General Politics Thread

Irrelevant, the word "Conservative" has been hijacked and tainted by the right. Almost no Democratic politician would be foolish enough to use it for themselves.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

Actually Democrats have come to heavily associate themselves with the left, so saying it's just because of that is incorrect.

That's why it would be foolish, it would offend the base by suggesting a similarity to the Republican Party.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

Nerdwriter did a video on Saturn Devouring His Son, which is eerily relevant to the modern political climate.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Um...by the angle of the video's thumbnail, it looks like Saturn is doing a morbid thumbs up.

Now it looks Nightmare Retardant.

For me it was the carrot crunching. That would be one Hell of a hand for a head that size.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Amusingly enough, if I ever got the chance to write my history of the Trump administration, "A Campaign of Cannibals," I had already decided on that painting being the basis for the cover.

Of course, that was just from the tone of the painting itself, but the added political context makes it even more fitting.

Yes some democrats do identify as conservative by the way, it varies however over time, with 25% of Dems identifying as conservative in 2002 and 15% in 2017.

Plus there are conservatives that identify as moderates. With self identifying moderates being 45% of Dems in 2003 and 36% in 2017.[1]

edited 1st Mar '18 6:14:45 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

There are any number of Democrats in Congress who were elected in traditionally conservative districts, and you better bet they self-identify as "Conservative" or "conservative". They used to be called "Blue Dogs".

So have y'all heard of Selectorate Theory?

In selectorate theory, three groups of people affect leaders. These groups are the nominal selectorate, the real selectorate, and the winning coalition.

• The nominal selectorate, also referred to as the interchangeables, includes every person who has some say in choosing the leader (for example, in an American presidential election, all registered voters).
• The real selectorate, also referred to as the influentials, are those who really choose the leaders (for example, in an American presidential election, those people who cast a vote).
• The winning coalition, also referred to as the essentials, are those whose support translates into victory (for example, in an American presidential election, those voters that get a candidate to 270 Electoral College votes). In other countries, leaders may stay in power with the support of much smaller numbers of people, such as senior figures in the security forces, and business oligarchs, in contemporary Russia.[1]

The fundamental premise in selectorate theory is that the primary goal of a leader is to remain in power. To remain in power, leaders must maintain their winning coalition. When the winning coalition is small, as in autocracies, the leader will tend to use private goods to satisfy the coalition. When the winning coalition is large, as in democracies, the leader will tend to use public goods to satisfy the coalition.[2]

A public good is one that everyone enjoys non-exclusively such as national defense or clean water. A private good is a good that is enjoyed exclusively by a select few, usually within the winning coalition, and cannot be shared. An example of such a good would be anything exclusionary, such as cash or legal impunity.

It can be said, then, that everyone in the selectorate, including the winning coalition, reap the benefits of public goods while only those within the winning coalition enjoy private goods.

In The Dictator's Handbook, Bueno de Mesquita and Smith state five rules that leaders should use to stay in power:

• The smaller the winning coalition the fewer people to satisfy to remain in control.
• Having a large nominal selectorate gives a pool of potential people to replace dissenters in coalition.
• Maintain control of revenue flows to redistribute to your friends.
• But only pay friends enough that they will not consider overthrowing you and at the same time little enough so that they depend on you.
• Don't take your friends' money and redistribute it to the masses.

Let's look at the first point, specifically. That's the one that encourages autocrats to have sham elections, like the ones Lenin instituted in Soviet Russia.

This is because those who are in a winning coalition can easily be replaced by other members of the selectorate who are not in the winning coalition. Thus, the costs of defection for those members of the winning coalition can be potentially large, namely the loss of all private goods. Similarly, the chances of a challenger in replacing the leader are similarly smallest in such an autocratic system since those in the winning coalition would be hard pressed to defect. The ratio of private to public goods as payoff to the winning coalition is the highest in such a system.

An aristocratic monarchy, where the selectorate is small and the winning coalition is even smaller, provides a challenger with a greater opportunity to overthrow the current leader. This is because the proportion of selectorate members who are also in the winning coalition is relatively large. That is, if a new leader comes to power, chances are a given member of the winning coalition will remain within the coalition. The incentive for defection to attain a greater amount of goods offered by a challenger is not, in this case, outweighed by the risk of not being included in the new winning coalition. Here, the proportion of private goods in relation to public goods is seen declining.

A scenario in which both the winning coalition is large and the selectorate is even larger provides the least amount of stability to a leader’s occupancy of power; such a system is a democracy. Here, the proportion of public goods outweighs private goods simply because of the sheer size of the winning coalition; it would be far too costly to provide private goods to every individual member of the winning coalition when the benefits of public goods would be enjoyed by all. Because of this fact—that the leader cannot convince winning coalition members to remain loyal through private good incentives, which are in turn cost-restrictive—the challenger poses the greatest threat to the incumbent.

This degree of loyalty to the incumbent leader, whatever the government structure may be, is called the loyalty norm.

This turns out to be a fairly robust and comprehensive theory with a lot of empirical evidence behind it, and it suggests some fairly useful and pragmatic ways of spreading democracy, freedom, and prosperity. I'm very excited about it and would like to discuss it in more depth, especially in the light of the most recent events.

Trump seems to be trying to develop an autocracy in the White House, but he's using methods more appropriate for a shareholders' board, and the methods he uses to reduce the essentials and increase private rewards are actually counterproductive in the system he's in... It seems like he's trying to preempt the 25th amendment by firing everyone who is likely to use it against him.

The GOP's tax cuts and healthcare reforms, and gutting of government agencies, as well as gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement, are more effective in reducing the essentials (the number of voters and donors needed to hold office) while giving them private rewards.

What do y'all think? Does this theory tickle your curiosity bone?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

That thing certainly has my attention. I’ll be looking at it further.

As an aside, am I the only one here who thinks that “Bruce Bueno de Mesquita” is a swell grand name?
Sounds like something right out of Hugo Pratt’s finest if you ask me.

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

It is indeed an Awesome McCoolname.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

From that other Wiki:

From Antiquity to the early Industrial Age it was widely assumed that democracy couldn’t work because the foolish commoners, once entrusted with a say in their government, would keep voting themselves the public monies till the bitter end.
Yet after more than two centuries of modern democracy not only it seems to have achieved some stability and to have become more rather than less democratic, what with the extension of suffrage, of personal liberties, and even a moderate curbing of power abuse, it compares favourably to much of the competition in that regard.

Maybe the commoners, realising that being too numerous to expect getting that many goodies each, end up opting to seek a more efficient form of public good instead?
So the perennity of the regime is more likely but that of the Leader respectively much less so, and so the latter is less associated with said regime?

I’ll be back at it later.

[On edit: Sorry if some of my interrogatives are lame, despite some command of English I’m never that sure of my comprehension and still make rookie mistakes. As for my accent, that would get me arrested in some provinces… The less uttered the better]

edited 14th Mar '18 5:03:43 PM by AlityrosThePhilosopher

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

One certainly can question why democratic electorates in unequal societies don't use progressive taxation as much as possible to capture as much of the wealth and resources as they can, which, in a country with wealth based on labour rather than resources, basically amounts to them working for each other instead of focusing their lifetimes into the satisfaction of the rich.

Another phenomenon I'm interested in is how democracies backslide into autocracy. Chavez, Putin, Erdogan. I'm especially concerned with the effect of free speech and misinformation.

Free speech, along with the right of assembly and freedom of circulation are crucial for labour-intensive nations to produce wealth for leaders to tax and redistribute to their essentials, but are also extremely dangerous to said leaders, especially in times of economic crisis or when they're ill. However, it seems like intelligent use of propaganda can achieve miracles like the selectorate supporting more autocracy, or making itself smaller by disillusioned self-disenfranchisrment, i.e. not turning up to vote.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I suppose it has a lot to do with considerations pertaining to comparative advantages afforded by society, i e: privileges.
I guess those who have them seek to keep them at the expense of the rest of us, while those who have little of them or not at all, seek to get some more at whomever’s expense; and all will seek that by any means necessary which means all means available.

Including more and more citizens and more various sections of the citizenry in the processes of government as well as those of the various economic activities, seems to be somewhat efficient at giving us opportunities to improve our lot through work while curbing the excesses of the more powerful ones. And we’ll be mostly content if we can enjoy the tangible short-term benefits of that improvement, fair-weather liberal democrats the lot of us.

Countries entering a process of democratisation can’t often easily see, let alone enjoy, such benefits short-term, as it takes some time to mature after emerging from authoritarian rule; unless there’s relative prosperity due to fortunate circumstances. Spain enjoyed some of that in the late 1970s and early 80s, enough to dismantle Franquismo and overcome an attempted putsch.
As the democratisation process advances it will make the country in question more stable and able to resist the pull of populist authoritarianism, and citizens will take on democracy’s habit (of which we are often creatures).

Since such improvements aren’t that easy to come by, pride and sticking it up to our economic, social, and political opponents will do fine. All societies are vulnerable but those where the habit of democracy and rule of law has yet to take root are even more.
The élites will, obviously, serve their entrenched interests, and will use the plebeian discontent to target those slightly better-off, tarnishing those as “not real (your ethnics here)” when expendient.
But sometimes they fail and then, a “real man of the people”, one who understands the plight felt by the little guys, showing empathy to them and thus able to harness their wrath to unseat the élites and have a go at them, ends up taking over the Palace of the Presidency, National Central Bank, and other capital city landmarks.
The proles aren’t that likely to be better off but they’ll see their tormentors suffer, and that shit is priceless.

Wannabe, gonnabe, etc., autocrats know how much Humans Are Bastards and will use that knowledge to their advantage, while their opponents often try to imagine we people ain’t so just so they can love us enough to serve the people.

And so we see effective statesmen and women, sometimes even brilliant ones, lose to mediocre shysters who just happen to know their audience (and to use some quaint institutions) better.

So there’s that, among other things. I think.

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

As the thing you posted said, normally in a democracy, the electorate isn't as loyal to a leader. But through hot button issues like abortion rights, LGBT rights and gender equality, anti-western propaganda, immigration etc, wannabe autocrats can create a loyal base without distributing material wealth by promising relative power over minorities.

Most Republicans voters don't materially profit from Republican policies but vote for them fanatically anyways.

edited 15th Mar '18 10:32:56 AM by Antiteilchen

They're paying from their pockets to cause others misery?

That seems tragically wasteful.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Somewhat, but also keep in mind that due to years of propaganda and consensus amongst their communities for them it's an obvious fact that the liberals want to destroy everything they love and the country itself. Now obviously this isn't true and it doesn't eliminate their individual agency and responsibility but their actions make more sense if you account for their perpetual siege mentality.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

Like in this clip from five years ago? It's actually quite terrifying how much they lack self-awareness. From where I stand it seems more like outright madness than malice. Just sheer insanity.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Psychological Weapons of Mass Persuasion

edited 11th Apr '18 10:10:05 AM by TerminusEst

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

"Another phenomenon I'm interested in is how democracies backslide into autocracy. Chavez, Putin, Erdogan. I'm especially concerned with the effect of free speech and misinformation. "

In this case I recomend you to see the efect of polarization in general, when a authocrat wants sway the population, it used polarization to get it, by dividing the population in a us vs them, it manage to get loyal base that stick with him not matter what and to give it a pass to undemocratic behivors.

Chavez did that: he call the oposition sell outs, un-patriotic, Piti-yankies, boot kissers of the US and waaaaaay more, and pretty much casting himself as someone in constant fighting against some target of another, while slipping things like expropiation of buissness which pretty much bankroll the productive machinery of the country and creating the mess my country is right now.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

Oh dear Chavez, the worst case of You Could Have Used Your Powers for Good! (his Big Ham speech skills) of Latin America.

I dunno how feel about politics. Here on South America, is always Trying to vote for the Lesser evil.

In other countries is almost always Black-and-White Morality between Leftists versus Rightwingers, with the former being the black.

Watch me destroying my country

@Terminus Est: I mean I can see why privacy concerns are a bit of a problem, but truth be told I don't think targeted ads are a bad thing per se. From a buyer's standpoint, it's useful to be recommended products.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

It's true that opinion polls in the United States and Europe show more people who are disatisfied with democracy and are open to non-democratic alternatives than before, although not everyone agrees. Overall, there doesn't seem to be a lot of scholarly research on this, particularly in terms of causes.

As opposed to Handle, I generally prefer socio-economic explanations. I forget who it was that said that the structure of governance reflects the balance of power within society—as the middle class gained economic leverage, democratic reforms were adopted in order to give those classes more say in social policy. If democracy is backsliding today, it likely reflects and new redistribution of economic leverage upward to the most wealthiest classes. As goes wealth distribution, so goes human rights and democratic empowerment.

Edit: Wrong thread.

edited 7th May '18 3:22:25 AM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran