1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Introducing for your Perusing Pleasure

    New Thread Thursday
    +
    Shit Post Sunday

    READ ME
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Q4 2019 Story Competition is kicking off!

    Prompt:
    Foreign Magical Regions (Setting outside of Britain) Length: 2.5 - 5k
    Get writing Folks!
    Dismiss Notice

U.S. 2020 Elections

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Conquistador, Jan 20, 2019.

  1. Sesc

    Sesc Slytherin at Heart Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    5,890
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Blocksberg, Germany
    On the face of it, the fact that people always predict this time it's going to be indentity and not economics and it isn't, doesn't mean there can't come a time where it actually is. Trump is doing his utmost to make it so, anyway. The number of possible voters to be swayed will be as low as it ever was. It's plausible that what's going to keep Trump or kick him out is who manages higher turnout. I question the premise that it's somehow obvious a left-leaning candidate like Warren has an advantage there, however.

    And while the line of politics "capitulating in the face of reality" (meant as a complaint, attributed variously) is fucking ridiculous, doesn't mean it isn't the job of politics to shape and possibly change reality. If that wasn't the case, all we'd need is bureaucrats. So to give up and just put the most woke candidate out there is a lame asspull. Enough voters want to be told what they want, and even without going there, making a robust argument about what the world should be, trying to convince people of your points, isn't a bad thing. So "the world has changed" isn't an argument. If it's worth it to fight for undoing the changes, you should try that. (For what it's worth, I think undoing and restoring the world to pre-Trump and pre-disorder is both possible and desirable.)

    But at any rate, any other argument there is the quintessence of populism: Just tell everyone what he wants to hear. And if most people happen to be racists fucks, then make racist policies. So "adapt or die": Some hills are worth dying on. Just make sure it's the Mt Everest, not a bump in the road.
     
  2. Innomine

    Innomine Headmaster ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,194
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Zealand
    High Score:
    4,500
    I can only assume you are referring to my post here, as you quote some of the things I said in it. You misunderstand my argument, and I am struggling to understand the point of your post. I think your point is:

    1) I'm arguing that everything is deterministic, and no one can change anything, therefore the world has changed isn't an argument?

    Please clarify if I am wrong.

    My response is that this is clearly not what I was saying. I am saying that we are focusing on the wrong things when we analyse the state of the world, and what must be done. The foundation upon which we build all of our knowledge is shaky, and therefore anything that comes from it is also compromised.

    Here's my first argument in points:

    1) The world has changed irrevocably.
    2) There is a clear pattern of history repeating itself, with significant changes every 40-50 years.
    3) Denying this reality is stupid, and leads to bad outcomes.
    4) If change is inevitable, the question becomes what type of change do we want?
    5) We are at a crossroads, we can either go down a Trumpian authoritarian path, or a liberal path, a la Warren. If this is the choice, I choose Warren.

    Move to Culture war/Identity politics (I've added in a few points of clarification where I think the misunderstanding is):

    1) We continue to look at identity politics and the economy as fundamentally different. They are not. They are intrinsically linked.
    1.5) (Point of clarification) Human society (I'm focusing on western liberal democracies here) is a complex adaptive system. All facets are intrinsically linked, though deterministic outcomes are often difficult to illustrate due to non linear dynamics, feedback mechanisms and how activities on one scale impact other scales not directly affected.

    2) The current system is unfair. (see fig 1&2)
    3) Peoples actions are not based on what is happening, it's what people believe is happening.
    4) For some time people did not realise it was unfair, so it all worked out well. The inequity is now obvious, and will not be forgotten.
    5) It doesn't matter if some structural changes occur out of sight to make it more fair, it must be seen to be changed, to be more fair.

    6) Academic disciplines concerned with the long term persistence of our societies draw attention to key tensions in neoliberal society (efficiency vs persistence, constancy vs change, predicability vs unpredictability, certainty vs uncertainty).
    7) The current world order based on positivistic methodologies emphasises the former, but this does not adequately describe the world. (We make decisions based on certainty, but what happens is never what we think will happen. This is especially true in disaster risk reduction. There's been a massive shift in this field from preparing for and managing recovery (Of specific predicted events), to reducing vulnerability (to any and all events, unpredictable).
    8) Accordingly, the outcome of any paradigm built on flawed foundations is equally flawed. (Neoliberal ideology was based on the primary assumption of economic rationalism. People are not rational. They are emotional and make fucking retarded decisions. This must be accounted for in the systems we create for ourselves.)
    9) The current state of the world can be adequately described by understanding these systemic flaws, and clear paths forward can be determined with that understanding.
    10) The key problem is the collective understanding of the problem. We're all trying to find the right answer, but no one is asking the right questions. So we just fight, and become more and more polarised. Thus, this post.

    So, @Sesc , why do you consider this short timescale 40 year period where neoliberal ideology was hegemonic a 'Mt Everest' to die on?

    [​IMG]
    Figure 1 - Income gains since WWII (Note what occurred during the neoliberal shift in the 80s)

    [​IMG]
    Figure 2 - Percentage of total net household wealth by the top 0.1% vs the bottom 90%. (This is the most damning of all)

    Finally, I claim no accurate prediction as to who will win. That shit is unpredictable as anything at this stage. Right now, if the economy stays strong, I think Trump wins reelection. However, the only constant is change, and the primary question is what kind of change will occur. A likely causal chain of events if the economy falters is that Trump gets kicked out, and at this stage, I think Warren has the best shot. There's probably some optimism bias here.
     
  3. Sesc

    Sesc Slytherin at Heart Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    5,890
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Blocksberg, Germany
    @Innomine : It was a general musing without any particular point and as such directed at no one or whoever decided the shoe was fitting. Hence why I also didn't quote or alert.

    In regards to your response: I naturally reject "Warren or Trump" (as an ideological divide). The opposing side to Trump is something I don't currently see -- an unashamedly globalist, cosmopolitan candidate, embracing free trade, free movement, civil liberties. Perhaps there is a candidate like that, I haven't followed the process closely so far. But it's certainly not Warren, who is constantly in danger of being a populist herself.

    All that is obviously entirely besides the situation of an actual choice, where just about anyone is better than Trump (and the qualifier is reserved for Trump 2.0, the less-retarded-more-clever version).


    As for the rest, it's not an argument I'm inclined to have at the moment. I think your points and reasoning could be picked apart six ways from Sunday, both on content and faulty logic, but it's more energy than I'm willing to spend. Feel free to claim this as a victory, if you're into that sort of thing, or remind me again some time when I might have more time.
     
  4. Innomine

    Innomine Headmaster ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,194
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Zealand
    High Score:
    4,500
    Ah. Regardless, it was actually very useful for my thought process to type out my argument like that haha. I think we are in agreement here then to an extent.

    I would say however, that while this is a populist vs populist election, that doesn't detract from the ideological divide. It certainly doesn't represent the old Keynesian vs Neoliberal divide, but that's because as I previously argue, the world is now different. These notions are linked to context, and context is linked to time, which marches ever forward. Climate change is now the key pressing issue for our species.

    The key distinction or ideological divide between Warren and Trump is over how they view humanity. Trump see's only the economy, and pulls those levers paying no mind to fairness or justice because he cannot see how that connects/influences individual action or agency. All he sees is the objective, without the context (He is also a walking example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, standing loud and proud on top of Mt. Stupid). Warren is the opposite, she is all about the subjective, fairness, justice, legitimacy within an objective framework. The ideological divide is there, it's just very different to what it used to be. It's still about the nature of humanity.

    DK Effect.png
     
  5. DR

    DR Secret Squirrel ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,773
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Connecticut
    High Score:
    2810
    I'm wary of this statement's claim to objectivity. Warren is concerned about these issues, but her viewpoint on them is subjective, and her solutions equally so.

    I also don't accept that this election will be the duel of right-wing vs. left-wing populism.
     
  6. Innomine

    Innomine Headmaster ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,194
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Zealand
    High Score:
    4,500
    Yeah, fair enough. I should perhaps say that she is trying to be subjective in an objective framework. This is definitely problematic. She will run into the same problems that every other president faces in this area.

    The dissonance between these two factors will be a big source of instability in whatever she does.

    I don’t see anyone solving this problem though.

    Only way to find out is to see what happens, though, yeah? My claim here is an opinion. Not backed up with fact.

    I also think it’s very hard to accurately label things in time of radical change. I doubt we’ll truly understand Trumps presidency until about 20 years after it’s done.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2019
  7. amek

    amek Fourth Year

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    122
    Gender:
    Male
    High Score:
    0
    Since you've insisted that we should return to the pre-Trump world(and I agree to some extent), do you plan on just ignoring the issues of income inequality, immigration, costs of education and healthcare to name a few? Or is your perspective different because you are not in the US(Your tag says Germany but I think you said you were in London, I have vagueish memory)?

    These problems are very real and have been very real for many people and while I may agree on free trade and globalization there are unintended consequences to our actions that quite frankly our government has not dealt with well enough or just straight up ignored because they were incentivized to do so. Just saying 'returning to a pre-Trump world' feels like a way of putting off the problems and in the long-run it will fail because people are tired and pissed off. I think we forget how in 2016 both Bernie and Trump were dark horses (Trump to a much larger extent) and that's not because they are some sort of super geniuses. They realized that people were pissed about a lot of things like the bank bailouts because the middle and lower classes have been getting squeezed harder and harder.

    If anything is wrong here just point it out and explain it to me please because I'm pretty confused.

    TLDR: I agree with all of those things(globalism etc..), but there needs to be solutions to problems that have been rampantly going wrong in the last 40 years or so(from white collar crime essentially going rampant to income inequality).
     
  8. DR

    DR Secret Squirrel ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,773
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Connecticut
    High Score:
    2810
    'Returning to the pre-Trump world' means, to me, returning to a system of competent, procedural executive management, that executes policy based on an understanding of the facts. That doesn't mean ignoring the salient issues to the body politic. You don't need to be a raging lunatic baboon rampaging through the West Wing in order to address those issues.

    True enough. The fact that the government actually made money for the taxpayer by bailing out the banks, and, by the way, kept them (the voters) from experiencing an apocalypse-level depression just flies right past them.

    As far as I know, white collar crime is a constant problem, but it hasn't exactly been running rampant. And income inequality being a problem is a matter for debate.
     
  9. Solfege

    Solfege Minister of Magic DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,210
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Considering that no one still has any idea how to substantively deal with said issues, in real policy terms the candidates are a wash. If there's one thing Innomine said right, it's that people don't react to realities but to their perceptions of it. Inequalities were not being felt; certainly not thru the good years of the 2000s when ordinary Joes were gambling their mortgages on upwardly-mobile housing prices. And now that Saez, Piketty, et al. have done such a great job of penetrating the social consciousness with their inequality research, of course everyone knows inequality is the greatest threat to democracy (barring climate change) despite arguable improvements in quality-of-life elsewhere. Including the drastically deflationary effects of technological change. There is a part of me that suspects contrarily on the conventional stories of our times.


    Here I'd point out my disagreements with Innomine's #4 and #5. People will forget. People have likely already forgotten. The conversation isn't on bank bailouts, or bankers, anymore; 2016 was so last decade. What people are concerned about are healthcare costs; what occupies coastal minds are riffs on Capitalism 3.0, our social media/tech overlords. In that sense, Bernie remains a one-trick pony whereas Warren, long ago, had sussed out where the conversation was headed.

    Give the people an extended bulls' run and they'll forget that heightened inequality was ever in the picture. I said before, hang on to the mid/late-2020s for the start of another placid era. Let the demographic cycle wring out the discontent as we head into the prime earning years of the (currently) largest generation of Americans.

    Putting aside that structural changes are already happening beneath us, inequality has likely peaked and begun to reverse, and we can yet build on top of those beginnings (heck, even capitalists are in reformist mode, out of self-preservation). Truly, the one biggest thing we can do to spread the wealth is to build more housing.

    =========

    Vox did a piece on voting data that showed the importance of swing votes.15% of 2016 voters were Obama-Trump/Romney-Clinton voters; Catalist estimated that 89% of the Democratic margin improvement in 2018 were swing votes. Small numbers in absolute terms, but decisive.

    They laid out, apparently somewhere in the data, that the most progressive voters are already consistently voting. Drop-off, stay-at-home nonvoters are a more moderate, if still progressive (but given their minority-status makeup, more socially conservative overall) bloc. The implication, I think, is that turnout strategies are likely to be diverse to be effective; and, in their diversity, likelier to align with swing-persuasion strategies than with "fire-and-brimstone hardcore-white-progressives" (which make up 8%, if a vocal 8%, of the Democratic electorate). If this logic holds, then bold ideological positions that fire up the base are more likely to motivate turnout in the opposite party than at home.

    Philippe Lemoine calculated, similarly, that 22% of counties swung by >10% between 2012 and 2016. Limiting to 2016 swing states, one third of counties swung by >10%. That these swings occurred because of differences purely in turnout between election years seems... unlikely.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2019
  10. Dirty Puzzle

    Dirty Puzzle DA Member DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    162
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Northern Hemisphere
    High Score:
    0
    Is the question not how long we'll manage to put it off until it implodes? I look at 2020 in pretty easy terms: whoever's Not Trump has my vote, but up until that person is decided, I'll engage in debate on who that should be. I question if we can afford to forget or to have another placid era. I don't necessarily disagree it'll happen, but that seems to me (and correct me if I'm sussing the situation wildly wrong) like willful self-destruction.

    And as more of a general contention, the white voters might forget, but I think it's naive to think POC and LGBT+ voters forget more egregious discrimination or inequalities, and they have more and more of a voice in modern politics.
     
  11. Solfege

    Solfege Minister of Magic DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,210
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Sorry, but until what implodes? What self-destruction? To clarify, when I say a placid era, I mean people will be feeling good. Optimistic.

    If the question is of the culture wars, I'm guessing the culture wars will be over with the turning of the demographic cycle. If the question is of the economy, I believe we'll be discussing a number of potential policies that trail the structural changes occurring in our economy, regardless. Largely these will come from the Democrats, the only side coherent enough for productive discourse.

    Never forget that we still have a Republican Senate thru a good portion of the next decade... by which time it wouldn't surprise me to see the GOP reconstituting as a party of Asian venture capitalists and Hispanic (particularly the whitening upper-middle class) social conservatives. But that's just one zany possibility.

    The weight of POC votes, even acknowledging their diversity, has been too disillusioned since 1968 to prefer Bernie-types over Biden-types. Although it is interesting to see whether they'll (and who'll) go towards Warren, how they'll disperse this cycle between Harris, Biden, Booker. LGBT+ are 5% of the population, although how that stands up as a proportion of the electorate, I don't know.

    Edit: For a historic precedent, we've forgotten once already the violent Black Power days of the 1970s. Averaging, what, five domestic bombings per day? Not to mention the blatant shoot-outs on the street against police? That progressive lawyers were capable of getting literal cop-killers out of jail within a weekend of the actual shootings were the reason mandatory minimums became a thing.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2019
  12. amek

    amek Fourth Year

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    122
    Gender:
    Male
    High Score:
    0
    Yeh I largely agree that we need actual competent executive administrators, but (I think) the fact that there are none right now is showing the public that there are problems when you essentially say that all 'government is shit ..... it should be done in the private sector' spiel. It also has forced the people to see some of the problems they were working so hard to fix and has put more pressure on congress(or at least I hope).

    The government made money that one time sure but what about the amount of damage that it caused (like people losing their homes when they were paying their bills, the long agonizing recovery that followed, and arguably the rise of populism(Trump in the US), etc...). (I also know-or at least the little reading I've done knows- that the recession could've been MUCH WORSE so props to the fed. and the gov.)

    And on white collar crime I meant that any prosecution of it has largely been a joke in the last 40 years(as far as I can tell but you would probably know more than me so I guess I'm wrong). Also yeh I think Solfege is right housing is an insane cost for many households and that definitely contributes the Income Inequality.
     
  13. Dirty Puzzle

    Dirty Puzzle DA Member DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    162
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Northern Hemisphere
    High Score:
    0
    My mistake. I was particularly referring to issues that've gotten progressively worse over the last two to four decades, and I wouldn't want the 2020s to feel good unless progress was actually being made. Immigration, healthcare, environment, and income inequality to name the biggest ones. If the Republicans legislatively cockblock a Democrat in office as badly or worse than they did Obama, we're going to have even more fuckery with regards to balance of branch power than we already do. Say hello to stacking the court and legislating from the bench.

    I guess I don't see the reason why the mid to late 2020s would be predisposed to the populace being placid in that sense. Our current state of "what the fuck what the fuck what the f U C K" to the point of desensitization doesn't seem readily primed to shift in that direction? That being said, I don't have the experience to say anything concrete either way.
     
  14. DR

    DR Secret Squirrel ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,773
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Connecticut
    High Score:
    2810
    You're not exactly wrong, you're just not exactly right, either. The perception that white collar crime is down is because a lot fewer of them are going to trial. There are two reasons for that. The first is that a lot of them are cutting plea deals. (That's true of most prosecutions these days; very few people go to trial.) The second is one that badly needs changing, and that's that the DoJ, ever since Holder was AG, has chosen not to take corporate malfeasance to criminal prosecutions of the corporate officers, in most cases. That's why you see all these companies paying huge fines and not much else. I personally think this is disgraceful.
     
  15. Dirty Puzzle

    Dirty Puzzle DA Member DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    162
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Northern Hemisphere
    High Score:
    0
    Write the fines into your budget and be on your merry way, yeah?
     
  16. Solfege

    Solfege Minister of Magic DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,210
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Hot energies have a way of running themselves out. It's... exhausting to fight these culture wars. At some point, America will want to go back to its Netflix channels. We may see it already, if the populace (likely more of them than you know) goes with Biden; each president-elect being a deliberate contrast to the previous one. Of course, I am making assumptions on the extent to which we will have leashed social media as a mature field of technology.

    Remember also, much can be done at the state level; but a sensible restoration of US leadership abroad would be a relief to all.
     
  17. amek

    amek Fourth Year

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    122
    Gender:
    Male
    High Score:
    0
    @Darth Revan

    Gotcha. Was there a reasoning for this? The only one I can see is that the responsibility is so diffuse that to blame the execs would be addressing the symptom not the cause, so maybe the fines should be much larger so shareholders will feel the pain more? (but that can run the risk of crippling the companies so I dunno)

    Side Note: The companies that helped cause the opioid crisis are actually being brought to court and I know there was a case in Tennessee where they won, granted they got less money than they asked for but still huh.
     
  18. pbluekan

    pbluekan Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,154
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dancing in the Mindfield
    I’d say you have to go back a great deal farther to really get a government that performs its duties based on facts. Obama was an 8 year breath of fresh air in a shit show that has gone on for the last 24 years, if not more. At the very least this trend started with the Bush administration if not a little earlier (in Congress) during the Clinton era.
    Sure, if you factor out climate change entirely, which is probably a bad idea. At current trends, the 2020’s will be the tipping point for “shit gets bad”.
    Sure, LGBT+ are 5% of the population, but the portion that votes along those lines is far higher.
    The bailout didn’t cause people to lose their homes. The rest of it did, and there really wasn’t much the government could actually do about that. His point was that the bailout was an absolutely necessary measure that is much lamented while the actual issues of the day skate on by.
     
  19. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    703
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    RE: Culture Wars, my generation of evangelicals acknowledge for the most part we lost those wars (many of us argue we should never have been involved in the first place) and will be unlikely to continue pushing for such overt political power. One good quote a lot of my friends and I like:

    “When Christians become political, those we should be serving become our enemies.”
     
  20. amek

    amek Fourth Year

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    122
    Gender:
    Male
    High Score:
    0
    @pbluekan
    Yeh I meant that comparing the profit the government made vs the fall out of the recession (and the fact that even so soon after the regulations on the banks are already being loosened)
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Sesc
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    1,544
  2. Xiph0
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,511
  3. Dark Belra
    Replies:
    136
    Views:
    19,905
  4. DR
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,235
  5. DR
    Replies:
    48
    Views:
    8,470