Continuation The Biden Presidency (3)

[Delvo]

I've seen a couple of takes on the Supreme Court's anti-abortion decision that it might actually harm the Republican cause, by pissing off so many people, including many who weren't even really following politics because it seemed like nothing would ever change but would now be snapped out of it and realize that things are changing for the worse.

I doubt it. They might be underestimating the extent to which the Democrats' constant uselessness has already made people completely give up and beaten out of them any hope, not just that things will ever get better, but that they won't keep getting worse. If they're already at the latter position, then they can't be "snapped out of it" from the former to the latter.

Also, even if they're right, celebrating too soon sends the ghouls on the court a signal that they had the wrong strategy and gives them a chance to adjust.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Susheel

The problem is that, {dudalb}'s interpretation of Beelzebuddy's stance seems to be a product of the poster's paranoid fantasy more than anything else.

...like any other Republican propaganda from any other Republican propagandist.

(misread the quote at first; fixed now)

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by Delvo

The problem is that, this interpretation of {dudalb}'s stance seems to be a product of the poster's paranoid fantasy more than anything else..

I don't know why you corrected my original and replaced "Beelzebuddy" with "dudalb". Since it was "dudalb" who was creatively (dare I say dishonestly?) interpreting what Beelzebuddy was saying.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Yes, shutting out charismatic, passionate young party members on the off chance people will end up liking them more than you is a much more sensible approach.

I mean, if the Dems have some political forecast showing that they can win by leaning on older voters and totally alienating the youth, that's fine I guess. It's pretty obvious this isn't the case though.

The problem is more that they continue to get their asses kicked and keep blaming the voters for being insufficiently loyal, rather than doing the least bit of introspection about whether their own policies and tactics are politically viable.

The Democratic party cannot fail, it can only be failed by ungrateful young voters who refuse to do their duty to the party.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Quote:

The Institutionalist's Dilemma
On trusting the process after it's openly failed

...

To paraphrase our former president, I want to be clear: “Vote harder” is not a bad message because it’s untrue. If more people voted for Democrats they would win more elections, and my preference is that Democrats win more elections than Republicans. “Vote harder” is a bad message because it’s annoying, and annoying people is a bad way to make them want to vote for you. At this point, it’s also clear that it’s bad messaging because it’s insufficient. A larger Democratic majority next year might pass a law protecting abortion rights. Barring a massive sea change in how Democrats govern, that hypothetical Congressional majority has no hope whatsoever of protecting that law from the existing Supreme Court majority.

One of the more consequential contradictions of the Democratic Party is that the vast majority of its staffers, consultants, electeds, and media avatars, along with a substantial portion of its electoral base, are institutionalists. They believe, broadly, in The System. The System worked for them, and if The System’s outputs are bad, it is because we need more of the right sort of people to join or be elected to enter The System. But when the party does manage to win majorities, it depends on support from a substantial number of anti-system people. Barack Obama defeated the Clintons with this sacred knowledge, before he started reading David Brooks.

https://theap.substack.com/p/the-ins...ts-dilemma?s=w

The Dem establishment faces a real problem, because even if their current "vote blue" strategy actually works, it won't matter to the right wing SCOTUS that will still force their minoritarian will onto the population.

Over and over again we're seeing that being defenders of the political system as it exists and being a defenders of liberal (small L) values are at cross purposes. The system itself is failing, and the Democrats refuse to acknowledge that or act accordingly.

The problem that the Dems face in future elections is that even if they are successful at the ballot box, they are doomed to fail due to the constraints they are placing on themselves in service of a wholly corrupt and inadequate system. You can't blame people for not being enthusiastic about such a pointless exercise.

Quote:

Institutionalists, in my experience, have trouble reaching an anti-system person, because they think being against The System is an inherently adolescent and silly mindset. But believing in things like “the integrity of the Supreme Court” has proven to be, I think, much sillier, and much more childish.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

even if their current "vote blue" strategy actually works, it won't matter to the right wing SCOTUS that will still force their minoritarian will onto the population.

They can rule, but they can't enforce. There have been times in American history before when the Supreme Court's decisions were taken as advisory, not The Way It Must Be. We need to do the same again now, not only because the way they'll vote is minoritarian and crazy and destructive, or because two of the the votes for abortion in this latest case were the rapist and the sexual harasser married to a seditionist, but also because the last couple of them were appointed/approved illegitimately anyway.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Delvo

They can rule, but they can't enforce. There have been times in American history before when the Supreme Court's decisions were taken as advisory, not The Way It Must Be. We need to do the same again now, not only because the way they'll vote is minoritarian and crazy and destructive, or because two of the the votes for abortion in this latest case were the rapist and the sexual harasser married to a seditionist, but also because the last couple of them were appointed/approved illegitimately anyway.

Oh, I don't mean to say there's nothing a Democratic majority could do about this problem, just that there is nothing they would do. Even now we have Manchin and Sinema refusing to do away with the filibuster that is preventing a majority of the Senate from passing a federal pro-choice law. Absolute madness.

The Democratic party may be the last group of people in this country pretending that the system (registered trademark) is legitimate. The Republicans rightly understand that we're playing calvinball and the rules don't matter.

The party simply refuses to acknowledge that there is a growing legitimacy crisis in our political system, which only exasperates the problem.

[The Great Zaganza]

The DOJ could (after all, it's been asked to by McConnell) start poking around the Supreme Court, especially Alito's office (where the ruling was written) to look for anything and everything "suspicious".
Shouldn't be long before they find something that requires a constant DOJ presence in the offices of all right-wing judges.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Biden doing a photo op with Christian Smalls (the amazon union organizer) and other union reps unironically kicks ass.

Shining some Presidential star power on union battles could really do a lot of good, and it requires no cooperation from the paralyzed legislature. Here's hoping more of this from Biden in the future.

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1522304054084390914

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Delvo

I've seen a couple of takes on the Supreme Court's anti-abortion decision that it might actually harm the Republican cause, by pissing off so many people, including many who weren't even really following politics because it seemed like nothing would ever change but would now be snapped out of it and realize that things are changing for the worse.

I doubt it. They might be underestimating the extent to which the Democrats' constant uselessness has already made people completely give up and beaten out of them any hope, not just that things will ever get better, but that they won't keep getting worse. If they're already at the latter position, then they can't be "snapped out of it" from the former to the latter.

Also, even if they're right, celebrating too soon sends the ghouls on the court a signal that they had the wrong strategy and gives them a chance to adjust.

It is astonishing to me how easily Republicans seem to be able to bounce back from what should be irredeemable setbacks.

[Tero]

Originally Posted by Delvo

They can rule, but they can't enforce. There have been times in American history before when the Supreme Court's decisions were taken as advisory, not The Way It Must Be. We need to do the same again now, not only because the way they'll vote is minoritarian and crazy and destructive, or because two of the the votes for abortion in this latest case were the rapist and the sexual harasser married to a seditionist, but also because the last couple of them were appointed/approved illegitimately anyway.

It's rare. There is an incident from 1942 with Roosevelt ignoring the court.

But with abortion, the power falls on the states now so there is almost nothing the feds can do. Texas with the vigilante law may see that they cannot do anything about abortions in other states or act on residents of other states.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Delvo

I've seen a couple of takes on the Supreme Court's anti-abortion decision that it might actually harm the Republican cause, by pissing off so many people...

I doubt it. They might be underestimating the extent to which the Democrats' constant uselessness has already made people completely give up

And now there's a poll confirming my suspicion: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/07/polit...ade/index.html

The news hasn't affected the coming electoral picture. People are angry about it, but that's not generating Democrat votes because people know the Democrats didn't do anything about it before when they had the chances and aren't doing anything about it now either, or even bothering to put on a show of pretending to try to do anything... or even come up with an excuse that isn't just more servitude to the Republican machine. The Republicans did hand them something for free on this, but it wasn't votes; it was an opportunity to earn votes. And the Democrats have steadfastly refused, again, as always.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Delvo

And now there's a poll confirming my suspicion: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/07/polit...ade/index.html

The news hasn't affected the coming electoral picture. People are angry about it, but that's not generating Democrat votes because people know the Democrats didn't do anything about it before when they had the chances and aren't doing anything about it now either, or even bothering to put on a show of pretending to try to do anything... or even come up with an excuse that isn't just more servitude to the Republican machine. The Republicans did hand them something for free on this, but it wasn't votes; it was an opportunity to earn votes. And the Democrats have steadfastly refused, again, as always.

Immediately after the news broke they sent out texts and emails asking for donations, now this week they're telling protestors to not be so rude.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Delvo

And now there's a poll confirming my suspicion: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/07/polit...ade/index.html

The news hasn't affected the coming electoral picture. People are angry about it, but that's not generating Democrat votes because people know the Democrats didn't do anything about it before when they had the chances and aren't doing anything about it now either, or even bothering to put on a show of pretending to try to do anything... or even come up with an excuse that isn't just more servitude to the Republican machine. The Republicans did hand them something for free on this, but it wasn't votes; it was an opportunity to earn votes. And the Democrats have steadfastly refused, again, as always.

WHEN, exactly, did Democrats have a chance to do anything about it?
What chance do they have to do more than they are already doing now?

Voters can't admit that it's their fault for not electing HRC (the SINGLE reason why this happened).

[Delvo]

Every time they've had the Presidency & legislature since the original ruling.

That includes not only cases when they said they'd pass a law on it but didn't, but also the present, during which they might not have enough votes but also won't even hold the vote anyway just to be seen trying and Biden won't even say it would be worth sacrificing his precious holy Republican-serving filibuster, even in reponse to this moment when it just became an emergency.

Nevermind fighting for a principled position on a major issue; they won't even put on a below-bare-minimum act at trying ro salvage their own electoral position.

Year after year of doing nothing but help the Republicans and make sure their own promises are never kept because then they couldn't keep dangling them in front of us, and they act like there's some mystery about why their base is giving up... or tell the voters it's the voters' fault, because that's such a brilliantly effective political message.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

WHEN, exactly, did Democrats have a chance to do anything about it?
What chance do they have to do more than they are already doing now?

Voters can't admit that it's their fault for not electing HRC (the SINGLE reason why this happened).

Considering Democrats had a super majority during some of the Obama years, that seems the obvious time. I mean, they passed the ACA into law with 0 Republican votes. It's simply ahistorical to suggest they could not have done so if the Democratic party had the will to do so.

If you're looking for one single individual whose decisions could have averted this current disaster, there's no better candidate than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who refused to strategically retire and died on the bench allowing a Republican to pick her replacement. The same supermajority in the Obama years could have appointed her successor had she not decided to roll the dice with all our futures.

The coming decision is reportedly a 5-4 to outright overturn. If RGB hadn't blundered, the court wouldn't have 5 votes. They would would have to take a less radical approach in order to woo Roberts, but outright overturning of Roe seems unlikely if RBG hadn't been such an idiot.

[The Great Zaganza]

Dems are not responsible for what RGB didn't do.

And, given by what flimsy pretext Alito used to cancel Roe v Wade, should we honestly believe that a far-right 5/4 majority wouldn't have overturned an Obama pro-Abortion law?

Seriously, this is NOT the Dems fault.
Plenty is, but not this. This would never have happened if Voters didn't decide that HRC was so bad that throwing away at least two SC seats was totally worth not electing her.

[Delvo]

RBG = a former Supreme Court Justice

RGB = a color encoding format (red-green-blue, asopposed to HSV, hue-saturation-value)

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Dems are not responsible for what RGB didn't do.

And, given by what flimsy pretext Alito used to cancel Roe v Wade, should we honestly believe that a far-right 5/4 majority wouldn't have overturned an Obama pro-Abortion law?

Seriously, this is NOT the Dems fault.
Plenty is, but not this. This would never have happened if Voters didn't decide that HRC was so bad that throwing away at least two SC seats was totally worth not electing her.

Somehow I don't doubt conservative justices feel a bit beholden to the Republican party. Perhaps liberal justices should stop pretending they aren't politicians and act responsibly to the party that supports them. Dems are absolutely responsible for the actions of their appointed justices, and any potential candidate that doesn't understand what a monumentally stupid decision RBG made should be instantly disqualified for advancement.

Yes, I've heard it all before. The party cannot fail, only be failed. It's not anyone's fault that HRC was a uniquely unpopular candidate that got trounced by a C-tier game show host, it's the voters' fault.

[Delvo]

Countering a pruor court ruling is an entirely different beast from doing it to a passed law.

And the demotivating factor for HRC's potential voters wasn't just about her. It was about her positiins on big-picture stuff, like refusing to admit that we have problems in need of fixing or separate herself from years & years of Democrat uselessness (at best).

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Delvo

RBG = a former Supreme Court Justice

RGB = a color encoding format (red-green-blue, asopposed to HSV, hue-saturation-value)

I take full responsibility for the shortcomings of my spell checker and do not at all try to deflect blame.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Biden doing a photo op with Christian Smalls (the amazon union organizer) and other union reps unironically kicks ass.

Shining some Presidential star power on union battles could really do a lot of good, and it requires no cooperation from the paralyzed legislature. Here's hoping more of this from Biden in the future.

So of course, within a few hours of that, he renewed a multi-billion-dollar government contract with Amazon, just like he'd said he wouldn't do.

Originally Posted by Venom

It is astonishing to me how easily Republicans seem to be able to bounce back from what should be irredeemable setbacks.

They've been catering to their base, not beating it down with a sneer.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Immediately after the news broke they sent out texts and emails asking for donations, now this week they're telling protestors to not be so rude.

And the donations they took in this time were a fraction of what they took in on previous comparable occasions. Their schtick just isn't schticking like it did before.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

.....
Voters can't admit that it's their fault for not electing HRC (the SINGLE reason why this happened).

Well, if you want to go down that road, you might note that at a time when anti-establishmentarians Sanders and Trump were filling stadiums, the Democrats short-circuited the primary process and anointed one of the most controversial and unpopular faces of the old politics, and then she ran such a miserable campaign that voters who actually supported her stayed home because they believed she was a guaranteed sure thing. I remain convinced that some people voted for Trump as a "pox on both your houses" protest without imagining that he could actually win. I don't think Trump could have beaten any other Democrat.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Well, if you want to go down that road, you might note that at a time when anti-establishmentarians Sanders and Trump were filling stadiums, the Democrats short-circuited the primary process and anointed one of the most controversial and unpopular faces of the old politics, and then she ran such a miserable campaign that voters who actually supported her stayed home because they believed she was a guaranteed sure thing. I remain convinced that some people voted for Trump as a "pox on both your houses" protest without imagining that he could actually win. I don't think Trump could have beaten any other Democrat.

You are making my point.

[Joecool]

Originally Posted by Delvo

They can rule, but they can't enforce. There have been times in American history before when the Supreme Court's decisions were taken as advisory, not The Way It Must Be. We need to do the same again now, not only because the way they'll vote is minoritarian and crazy and destructive, or because two of the the votes for abortion in this latest case were the rapist and the sexual harasser married to a seditionist, but also because the last couple of them were appointed/approved illegitimately anyway.

I recall, when same sex marriage was approved. It was celebrated as the "law of the land". I didn't agree with it but accepted it as the ruling was made by SCOTUS.

But the democrat way is to view the ruling as "advisory" or to try and add more SCOTUS members so they can attain the outcome they desire, never mind the constitution.

That's like opening Pandora's box, especially when it looks like the dems are likely going to get shellacked in the mid terms.

[Stacyhs]

When R v W was passed, it became the law of the land. The idea of it being overturned was considered almost impossible:

Quote:

Historically, the US Supreme Court rarely overturns decisions. In fact, in its 232-year history, it has done so only 233 times. That might sound high, but consider this: Between 1946 and 2020, there were 9,095 decisions made by the high court. In that time, data from the US Government Publishing Office show 161 overturned decisions. That’s fewer than 2% of rulings that overturn prior decisions in whole or in part.

The last time the Dems had enough votes to codify R v W was the first two years of Obama's administration, when they were fighting for the ACA which which was a lot more important at the time and fighting to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. But now we have the usual whining about the Dems again. Sheesh.

Yeah, so "uniquely unpopular" HRC that she still got almost 3 million more votes than Trump. So, once again it's the Dems' fault.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Joecool

I recall, when same sex marriage was approved. It was celebrated as the "law of the land". I didn't agree with it but accepted it as the ruling was made by SCOTUS.

But the democrat way is to view the ruling as "advisory" or to try and add more SCOTUS members so they can attain the outcome they desire, never mind the constitution.

That's like opening Pandora's box, especially when it looks like the dems are likely going to get shellacked in the mid terms.

Was same sex marriage the law of the land for 50 years and then snatched away from same sex couples reducing them once again to being at the mercy of others' beliefs in controlling their lives?

Did same-sex marriage keep you from controlling your own body? Just how did it affect your life? Were you forced to marry a guy? But you 'accepted it'. How very big of you.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Next generation covid vaccines that are designed to be effective against the more current strains are in jeopardy because there is not enough public funding for them.

Quote:

Pfizer and Moderna are developing redesigned vaccines that target the omicron variant’s mutations to boost protection against infection. The current shots are still targeting the original virus strain that first emerged in Wuhan, China, in 2019. As the virus has evolved over the past two years, the vaccines have become less effective at preventing mild illness, though they generally still protect against severe disease.

The Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision by early summer at the latest on whether the U.S. should switch to the redesigned shots for a fall vaccination campaign, with its advisory committee set to hold a meeting on June 28 to discuss the issue.

However, the U.S. currently does not have enough money to purchase the new shots for everybody in the U.S. ahead of the fall, the official said. The U.S. Senate has failed so far to pass $10 billion in additional Covid funding for vaccines, therapeutics and testing despite Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen Mitt Romney, R-Utah, striking a deal in early April. The $10 billion Senate deal is less than half the $22.5 billion the White House originally requested.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/09/us-w...e-funding.html

I guess nobody told them that covid's over.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

When R v W was passed, it became the law of the land. The idea of it being overturned was considered almost impossible:



The last time the Dems had enough votes to codify R v W was the first two years of Obama's administration, when they were fighting for the ACA which which was a lot more important at the time and fighting to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. But now we have the usual whining about the Dems again. Sheesh.

Yeah, so "uniquely unpopular" HRC that she still got almost 3 million more votes than Trump. So, once again it's the Dems' fault.

And for all the political capital of that supermajority, we got the Heritage Foundation healthcare plan and a sluggish recovery.

Yes, yes, I know "obstructionists" stopped us. The problem with that is, the Republicans seem to get a lot of their policies enacted with smaller majorities or even without a majority at all.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

And for all the political capital of that supermajority, we got the Heritage Foundation healthcare plan and a sluggish recovery.

Yes, yes, I know "obstructionists" stopped us. The problem with that is, the Republicans seem to get a lot of their policies enacted with smaller majorities or even without a majority at all.

Not to mention the rotating villains within the Democratic party itself that puts a hard limit on how progressive any proposal can be

The best you can hope for is that a Democratic party supermajority will pass some bill that, a couple decades ago, was proposed by the conservatives. Anything better than that and the conservative members within the Democratic party will squash it.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

And for all the political capital of that supermajority, we got the Heritage Foundation healthcare plan and a sluggish recovery.

When you have that much control, you simply do what you want as quickly as you want, and then do the next thing you wanted, and then the next. (The Republicans will promptly demonstrate this for us all after they win the legislature and the Democrats hand them another round of letting the Republicans pick the Democrats' Presidential candidate for them again to make sure it's the worst one they can find again.) There is no "fighting" with opponents who couldn't stop you no matter what they did on one thing and thus becoming helpless on another thing. Anything somebody might point to and call a "fight" (and not just any fight but such an enormous one that they just can't even try anything else while it's happening) is simply a show to dupe some voters, pretending they ever actually wanted what they are simply choosing not to do and thus proving they don't actually want it. And year after year now, it succeeds in duping a bit fewer people than before.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

And for all the political capital of that supermajority, we got the Heritage Foundation healthcare plan and a sluggish recovery.

Yes, yes, I know "obstructionists" stopped us. The problem with that is, the Republicans seem to get a lot of their policies enacted with smaller majorities or even without a majority at all.

Do the Republicans get much done on a national level ?

I can see that they tried their best to dismantle the ACA and have dealt a blow to Roe vs Wade but the former hardly happened and latter wasn't a legislative win. They have limited power to "undo" things but haven't actually "done" anything for a considerable time. Then again if your entire strategy is simply "stop the Democrats doing anything" then I can see how it's difficult to change gears and actually do something.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by The Don

Do the Republicans get much done on a national level ?

Tax policy, energy policy, trade policy, a few wars lasting 20 years, a wide swath of the judiciary, and control of the state governments that actually control the national-level electoral outcomes so that they can have functional control of it from a narrow constituency.

Minor stuff.

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by Joecool

I recall, when same sex marriage was approved. It was celebrated as the "law of the land". I didn't agree with it but accepted it as the ruling was made by SCOTUS.

But the democrat way is to view the ruling as "advisory" or to try and add more SCOTUS members so they can attain the outcome they desire, never mind the constitution.

That's like opening Pandora's box, especially when it looks like the dems are likely going to get shellacked in the mid terms.

One granted desired rights.

Another strips previously granted rights.

Do you see the difference?

[Delvo]

Not much has been said in here lately. A little roundup of some things that have come up recently without comment here:

►Apparently, he's finally, after all this long long long time, admitting the fact that the opposing party is an oppositional opposing opponent and can not be functionally "worked with". Or at least, he did for that one moment. He'll probably revert, at least partially, more than once. Losing one's religion is usually a gradual process with multiple setbacks along the way, often with some lingering bits & pieces stuck for life. Also note that this epiphany did not come with a sudden determination to do good things without them either; just that he'd supposedly given up trying to get them to cooperate.

►They say he's been "Agonizing" over what to do about student debt. Not long ago, when asked about it at a public appearance, he acted like he'd already decided, telling the person who asked about it that he'd like what Biden was planning to do. Really, it's always been perfectly clear that he doesn't want to do it, so, if he's still "agonizing", then that means he's aware of how important it is for the party's public image; he's not undecided on his own conclusion, but torn between his own certainty of what he wants and his awareness that it's the opposite of what the people want (especially those in the party he claims to be in).

►He announced & then cancelled his Ministry Of Truth in short order, one of the quickest turnarounds ever for a proposed new government office. There are claims that it's because of "right-wing attacks" of the concept, but, since the attacks were actually coming from all sides & edges & corners because the idea was so horrid, I think he really honestly changed his mind and came to understand how horrid it actually was. The idea was a bit of a knee-jerk. We all have those sometimes. It's good to be able to see them for what they are and self-correct.

►Half of his Twitter followers are fake. Apparently famous people can get surprisingly high "fake" follower ratios through no fault of their own because it just develops naturally as a result of how Twitter works (and there's some issue with how that was defined, seemingly including some that were real when they signed up but simply became inactive on Twitter since then), but it's usually well under that ratio. A ratio that high comes from paying for the fakes to be deliberately created to trump up your numbers. Guess whose ratio is significantly higher than Biden's: Elon's.

►The shutdown of the baby formula plant(s) has lasted a strangely long time and will still drag on for a while into the future, not because of Biden, but I think because the process of correcting the deficiencies & restarting is just too bureaucratically inefficient. Now he has used his executive power to get production started at other facilities in the meantime and fly some in from other countries in the meanmeantime. It's a good move, but he should have done it sooner. There was a vote first on a legislative route to achieving similar goals instead of the executive route, but, naturally, the Republicans voted to starve the babies.

[Tero]

Appearances are the odd thing. Biden seems completely ineffective to both parties. And the press. Trump as president was equally ineffective, but his stunts, like a tariff on China made him seem effective. "He is punishing Communist China, like he promised!" I guess you need some showmanship.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Tero

Appearances are the odd thing. Biden seems completely ineffective to both parties. And the press. Trump as president was equally ineffective, but his stunts, like a tariff on China made him seem effective. "He is punishing Communist China, like he promised!" I guess you need some showmanship.

Yes, I think a similar problem plagued Carter, and killed Gore as a candidate. Too thoughtful, not dramatic enough. Thought and care are boring. The public wants drama, big colorful mistakes excused by big florid lies.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by bruto

Yes, I think a similar problem plagued Carter, and killed Gore as a candidate. Too thoughtful, not dramatic enough. Thought and care are boring. The public wants drama, big colorful mistakes excused by big florid lies.

Carter was hurt badly by rising gas prices and the Iran hostage crisis. But Gore actually won the popular vote. in both cases America suffered from their losses.

[SuburbanTurkey]

These last few paragraph's from Sam Adler-Bell's essay about the collapse of the Biden "Disinformation" Board seems a good indictment of the Democratic Party's response to the loss of 2016 and the rise of radical right wing politics generally:

Quote:

Trump’s ascendance in 2016 posed a painful psychic challenge to liberal elites. It suggested the possibility that many millions of Americans were motivated by deep, venomous dissatisfactions with the world they had helped create, that our cultural disagreements were profound, not superficial, and that our perspectives were practically irreconcilable inversions of each other. Political reality seemed to tilt on its axis. How could a man who appeared to them so transparently abhorrent and clownish be welcomed by others as a savior — or at least as a tolerable alternative to the status quo?

“Disinformation” was the liberal Establishment’s traumatic reaction to the psychic wound of 2016. It provided an answer that evaded the question altogether, protecting them from the agony of self-reflection. It wasn’t that the country was riven by profound antinomies and resentments born of material realities that would need to be navigated by new kinds of politics. No, the problem was that large swaths of the country had been duped, brainwashed by nefarious forces both foreign and domestic. And if only the best minds, the most credentialed experts, could be given new authority to regulate the flow of “fake news,” the scales would fall from the eyes of the people and they would re-embrace the old order they had been tricked into despising. This fantasy turned a political problem into a scientific one. The rise of Trump called not for new politics but new technocrats.

Like other pathological reactions to trauma, the disinformation neurosis tended to re-create the conditions that produced the affliction in the first place. (Freud called this “repetition compulsion.”) By doubling down on elite technocracy — and condescension toward the uneducated rubes suffering from false consciousness — liberals have tended to exacerbate the sources of populist hostility. As Joe Bernstein documented in Harper’s last year, the “antidisinformation industry” has attracted massive investment from wealthy Democratic donors, the tech industry, and cash-rich foundations. Hundreds of millions of disinfo dollars are sloshing around the nonprofit world, funding institutes at universities and extravagant conventions across the world. Last month’s “Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy” conference was headlined by Barack Obama and featured Anne Applebaum, David Axelrod, Jeffrey Goldberg, and a lengthy list of other academic, journalistic, and political luminaries. I’m sure very interesting ideas were discussed there. But gathering the leading lights of liberalism to an auditorium at the University of Chicago — so that they together can decide which information is true and safe to be consumed by the rabble outside — strikes me as a hollow exercise in self-soothing, more likely to aggravate the symptoms of our legitimacy crisis (distrust and cynicism) than resolve any of its impasses.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022...t-helping.html

The party simply refuses to believe that the obvious resentment towards the status quo is real, but is rather simply the fault of communication strategies that can be corrected with the right repacking of the same old neoliberal politics.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

These last few paragraph's from Sam Adler-Bell's essay about the collapse of the Biden "Disinformation" Board seems a good indictment of the Democratic Party's response to the loss of 2016 and the rise of radical right wing politics generally:
.....
The party simply refuses to believe that the obvious resentment towards the status quo is real, but is rather simply the fault of communication strategies that can be corrected with the right repacking of the same old neoliberal politics.

Why can't it be both? The Democratic elites have been clueless about legitimate working-class grievances. But that doesn't explain the impact of crazy internet lies. When people refuse to get covid vaccines because they think they're full of microchips, or when they swallow "Stop the Steal," or they embrace Q-Anon, or they think H. Clinton dines on infants in the basement of a pizza parlor, that's the result of false information that would never have gained a foothold in the pre-internet era and it's a real threat to our democracy. Traditional Democrats and Republicans have always had deep policy differences, but they worked from the same facts. No longer.

The worst thing about the "Disinformation Governance Board" was the stupid name, no doubt selected by a committee of bureaucrats. It sounds like a government propaganda agency. If it had been called something like the "Internet Integrity Project" or the "Information Security Conference" nobody would have noticed.