COVID-19: Unwinding the Lockdown and Long Term Epidemic

[nomadscientist]

Having lived in both places I see the UK and US political systems as drastically different. The US constitutionalism means it has first past the post for individual offices, but these offices all have to interlock in order to do almost anything. Also, many of these elections are held at different times and with limited constituencies that reliably give very different outcomes to one another. In Britain there is one election and it usually unlocks all power (it didn't during the Brexit period which is one reason why the UK started acting like a car being driven by a drunk blind man).

So Trump took the presidency and this shocked a lot of people but it gave him relatively limited power. By US standards he was very powerful when the Republicans also had both houses. But even there, an unusually favorable situation, Trump never had the sort of power over the Congress that a British prime minister has over Parliament. Also, Trump and the legislature combined never had the sort of power of the British Parliament*, and judges have delayed most of Trump's initiatives and blocked many of them.

If Trump had been a UK PM he could have totally ended immigration, or whatever, within weeks. Remember Trump talking about leaving NATO, banning Muslims entering, ending H1B, building a wall and making Mexico pay for it**? Well, none of that really happened. Bits and pieces of it happened here and there, kinda.

But despite the possibility for drastic changes quickly in the UK, the UK political landscape is still dominated by the sort of centrists who would go down pretty well in NYC or SF but not in Tulsa, Oklahoma, much like other European countries***.




*bare majority to pass any law, e.g. execute this particular guy. Literally, this has happened (not recently), which is why there is a specific line in the US Constitution banning it.

**don't think they wouldn't have done if the US Air Force had been asking

***my view on Brexit is that it's an echo of Britain having coming out of the WWII as an important victor while the EU is more or less a club for countries that felt they had no other options in 1945. That probably doesn't reflect the reality of Britain in 2020 but cultural factors don't have to reflect present reality. On the other hand the "extremism" of Brexit is overplayed by almost everyone. Norway and Iceland aren't in the EU but it doesn't follow from that that they have hostile relations with other US-aligned countries or drastically different internal organization. Maybe this is going too far off-topic...

[IlliniDave]

The main voter variables which are set differently is that individualism and religion are more important in the US. I think this difference is due to population density and [path-dependent] history respectively. Yet, this is what sets the US center equal to the Euro right in terms of individual/collective agency and makes religion relevant in the US while being mostly irrelevant in terms of policy in Europe.

I think what set the US system apart at the time of its founding was self governance (don't need royalty or aristocracy who know better than the common man to tell us how to live), individual liberty, and religious liberty.

If you go with the IDW notions of liberal = change what's bad, conservative = preserve what's good, at the time the US were the liberals and Europe the conservatives if you want to compare across the water. That fundamentally did not change until the world wars. The US has drifted far leftward of where it started, but hasn't done the giant 180 that Europe has.

Religion means nothing in US politics any more aside from being a flag for which to rally votes occasionally. No different than race, sadly. Politicians take up causes when they need votes then get into office and do everything they can to preserve the status quo--to keep their seat at the table, keep the elites in position to hoard opportunity, and their corporate overlords happy.

Up until recently (the rise of the US-wing of Antifa and related groups) I always had the impression the European political spectrum was far broader than the US in terms of the left-right span. Our right isn't that far right--it's just clinging to the liberal principals the country was founded on (individual liberty, religious liberty, and self-rule), and the left stopped well short of Socialism, even short of the Nordic version of capitalism.

[IlliniDave]

So Trump took the presidency and this shocked a lot of people but it gave him relatively limited power. By US standards he was very powerful when the Republicans also had both houses. But even there, an unusually favorable situation, Trump never had the sort of power over the Congress that a British prime minister has over Parliament. Also, Trump and the legislature combined never had the sort of power of the British Parliament*, and judges have delayed most of Trump's initiatives and blocked many of them.

Trump is the least powerful US president in my lifetime. He's a political outsider, and even before the election the deep state was working against him. Courts invent new standards to rule against him, nonstop sham investigations and impeachment proceedings (complete with crimes that aren't crimes), and a Republican congress (for two years) too afraid to lose their place at the hog trough to side with the outsider despite what their constituents wanted policy-wise. Once the Dems got the House the Reps in the Senate started sabre rattling occasionally, knowing nothing would come of it and their futures would remain secure.

It's amusing that intelligent people are afraid Trump's going to become an autocratic dictator.

[bottlerocks]

Trump is the least powerful US president in my lifetime
...
It's amusing that intelligent people are afraid Trump's going to become an autocratic dictator.

Sorry for the off-topic but hard disagree. Least effective != least powerful. He's made it his mission to stack the judicial system (second most Fed judges by time) and has effectively put most of the House and Senate conservatives under his thumb. Part of that is incident with growing partisanship in general but doesn't change the power he holds.

He has had a very negative outlook towards checks and balances and his attitude has infiltrated a significant part of the voting population. If he loses in November there will be a sizable portion of the population who literally believes the results are fraud (which is what it seems like he's setting the stage for). That's autocracy 101.

My own father has a PhD yet believes Trump didn't lose the popular vote in 2016. That's power.

[Mister Imperceptible]

If he loses in November there will be a sizable portion of the population who literally believes the results are fraud (which is what it seems like he's setting the stage for). That's autocracy 101.

This is exactly what the Democrats have done for 3 years.

[bottlerocks]

This is exactly what the Democrats have done for 3 years.

Not sure what you mean there? Complaining about how the electoral college should work (or not exist) is not the same as saying voting results are fraudulent.

And btw I'm not comparing Trump to Dems (Carter was the #1 in Fed judges lol), just making a statement about the power he holds which is honestly scary to me. The auto-generate whataboutism is just more evidence IMO.

[Mister Imperceptible]

saying voting results are fraudulent.

This is exactly what the Democrats have done for 3 years.

You must have missed the Russia investigation.

[Campitor]

Least effective != least powerful.

Every President has the power to do terrible things and drag the US into conflicts. This is why, regardless of whose team is in power, it's never a good idea to hand more power over to the government. Every law, tax, and policy you support can be used by the "other" team, via selective enforcement, to destroy their opponents and perpetuate the oligarchical style of governance that results in corruption and eventual despotism.

In regards to the electoral college, both sides complain about it. But if we're all going to be honest, the process itself for electing presidential nominees is a version of the electoral college. Look up "Super Delegate" - why are they needed? Why not use popular vote in the conventions? Complaining about the electoral vs popular vote is a great tool for demagoguery.

Our current system guarantees a winner takes all for delegates. I think there's only 2 states that split delegate votes. Many people don't vote because they feel their vote doesn't count in a majority takes all election; this may change in a popular vote paradigm. You also have to consider the recount mess that would occur if an election is contested. I wonder if a popular vote would force both parties to support voter ID.

[IlliniDave]

Sorry for the off-topic but hard disagree. Least effective != least powerful. He's made it his mission to stack the judicial system (second most Fed judges by time) and has effectively put most of the House and Senate conservatives under his thumb. Part of that is incident with growing partisanship in general but doesn't change the power he holds.
...
My own father has a PhD yet believes Trump didn't lose the popular vote in 2016. That's power.

Appointing judges? That's Presidenting 101. (I forget, was it Trump or his opponents who have started floating the idea again about increasing the number of SCOTUS seats to stack it?). He's filling vacancies. He's not firing judges and replacing them. What particular rulings by Trump appointed judges are so horrifying?

And I don't think Trump has conservatives in the Senate and House under his thumb, not even close. He's not got one of his major legislative planks through best as I can recall, despite 2 years the Republicans held both houses. Sure, some guys do a little preening now that Congress is safely deadlocked and there's no danger of having to go on record passing any legislation the establishment doesn't approve of.

I don't even have a PhD and Trump didn't force me to believe he won the "popular vote", even though that's just a name for a thing that isn't a thing when it comes to selecting US Presidents.

Obama's leftover admin people spent 3 years trying to oust him. Obama appointed lower-level judges are are blocking nearly every executive action he takes. Now that is power.

[Jean]

We (swiss) copied a lot of stuff from your US constitution, but maybe you could copy a little from ours now?
We have a two chamber parlement elected in a way similar to yours, and those two chambers (your house and senate) elect a given number of ministers (we have seven) that act as a president, they keep turns so that another one of them acts as a president for the rest of the world every year.
The two chambers electing them have a tacite agreement to only elect unbombastic personality, and to keep every interest group represented among those ministers. For us, interest group, used to mean language and party, now there is gender.
That would be a massive change, but it worked out well to keep us united, despite our main common ground only being a defiance for the outside world. It still works well to maintain a will to compromise with fellow citizen we don't really like.

[ZAFCorrection]

I wouldn't say Trump is the most powerful president ever, but he did get two supreme court nominations (a handful of presidents got zero, more got only one) and has been around for what at the very least seems to be an inflection point in American politics. I would say that safely prevents him from being called the least powerful president.

To go within your lifetime, iDave, I'm pretty sure you were born before Jimmy Carter's term, who got zero supreme court nominees and is widely considered a pretty ineffectual president.

This is arguably not the biggest deal around, but trump has also had a pretty big impact on immigration for work and education. It's turning in to conventional wisdom, for instance, among the Desi community that the US is too much of a pain in the ass to deal with immigration-wise, so many more people are heading to Canada or Australia. That is going to have a noticeable long-term impact on the composition of tech workers in the US.

[IlliniDave]

That's interesting, I didn't know that. That was the original purpose of electors, to have a sober-minded group of people chosen by the states convene to choose a president and vice president, but it didn't take long before electors became affiliated with (pledged to) candidates and that gradually morphed into what we have today where you don't even know who the electors are.

[IlliniDave]

I wouldn't say Trump is the most powerful president ever, but he did get two supreme court nominations (a handful of presidents got zero, more got only one) and has been around for what at the very least seems to be an inflection point in American politics. I would say that safely prevents him from being called the least powerful president.

To go within your lifetime, iDave, I'm pretty sure you were born before Jimmy Carter's term, who got zero supreme court nominees and is widely considered a pretty ineffectual president.

This is arguably not the biggest deal around, but trump has also had a pretty big impact on immigration for work and education. It's turning in to conventional wisdom, for instance, among the Desi community that the US is too much of a pain in the ass to deal with immigration-wise, so many more people are heading to Canada or Australia. That is going to have a noticeable long-term impact on the composition of tech workers in the US.

My first political memory was my dad sitting me down in front of the TV to make me watch Nixon resign when I was 10, so yes I remember Carter. As was mentioned above he had the most judicial appointments of all. But I don't remember at the time how much of his presidential activity was blocked or undermined. I remember gas lines and hearing a lot about inflation, but Carter was a guy most people liked, maybe just a case of the wrong pick at the wrong time.

It's true, in 2016 people from India accounted for 5.23% of all people granted permanent resident status. That was down to 5.17% in 2018. I don't know what caused the decline, but it certainly wasn't the "comprehensive immigration reform" plan Trump powerfully strong-armed into place. His own party sat on their hands and let it fizzle. Truthfully, I don't even know what was in it other than to legitimize DACA in exchange for beefing up the southern border, so maybe other stuff in there meant letting it fizzle was a good idea, but I think he was pretty hands-off as the bill(s) was/were hammered out. Maybe he's done something by EO, but the nice thing about immigration EOs is they can be rescinded with the stroke of a pen on another EO--unless you're Trump, then SCOTUS will strike it down not because unconstitutional, but because the explanation did not suit their fancy.

I think you're right Trump will have a lot of notoriety in his legacy, and his SCOTUS picks will maybe be around a while, unless the Dems win the senate and find a way to impeach/remove Kavanaugh. Right now SCOTUS is pretty balanced though. As a president while in office, however, Trump's been pretty effectively handcuffed by opponents from within his party, from the Democrats, and from the unelected cohort of the gov't. The latter is the one thing that's been going on in DC that scares me.

[IlliniDave]

I believe it is a combination of executive orders and a Trump appointee over the USCIS having their thumb on the scales in favor of rejecting H1Bs. It's certainly the case that those things can be changed, but the damage (or progress, if you are so inclined) has already been done.

For instance, there is my brother-in-law ...

First and foremost I'll say that sucks for your brother-in-law, truly.

We were talking about different things. I was looking in the most recent US Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. The data I was looking at was for people granted permanent resident status in the US. I think H1B visas are temporary by definition, as employer-sponsored work visas. Also, though I did not pursue it, I caught a headline this morning seems to indicate H1B visa suspension has been extended. I believe they were suspended because of the extraordinarily high unemployment in the US/pandemic/etc. It's also possible that since the resistance to immigration reform is fierce (e.g., recent SCOTUS ruling) that there's some political chess going on.

Regarding permanent resident status, overall granting of permanent resident status was down at the end of Trump's second year by about 8% from the last year of the prior administration, but still above what I believe is the statutory cap of 1M by 10% or so. And if you look through the data, there's no real obvious indicator that a racist/fascist has had his thumb on the scale, or that there has really been any noteworthy change under Trump (deeper examination may prove that false). Permanent residents from Europe have declined by a larger percentage than those from India, for example, during the Trump era.

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statist ... 018/table2

Some of that might be voluntary. Much of what Trump does is decried as racist or fascist or otherwise nefarious even when there are logical and benign reasons to take the action. I'm sure the extended H1B suspension will be couched that way. We've got a thread here on ere reflecting the pall of fear that has been cast over US immigration from an immigrant's POV, based on certain narratives about Trump. Obviously there is concern from your and your family's perspective. Maybe fewer people are applying.

I don't pay attention to everything Trump says. But when it comes to legal immigration (i.e., immigration per the Immigration and Nationality Act) he seems generally favorable towards it. My understanding is that right now that path for immigration is done largely by lottery and family connections (so-called "chain migration"). I have heard Trump talk about wanting to make merit-based immigration a larger component of the selection process--modeled after the systems of countries like, coincidentally, Canada and Australia.

I hope your brother-in-law and his family are reunited soon.

[IlliniDave]

... He's not got one of his major legislative planks through best as I can recall, despite 2 years the Republicans held both houses ...

Quoting one's self is tacky, I know, but my recollection improved. Tax reform did get passed. So I was wrong.

[bottlerocks]

*redacted

[jacob]

The EU is drafting their safe travel list in terms of who to let in at the borders.
Apparently to be published by July 1st. The US is not on it. To get on it, a country needs an infection rate lower than the EU average.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/worl ... l-ban.html

[tonyedgecombe]

I'm not sure that is going to hold, Greece and Spain will want to let in British tourists and I'm pretty sure we are well above EU infection rates.

[Campitor]

Yes, and the tree of liberty must be watered with blood. Right? Or are we going to ignore that part?

I'm pretty sure that phrase isn't found in the Declaration of Independence. So um...no I wasn't ignoring it.

And that quote must be taken into context. It was written by Jefferson in a private letter to John Adams' son in-law during a period of great political upheaval and transformations occurring in the Western world. It wasn't until 1782 that the British removed the last of their troops from US soil. Hostility's resumed in 1807 when the British boarded an American Navy Ship (USS Chesapeake) looking for British Navy deserters.

I imagine if you had just been through a war of Independence with the largest super power in the world, who continued to saber rattle and try to press its advantages, and your shipping and ports were caught up in the rivalry of 3 powerful states (Spain, France, and Britain), I can imagine you would also be tempted to write a similar phrase. So in this context, I don't see how this phrase applies to our current situation despite its heavy use to somehow justify violence against current systems that haven't reached the level of despotism experienced during the Revolutionary War and it's subsequent skirmishes.

I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.1 The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted

Edit: I also forgot to mention that Jefferson was fearful that a strong central government could become to powerful and suppress citizen's rights.
Shay's rebellion occurred the same year he wrote the above letter. He believed the rebellion served as a reminder that citizens would be vigilant against any usurpation of their freedoms and sometimes violent action is needed to remind those in power that abuses will not be tolerated. However he did think Shay's rebellion was misinformed hence the "pardon and pacify them" and the "founded in ignorance" section.

But then I guess his letter does apply to today's riots - the current violence and insurrection is serving as reminder to government that citizens will safeguard their freedoms. And like Shay's rebellion it is also founded in ignorance. I'll watch for the subsequent pardoning and pacifying.

[Campitor]

Context is important, yes. I asked if people were for or against the murder and rioting going on in america right now. Jacob, in a roundabout way, said the violence is acceptable. You responded to jacobs post endorsing his reasoning. I keep saying murder and destruction of property is bad, and many others seem to think it's just fine.

Again its about context. You overlooked the bold part:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.

That section is very important - it states that revolution should NOT be undertaken for light or transient reasons. And further down in the Declaration of Independence are the list of grievances that sparked the call to independence. What is happening today comes nowhere close to what was happening then. Overthrowing an entire government to stop police brutality is an overreaction.

Jefferson feared the tyranny of government and Adams feared the tyranny of the uninformed mob. I believe the current mob to be uninformed and responding emotionally rather than looking at the facts dispassionately to determine more effective forms of action.

Topics of great importance require vigorous but polite debate. How else can items of such importance be hashed out? How else can the kernel of truth be discovered in the debris of error? I certainly don't believe I'm anywhere close to being 100% right or even 50% right on anything. But I'll question and prod and poke to get at the truth. If I'm crossing any boundaries then people should say so. I'm not averse or afraid of criticism. Show me where I'm wrong, based on facts and logic, and I'll learn. While I may drop a thread if I feel I'm only repeating myself or not adding anything to the discussion, I would never drop a forum over a debate. I'd quit only if I felt there was nothing new to learn. And judging by the diversity of opinions on this board and the considerable intellects behind those opinions, I still have much I can learn.