Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Because I believe in a better society than the one we have today, and sitting quietly and waiting for change to happen accomplishes nothing. Since the ruling class is more or less always going to be the sector of the population which benefits the most from the status quo, without pressure from the masses, there can be no reform.
edited 16th Jun '16 8:33:03 PM by CaptainCapsase
Without a catastrophic crisis as the catalyst, you will never get enough people to agree with you to form the necessary momentum for change, unless you work within the system as it stands. Even with a crisis of sufficient scale, there's no guarantee that your brand of revolution is the one that will succeed.
Being right and getting what you want are largely unrelated things in the grand design of society.
edited 16th Jun '16 8:39:07 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Which is precisely why, in your own words, civilization tends to lurch from crisis to crisis. In the intervening time period, it's important to keep the would be revolutionary spirit visible, it helps discourage regression, which I view as the natural tendency of a society in which the elite do not fear reprisal from the masses.
edited 16th Jun '16 8:41:09 PM by CaptainCapsase
I'm also sort of tired of this "gay marriage happened because the elites just finally allowed it."
It downplays the efforts and sacrifices of tons of ordinary folks who fought goddamn hard for it at every turn. Not everything is some top-down effort. And a 'lot of Bernie fans didn't support Obama in 2012?' Welcome to being part of the problem. I get he didn't fix the world while his opposition had a minority that could still filibuster.
edited 16th Jun '16 8:47:29 PM by Lightysnake
![]()
![]()
The struggle of the masses is precisely what changed the opinion of the ruling class; what I'm saying is very much the opposite of what you seem to think I'm asserting; societal change is ultimately a bottom-up process whereby the unrest of the masses forces the ruling class to implement reform.
![]()
I'd like to avoid violent revolutions unless every else fails. Velvet revolutions are fine though. Mostly.
edited 16th Jun '16 8:52:29 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
Of course not; when a violent revolution actually takes off, you end up replacing one ruling class with another if it succeeds, and when it comes down to it, the basic interests of the ruling class tend to be fairly similar across all cultures and forms of government chief among them being remaining in power. Since the ruling class would likely very much not to be replaced, it's possible for the fear of revolution to be far more effective at achieving reform than the revolution itself ever could be, and democracies, for all their flaws offer a mechanism to replace the ruling class without violence.
edited 16th Jun '16 8:55:47 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Captain- I find it kind of amusing for lack of a better word that you don't like the Great Man Theory and purport to like top down change, but are against the idea of doing something helpful in terms of participating/supporting candidates in local government- instead, focusing on national elections (and supporting a candidate without majority support) and preferring an atmosphere where elites are made to comply through fear that their constituents will kill them.
The only reason we progressed beyond feudalism is because the ruling class was afraid their subjects would rise up and kill them (and in several cases they did, sometimes repeatedly), and the same fear is what prevents society from sliding back into that. The only reason the progressive movement gained traction among elites is because the ruling class was afraid the proletariat would rise up and kill them (which they did in some cases), or at least vote them out of office (which they did in many other cases) if we're talking out of democracies.
Moreover, you've clearly not read my posts correctly if you think I like top down change, my general thesis was, because of the disproportionate influence of the ruling class on political institutions, all policymaking is top down, though the impetus for policies which are beneficial to the general population at the expense of elites is something that almost always comes from the bottom up. The sort of unrest that catalyzes political change comes in many forms, and while revolution is the most extreme form of unrest, patterns of voting, protests, and civil disobedience can and do force positive changes. Between periods of crisis, those nonviolent means of expressing unrest are an important part of minimizing societal regression.
Also, who are you to presume what I am and am not doing in terms of local elections and local politics?
edited 16th Jun '16 9:19:25 PM by CaptainCapsase
Well I've seen several posts bringing up that third party candidates would do better down ticket and/or it would be a good idea (for you and Bernie Sanders himself) to support change downticket/at a more local level.
And as far as I understood, you are against it, essentially because it's too constructive.
Which makes sense I guess since you view everyone in office as an evil elite.
Edit- And speaking of Bernie, apparently he's taking it to the convention. He keeps going on about wanting to help Clinton against Trump but refuses to stop his campaign. I'm guessing he's never going to concede and at some point will start outright accusing Clinton of stealing the election from him.
edited 16th Jun '16 9:23:54 PM by Hodor2
I'm not? Wherever possible, regression must be avoided. Thus, for progressives in districts which are contested, that principle implores they vote for Clinton rather than vote third party. Downticket support is also important, insofar as it can make an institution more receptive to change, and indeed, as voting is a form of expressing unrest, if a large number of downticket candidates who would've otherwise not been elected come into power and thus effect a change to policy, the unrest of the masses has successfully lobbied for change.
edited 16th Jun '16 9:26:34 PM by CaptainCapsase
I don't think you realize you're saying things that sound very contradictory when read by other people. Just because it sounds coherent to you doesn't mean it automatically comes across as such to the rest of us. You keep harping on about fear, which I find to be massively unconstructive to progress as a continual thing, and then you seemed to dismiss my point about third party candidates needing to get into office at the bottom before they shoot for the top if they want to get anywhere. Instead you wish for voters to do protest votes, which I find to not be nearly as effective as you think it is.
Do you think that's actually constructive to pursue downticket offices or does that somehow make them part of the dirty elite? Is basically any politician the dirty elite to you? And for fuck's sake, maybe consider that the "elite" in this case quite often does something out of a genuine desire to do what they think is right rather than fear. I'm pretty sure that's the case with most politicians these days, it's just that we usually strongly disagree or disapprove of what roughly half of them think is right.
You know, you are voting for whoever you choose to be part of the "elite" and no, Sanders is not an altruist, no matter what he wants his base to believe.
edited 16th Jun '16 9:30:13 PM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username![]()
Let me attempt to explain the collectivist worldview then. Many members of the ruling class are perfectly wonderful people when judged on an individual basis. Of course, many police in America are perfectly wonderful people when judged on the individual basis, and many of the incidents that have sparked the recent unrest among black Americans seem perfectly valid until you look at the wider picture. While there are exceptions when looking at the individual scale, people in aggregate act out of (perceived) self interest.* The ruling class (elites) is the sector of the population which, through some combination of inborn advantage and circumstances, have attained influence over societal decision making process vastly exceeding their share of a society's total population. Because the ruling class typically has superior access to information and education than the rest of society, in general, that conception of self interest is closer to the ideal "rational self interest" which is an underlying assumption of human behavior in many basic economic models.
The interests of the ruling class and the masses are not always in conflict, and indeed, the most effective reforms are those which come to pass due to broad support among all strati of society. However, there are several areas in which the interests of the general population come into direct conflict with that of the ruling class, chief among them being economic policies. If a policy is harmful to the interests of a sector of the ruling class, it is not possible to enact such a policy without support from either another more powerful sector of the elites (ie Obamacare, where the pharmaceutical industry's interests won out over the insurance industry), or the belief that there will be some form of reprisal by the masses which outweighs the opportunity cost of enacting the policy. This need not be open revolt, nor is it necessarily violent.
I need to note again, that this isn't something that's necessarily tied to any particular person; you have a few standouts here and there, but by and large, the internal problems with society (along with a society's achievements) arise from institutions (in the sociological sense), not from the actions of any particular individual.
Now as far as your particular questions go, I believe it is very important to prevent regression, and thus, in contexts where a particular voter finds him or herself in a situation where their vote will have an impact on the outcome of an election, it is imperative that they vote against reactionaries. This entails supporting and voting for people downticket. For elections where the outcome is effectively predetermined by gerrymandering and/or demographic, or in primaries which are not competitive, a voter should vote for the most available progressive candidate.
Finally, fear need not be the sort of revolutionary terror associated with the French revolution (among other revolutions); it's usually better if things stop short of that. Rather, it is a belief that refusing to implement a particular policy which favors the masses over the elites will result in an undesirable outcome. In a stable modern democracy that undesirable outcome is being voted out of office as far as politicians go, and in some cases being sued as far as economic elites go.
* As per the kin-selection theory of altruism, self-interest here includes closely related individuals (family), as well as close friends, and people from the same/similar demographics.
edited 16th Jun '16 10:23:43 PM by CaptainCapsase
You're assuming that whatever is favored by the majority is the right thing — an indefensible position, considering the electorate is mostly composed of blithering idiots. The people might not like the products of the system, but they're obligated to work within its confines, or lose everything for everyone.
edited 16th Jun '16 11:23:18 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."![]()
I don't think it does anyone any favours to insult your fellow citizens by outright saying they are "idiots" unless you are referring to the etymological understanding of the word "idiot", in which case I would agree. However if you feel you are wiser and better educated than the rest of the "idiotic" citizenry, then I would advise you to follow the words of Marcus Aurelius: either instruct them or endure them. Or if you want see it from the conceptual view of Noblesse Oblige, make it your responsibility to help your fellow man given your position of higher education and experience.
Of course you are free not to do so. Then I think you would invite the same Hobbesian terror that you fear and any sense of indignant moral authority against the "majority" would have to be tucked back in your pocket. I recant my words however if you are already doing everything within your power to do as I mentioned, even if it's in small ways and applaud your efforts.
"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."Look, if you add up the ridiculous and ignorant things that people believe and construct Venn diagrams of the populations that hold those beliefs, you'd find that nearly every single person holds at least one wrong and/or harmful belief. So all of us are, at some level, ignorant. There are two types of people: those who understand this and seek to improve their knowledge; and those who do not and believe themselves to possess all possible knowledge.
I like to think of it along the lines of people who watch Here Comes Honey Boo Boo because they see it as a lifestyle to envy and emulate, versus those who watch it as a kind of living horror show.
When you aggregate all of those ignorant beliefs, you get a really stark picture of American stupidity:
- Climate change is a hoax.
- The Earth is flat.
- The Earth is 6,000 years old.
- Barack Obama is a Muslim.
- Lowering taxes on rich people will make all of us wealthier.
- Homosexuality is evil, or sinful.
- Guns make people safer.
- Vaccines cause autism.
- Homeopathy is anything other than a really expensive scam.
- Skin color and/or ethnicity have some relationship to intelligence or moral worth.
- If you send money to some dude in Africa, he'll hook you up with part of a ten million dollar bank account.
- Smoking is not harmful.
- Lotteries are a good investment.
- The government is hiding evidence of alien visitation to Earth.
- The Confederate flag is a symbol of regional pride instead of a symbol of racial hatred.
- Donald Trump would make a good leader.
- Some bearded sky-man fervently desires your prayer and will intercede for you if you only wish hard enough. Displeasing him will send your soul to eternal torment.
The list goes on and on. When you take all those people, give them the ability to vote on major issues, then use the results of that voting without some level of sanity checking or vetting, you get absolute disaster. That's why the United States has a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers were all too aware of the democratic fallacy and sought to install checks on it that would stop at least the most virulent stupidity from getting enacted into law.
The only way to prevent the stupidity of people from aggregating is to give them a leader who has veto power. But that leader has to remain popular enough that they don't depose him. That is the fundamental check on any system of government.
edited 17th Jun '16 6:34:16 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""The only way to prevent the stupidity of people from aggregating is to give them a leader who has veto power. But that leader has to remain popular enough that they don't depose him. That is the fundamental check on any system of government. "
Only trouble is that a lot of our representatives are just as toxic, if not more so than the people who elected them to serve. Maintaining popularity means getting morons to hype you. Morons follow snake oil salesmen and other morons, but rarely people of intellect or capability.
edited 17th Jun '16 5:46:43 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

@Fighteer: While a fair amount of good has happened under the Obama administration, attributing any of it to him rather than to the underlying institutions is the same line of thinking that leads to the widely looked down upon "Great Man" theory of history. Particularly in a system which is not an autocracy, the amount of agency any particular official has is constrained by what the institution he or she is part of will allow.
Gay marriage (plus Don't Ask Don't Tell and extending the draft to women) happened because the majority of ruling class ultimately came around to the consensus that it was okay. Healthcare reform happened because universal coverage dramatically increases the income of pharmaceutical companies. The stimulus was as much about protecting financial giants from collapse as it was about preventing economic collapse. I can go on and on, but when it comes down to it, without significant unrest (of which voting and protest are the two legal forms of expression), policy-making is always oriented towards the interests of elites.
edited 16th Jun '16 8:23:07 PM by CaptainCapsase