I'm hesitant to post this, but since the quality of discourse here is so high, I'm curious to get other takes.
I'm 28 years old. I've paid attention to politics for a while, though I haven't watched the news much. I'm wondering how people here see the long-term political trends in the US - to me they seem really ominous. I've been trying to compare the current US political system with the end of the Roman Republic, and I see some general similarities. As far as I can tell, the Roman Republic was held together by people basically conforming with legal tradition, even if there were no laws to enforce that tradition. When people (Gracchus Brothers, Marian, Sulla, Caesar) started to do things that obeyed the laws but flaunted legal tradition, the Republic slowly fell apart. I'm wondering if we're seeing that now.
To me, democracy almost feels like currency - you need people to believe in its legitimacy for it to work. There have been any number of third-world (or even first-world) democracies that looked legitimate, held one or two legitimate elections, and then fell apart. The laws weren't bulletproof, and there wasn't established legal tradition.
Let's start with the Supreme Court. I'm curious if it's facing an existential threat (or at least, a threat to its continued existence as some nominally independent body). We're seeing a wait that's unprecedented in recent times, for someone (Merrick Garland) who is by all accounts a very moderate nominee. It seems like there's no legal requirement to ever vote on a nominee. Now, John McCain has signaled that a Republican Senate will not accept any Justice proposed by Clinton, should she win (though he walked back that comment, I think the original was an honest statement). So, if the election goes the way predictions are headed, we could hypothetically see a 5-year wait for Supreme Court Justices, and maybe a 5 or 6-Justice court. Or am I misunderstanding something? If it goes this way, with vacancies accumulating, we'd basically only see radical, politically-motivated justices appointed (when the stars aligned and Senate+Presidency were controlled by the same party, why not push for the most radical individual?).
Next, what to do about the aggressive delegitimizing of voting? I'm pretty positive on democratic institutions in general, but I've been worried for at least 10-15 years about electronic voting machines (as a programmer they scare the hell out of me). So, I think there are legitimate problems to addrses. But now foreign countries, particularly Russia, are almost certainly becoming more active trying to steer the election process. The worst thing is that it doesn't really matter if they succeed, they just need to make people question the legitimacy of the results. The GOP nominee is now pushing the theory that the election is rigged (without offering any proof, and with his own party telling him to stop). But in a recent poll, 41% of Americans said the election could be "stolen". These same people are increasingly skeptical of anything the media or 'experts' say. Is there any way you can convince them that results they don't agree with are legitimate?
Then there's the possibility of 'brain drain' both radicalizing the Republican party and bloating the Democratic one. The theory goes like this: the Republican party has been pushing increasingly conservative racial/sexual/discriminatory rhetoric. This has led many conservative intellectuals to distance themselves from the party (at least temporarily), which in turn leads to a negative feedback loop of more radicalization, and more reasonable voices leaving the party. This is obviously bad for Republicans, and I suspect it's not really a good process for Democrats to lose whatever philosophical coherency they had, or for the country at large to have such a radicalized element.
I'm also concerned about the long-term gutting of news, and the increasing effect of "echo chambers," but does it even matter? As far as I can tell, nobody particularly cares about fact checking anyway, so the news doesn't even seem to matter.
I could go on... I feel like people are focusing either on the sensational tabloid-style headlines about Trump (which are disgusting to me, but on a personal level), or on superficial similarities to Hitler, and ignoring the much more troubling trends. Or about Clinton's cold personality, but the really stupid private email server. I don't want to draw false equivalencies here, I don't see the two candidates as "equally bad."
Anyway - do you think this is an overreaction? A misunderstanding of laws or tradition? A misread of the situation? Are you all equally scared about this stuff?
American Politics
Re: American Politics
To keep this short, I'll just address one topic: The Supreme Court.
Yes, you are understanding it correctly. Yet I'm actually not so pessimistic about the future of the Court. The press makes the Court out to be split into two wings, but in actuality, the members cross this invisible line most of the time.
An 8-member Court might not be so bad; assuming equal division between the two ideological wings, an even number of members eliminates the power of the lone swing vote. For the Court to overturn, a member of one wing would need to join his colleague of the opposite wing*, which is probably a good indication of the Court making the "right" decision.
It's up to Congress as to the size of the Court. Originally it was 6, then 7, then 9, then 10, and finally back to 9. In effect, the disaster scenario you describe has always been possible: with one party in control, they could expand the court to 20 and stock it full of extremist judges, which is basically the same as not confirming the replacements nominated by their political opponents.
* This assumes that the Court would vote 4-4 by default, which is really only 20% of the time
Yes, you are understanding it correctly. Yet I'm actually not so pessimistic about the future of the Court. The press makes the Court out to be split into two wings, but in actuality, the members cross this invisible line most of the time.
An 8-member Court might not be so bad; assuming equal division between the two ideological wings, an even number of members eliminates the power of the lone swing vote. For the Court to overturn, a member of one wing would need to join his colleague of the opposite wing*, which is probably a good indication of the Court making the "right" decision.
It's up to Congress as to the size of the Court. Originally it was 6, then 7, then 9, then 10, and finally back to 9. In effect, the disaster scenario you describe has always been possible: with one party in control, they could expand the court to 20 and stock it full of extremist judges, which is basically the same as not confirming the replacements nominated by their political opponents.
* This assumes that the Court would vote 4-4 by default, which is really only 20% of the time
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6853
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Re: American Politics
I'm pretty sure nominations to the Supreme Court have always been contentious. They have in my lifetime at least (I'm 50). I remember the daily drama of Anita Hill, and another nominee whose name escapes me who ended up withdrawing his nomination.
This time around, I think the large number of people out of the workforce (unemployed, underemployed, on disability, etc) is contributing to the discord because most people with too much free time end up watching more TV and scouring the internet, which I assume would increase a person's angst over the election. That problem will only get worse if the employment/automation trend continues and/or we institute some kind of UBI and people choose to remain out of the workforce.
Funny that you don't like electronic voting machines. DH and most of his programmer friends don't trust them either. With analog voting small-scale fraud is possible, but with digital voting large-scale fraud is possible. A simple DDoS-type attack that made voting machines inoperable on election day could push the country into turmoil. It wouldn't even have to nationwide -- taking out most of the machines in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina would be enough.
This time around, I think the large number of people out of the workforce (unemployed, underemployed, on disability, etc) is contributing to the discord because most people with too much free time end up watching more TV and scouring the internet, which I assume would increase a person's angst over the election. That problem will only get worse if the employment/automation trend continues and/or we institute some kind of UBI and people choose to remain out of the workforce.
Funny that you don't like electronic voting machines. DH and most of his programmer friends don't trust them either. With analog voting small-scale fraud is possible, but with digital voting large-scale fraud is possible. A simple DDoS-type attack that made voting machines inoperable on election day could push the country into turmoil. It wouldn't even have to nationwide -- taking out most of the machines in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina would be enough.
Re: American Politics
The voting machines should have a hard printout that you would carry to a ballot box. It would just be a backup in case issues were suspected, so the results could be audited. In all other cases, we would just use the electronic version to save time and work.
The problem is they have no idea how sort through all the crap.jennypenny wrote: This time around, I think the large number of people out of the workforce (unemployed, underemployed, on disability, etc) is contributing to the discord because most people with too much free time end up watching more TV and scouring the internet, which I assume would increase a person's angst over the election.
-
IlliniDave
- Posts: 3871
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm
Re: American Politics
I tend to think if anything the supreme court is growing in power and will continue to do so. By declaring the constitution a living document and holding the power as the stewards of the inevitable growth, SCOTUS has the de facto ability to rewrite the constitution at will through reinterpreting what the definition of is is. The only check is constitutional amendment, but much like declaration of war, I don't think we'll see that happen again. There are easier ways for the gov't to impose its will on the people, and constitutional amendment opens the door for the people to impose their will on the government. So there's no motive for the government to go that route.
Re: American Politics
Bork?jennypenny wrote:I'm pretty sure nominations to the Supreme Court have always been contentious. They have in my lifetime at least (I'm 50). I remember the daily drama of Anita Hill, and another nominee whose name escapes me who ended up withdrawing his nomination.
Re: American Politics
Yes, Bork was the beginning of contentious Supreme Court nominations in the modern era. But its not like there were not immense conflicts about the Supreme Court in the past. Decisions of the court have always sparked outrage and accusations of activism -- this is nothing new and is why the Constitution can be amended. We have an erroneous idea that its "too hard" because we have not seen an amendment since the early 1970s.
Getting back to the OP, I think you are looking at the normal cycle of American history as laid out in the Fourth Turning (Strauss & Howe). That book is based on generational cycles and forecast in 1998 that we would enter a crisis period in around 2008 and it would last until sometime in the 2020s. It said there would be demagogues and perhaps the breakdown and reformation of one or both political parties. The conflicts would be based largely on Baby Boomer values conflicts dating back to the 60s and 70s. Check.
But the biggest mistake we repeatedly make is linear projections from the immediate past. In the 1940s, it was predicted there would be mass unemployment post-WWII due to the recent experience in the 1930s. Didn't happen. In the 60s, we projected overpopulation and mass starvation even in developed countries (watch "Soylent Green" (1973) for the then-popular view of dystopia circa 2017). Didn't happen. In the early 90s, we predicted that since crime had been rising for two decades it would continue to spiral out of control. Didn't happen -- its hit 45 year lows now. There are endless examples of this. We are constantly fighting the last war and overreacting to our immediate past -- the obsession with terrorism today is probably going to turn out to be a similar example.
But the internet has exacerbated the crisis phase this time -- and this may be the most dangerous thing. Historically, any time there is a breakthrough in information technology, it leads to conflict first and enlightenment later. So when the printing press was invented:
"As was the case during the early days of the World Wide Web, however, the quality of the information was highly varied. While the printing press paid almost immediate dividends in the production of higher quality maps, the bestseller list soon came to be dominated by heretical religious texts and pseudoscientific ones. Errors could now be mass-produced, like in the so-called Wicked Bible, which committed the most unfortunate typo in history to the page: thou shalt commit adultery. Meanwhile, exposure to so many new ideas was producing mass confusion. The amount of information was increasing much more rapidly than our understanding of what to do with it, or our ability to differentiate the useful information from the mistruths. Paradoxically, the result of having so much more shared knowledge was increasing isolation along national and religious lines. The instinctual shortcut that we take when we have “too much information” is to engage with it selectively, picking out the parts we like and ignoring the remainder, making allies with those who have made the same choices and enemies of the rest.
The most enthusiastic early customers of the printing press were those who used it to evangelize. Martin Luther’s Ninety-five Theses were not that radical; similar sentiments had been debated many times over. What was revolutionary, as Elizabeth Eisenstein writes, is that Luther’s theses “did not stay tacked to the church door.” Instead, they were reproduced at least three hundred thousand times by Gutenberg’s printing press— a runaway hit even by modern standards.
The schism that Luther’s Protestant Reformation produced soon plunged Europe into war. From 1524 to 1648, there was the German Peasants’ War, the Schmalkaldic War, the Eighty Years’ War, the Thirty Years’ War, the French Wars of Religion, the Irish Confederate Wars, the Scottish Civil War, and the English Civil War— many of them raging simultaneously. This is not to neglect the Spanish Inquisition, which began in 1480, or the War of the Holy League from 1508 to 1516, although those had less to do with the spread of Protestantism. The Thirty Years’ War alone killed one-third of Germany’s population, and the seventeenth century was possibly the bloodiest ever, with the early twentieth staking the main rival claim.
But somehow in the midst of this, the printing press was starting to produce scientific and literary progress. Galileo was sharing his (censored) ideas, and Shakespeare was producing his plays."
Silver, Nate. The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail-but Some Don't (pp. 3-4). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
I think things will move much faster in the modern era, meaning that it won't take a couple centuries for this to play out, but only having people grow up with the internet and not be so enamored with the stuff they find on it like people were with the first mass-produced books.
But you can see how people have already used the internet to create whole crowds of followers of their favorite conspiracy theories that conflict with each other.
Getting back to the OP, I think you are looking at the normal cycle of American history as laid out in the Fourth Turning (Strauss & Howe). That book is based on generational cycles and forecast in 1998 that we would enter a crisis period in around 2008 and it would last until sometime in the 2020s. It said there would be demagogues and perhaps the breakdown and reformation of one or both political parties. The conflicts would be based largely on Baby Boomer values conflicts dating back to the 60s and 70s. Check.
But the biggest mistake we repeatedly make is linear projections from the immediate past. In the 1940s, it was predicted there would be mass unemployment post-WWII due to the recent experience in the 1930s. Didn't happen. In the 60s, we projected overpopulation and mass starvation even in developed countries (watch "Soylent Green" (1973) for the then-popular view of dystopia circa 2017). Didn't happen. In the early 90s, we predicted that since crime had been rising for two decades it would continue to spiral out of control. Didn't happen -- its hit 45 year lows now. There are endless examples of this. We are constantly fighting the last war and overreacting to our immediate past -- the obsession with terrorism today is probably going to turn out to be a similar example.
But the internet has exacerbated the crisis phase this time -- and this may be the most dangerous thing. Historically, any time there is a breakthrough in information technology, it leads to conflict first and enlightenment later. So when the printing press was invented:
"As was the case during the early days of the World Wide Web, however, the quality of the information was highly varied. While the printing press paid almost immediate dividends in the production of higher quality maps, the bestseller list soon came to be dominated by heretical religious texts and pseudoscientific ones. Errors could now be mass-produced, like in the so-called Wicked Bible, which committed the most unfortunate typo in history to the page: thou shalt commit adultery. Meanwhile, exposure to so many new ideas was producing mass confusion. The amount of information was increasing much more rapidly than our understanding of what to do with it, or our ability to differentiate the useful information from the mistruths. Paradoxically, the result of having so much more shared knowledge was increasing isolation along national and religious lines. The instinctual shortcut that we take when we have “too much information” is to engage with it selectively, picking out the parts we like and ignoring the remainder, making allies with those who have made the same choices and enemies of the rest.
The most enthusiastic early customers of the printing press were those who used it to evangelize. Martin Luther’s Ninety-five Theses were not that radical; similar sentiments had been debated many times over. What was revolutionary, as Elizabeth Eisenstein writes, is that Luther’s theses “did not stay tacked to the church door.” Instead, they were reproduced at least three hundred thousand times by Gutenberg’s printing press— a runaway hit even by modern standards.
The schism that Luther’s Protestant Reformation produced soon plunged Europe into war. From 1524 to 1648, there was the German Peasants’ War, the Schmalkaldic War, the Eighty Years’ War, the Thirty Years’ War, the French Wars of Religion, the Irish Confederate Wars, the Scottish Civil War, and the English Civil War— many of them raging simultaneously. This is not to neglect the Spanish Inquisition, which began in 1480, or the War of the Holy League from 1508 to 1516, although those had less to do with the spread of Protestantism. The Thirty Years’ War alone killed one-third of Germany’s population, and the seventeenth century was possibly the bloodiest ever, with the early twentieth staking the main rival claim.
But somehow in the midst of this, the printing press was starting to produce scientific and literary progress. Galileo was sharing his (censored) ideas, and Shakespeare was producing his plays."
Silver, Nate. The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail-but Some Don't (pp. 3-4). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
I think things will move much faster in the modern era, meaning that it won't take a couple centuries for this to play out, but only having people grow up with the internet and not be so enamored with the stuff they find on it like people were with the first mass-produced books.
But you can see how people have already used the internet to create whole crowds of followers of their favorite conspiracy theories that conflict with each other.
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: American Politics
Funny that you believe Russia is "almost certainly" interfering with the election, yet (unless I'm misreading you) you seem skeptical about claims that the election process is rigged? First of all, it would seem you couldn't have the former without the latter--that is, if Russia is interfering, then the election is necessarily no longer clean, right? More importantly from my perspective, I've seen far more evidence of the latter claim than I have of the former--in fact, I've seen zero evidence whatsoever that Russia is involved in our elections. Every indication I see points to these claims being nothing more than a rather alarming level of red-baiting and fearmongering intended to distract from the activities of the Clinton campaign that Wikileaks is revealing. Wikileaks has repeatedly disavowed that the source of their leaks is Russia. Do you know of evidence of Russian interference in the election process? Relatedly, are you following the Wikileaks or only CNN's whitewashed cliff notes of Wikileaks, which according to them is the only legal way to read them? (Is it any wonder why people are skeptical of media propagandists?)
The election process is not clean. Electronic voting machines are merely one concern. Let me once again link to this report by the lawyers responsible for the class action lawsuit against the DNC: http://www.election-justice-usa.org/Dem ... _EJUSA.pdf This is like a crash course in all the ways that elections can be rigged to produce the desired outcome--and you know it works, because it already worked. Wikileaks has confirmed many of the issues presented here, particularly regarding the collusion of the media, the DNC, and the HRC campaign.
I agree with your concerns, but frankly I think it's worse than you appear to realize or at least acknowledge in the wording of your post. The Republic is already gone. Populist, democratic change is already all but impossible through the two-party-really-one-corporate-party system; the Democratic primary and the fraud and corruption I've seen during and since have demonstrated this to me beyond doubt. Nothing will be done about any of these concerns, because they are features, not bugs, at least to the small cabal of corporate and political elites that has seized the reins of the empire. There will definitely be distractions, though, to keep the lower classes either too ignorant or too busy for any meaningful resistance or revolution at home. This will come in the form of a deliberately partisan corporate media (check), increased police state actions and reduced civil liberties (check), and most importantly, an enemy scapegoat abroad (you already know who... check) to direct all aggression and angst.
Basically all of what you fear is already happening or has been happening for some time, but it's not coincidence. So when you ask "what to do about it", my response is to laugh and shake my head. What can you do? It's not up to you anymore, if it ever was. Unless you can think of a way to make the fall of the Republic less profitable to the ruling class, it seems the best you can do as an individual is be thankful you're smart and noticed what's up, then hoard your capital and close your eyes like a good capitalist, and you'll be comparatively fine.
The election process is not clean. Electronic voting machines are merely one concern. Let me once again link to this report by the lawyers responsible for the class action lawsuit against the DNC: http://www.election-justice-usa.org/Dem ... _EJUSA.pdf This is like a crash course in all the ways that elections can be rigged to produce the desired outcome--and you know it works, because it already worked. Wikileaks has confirmed many of the issues presented here, particularly regarding the collusion of the media, the DNC, and the HRC campaign.
Sure, but for that you'd need legitimate results.Is there any way you can convince them that results they don't agree with are legitimate?
I agree with your concerns, but frankly I think it's worse than you appear to realize or at least acknowledge in the wording of your post. The Republic is already gone. Populist, democratic change is already all but impossible through the two-party-really-one-corporate-party system; the Democratic primary and the fraud and corruption I've seen during and since have demonstrated this to me beyond doubt. Nothing will be done about any of these concerns, because they are features, not bugs, at least to the small cabal of corporate and political elites that has seized the reins of the empire. There will definitely be distractions, though, to keep the lower classes either too ignorant or too busy for any meaningful resistance or revolution at home. This will come in the form of a deliberately partisan corporate media (check), increased police state actions and reduced civil liberties (check), and most importantly, an enemy scapegoat abroad (you already know who... check) to direct all aggression and angst.
Basically all of what you fear is already happening or has been happening for some time, but it's not coincidence. So when you ask "what to do about it", my response is to laugh and shake my head. What can you do? It's not up to you anymore, if it ever was. Unless you can think of a way to make the fall of the Republic less profitable to the ruling class, it seems the best you can do as an individual is be thankful you're smart and noticed what's up, then hoard your capital and close your eyes like a good capitalist, and you'll be comparatively fine.
Last edited by Spartan_Warrior on Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: American Politics
I understand why everyone uses Roman Empire/Hegemony to compare to the US, but there are certain points we need to keep in mind.
It took a long time for Rome to fall. No one really agrees on when the fall started or when the fall actually happened. Did it start in when Caesar was made dictator for life (44 BCE)? Or, was it when Marcus Aurelius, easily one of Rome's greatest leaders, died (180 CE)? Was the fall when the western Roman Empire was conquered in 476 CE? Or, was it when the Republic was basically dissolved (44 BCE)? Or, was it when Constantinople fell in 565 CE?
Even after the fall, many of the Roman cities and ruling class where still some of the richest, most influential, and most powerful for centuries. They just weren't all one unified empire anymore.
My point being that the fall is very difficult to judge and it will be even harder to judge for the US, as there aren't numerous bands of Gothic tribes waiting to overrun a weak empire. Not to mention, that the US is hardly weak right now, it just looks that way after coming off of what is probably its post-WWII/Cold War high water mark. This all looks scary, but it really is just the world coming back equilibrium. The real test is how the US manages this change.
Right now, it looks shaky. This isn't surprising given the amount of change that is occurring, including the fall from the post war high. However, I'm not convinced we will see a steady progression from one negative stage to another. We will probably recover for a while and then have downturn...and keep doing that for quite a some time.
It took a long time for Rome to fall. No one really agrees on when the fall started or when the fall actually happened. Did it start in when Caesar was made dictator for life (44 BCE)? Or, was it when Marcus Aurelius, easily one of Rome's greatest leaders, died (180 CE)? Was the fall when the western Roman Empire was conquered in 476 CE? Or, was it when the Republic was basically dissolved (44 BCE)? Or, was it when Constantinople fell in 565 CE?
Even after the fall, many of the Roman cities and ruling class where still some of the richest, most influential, and most powerful for centuries. They just weren't all one unified empire anymore.
My point being that the fall is very difficult to judge and it will be even harder to judge for the US, as there aren't numerous bands of Gothic tribes waiting to overrun a weak empire. Not to mention, that the US is hardly weak right now, it just looks that way after coming off of what is probably its post-WWII/Cold War high water mark. This all looks scary, but it really is just the world coming back equilibrium. The real test is how the US manages this change.
Right now, it looks shaky. This isn't surprising given the amount of change that is occurring, including the fall from the post war high. However, I'm not convinced we will see a steady progression from one negative stage to another. We will probably recover for a while and then have downturn...and keep doing that for quite a some time.
Re: American Politics
I agree with you -- there was no "sudden collapse" of ancient Rome and the Eastern empire continued for another 1000 years.
Its funny how parts of history get forgotten. I was able to visit Venice a couple years ago and saw all of this stuff they had looted from Constantinople in the 13th and 14th Centuries. The Venetian empire then lasted until finally conquered by Napoleon.
Ian Morris, who is one of these "long-view" archaeologist/historians, seems to think that the US is more like Britain was in the latter 19th Century, which was preeminent but beginning to decline on a relative basis as slowly other countries like Germany caught up and eventually challenged the British world order. He thinks the inflection point for the US might be around 2045 as we are unable to afford continuing to maintain a world-wide empire and other countries modernize and leapfrog us. I have no idea whether he's right, but it's a coherent theory.
Its funny how parts of history get forgotten. I was able to visit Venice a couple years ago and saw all of this stuff they had looted from Constantinople in the 13th and 14th Centuries. The Venetian empire then lasted until finally conquered by Napoleon.
Ian Morris, who is one of these "long-view" archaeologist/historians, seems to think that the US is more like Britain was in the latter 19th Century, which was preeminent but beginning to decline on a relative basis as slowly other countries like Germany caught up and eventually challenged the British world order. He thinks the inflection point for the US might be around 2045 as we are unable to afford continuing to maintain a world-wide empire and other countries modernize and leapfrog us. I have no idea whether he's right, but it's a coherent theory.
Re: American Politics
It's interesting, I almost put that exact same statement about Venice in with my prior comment. As a side note, there is a really good book on Venice titled City of Fortune.
https://smile.amazon.com/City-Fortune-V ... of+fortune
I have read one of Morris' books titled, Why the West Rules for Now. Good book. I do tend to agree with his macro view that the US will eventually lose it's hyper dominant position, which is already happening a little. Though, I might place it a little later in the century, but it could happen by then if the other countries continue to make positive changes.
https://smile.amazon.com/City-Fortune-V ... of+fortune
I have read one of Morris' books titled, Why the West Rules for Now. Good book. I do tend to agree with his macro view that the US will eventually lose it's hyper dominant position, which is already happening a little. Though, I might place it a little later in the century, but it could happen by then if the other countries continue to make positive changes.
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: American Politics
@Dragline, that's an interesting quote and analogy from Silver.
"But you can see how people have already used the internet to create whole crowds of followers of their favorite conspiracy theories that conflict with each other."
Of course the flip side of this observation is that the mainstream press has been cultivating its own cult based on misinformation and mythologies for the better part of the last century if not longer. In Silver's analogy, if the internet is the printing press, then the mainstream media is the Catholic church... no?
I only point this out because the term "conspiracy theories" is needlessly dismissive and perhaps even lacking in self awareness in an era when unbiased journalism is a rare unicorn and the vast, vast majority of both mainstream and alternative media has an agenda that is completely separate from the truth. The truth is inconsequential next to 1) ratings and 2) political influence all of which equals 3) profit.
Again I note the irony how easily the US government and its media mouthpieces have made it a known fact that the Russians are trying to interfere with the U.S. election by releasing documents to Wikileaks, while the many concerns regarding the integrity of the U.S. elections revealed by those very Wikileaks (and by many of us long before their release) is brushed aside by most as the stuff of conspiracy theory. Very interesting, that. The idea that the Russians, Wikileaks, and Trump are all conspiring together(?) is a literal conspiracy theory with next to no evidence I can see, but it seems both the government and the media have accepted it as fact, and so we are to do so now, too. Hello WWIII. (Who needs Germanic barbarians when you have nuclear war?)
"But you can see how people have already used the internet to create whole crowds of followers of their favorite conspiracy theories that conflict with each other."
Of course the flip side of this observation is that the mainstream press has been cultivating its own cult based on misinformation and mythologies for the better part of the last century if not longer. In Silver's analogy, if the internet is the printing press, then the mainstream media is the Catholic church... no?
I only point this out because the term "conspiracy theories" is needlessly dismissive and perhaps even lacking in self awareness in an era when unbiased journalism is a rare unicorn and the vast, vast majority of both mainstream and alternative media has an agenda that is completely separate from the truth. The truth is inconsequential next to 1) ratings and 2) political influence all of which equals 3) profit.
Again I note the irony how easily the US government and its media mouthpieces have made it a known fact that the Russians are trying to interfere with the U.S. election by releasing documents to Wikileaks, while the many concerns regarding the integrity of the U.S. elections revealed by those very Wikileaks (and by many of us long before their release) is brushed aside by most as the stuff of conspiracy theory. Very interesting, that. The idea that the Russians, Wikileaks, and Trump are all conspiring together(?) is a literal conspiracy theory with next to no evidence I can see, but it seems both the government and the media have accepted it as fact, and so we are to do so now, too. Hello WWIII. (Who needs Germanic barbarians when you have nuclear war?)
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6853
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Re: American Politics
The US will break apart before the empire fades completely. Hopefully peacefully.
Re: American Politics
@All - thanks for the perspective on the Supreme Court. BTW, there's a great Supreme Court podcast, More Perfect that's worth checking out.
@Spartan_Warrior - I would distinguish between two ways of interfering in elections, and I'd make a comparison to a sports game. I'd say that "rigging" means that the game is thrown - there's no way one party is going to win, and that's related to it being an inside job. And then there's "interfering," which is basically akin to cheating - trying to adjust the results, but without any sort of pre-ordination. This could be foreign intervention, domestic hacking, etc. At least, that's how I would interpret the two terms - that's why I can say that I think there will be foreign interference with the election (and maybe domestic interference), without the election being rigged. I'll take a look at the election justice paper. I guess I'm a little more optimistic than you about the distinction between the two parties and the entrenchment of political elites, which is why I'm wondering what I could do that would have the greatest marginal impact. I'm sick of being cynical about all this.
@Chad - I wasn't actually comparing the US to the Roman empire, but the Roman Republic. I think comparing the US to the Roman empire/Roman hegemony is a real stretch. Rather, I was comparing the US politic system to the collapse of the Roman Republic and the start of the Roman empire - I think there's more interesting parallels there, though I wouldn't consider the Roman empire predictive of anything.
@Spartan_Warrior - I would distinguish between two ways of interfering in elections, and I'd make a comparison to a sports game. I'd say that "rigging" means that the game is thrown - there's no way one party is going to win, and that's related to it being an inside job. And then there's "interfering," which is basically akin to cheating - trying to adjust the results, but without any sort of pre-ordination. This could be foreign intervention, domestic hacking, etc. At least, that's how I would interpret the two terms - that's why I can say that I think there will be foreign interference with the election (and maybe domestic interference), without the election being rigged. I'll take a look at the election justice paper. I guess I'm a little more optimistic than you about the distinction between the two parties and the entrenchment of political elites, which is why I'm wondering what I could do that would have the greatest marginal impact. I'm sick of being cynical about all this.
@Chad - I wasn't actually comparing the US to the Roman empire, but the Roman Republic. I think comparing the US to the Roman empire/Roman hegemony is a real stretch. Rather, I was comparing the US politic system to the collapse of the Roman Republic and the start of the Roman empire - I think there's more interesting parallels there, though I wouldn't consider the Roman empire predictive of anything.
Re: American Politics
Actually, no. The medium is neither the message nor the source of it. The analogous body to the medieval Catholic church and the feudal kings that supported it would be the financial and corporate wealthy and the politicians they favor, who are in both political parties. (See Christopher Dodd and Eric Cantor for recent examples.) Blaming the media is kind of a pointless exercise -- they only produce what people pay them to produce. But it has been a convenient way of pointing a finger without inadvertently pointing it at one's self.Spartan_Warrior wrote:@Dragline, that's an interesting quote and analogy from Silver.
"But you can see how people have already used the internet to create whole crowds of followers of their favorite conspiracy theories that conflict with each other."
Of course the flip side of this observation is that the mainstream press has been cultivating its own cult based on misinformation and mythologies for the better part of the last century if not longer. In Silver's analogy, if the internet is the printing press, then the mainstream media is the Catholic church... no?
In some respects the 20th Century was unique in terms of media because it was so concentrated. Radio and TV spectrum was limited and so were the number of outlets. This created two things -- a tendency to move towards the center and a tendency to self-censor to preserve confidences. New slanted media like talk-radio only began to appear in this space when the AM spectrum was largely abandoned and became really cheap again.
In the 19th Century things were more similar to what we have today, although on a longer lag time. Anyone could print a newspaper and most of them were very parochial and slanted in the same manner you see today. So modern media is like opinions, which are like assholes. Everybody has one and the same thing comes out of all of them.
-
Riggerjack
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am
Re: American Politics
FDR threatened to pack the court in the 30's. Supreme Court controversy is nothing new.
Elections where "recounts" changed the winners... Let's see, presidential election 2000, WA state governor's election, 2004. (Just recount until the dem wins, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washing ... tion,_2004.) I believe there was another election about the same time in Wisconsin, or one of the other northern flyovers. Going back, I remember Johnson got the name Landslide Lyndon for an election he "won" in Texas by less than the dead vote. This is nothing new. Vote early, vote often!
Nowadays we worry about voter discrimination by requiring voter to have ID.
In recent past, we have had gangs at poling places breaking skulls of anyone who didn't look like they would vote right. Both in northern cities and southern rural areas. Oddly, Dems in both cases... Not to imply Rep's are above that, just less blatant.
In other words, we have seen this before, and here we are.
Focus on things you can control, or at least influence. This isn't one of those.
Elections where "recounts" changed the winners... Let's see, presidential election 2000, WA state governor's election, 2004. (Just recount until the dem wins, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washing ... tion,_2004.) I believe there was another election about the same time in Wisconsin, or one of the other northern flyovers. Going back, I remember Johnson got the name Landslide Lyndon for an election he "won" in Texas by less than the dead vote. This is nothing new. Vote early, vote often!
Nowadays we worry about voter discrimination by requiring voter to have ID.
In recent past, we have had gangs at poling places breaking skulls of anyone who didn't look like they would vote right. Both in northern cities and southern rural areas. Oddly, Dems in both cases... Not to imply Rep's are above that, just less blatant.
In other words, we have seen this before, and here we are.
Focus on things you can control, or at least influence. This isn't one of those.
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: American Politics
@Dragline: "Actually, no. The medium is neither the message nor the source of it. The analogous body to the medieval Catholic church and the feudal kings that supported it would be the financial and corporate wealthy and the politicians they favor, who are in both political parties. (See Christopher Dodd and Eric Cantor for recent examples.) Blaming the media is kind of a pointless exercise -- they only produce what people pay them to produce. But it has been a convenient way of pointing a finger without inadvertently pointing it at one's self."
I agree with the bolded line. But most mainstream media is owned by about 6 different mega-corporations. The media is "the financial and corporate wealthy" that "favors" (that's a nice euphemism) the political puppets. In fact, I think of Time Warner or Cablevision (both top Clinton campaign contributors) as even more egregious examples of the corporate cabal than, say, Goldman Sachs, because they are not limited to exerting their influence merely through donations (though they clearly do)--they also have huge portions of the population as captive audiences for their propaganda.
I agree with the bolded line. But most mainstream media is owned by about 6 different mega-corporations. The media is "the financial and corporate wealthy" that "favors" (that's a nice euphemism) the political puppets. In fact, I think of Time Warner or Cablevision (both top Clinton campaign contributors) as even more egregious examples of the corporate cabal than, say, Goldman Sachs, because they are not limited to exerting their influence merely through donations (though they clearly do)--they also have huge portions of the population as captive audiences for their propaganda.
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: American Politics
@m741:
I'm sorry, I'm definitely a cynic at this point. The distinction you make between "interference" and "rigged" is subtle but important. I do believe when there is a sufficient quantity and intensity of "interference" factors that it basically crosses over into "rigged". When you consider the egregious and illegal suppression of the sort outlined in the Election Justice document, combined with the more systemic methods of centralizing power structure (everything from super delegates to gerrymandering to lack of term limits)... I'm fresh out of hope for people to change the system through political means.
That said, if you want to do something, you could consider supporting the Green Party. You're not in a swing state, your vote literally decides nothing as far as whether Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Delete takes the Iron Throne. However, if Dr. Jill Stein gets 5% of the popular vote, the Green Party will become a national party and gain access to federal funding in future elections, which would be a tremendous blow to the "two-party" duopoly. As a shorthand comparison, her party platform is very similar to Bernie's, except more progressive (e.g. canceling student debt through quantitative easing).
(I recommend the Green Party specifically not only because they are the closest to my own politics, but because they are the only party that does not accept corporate donations--which is critical to restoring democratic power instead of corporate power. Not only is Gary "What is Aleppo?" Johnson kind of a silly candidate IMO, he is financed and thus owned by billionaires like the Koch brothers, no different from any Dempublican. That said, even helping the Libertarian Party get to 5% is something, and in full disclosure, Johnson appears much more capable of doing it than Jill Stein.)
Beyond that pointless exercise of voting, and steps you can take in your personal life to minimize your own impact and complicity (e.g. minimizing consumption, not supporting mainstream media outlets, etc), I really don't think you can do anything to change the course of things.
But I'd be interested if anyone had ideas.
ETA: And personally, I would add some amount of disaster prepping to "steps you take in your personal life" at this point. I'm serious, the proxy war in Syria, Clinton's adamant stance on a no-fly zone, combined with the fearmongering and scapegoating of Russia by the media and political elite is scaring the shit out of me.
I'm sorry, I'm definitely a cynic at this point. The distinction you make between "interference" and "rigged" is subtle but important. I do believe when there is a sufficient quantity and intensity of "interference" factors that it basically crosses over into "rigged". When you consider the egregious and illegal suppression of the sort outlined in the Election Justice document, combined with the more systemic methods of centralizing power structure (everything from super delegates to gerrymandering to lack of term limits)... I'm fresh out of hope for people to change the system through political means.
That said, if you want to do something, you could consider supporting the Green Party. You're not in a swing state, your vote literally decides nothing as far as whether Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Delete takes the Iron Throne. However, if Dr. Jill Stein gets 5% of the popular vote, the Green Party will become a national party and gain access to federal funding in future elections, which would be a tremendous blow to the "two-party" duopoly. As a shorthand comparison, her party platform is very similar to Bernie's, except more progressive (e.g. canceling student debt through quantitative easing).
(I recommend the Green Party specifically not only because they are the closest to my own politics, but because they are the only party that does not accept corporate donations--which is critical to restoring democratic power instead of corporate power. Not only is Gary "What is Aleppo?" Johnson kind of a silly candidate IMO, he is financed and thus owned by billionaires like the Koch brothers, no different from any Dempublican. That said, even helping the Libertarian Party get to 5% is something, and in full disclosure, Johnson appears much more capable of doing it than Jill Stein.)
Beyond that pointless exercise of voting, and steps you can take in your personal life to minimize your own impact and complicity (e.g. minimizing consumption, not supporting mainstream media outlets, etc), I really don't think you can do anything to change the course of things.
But I'd be interested if anyone had ideas.
ETA: And personally, I would add some amount of disaster prepping to "steps you take in your personal life" at this point. I'm serious, the proxy war in Syria, Clinton's adamant stance on a no-fly zone, combined with the fearmongering and scapegoating of Russia by the media and political elite is scaring the shit out of me.
-
BeyondtheWrap
- Posts: 598
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:38 pm
- Location: NYC
Re: American Politics
Your OP reminds me of John Michael Greer's blog The Archdruid Report, which has many posts speculating on the collapse of the U.S. system, often comparing it to historical examples such as Rome. Are you familiar with his work, m741?m741 wrote:...
I think the Crisis of the Third Century also deserves a mention in that list.Chad wrote:No one really agrees on when the fall started or when the fall actually happened. Did it start in when Caesar was made dictator for life (44 BCE)? Or, was it when Marcus Aurelius, easily one of Rome's greatest leaders, died (180 CE)? Was the fall when the western Roman Empire was conquered in 476 CE? Or, was it when the Republic was basically dissolved (44 BCE)? Or, was it when Constantinople fell in 565 CE?
Re: American Politics
I would argue that Trump's success this year suggests we could make a difference. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he would do good. I'm only suggesting that he is outside of the historical norm for political candidates, so was Bernie for that matter. No reason this can't happen in a good way at some point.Spartan_Warrior wrote:I really don't think you can do anything to change the course of things.
But I'd be interested if anyone had ideas.
Also, I have been able to vote in 7 Presidential elections, counting the upcoming one, and 2 out of 7 have had successful non-traditional candidates.
@BeyondtheWrap
I completely agree. The Crisis of the Third Century, along with a few other incidents/dates, could easily be added.