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
One thing I also wanted to point out @Mad Skillz is that you know how much racism there was directed against Obama, and remember how tied to that there were all of these accusations of him being an aberration who wanted to tear down the system in pursuit of far left/anti-American goals, right?
So like when Obama talked about policies, especially in terms of things like targeting Wall Street and supporting various "bail out" and job creation programs and healthcare reform, you get why he would frame these things in the most conservative-friendly way possible, right? And nonetheless, even if his programs were relatively conservative (although still progressive by the standards of U.S. policy to date), he was painted as a dangerous and destructive radical on all of these.
Incidentally, this is on some level one thing that rankles me about Sanders or at least the people who support his policy preferences now but rejected progressive policies under Obama- Yes he's undoubtedly more progressive on some issues than Obama, but it strikes me that there's definitely white privilege at work in terms of how when he openly rails against Wall Street and talks about revolution, it's popular, whereas when Obama made tepid comments to the same effect he was painted as being Pol Pot.
Edit- And yeah, when Obama and that Barlett guy say he would have been a moderate or liberal Republican of decades past, that really says way more about the rightward shift of both the country's Overton Window as well as the Republican Party than it says about Obama.
edited 26th Apr '17 3:02:21 PM by Hodor2
I'm still figuring out a response to Mad's latest post (which may or may not happen as time permits) but if you're going to quote a Founding Father, include source and context. The source is [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp
from notes on the debates of the constitutional convention] and the context is debate over the term limit of Senators. Here's the full quote.
The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be jsut, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered.
The recorded opinions of the others in the room are relevant as well. There were two main philisophical points in play: one the issue of how long a term limit to have stability without being opressive and the other was the balance between democracy (pure public representation) and republicanisim (with some assumption that yes, the landed, white...but also, key word, educated elite knew better than the average citizen. At this point in the debates the bimarcal legislature and the shape of the House of Representitives had already been arrived at and the Senate was meant to be a counterbalance to the House. Remember that before the 1800s, Senators were not elected directly...we changed that with an amendment.
Trying to boil down the intent of the founders to one quote is both lazy and disingenuous (and too common in all sides of political debate). This is a field the scholars have devoted their entire careers to.
And frankly, they were not always wrong to be concerned about unchecked populism.
edited 26th Apr '17 3:16:52 PM by Elle
Yeah in the end Obama was always a man trying to find a compromise, he's always talked about how he's in the middle, how he's a centerists, how at a different time he could have been a Republican, etc... I get that a lot of people here feel that Obama was lying, that he talked that talk out of a fear of obstructionism (that he got anyway) and a very personal desire to work with the other side no matter what. But he still did say those things, Mad didn't make them up and it shitty of people to pretend that he did.
Obama was fantastic at finding a compromise, both in his language and in his actions, I mean that as both a genuine compliment and on some level a negative remark, because there are times you shouldn't try and compromise with the other guy.
As for Sanders' policies being popular, I get the LBJ quote, I really do, it's a great quote that gets used a lot here (a ton actually).
But we seem to be pulling of the con, yes I get it, the white middle-class with turn on entitlements the moment they realise that minorities will benefit, well right now they're in favour even though minorities would benefit. We have somehow tricked the racist nutjobs into not realising that our policies will help minorities, I don't know how we did it, but based on the that polling we've done it.
If we can sustain that con, keep it going for 2018 and 2020 we can make a wave, we can pass the kind of legislation that LBJ and FDR would be proud of.
edited 26th Apr '17 3:13:13 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![]()
I don't dispute/actually agree with your wording. I should add that it's quite clear that Obama for better or worse is very even-tempered and likes the idea of compromise in itself. At the same time though, I think the factors I cited are pretty accurate in terms of why (temperament aside) Obama would sell various things as being quite conservative, since all of them were widely attacked as super-radical (and usually as being unconstitutional and evil too).
edited 26th Apr '17 3:14:51 PM by Hodor2
Trump now wants to break the 9th Circuit up: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/330757-trump-says-hes-absolutely-considering-breaking-up-court-that-blocked
@Cap: I did imply Trump as a symptom but I cut off elaborating as I'm juggling cooking dinner as I write. The fact that he has as much support as he does is a populism problem though. So is racism when it takes the form of tyranny of the majority over minorities. But on the other foot, so is "tear down the rich!". When the torches and pitchforks come out they are very bad at discriminating between corrupt corporate tyrants, corporate but constructive entities, crooked individual businessmen and the well-off self-made honest businessman.
![]()
Genuine cases of mass popular mobilization are quite rare, and fairly positive (not always, but more often than not I'd argue). When we talk about the Full-Circle Revolution, we're generally talking about a military revolt (often sponsored by a foreign power) which co-opts a sizable but not overwhelmingly popular movement in order to seize power.
"The people" are hardly ever the ones driving the fall of a regime, it's almost always due to elites within the power existing structure jockeying against one another. In the rare situation where there's an extremely broad consensus about a course of action over the entire population of a nation, that's when you tend to see mass mobilization leading to meaningful, positive changes. The civil rights movement and labor movement being two of the best examples of that.
edited 26th Apr '17 3:35:49 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Elle Populism is dangerous because it all too often relies on and reinforces "us vs. them" mentality. It makes polarization worse. That and a lot of the things populists promise turn out to be unfeasible, and whenever someone tries to point out the emperor has no clothes, they are branded "them" and shouted down. Or in the most extreme cases, purged.
edited 26th Apr '17 3:36:11 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
Meaningful societal changes simply don't occur without large scale popular mobilization; that's pretty much a constant in modern (19th century onwards) history, and thus, if you are not satisfied with the world as it exists today, with all its numerous injustices and inequalities, you have no other option but to accept those risks.
edited 26th Apr '17 3:43:28 PM by CaptainCapsase
Uh, okay?
I'm not sure why it would be. It's just irrelevant.
You realize that Dodd-Frank helped them out too, right? Before Dodd-Frank only around 10'% of the banks were owned by the 5 largest banks. After it, it was a little less than 50 %.
I'm not saying it though. Obama is saying it. I'm using his exact words. You want to call him a liar? Be my guest.
Obama did a lot to help the working class, the laborers, passed new regulations, expanded Civil Rights...stuff reagan despised.
It seems like you're under the false notion that someone who is right wing can't do these things either when we were under a hard right presidency before.
I've already said that Obama is socially progressive enough so I'll ignore this since I'm concentrating specifically on the economic side of his policies.
Obama's record is pretty mixed. Civil Rights went back a step under his presidency in some cases, income inequality has been growing, big banks are more powerful than ever before etc.
I've already talked about that. The problem even with the House of Representatives is that's it still being elected by middle class white men. So you have one group representing the elite and the other group representing the landowners who weren't elites. Control is still with the affluent.
As John Jay says:
Exactly so why should you expect to go through every one of their opinions especially since I'm being simplistic to arrive at a larger point.
Then do what Aristotle suggested. Reduce inequality.
edited 26th Apr '17 3:50:12 PM by MadSkillz
We have examples. Those who shall not be named outside this pothole, the Soviets, pretty much every major dictator gets things rolling with populism because otherwise their reign is short when everyone does the minimum of effort to get things done and the economy goes to Hell.
I mean you realize that the establishment also consists of Republicans too, right?
And the Tea Party is Establishment too.
The Establishment is just another way of saying corporate power.
And corporate power is why we have Trump who is very much an Establishment figure that used populist rhetoric to win people over.
@Journeyman: The Russian Revolution was a fairly classic example of a military revolt co-opting a large but not overwhelmingly popular movement, and in the case of Germany the Nazis were only able to gain power due to the center and left being totally unwilling to work with each other. "The people" are almost never responsible for the downfall of a regime or government, because the general population rarely develops enough of a consensus to form a cohesive political movement.
The rare occasions when the stars align however are generally quite positive, ie the civil rights and labor movement.
edited 26th Apr '17 4:03:04 PM by CaptainCapsase
Yes.
Except that nobody here except for you has referred to Elizabeth Warren as a populist in any capacity.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot

If Alex Jones loses custody of his kids it would probably be a sacred duty to chase him around denying their existence.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot