It seems to me that one of the main reasons this sort of instability is now happening is precisely because we view elections as win-or-lose. I was rather young, but I don't ever remember people having this much affection or disdain over individual candidates like Kerry, McCain, or Romney. Viewing the other side as the devil and yours as angels only causes stuff like the Capitol riots.
There is, however, a feedback loop. Those candidates weren't as antagonistic or openly immoral as Trump. The tribalism drives us to support more tribalistic politicians, who naturally aggravate the tribalism further, and so on.
That depends on your definition of immoral however. Depending on your stances to things like the wars in Iraq and the Military Industrial Complex, politicians like McCain and Romney can seem like pure devils, while Trump seems rather tame.
And to be fair, it does seem like that tribalism feedback loop is ending, as the Democrats have gone for a relatively tame candidate, meanwhile moderate Republicans have already moved away from Trump. So, it seems like this whole populism thing will (hopefully) be a 4-year experiment.
Not just as "win or lose". We view them as "win or catastrophe", "win or the nation will be destroyed". The stakes being so high (in our minds) justifies (also in our minds) going to any lengths to win.
I think that, as our country becomes more secular, many people put politics in religion's place. "If my side wins this election, it will bring the kingdom of heaven" (however defined in your worldview). The truth is, no, it won't. It may move things somewhat more toward your preferred configuration, but that's all.
Sure, vote. Campaign for your preferred side. But don't hold your political views with religious fervor. Politics isn't worthy of that. Jesus wasn't running in the last election; He won't be in the next one either.
That is a very good point. On your point comparing religion to politics, there's quite a few good books on this subject. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11324722 is one good one.
I've always thought that if you find yourself loyal to any given political party, that's an indication that there's might be a problem and you should reflect on why you feel that sense of loyalty.
Political parties should have to earn your vote every election rather than relying on a "force of habit".
> Political parties should have to earn your vote every election rather than relying on a "force of habit".
That would be nice, but I've practiced "sucks less" voting since I was old enough to cast a ballot. I vote for the party that sucks less. I don't care for the Democrats, but I don't loathe them quite as much as I do the Republicans.
I'd rather not vote at all; I'm not convinced it does anything but rubber-stamp the continued existence of a government that neither represents the people nor serves the general welfare particularly well, but I continue to vote despite my doubts because I could be wrong about its futility.
I think you're right in saying that voting isn't really all that effective --- it isn't (except in 2000), but I don't we should be looking at this from an individual scale, because we're really just tiny little cells in this process.
I tend to look at things from an individual scale because I don't have the tools to do otherwise. Methodological individualism is my hammer, and so everything looks like a nail.
I think that's more a function of the US's [1] voting system rather than anything else. I'm very lucky to live in a country (Canada) where you have a choice of 4-5 relatively similar parties, and they have to work hard to get you to vote (though we could do with some Multi Member Districts).
https://www.fairvote.ca/rural-urban-proportional/
---
[1] India has the same system too (and is way more unstable at that).
For young conservatives who had the Affordable Care Act shoved down their throats during Obama's first term (and this was the last time Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Presidency), it feels like a great loss to be back in a similar situation.
I just hope that the Democratic majority will take the polarization of our politics seriously and make genuine in-roads at attempting to solve it. Unfortunately all the things I can think of that would help solve the problem are going to require sacrifices on the part of our legislators:
1. Establishing term limits for senators and congresspeople
2. Banning insider trading by political leaders
3. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine[1] (or something similar)
4. Lobbying reform (e.g. banning contributions to political parties made by for-profit corporations)
I cannot agree with you more for the fairness doctrine. It really feels like such an unknown piece of legislation, yet one which has massively affected political discourse in the US (and Canada too).
Overall though, it seems like the Republican party could benefit from some of this legislation; introducing more representatives like Romney, rather than McConnell, and giving new life to a seemingly stretched out party.
That phrase "rammed down your throat" is itself an example of this. They lost a vote. Democrats had been desperate to get any Republican on board (cf the numerous efforts to get Chuck Grassley, as described in this 2009 article https://www.cbsnews.com/news/health-care-concessions-irking-...).
The final shape of the ACA was largely along the lines described by the Heritage Institute and implemented by future GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It wasn't a liberal dream bill, which would have included at least a government option, or even a single-payer plan. It's a very market-based solution.
Instead, it was presented as "socialism", regardless of the contents. Effectively, the GOP wanted to "ram" the existing system "down the throats" of an overwhelming majority.
My intent here isn't to reopen discussion of the law or even to call them out for bad-faith in discussing it. But I wanted to point out the notion that "shoving down throats" is more about spin than a realistic description of the process. They made it clear, explicitly, that their goal of denying their opponents any kind of win was more important than changing a health care system that overwhelming numbers of people felt was inadequate.
It only takes one side to polarize. I don't believe that the current majority has the power to singlehandedly solve it, when the current minority is intent on singlehandedly continuing it. That's not to absolve Democrats of the need to try, but as long as Republican constituents continue to approve of the legislators who thwart it, it's important for all of us to not draw false equivalences or mis-remember history.
> Finally, think about Jesus’ disciples in Gethsemane. All their work over the previous years was in danger as their master, the one with whom they had entrusted everything, was hauled away by the authorities. Their very identity, all they had seen and believed to be true, was apparently lost.
We're just just choosing someone we think can manage the government for 4 years for Christ's sake, not a spiritual leader to your salvation and eternal life. Your job is just to pick someone you think can manage international relations with other countries, trade deals, and work on improving the effectiveness of new legislations, are we actually at the point where people see themselves as apostles of a prophet instead?
16 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 46.5 ms ] threadAnd to be fair, it does seem like that tribalism feedback loop is ending, as the Democrats have gone for a relatively tame candidate, meanwhile moderate Republicans have already moved away from Trump. So, it seems like this whole populism thing will (hopefully) be a 4-year experiment.
I think that, as our country becomes more secular, many people put politics in religion's place. "If my side wins this election, it will bring the kingdom of heaven" (however defined in your worldview). The truth is, no, it won't. It may move things somewhat more toward your preferred configuration, but that's all.
Sure, vote. Campaign for your preferred side. But don't hold your political views with religious fervor. Politics isn't worthy of that. Jesus wasn't running in the last election; He won't be in the next one either.
Political parties should have to earn your vote every election rather than relying on a "force of habit".
That would be nice, but I've practiced "sucks less" voting since I was old enough to cast a ballot. I vote for the party that sucks less. I don't care for the Democrats, but I don't loathe them quite as much as I do the Republicans.
I'd rather not vote at all; I'm not convinced it does anything but rubber-stamp the continued existence of a government that neither represents the people nor serves the general welfare particularly well, but I continue to vote despite my doubts because I could be wrong about its futility.
I just hope that the Democratic majority will take the polarization of our politics seriously and make genuine in-roads at attempting to solve it. Unfortunately all the things I can think of that would help solve the problem are going to require sacrifices on the part of our legislators:
1. Establishing term limits for senators and congresspeople
2. Banning insider trading by political leaders
3. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine[1] (or something similar)
4. Lobbying reform (e.g. banning contributions to political parties made by for-profit corporations)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
Overall though, it seems like the Republican party could benefit from some of this legislation; introducing more representatives like Romney, rather than McConnell, and giving new life to a seemingly stretched out party.
The final shape of the ACA was largely along the lines described by the Heritage Institute and implemented by future GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It wasn't a liberal dream bill, which would have included at least a government option, or even a single-payer plan. It's a very market-based solution.
Instead, it was presented as "socialism", regardless of the contents. Effectively, the GOP wanted to "ram" the existing system "down the throats" of an overwhelming majority.
My intent here isn't to reopen discussion of the law or even to call them out for bad-faith in discussing it. But I wanted to point out the notion that "shoving down throats" is more about spin than a realistic description of the process. They made it clear, explicitly, that their goal of denying their opponents any kind of win was more important than changing a health care system that overwhelming numbers of people felt was inadequate.
It only takes one side to polarize. I don't believe that the current majority has the power to singlehandedly solve it, when the current minority is intent on singlehandedly continuing it. That's not to absolve Democrats of the need to try, but as long as Republican constituents continue to approve of the legislators who thwart it, it's important for all of us to not draw false equivalences or mis-remember history.
We're just just choosing someone we think can manage the government for 4 years for Christ's sake, not a spiritual leader to your salvation and eternal life. Your job is just to pick someone you think can manage international relations with other countries, trade deals, and work on improving the effectiveness of new legislations, are we actually at the point where people see themselves as apostles of a prophet instead?