Any chance to turn the US into a democracy?

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The way I've seen it explained is ... Democrats liberalise the culture, increase the size of the state and implement regulations that help corporate interests, while promising and failing to do anything about reigning in corporate interests, wealth inequality and neocon wars. Republicans remove regulations that are getting in the way of corporations and go on neocon adventures, while failing to reign in any of the social changes implemented by Democrats or reduce the size of the state.

You see people say that Leviathan always swims left. I think it's more like Leviathan always tacks towards increasing centralisation of power and the destruction of societal structures, traditions and ties that sit between the centralised power and the increasingly fungible, deracinated individual as consumer.

If you've been paying attention lately, the Dems are really starting to become the party of corporate America. More than anything else they want stability, not an angry mob storming the capital. The GoP used to be the party of "corporate personhood" but the very second any corporation says something they don't like then its threats of higher taxes, regulation, and ending any subsidies. The GoP is only pro-freedom when those freedoms are exercised in ways they approve of. They have become fascists.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

To accomplish what?

Blue states are failing. They do not achieve their own goals, even when Republicans have no power to provide any real opposition.

I think in aggregate democrats prefer blue state policies to red states and vice versa. I wouldn't call that failing.

Also, it appears the blue states have higher GDP per Capita than red states. That is one big success.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by EaglePuncher

Ziggurat looking at the evidence.

Go on, then. Explain to me why states where Democrats completely dominate government consistently fail to live up to professed Democrat values.

It isn't because of Republicans, that much is obvious.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I think in aggregate democrats prefer blue state policies to red states and vice versa. I wouldn't call that failing.

When your policies don't achieve your stated goals, then that's a failure.

Blue states aren't actually achieving many core Democrat goals. Why?

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

To accomplish what?

Blue states are failing. They do not achieve their own goals, even when Republicans have no power to provide any real opposition. What would a general strike accomplish, that voting Democrats into power has consistently failed to do? What exactly is being demanded, and who exactly is it being demanded of?

I keep seeing Republicans being blamed in this thread for everything, but it doesn't actually square with the evidence. And in case there's any confusion on this point, I'm not saying Democrats are to blame for everything either, or that Republicans are the solution, because there's no reason to think that either. But if you think Republicans or Democrats are the problem, then you don't actually understand the problem at all.

It's painfully obvious who is trashing US democracy, vacuous obfuscation notwithstanding.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by uke2se

No, what I see is people who would rather devote their partipation in yet another thread to "owning" each other rather than face the very real problems in their country with any form of productivity.

Has anyone called for a general strike yet? Is there any organizing taking place towards acheiving that? If only urban Democrats striked it would shut the country down. If people on the left also participated, it would be a revolution.

A "general strike"? Seriously, what are you talking about? Urban Democrats going on strike for some murky cause and shutting the county down? A revolution? Sounds really noble.

This is as laughable as the smuggling women to Canada and hiding POC ideas you were peddling earlier. No doubt some Democrats will take this discussion seriously, though...all while being critical of Republicans and their "kooky" ideas.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Go on, then. Explain to me why states where Democrats completely dominate government consistently fail to live up to professed Democrat values.

Why exactly are you engaging in "proof by video"?

We don't accept that sort of thing from 9/11 conspiracy believers or anti-vaxxers. (Hey! Watch this 2 hour video, and you will find evidence that proves my point!) If you have a point to make, put it in your own words (or find a written reference) so it can be properly discussed and/or refuted.

[The Great Zaganza]

If your State is unable to maintain its power grid, that's failing.

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Go on, then. Explain to me why states where Democrats completely dominate government consistently fail to live up to professed Democrat values.

It isn't because of Republicans, that much is obvious.

To you, that is.

ETA: I did not even click on the video. Make your point or admit that you are just ranting.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

When your policies don't achieve your stated goals, then that's a failure.

Blue states aren't actually achieving many core Democrat goals. Why?

What policies do you think are not achieving the stated goal?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by EaglePuncher

To you, that is.

ETA: I did not even click on the video. Make your point or admit that you are just ranting.

Take a quick guess as to who made the video. Was it Fox News? Breitbart? InfoWars?

It's the New York Times. The authors agree with stated Democrat policy objectives.

And I made my point pretty explicitly: Democratic states, where Democrats control government by large margins such that they can enact whatever policies they want to regardless of Republican opposition, consistently fail to actually achieve stated Democratic objectives. And yes, when states where Republicans have no political control fail to achieve Democratic policy objectives, how can Republicans possibly be responsible for that? It should be obvious to everyone, not just me, that they cannot be.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

What policies do you think are not achieving the stated goal?

Examples given in the video are affordable housing, progressive taxation, and equal opportunities in public education.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

If your State is unable to maintain its power grid, that's failing.

Yes, that is a failure. As I said already, I'm not under the illusion that Republicans are the solution. Arnold didn't really solve California's electrical grid problems, even though those problems were in large part what swept him into office.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Take a quick guess as to who made the video. Was it Fox News? Breitbart? InfoWars?

It's the New York Times. The authors agree with stated Democrat policy objectives.

And I made my point pretty explicitly: Democratic states, where Democrats control government by large margins such that they can enact whatever policies they want to regardless of Republican opposition, consistently fail to actually achieve stated Democratic objectives. And yes, when states where Republicans have no political control fail to achieve Democratic policy objectives, how can Republicans possibly be responsible for that? It should be obvious to everyone, not just me, that they cannot be.

Well, there is the tiny issue that Red States receive more money from the Federal Government than they pay in federal taxes, due to Republicans in Congress.
And many Democrat agendas are supposed to be decided on the Federal Level, which again fails due to Republican obstructionism.

So I'd put 75% blame on State Democrats, and 25% on Federal Republicans.

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Take a quick guess as to who made the video. Was it Fox News? Breitbart? InfoWars?

It's the New York Times. The authors agree with stated Democrat policy objectives.

And I made my point pretty explicitly: Democratic states, where Democrats control government by large margins such that they can enact whatever policies they want to regardless of Republican opposition, consistently fail to actually achieve stated Democratic objectives. And yes, when states where Republicans have no political control fail to achieve Democratic policy objectives, how can Republicans possibly be responsible for that? It should be obvious to everyone, not just me, that they cannot be.

"I really really want the stuff I say to be true"

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Well, there is the tiny issue that Red States receive more money from the Federal Government than they pay in federal taxes, due to Republicans in Congress.

That has jack **** to do with it. None of the problems discussed in that video depend on federal funding in any way whatsoever.

Look, I don't care if you think Democrats are better than Republicans, or vice versa. I don't care if you prefer Democratic policies to Republican policies, or vice versa. I don't care if you think things would be better if Democrats were in charge or if Republicans were in charge. These are normal political disagreements which have always existed, they are nothing new.

But there are problems in the US which transcend political parties, problems which cannot be solved by simply electing the party of your choice. I'm not saying you need to elect the opposition party either. But if you cannot recognize these problems, if you cannot recognize that electing the party of your choice will not solve them, then there is no chance that they will be solved.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That has jack **** to do with it. None of the problems discussed in that video depend on federal funding in any way whatsoever.

Look, I don't care if you think Democrats are better than Republicans, or vice versa. I don't care if you prefer Democratic policies to Republican policies, or vice versa. I don't care if you think things would be better if Democrats were in charge or if Republicans were in charge. These are normal political disagreements which have always existed, they are nothing new.

But there are problems in the US which transcend political parties, problems which cannot be solved by simply electing the party of your choice. I'm not saying you need to elect the opposition party either. But if you cannot recognize these problems, if you cannot recognize that electing the party of your choice will not solve them, then there is no chance that they will be solved.

...which is why I put most of the blame on Democrats. California is a ****-show in terms of Housing, fully in the power of Dems to solve.

but its Water Problems are mainly caused by its Red parts.
So I think you need to be a bit more nuanced.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

This is not an insoluble problem, it's just not pleasant to solve. The partition of India was achieved despite these issues.

The partition of India is a peculiar model. It looks like something we'd want to avoid to me.

Quote:

The same issues exist in Europe where many countries have the system you want.

This isn't especially true. Affective polarization is decreasing in much of Europe. I believe the UK is an exception, but they, too, have resisted adopting 20th century electoral innovations.

Quote:

It's the same basic issue of a metropolitan elite, and associated client groups, with a radically different ethical understanding of the world to the non-metropolitan parts of the country. You have the same processes of the client groups of the metropolitan elites continually growing through immigration.

This is might be true, but it's reductive to regard this as the only factor in ideological segmentation.

Quote:

If something like proportional representation works, I guess it is by some kind of Tower of Babel process. By having people associate themselves with tiny parties, you keep the public from combining along party lines and the process of compromise is taken behind closed doors in Washington where it can be managed.

It also works by largely foreclosing on demonization of one party's membership by the other as a successful electoral strategy.

[JoeMorgue]

And now we're back to a "civil debate" with people who already admitted their ulterior motives, indeed who were never really hiding them in the first place.

The mask slipping doesn't matter if they get to put it right back on.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I'm not sure that one side of the culture war gets to unilaterally tell the other what the "real issues" are. More than that though, to say that these issues are unconnected involves applying some kind of historical, cultural narrative. The two sides of the culture war have two different narratives. The progressive side tends to regard issues discreetly, the conservative side is more prone to regard them as connected into a social fabric.

Are M&Ms and Dr. Seuss sufficiently intertwined in the social fabric for the Right to get their knickers in a twist over? Especially when it is the maker and property holder, respectively, who initiated change, and not some hated outside force such as the nebulous commiesocialistlibtards pulling strings?

I see many cultures war issues the Repubs screech about as being comically irrelevant in the greater scheme. Observed from the outside, it reeks of the sophomoric whining of indolent Karens and Darrens who desperately need something always to bitch and moan about. All while the madhouse tumbles down about their ears.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by uke2se

I am pretty sure I already know the answer to the question in the title, but I'd like to see it discussed. What would it take for a return of democracy to the US? By democracy, I mean majority rule by consent of the goverened with actual ways to remedy grievances through elections.

Sounds like you are going to be a big fan of Samuel Alito's upcoming decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

[Lurch]

Perhaps what the US needs, after so many decades of the comparative quietude and stability that too easily engenders complacency, is an existential threat by which to bind the populace together. In the way Dec. 7 '41 did, for instance. I suppose 9/11 served a similar but limited function, for a brief moment.

These days, an event as distant and removed from daily life as the Russian adventure just cannot fill the bill. Certainly where the national division has degraded to the point of some part of the American citizenry sympathizing with a despotic invader.

[BobTheCoward]

Legislators can literally choose to appoint electors. The US is truly not a democracy.

[tyr_13]

Arguing that blue states are failing because they're trying to help people but not always living up to that attempt, while red states are not because they're not even trying, is simply formalizing the 'you're wrong to have standards' nihilism.

Yeah, housing the homeless is more difficult than putting them in prison or shooting brown people at a Wal-Mart. The right being evil isn't mitigating; it's aggravating. Of course being aggravating is the point, isn't it?

This relates to the OP's question in that one way to help is to call out the game. Don't run from it. The right are being immoral and wrong, and calling them on it when they are isn't wrong just because they will fight it. Have the damn fight.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Arguing that blue states are failing because they're trying to help people but not always living up to that attempt

You didn't watch the video, did you? The point is that in many cases, they aren't even trying.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You didn't watch the video, did you? The point is that in many cases, they aren't even trying.

Right, that will solve the GOP being fascists, the Dems aren't fixing homelessness. The Dems are often useless and not nearly enough people punish the do-nothings in primaries. And? That isn't the threat to our republic.

Again, this is just formalizing a nihilistic argument. The Dems aren't helping enough is not the same as the GOP subverting the vote and the whole host of other ills they push. It certainly isn't 'blue states failing' in the context of who is doing better at governing, the left or the right.

The right finds leveraging US aid to allies for personal political gain acceptable. Such 'winning' isn't fit to lick the boots of people who fail to help the homeless.

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I am voting Republican because I don't care for the liberal vision of this country. It is that simple. I am not going to get into every little policy; I think I have voiced my opinion on many, in other threads.

In a nutshell, I'm sick of liberals. I love their anguish, these days. And since all they do is bitch and moan about how bad the USA is (while driving it further into a ditch), and screech about how much conservatives suck, I want to see them fail and suffer.

You vote Republican, because you want rights and freedoms stripped from segments of the population you don't view as people. AKA: 'Split Tails' and citzens who were born from illegal immigrants.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Right, that will solve the GOP being fascists, the Dems aren't fixing homelessness.

I've done what I can. You are determined to not understand. There's no point in further discussion.

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Whatever. Democrats are the party of illegals, unbridled abortion, and chicks with wangs. Not to mention any other 10 issues that we could debate until the end of time. I'll take some batspit crazy Republicans over that insanity...every day. At least with those Republicans people call them crazy...the liberals are just called...liberals.

We have a fascist in our midst One Party conservative rule in the US! The Warp12 way!

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I've done what I can. You are determined to not understand. There's no point in further discussion.

No, you've not done what you can. You still defend the GOP. There isn't a close call here. It isn't 'debatable'.

'The blue states have failed because they aren't all addressing homelessness like they promised!

Are red states?

No and they don't even want to, so they are winning.'

The problem is I do understand. Being evil isn't better than having standards. You yourself know that you have to add the qualification 'aren't always trying' because in many places they are, and succeeding. You aren't quite to the post-fact standards of the right yet, but you'll get there.

As long as you refuse to do what you can, the US won't turn things around. You will never meaningfully oppose the GOP and they know it. This is why they'll continue to oppose free and fair elections and get away with extorting countries like Ukraine.

The dems suck, but the failure on the US is more on people like you Zigg, and you'll never even realize it. The GOP supports overturning elections based on lies and you're accepting it. Not even just accepting it, running interference for it. Congrats on the destruction of the US. We were too concerned with looking fair to stop the fascists.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Congrats on the destruction of the US. We were too concerned with looking fair to stop the fascists.

I can’t imagine how upsetting it must be to actually believe all this.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by uke2se

this thread isn't supposed to be about speculating on pie-in-the-sky scenarios of how that could happen, but rather what a normal person can do today.

Then the question is utterly absurd. This isn't a town with a three stop-signs and a town hall that also serves as the livestock auction center. It's hundreds of millions of people and usually getting flooded with a few million more per year.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Blue states aren't actually achieving many core Democrat goals. Why?

Because the difference between the parties is only in the masses, not most of the politicians. Most Democrat politicians are functionally Republicans.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

When your policies don't achieve your stated goals, then that's a failure.

Or dishonesty.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I can’t imagine how upsetting it must be to actually believe all this.

The bright side is that, although your kind will keep making everything worse for at least the next twenty years, there's a chance it will start to turn around... when:
•The current crop of do-anything-to-lose-at-all costs Democrat "leadership" is finally out of their own party's way
•The current generation of lead-headed oldtimers getting radicalized by FoxBook are finally out of everybody else's way
•The following generation of both commoners and politicians hits "retirement age" with a level of political power they never had before because of the first two points and no way to actually retire other than to actually start fixing things

[EaglePuncher]

Quote:

If a poll showed that 93% of Americans wanted to live, living would fail 49-51 in the Senate.

A quote I stole from Twitter.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Delvo

The bright side is that, although your kind will keep making everything worse for at least the next twenty years, there's a chance it will start to turn around... when:
•The current crop of do-anything-to-lose-at-all costs Democrat "leadership" is finally out of their own party's way
•The current generation of lead-headed oldtimers getting radicalized by FoxBook are finally out of everybody else's way
•The following generation of both commoners and politicians hits "retirement age" with a level of political power they never had before because of the first two points and no way to actually retire other than to actually start fixing things

I am skeptical that aging out of current leadership will necessarily mean a change in tactics. Individuals die, but the political machines they leave behind can live quite a bit longer. It's not hard to find younger people cut in the same cloth as current geriatric leadership. I imagine a lot of these people already have hand-picked successors waiting in the wings.

There's a reason why the Democratic party is the way it is, and it's not just because they're frozen back in time by geriatric leadership. There are tons of incentives for them to behave the way they do in their roles, and those incentives will remain after individuals retire or die in office.

I would not assume that ageing out of leadership, or even a series of resounding losses in the near future, will do much to change things on its own. The next few decades could simply be the story of neoliberal politics lost in the wilderness, safe in a few deep blue constituencies but totally unable to grow their support and capture majority power.

[JoeMorgue]

The problem is the Republican HAVE a ready replacement for the old farts, the new nihilistic troll farts.

"Eventually they will just die off" only worked for old school, political Republicanism.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The problem is the Republican HAVE a ready replacement for the old farts, the new nihilistic troll farts.

"Eventually they will just die off" only worked for old school, political Republicanism.

I think people also overestimate how much individual personalities matter. These politicians are simply the figurehead of larger machines.

Dianne Feinstein's brains are running down her ears, but I really doubt that it impacts her ability to function as a Senator. her staff is still doing all the work, she stills shows up for photoshoots and other fundraising efforts, and the machine makes sure she votes the way she is supposed to.

These people are empty suits.

[Delvo]

"Aging out" alone wouldn't do anything, but what can do something is the next round behind them being more likely to see the current party machine as trapping them and sinking the party, and thus being motivated to drop it, instead of treating it as hallowed and sanctified above all else like the current bunch.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Delvo

"Aging out" along wouldn't do anything, but what can do something is the next round behind them being more likely to see the current party machine as trapping them and sinking the party, and thus being motivated to drop it, instead of treating it as hallowed and sanctified above all else.

The incentives of people in hotly contested seats and those in deep blue seats are quite different. I would expect a lot more agitation motivated by what you describe to come from Democrats in competitive races.

For the former, being in a safe seat in a minority party is a pretty sweet gig. You're not expected to do much and you're not worried about losing your job.