to achieve the overall goal. We need to find ways to connect to voters who feel rejected by us for cultural reasons, but without sacrificing our commitment to our progressive cultural values. That sounds hard, but it's not impossible: Bill Clinton was able to do that and defang issues like abortion in the 1990s by taking a position of "safe, legal and rare" that would get him pilloried in a primary today.

If the Democratic Party goes through a "purity purge" like the GOP has, the nation is doomed. And I say that as a very progressive Democrat who works for one of the most progressive Democrats in Congress.

Other nations function democratically with just as polarized, if not more polarized, than ours. But we are burdened with structures that make it hard for majorities to act and which also discourage compromise. We can ameliorate these challenges, and continue to hobble along, if Democrats are in a position to do so. To really fix our governance, we'd need to do what every well-functioning democracy has done and adopt a parliamentary system.
Another factor is money. Pork was an important tool for incentivizing across the aisle work for local needs.

But now, especially with increased globalization and TV reelection costs, most politicians follow the money and don't really care about local issues anymore, because their source of influence doesn't care about those issues.

And PS. It's nice to have your input here again Fireball! I hope all is well!
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Our political system can't solve problems anymore

Post by Fireball »

Pyperkub wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:33 pm Another factor is money. Pork was an important tool for incentivizing across the aisle work for local needs.
Yes, getting rid of Congressional earmarks was disastrous to the ability of Congress to pass bills. Worse, primary voters (if not general voters) will often treat their member bargaining to vote for a bill in exchange for funding local needs or priorities as a bad thing, which is, frankly, insane in many cases. If a bill is likely to pass anyway, shouldn't you want your member to do what they can to ensure that the bill benefits the local community even if you're opposed to its general purpose?
But now, especially with increased globalization and TV reelection costs, most politicians follow the money and don't really care about local issues anymore, because their source of influence doesn't care about those issues.
Yes, but let's also be clear what "follow the money" means: it doesn't mean listening to lobbyists or "big donors." The real money in politics today comes from small dollar donors. This is good in that it dilutes the direct influence that very rich donors can have on politics. It's bad because the new "donor class" is actually more ideologically extreme than the old "donor class." The median donor to Democratic campaigns is far more likely to be college educated, far more likely to care about relatively niche issues like "student loan forgiveness", and far to the left, particularly on social issues, compared to the median voter for Democratic candidates. And the same is true (in the reverse on ideological issues, naturally) on the Republican side. This may have an even larger impact on partisan polarization than safe-seat primary voters dragging candidates towards the extremes.

The median Democratic donor is likely an absolutist on one or more issues like reproductive choice, "Medicare for All", maximalist climate action, maximalist COVID response, prioritizing intersectionality as a policy framework. The median Democratic voter is generally more concerned about pocketbook issues, favors some restrictions on abortion, prefers improving Obamacare than radically reimagining the health care system, has limits on what they're willing to give up to respond to climate change or COVID, and reacts very badly to policy frames like "defunding the police."
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Our political system can't solve problems anymore

Post by malchior »

This seemed as good a place to bring this up as any. We've seen shots across the bow on election denying and it still looks like we're not going to patch this.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41245
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Our political system can't solve problems anymore

Post by El Guapo »

In some ways though my main worry as to 2024 is state level meddling - e.g., the election comes down to Georgia (say), and a Republican-dominated government cites alleged electoral issues in Atlanta or what have you as a transparently thin reason to either toss out Democratic votes or to substitute a Republican electoral slate in place of a Democratic one. Seems like a lot of the fixes may make that risk worse, by making it harder to not count delegates sent by whatever state.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Our political system can't solve problems anymore

Post by Smoove_B »

One could only imagine a scenario where a Senator from one state is calling election officials in another state, urging them to "do the right thing" and make sure a GOP candidate for President is elected.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
Post Reply