Redeeming the Republicans

[DSMatticus]

I think Occluded Sun is one of those "Illuminati shadowy cabal rules the world and every politician ever gets their marching orders from the same secret newsletter" types. Because the alternative explanation, that individual millionaires and billionaires will buy politicians as an act of self-interest in the preservation of their dynasties, and ubiquitous political corruption is the rather uninteresting result of that happening on a large-scale in a world of vast inequality, is entirely too obvious, simple, and plausible.

But I do not think Occluded Sun really understand American politics. We have a two party system. It is impossible for us not to have a two party system. We have first-past-the-post voting, and the incentives in FPTP to combine voting blocs until you can't anymore is overwhelming. For fuck's sake, the Republicans market themselves as socially conservative libertarians pushing crony capitalist bullshit and a religious state! That's incoherent as fuck, but that's the way it is because some fucking assholes realized they couldn't stay significant in politics without money from the insanely wealthy, whoring themselves out to fundamentalists, and paying lipservice to libertarian ideals. So now we have a party of corporate welfare, Christianity, and small government.

The "collapse" of the Republican party means old alliances break down and new alliances get forged, but here's the thing; the people themselves don't disappear. And it is a fundamental truth that in most ways the American people are more progressive than our politicians or our media. If you poll people on policy directly, scrubbing away the brand labels and talking points, the majority of the country is arguably further left than our fucking president. The only reason people buy Republican bullshit is because they've been trained to bark on command by incredibly well-funded propaganda outlets like Fox News. The reason people support the Democratic platform is because it is closer to what they actually believe when someone isn't feeding them garbage in the guise of news.

You could make the argument that if the Republican party imploded spectacularly that the Democratic party would splinter along some internal division and all of the voting blocs would need to shuffle into two completely new camps (because FPTP, fuck FPTP, seriously), but the death of the Democratic party is not actually bad for Democrats, because it entails shifting the middle of the political spectrum closer to what modern Democrats actually want. The only people threatened by a collapse of the current brands are the socially conservative libertarian crony capitalists - because their beliefs are incoherent and abhorrent and they have nothing to carry them through elections except the power of the brand they've built. And that isn't actually true of people running on egalitarianism and economic security/opportunity - people still support those things without the branding.

[Koumei]

Yeah, if the Republican party asploded, the Democrat party would probably then split into two new factions and they would fight for FPTP. Those factions would probably be "The Democrat party that is heavily beholden to corporate interests and tends to be awfully similar (or similarly awful?) to the Republicans, except less racist and less sexist to some extent." and "The young Democrats that are really interested in social change and actually know what living on the average or minimum wage is like".

So the window of dialogue finally shifts to the left a little bit.

And then fragments from the former Republican party latch onto "Conservative Democrats", joining with them and the whole thing starts over again. Maybe with a few billionaires shaken out of the trees in the fallout, to be consumed by wolves and/or poor people, and perhaps with the window still at that more-left spot and with the Right Wing forced to be less repulsive.

Or maybe someone finds an old rule that states that if you don't have Republicans, you aren't a republic so you default back to being under British rule, and David Cameron removes his mask and reveals himself to be the corpse of Churchill. Actually, someone needs to check and make sure that's not the case, because that's a definite change for the worse.

[Occluded Sun]

I recommend reading the Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal where the little boy asks Superman why he's been fighting Lex Luthor for years and years and never actually beats him.

Ah, found it. http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3588

[DSMatticus]

Yeah. If the Republicans really wanted to win the presidency and congress, all they would have to do is mail Obama a rock. And if the Democrats really wanted to win the presidency and congress, all they'd have to do is punch Ohio's Great Mancarrot in his jaw. Clearly, both sides have a decisive and completely obvious path to victory, and the fact that they aren't pursuing that path means it's a puppet show. No, Occluded Sun can't tell you what that decisive and completely obvious path to victory is. Don't bother asking. No, that missing link doesn't invalidate his analogy, shut up. Stop making fun of him! He's really smart guys! He knows the truth! Guuuuuys! Stop it!

[Lago PARANOIA]

As noted (at least by me) in the Completely Lost You thread, SMBC tends to get extremely stupid when they try to do that whole 'this innocuous thing SECRETLY LEADS TO AND/OR IS RETROACTIVELY DECONSTRUCTED AS A DYSTOPIA if you add enough contrivances and hidden assumptions' horseshit. Thus using one of those comics to emphasize any point you'd like to make tends to likewise get extremely stupid.

[Occluded Sun]

It makes a pretty good point in this case, though. If we took comic books as a serious recounting of a society - yes, I know that's absurd - what conclusions would we actually draw? Reed Richards alone could completely revolutionize society... but it never happens.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It's in some people's interests for American society to be polarized between two parties whose differences are mainly cosmetic (take a good look at the voting records of the parties' members sometime) yet vitrolically hated. It allows them to not concern themselves with the concerns of most of their constituents, while providing an explanation for why those concerns are never addressed.

[DSMatticus]

(take a good look at the voting records of the parties' members sometime)

You say that, and yet you clearly have no idea what you would see if you did. But you are the sort of person who puts speaking before knowing, so I am not surprised.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Yes, a massive conspiracy/cover-up combo does seem more likely than a government simply being some combination of corrupt and dysfunctional, like most governments in recorded history.

[name_here]

I guess Occluded Sun doesn't realize that nearly all major votes come very close to being split straight down party lines.

If there were a massive conspiracy pulling the strings on both sides, I would expect that to result in things being accomplished as opposed to an inability to pass a goddamn budget on time.

[Occluded Sun]

I guess Occluded Sun doesn't realize that nearly all major votes come very close to being split straight down party lines.

It's more productive to look at what the parties tacitly agree upon - and especially at those things that remain even while dominance switched from one party to another. The 'major votes' remarkably don't change all that much.

I'm sure most of the people who voted for Obama - as well as those who voted against - would swear there's a world of difference between him and Dubya. Yet the government surveillance powers expanded in the first regime somehow failed to be curtailed in the second administration, and the various promises made in the campaign season just weren't followed through.

There's no need for a shadowy conspiracy. It's all out-in-the-open.

[DSMatticus]

It's more productive to look at what the parties tacitly agree upon

"If you choose as your sample the subset of things which support my point, the evidence is overwhelming!"

This is another one of those "slavery is freedom" moments, isn't it?

[Occluded Sun]

If you ignore the majority of cases and focus on the most publicized points of contention, then obviously the two parties appear radically different. The key is to realize that their platforms have little to do with what they support in practice.

Pay attention to their actions, not their words, and the differences start to fall away. The big difference then is which constituent promises each party is ignoring - and blaming the other party for being an obstacle about.

[TiaC]

It's almost like our system of government was designed to avoid the tyranny of the majority and encourage cooperation. This is combined with negotiation prior to voting that prevents dead-in-the-water bills from reaching the floor.

[DSMatticus]

First, your methodology is ass. If your approach to the question "what is different about these two things" is "well, what do they have in common?", then you are not really qualified to make comparisons about things. For example, you and I have basically the same worldview. We both think water is wet. We both think up isn't down. We both share a bajillion and one uninteresting beliefs about the world. Here's a tautology for you; things that fail to distinguish two people fail to distinguish two people. The question you would be asking if you weren't a total moron would be "what are the differences between X and Y and are they significant?" And then you'd look at areas like fiscal policy, monetary policy, foreign policy, healthcare, taxation, financial regulation, environmental regulation, women's rights, enfranchisement (because those are all significant) and note that the two parties don't fucking agree on any of them! Not in word and not in deed.

Second, your methodology (which is ass, as you may recall) doesn't take you where you want it to. The split congress we've been enduring is one of the least productive in fucking history. There has never been a time that the claim "the two parties agree on the majority of things" has been less true than right now. You are not commenting on any observations you've made, you are commenting on uninformed fantasies you have about how lizard people rule our governments and your fantasies are proving remarkably resilient to the light of day. That's pretty much the whole fucking story.

Again, all you've actually done is declare that you only care about a very small subset of policy, observe that both parties are pursuing the same policy direction in that particular area (or at least you think they are), and declare the choices meaningless. It's the exact same reasoning that lead you to tell us we were a freer country when slavery was a thing, men could legally rape their wives, and homosexuality was a crime. Because "those don't count."

[Occluded Sun]

It's almost like our system of government was designed to avoid the tyranny of the majority

It was also designed to avoid the tyranny of the minority, but that's failed, as we've developed a political class that controls the power structure.

It's long been noted that cops and criminals often have more in common than either has with most 'civilians'. Same principle with soldiers on different sides of a war. And it seems to be especially true with politics - the supposedly in-opposition members of the two big parties have a lot more in common with each other than with the people they supposedly represent. And that's created... well, the mess we're in today.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I think that the very first thing that the Democrats should do would be to offer tax rebates for people who vote in elections.

If you vote in a municipal election, you get $200, no questions asked.
If you vote in an election at least at the state level or above, you get $400.
If you vote in an primary election at least at the state level or above, you get $300.

That would instantly break the logjam of U.S. politics and put us on a more sane electoral path.

[Korwin]

I think that the very first thing that the Democrats should do would be to offer tax rebates for people who vote in elections.

If you vote in a municipal election, you get $200, no questions asked.
If you vote in an election at least at the state level or above, you get $400.
If you vote in an primary election at least at the state level or above, you get $300.

That would instantly break the logjam of U.S. politics and put us on a more sane electoral path.

That sounds like you are saying, Democrats are lazy voter?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Voting turnout in the United States is low. It's also lower proportionately for the lower classes and lower proportionately for leftists. Regardless of the reason for this, the #1 goal of the Democratic Party would be to reverse this. A cash incentive that was more proportionately valuable to the lower classes while still valuable to everyone would be the best way to do this.

[Occluded Sun]

Tax rebates are only worthwhile if you pay taxes. Poor people mostly don't - on income, anyway.

[violence in the media]

Tax rebates are only worthwhile if you pay taxes. Poor people mostly don't - on income, anyway.

Do it like Dubya's tax rebate, where the IRS just mailed you a $300 check.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The law would have to require that all polls hand out a voter's receipt (and probably a copy thereof) so that people could mail it in/scan and e-file it for the rebate, but we need to have universal voting receipts anyway. For the proportion of people who voted absentee, you get a voter receipt mailed back to you.

After you submit your voter receipt, you get a check or an electronic deposit for the appropriate amount. Bam. There's your rebate.

[Occluded Sun]

Yes, having the Democrats pay people to vote would be a fantastic way to get people involved with the issues instead of acting out of short-sighted petty interests and factional allegiances.

And there's no possibility of the system being abused in any way!

[Lago PARANOIA]

Who gives a shit whether people are involved with the issues instead of acting out of short-sighted petty interests and factional allegiances? Seriously, who gives a flying fuck? Are voters in the EU and Japan, where voting turnout is often 70% or greater, more informed and pure and involved than the United States? What about during previous generations of history, when voting turnout was 70-80%? Were the voters of the Gilded Age and Antebellum United States more involved with the issues than contemporary American voters?

The purpose of a voting system is not to increase voter awareness, it's to maximize eligible voter participation. If you don't like the system absorbing a huge number of allegedly uninformed voters, yell at the educational system or media.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

Yes, having the Democrats pay people to vote would be a fantastic way to get people involved with the issues instead of acting out of short-sighted petty interests and factional allegiances.

And there's no possibility of the system being abused in any way!

Yes, there is no way that more people voting is a bad thing. That is literally impossible because the (general) goal of a democracy is to make everyone's voice heard. Even people with voices that you disagree with or voices that are based in fiction. I respect people's right to vote against their own self-interest, though I do try to convince them not to do that shit.

[Occluded Sun]

The purpose of a voting system is not to increase voter awareness, it's to maximize eligible voter participation.

That is NOT the purpose of a voting system. Or of a sane and rational voting system, anyway. A setup where everyone participates, but does so by flipping a coin, is a disaster in the practical and moral senses. It won't lead to sensible political decisions being made, nor does it grant power or agency to the people 'taking part'.