Gryzemuis on 3/3/2020 at 14:20
Question: are the Democrats really an organization ? Or just a bunch of individuals thrown together ? Same question can be asked about the Republicans of course.
I'm asking because it seems the Democrats, as a party, have no strategy for these elections. No consensus, no plan. The same was true for the Republicans in 2016. Trump just rolled in, like a fat orange whale in a China shop, and destroyed everything inside the party. The Republicans did not have a response. They were powerless, clueless. They looked like a bunch of buffoons. They won the elections because the average american voter is dumber than a brick. Not because of anything that the Republican party did.
I'm seeing something similar in the Democratic party. What's their plan to beat Trump ? Also, do they, as a party, have plans on how to rule the country, if they win ? Or does every candidate have its own plans, its own people, its own strategy ? If so, then what are these 2 parties ? Just a sticker to put on individuals ? I know that the Democrats and Republicans have their conventions. What happens there ? Do the conventions decide on anything ? Can party members have a vote on policy or strategy ? Or are the conventions just 4-year events, just for public relations, and to announce their candidate ? It seems like it.
In my country, we have lots of political parties in parliament. Population 17.5M, 150 seats in parliament, 13 parties. The number of parties varies over the years. We had new parties. And old parties merged. But it's always been 10+ parties I think. We don't have a president (we are a country occupied by a tyrant, who calls himself king). We do have a prime-minister. During elections every party has a list of candidates for parliament. The party's council decided who is on the list, and in what order. The party's annual convention of party members picks the council and approves the candidate list. When a party wins the elections, its first candidate usually becomes the next prime-minister. I think it works like this in many other European countries.
So voters can not pick the prime-minister directly. And party-members can not pick the first candidate of their party directly. This has downsides (I like direct democracy). But it also has benefits. A party has to agree on its candidates for parliament. It has to agree on a proposed strategy for the next 4 years. After the elections, usually 2 or more parties have to agree on the new policies for the next 4 years before they can form a new government. All this has the result that stupidities can be ruled out. No bombing attacks by Trump, Bloomberg or other billionaires. No idiots with any political power (although this can not always be prevented in advance). Fewer totally incompetent people in the government.
It seems these stabilizing elements are completely absent in the US political system and in its 2 political parties. Or am I missing something ? Or was it better, and did it just get worse since 2016 ? I remember idiots like GW Bush and Dan Quayle. I remember a senile actor. I remember crooks like Nixon and LBJ. Has the US political system always been this wild-west rodeo event ?
demagogue on 3/3/2020 at 14:46
We're in a populist era, so political action is happening from the bottom-up. It's famously impossible to control or plan bottom-up dynamics. My old Congressman Dick Armey tried to coop the Tea Party, but he was as establishment as establishment gets, so I got to see firsthand how futile it was to say you can control it. Sanders is getting the windfall of left populism, but I wouldn't say he's any more in control of it than the other candidates. And the others only have so much leverage to counter it, whatever they planned.
The US historically has been much more politically stabilized compared to Europe because most politics was local and people didn't usually care much about national politics. I think what set the US up for the current situation is a kind of train of events ... in the 1970s the religious right started organizing, and they targeted state governments, which allowed them to gerrymander the districts controlling national elections. Then things started getting polarized from the 90s and the rise of right media in the 2000s. Those two things made the whole system more vulnerable to populist rampages. But the wildcard that set fire to the whole thing was social media putting people in epistemic bubbles where they only see the "truth" that suits their position, and they get themselves worked up into a froth and the electoral mechanics are already in place waiting for them. We're in a new regime where things don't work like they were intended to, or maybe they're working as intended too well.
Gryzemuis on 3/3/2020 at 15:22
Even when the bottom-up movement is so powerful, the people who moved up to the top should have some influence on the whole system. Otherwise being at the top is meaningless. Do you think the top of the Democratic party is working together ? Or do they just see each other as rivals ? Another factor might be that many political positions are local. I just learned that not only senators are per state, but member of the House too ! So all American politics, except the President, are all about local popularity inside a single state ? No wonder nobody (of the politicians) cares about national politics.
I agree that the rise of Fox News has been the most terrible event in the US in the last fifty years (orders of magnitude worse than 911). But I wonder if social media really have that bad of an impact. Who is on Twitter ? I'm not. Most people I know are not on Twitter. I've always suspected that the only people on Twitter are people who want to sell something, or people doing Public Relations. And the old media of course (newspapers, tv). Because Twitter is a cheap source to get more material. I've seen tv-programs where all that is shown is tweets from random people about random stuff. Twitter is a marketing tool where marketing people write tweets for other marketing people. What do normal people care about Twitter ?
Facebook is different. I'm not on Facebook, but I know people who are. I never really had the impression they use Facebook for news. Just to share holiday pictures and to get in touch with old acquaintances. Maybe using it as your news source is an American thing ?
Anyway, as I wrote, I don't think this current situation is just because we're in a populist era. As I wrote, the US has had Nixon, LBJ, the Bush mobster clan, and clown Reagan, before mobster-clown Trump got in. So there must be something in the US system that allows individuals (or small groups) to grab power more easily than in other countries. The larger an organization (like a political party) is, the more stable it should be. This doesn't seem true in the US. In many countries, the top (the establishment) of a political party has a huge impact on the course of that party. But not in the US, it seems. Weird.
demagogue on 3/3/2020 at 15:44
I can see how it can look like that... But just on that last point, Nixon, LBJ, the Bushes and Reagan all came up through and took control over the party system establishment/machine, and were basically selected by or they took control over their parties pretty independently of popular opinion. Nixon embodied the anticommunist crusader wing of the 1950s GOP. LBJ was the most powerful senator in history and singlehandedly dominated the early 60s Dem party machine. Reagan was Goldwater's bulldog and defined the new Right GOP machine. And the Bushes were the GOP's royal family over three generations. All of them were textbook cases of the party being led by its establishment machine. For most elections through history, the US has been just party machine machinations.
I'll have to check again, but I'm pretty sure Trump is the first and only president in US history that wasn't a real member of the party he won under, and the party machine did everything it could to keep him out and failed. There's no precedent for what's happening now.
Ok, the last time you'll see that in US history would have been Teddy Roosevelt. The Republican machine at the time wanted him out, and made him Vice President just to contain him, then Mckinley's death made him inadvertent president. And he actually split the GOP into two in the 1912 election, between the machine-run party under Taft and the Bull Moose party under TR. And sometimes the establishment itself gets split, like the 1968 democrats between Bobby and McGovern. But that's different than an outsider waltzing in with the party machine doing everything it can to keep him out and still powerless to stop it. This is really a new thing in the US, at least in the last century.
Gryzemuis on 3/3/2020 at 16:14
Of course you are right about the previous presidents being products of the party establishment. I got the two things mixed up (Trump as an outsider-clown, and Reagan and GW Bush being republican puppets on strings). The effect might look the same ("look what an idiot the yanks have elected"). But the power-structures were different.
That was why I asked my original question: are the Democrat and Republican party establishments so powerless that they can't control their own parties anymore ?
If Biden wins the candidacy, I can guarantee that Trump wins the elections. Biden is too much associated with Obama and Hillary. So much that a large part of the voters hates him for that. I can't see Bloomberg win (if you vote for a billionare anyway, why not vote for Trump again ?). The only way I see the Democrats win is if Bernie pulls of a big upset. It might happen. Maybe not likely, but he's got a chance. Which Biden and Bloomberg don't have, imho.
I'm really surprised. Can the Democratic Party not come up with a better candidate than Biden, Bloomberg or Sanders ? Obama was the perfect candidate, 12 years ago. Largely unknown, so nobody had been feelings. Good professional background (studied political science). Perfect age (not 70+ like all your politicians today). Good speaker, intelligent, ambitious in the right way, etc. Why can't the Democrats come up with someone like that again ? I just don't understand how they can not plan this properly.
Gryzemuis on 3/3/2020 at 16:19
Thanks for the pointer.
But 26 lectures on video, each over 1 hour long ?
About "everything that happened in US politics since 1989" ?
That is maybe a bit too broad for me.
Edit: lol, 16 minutes into his first lecture, he's already comparing new European non-establishment parties with the 1930's nazis. Way to go.
Starker on 3/3/2020 at 16:41
No worries, they cover a fair variety of topics, so a pick and mix approach is very viable. For example, if you're not interested in the collapse of the soviet world order and its aftermath or the end of apartheid, or China's activities in Africa, you can completely skip those. Also, the first one is an introductory lecture, so it's mostly just an overview what the course is about, how to pass, etc.
heywood on 4/3/2020 at 00:28
Quote Posted by Starker
I agree, but only in that they should have left sooner. The earlier the Democrats consolidate their field, the better it is for them and the less hard feelings all around for the real showdown. If it was just Biden and Bernie running, I imagine it would be the best case scenario, as they would really have to show what they are able to do and there wouldn't be any blaming afterwards of other candidates leeching off votes. If, for example, Bernie were to win mano a mano against Biden, it would make for some very good pressure for the entire party to throw their fullest support behind him.
Really, I think a clear unambiguous win is in everyone's best interest here. I can't imagine a brokered convention would end up in anything else but lots of bad blood.
It might not be a clear unambiguous win if the perception is that people are being pushed out of the race to help another candidate.
When the general election comes around, the party is going to need experienced campaign staff, volunteers, and donors for their fundraising, canvassing, and voter turn-out efforts. Most of those people will have been supporters of a different candidate, and if they don't think the party gave their candidate a fair shot they're not going to be motivated to work for the nominee. I don't know how Amy Klobuchar's supporters will respond to her sudden exit, but there's some really pissed off Buttigieg supporters.
Also, wide open primary races attract new people into the party: voters, volunteers, donors. And a lot of those people are motivated by issues, policies, and causes. You can't assume that everyone's overriding motivation is to beat Trump and that alone is enough to win.
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
Question: are the Democrats really an organization ? Or just a bunch of individuals thrown together ? Same question can be asked about the Republicans of course.
I'm asking because it seems the Democrats, as a party, have no strategy for these elections. No consensus, no plan. The same was true for the Republicans in 2016. Trump just rolled in, like a fat orange whale in a China shop, and destroyed everything inside the party. The Republicans did not have a response. They were powerless, clueless. They looked like a bunch of buffoons. They won the elections because the average american voter is dumber than a brick. Not because of anything that the Republican party did.
Trump won over Republican voters, and the Republican voters picked Trump to run. That's how democracy is supposed to work. They went on to win the Presidency and both branches of Congress in 2016, and now the Republican party is more unified than I can remember, or at least since the early Reagan administration. So I'd say it worked out well for them.
Quote:
I'm seeing something similar in the Democratic party. What's their plan to beat Trump ? Also, do they, as a party, have plans on how to rule the country, if they win ? Or does every candidate have its own plans, its own people, its own strategy ? If so, then what are these 2 parties ? Just a sticker to put on individuals ? I know that the Democrats and Republicans have their conventions. What happens there ? Do the conventions decide on anything ? Can party members have a vote on policy or strategy ? Or are the conventions just 4-year events, just for public relations, and to announce their candidate ? It seems like it.
In my country, we have lots of political parties in parliament. Population 17.5M, 150 seats in parliament, 13 parties. The number of parties varies over the years. We had new parties. And old parties merged. But it's always been 10+ parties I think. We don't have a president (we are a country occupied by a tyrant, who calls himself king). We do have a prime-minister. During elections every party has a list of candidates for parliament. The party's council decided who is on the list, and in what order. The party's annual convention of party members picks the council and approves the candidate list. When a party wins the elections, its first candidate usually becomes the next prime-minister. I think it works like this in many other European countries.
So voters can not pick the prime-minister directly. And party-members can not pick the first candidate of their party directly. This has downsides (I like direct democracy). But it also has benefits. A party has to agree on its candidates for parliament. It has to agree on a proposed strategy for the next 4 years. After the elections, usually 2 or more parties have to agree on the new policies for the next 4 years before they can form a new government. All this has the result that stupidities can be ruled out. No bombing attacks by Trump, Bloomberg or other billionaires. No idiots with any political power (although this can not always be prevented in advance). Fewer totally incompetent people in the government.
It seems these stabilizing elements are completely absent in the US political system and in its 2 political parties. Or am I missing something ? Or was it better, and did it just get worse since 2016 ? I remember idiots like GW Bush and Dan Quayle. I remember a senile actor. I remember crooks like Nixon and LBJ. Has the US political system always been this wild-west rodeo event ?
We're unfortunately stuck with a two-party system. If there's only two viable slots on the ballot, the nominating process for both parties has to be democratic, otherwise we're a bunch of hypocrites. If the parties are effectively controlled by their "establishment" (a euphemism for party bosses), and they have the power to vet candidates, then we have no more democracy than Iran or Russia.
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
Of course you are right about the previous presidents being products of the party establishment. I got the two things mixed up (Trump as an outsider-clown, and Reagan and GW Bush being republican puppets on strings). The effect might look the same ("look what an idiot the yanks have elected"). But the power-structures were different.
That was why I asked my original question: are the Democrat and Republican party establishments so powerless that they can't control their own parties anymore ?
If Biden wins the candidacy, I can guarantee that Trump wins the elections. Biden is too much associated with Obama and Hillary. So much that a large part of the voters hates him for that. I can't see Bloomberg win (if you vote for a billionare anyway, why not vote for Trump again ?). The only way I see the Democrats win is if Bernie pulls of a big upset. It might happen. Maybe not likely, but he's got a chance. Which Biden and Bloomberg don't have, imho.
I'm really surprised. Can the Democratic Party not come up with a better candidate than Biden, Bloomberg or Sanders ? Obama was the perfect candidate, 12 years ago. Largely unknown, so nobody had been feelings. Good professional background (studied political science). Perfect age (not 70+ like all your politicians today). Good speaker, intelligent, ambitious in the right way, etc. Why can't the Democrats come up with someone like that again ? I just don't understand how they can not plan this properly.
There was no shortage of good candidates this time. About 30 different people got into the race, and there was a field of 20 who made the first couple of debates.
Also, remember that Obama started the 2008 race as a long shot outsider from the left that nobody thought could win the Presidency. Hillary was the establishment favorite, and they had a bitter battle that lasted all the way through the last contest. They ended up tied nearly 50/50 and the nomination was decided by the super delegates. So like I was saying to Starker above, tough primary fights don't seem to hurt your chances in the general election.
