Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[Martin Alvito]

Let's make sure we are operating from the same understanding of the term "progressivism". Would you care to define?

Rogers' point is that the Democratic Party, as a collection of interests which prefers a non-status-quo agenda that we might (charitably?) define as more consistent with Mill's 'greatest good, greatest number' thesis, has a problem. It's agreeing on that agenda.

It's hard to believe the party's platform. We all know that it's a committee output, and that any given interest within that committee might have more (or less) ability to enact its agenda if the party is placed into power.

The Democratic Party therefore has two problems. One, they fight amongst themselves prior to the election in order to maneuver the resulting legislative status quo in the direction each member wants it to go. Two, they have to fight their adversaries across the aisle. This is Rogers' point.

The Republicans have had the same problem (to a lesser degree) for some time now, which is not how they lost me. They lost me when they fully threw Samuelson out with the bathwater, because there is no world in which he was wrong in explaining why federal government regulation of interstate commerce became a thing. Laissez faire doesn't work, and he proved why this is the case.

 

[BlueTX]

Rogers' point is that the Democratic Party, as a collection of interests which prefers a non-status-quo agenda that we might (charitably?) define as more consistent with Mill's 'greatest good, greatest number' thesis, has a problem. It's agreeing on that agenda.

It's hard to believe the party's platform. We all know that it's a committee output, and that any given interest within that committee might have more (or less) ability to enact its agenda if the party is placed into power.

The Democratic Party therefore has two problems. One, they fight amongst themselves prior to the election in order to maneuver the resulting legislative status quo in the direction each member wants it to go. Two, they have to fight their adversaries across the aisle. This is Rogers' point.

The Republicans have had the same problem (to a lesser degree) for some time now, which is not how they lost me. They lost me when they fully threw Samuelson out with the bathwater, because there is no world in which he was wrong in explaining why federal government regulation of interstate commerce became a thing. Laissez faire doesn't work, and he proved why this is the case.

Respectfully, is there an answer to my specific question included in the reply?

Yes. Rogers recognized the big tent of diverse views on one side versus the cultish/slavish "team" on the other. It will always be a political disadvantage to have to herd interparty cats while simultaneously fending off the pack of dogs.

I am pleased you abandoned the GOP, whatever the cause. Personally, I did so in the late 70s when I became aware the GOP decided the cause of social decay in this country was single black mothers (welfare queens).

 

[Martin Alvito]

Respectfully, is there an answer to my specific question included in the reply?

Yes. Rogers recognized the big tent of diverse views on one side versus the cultish/slavish "team" on the other. It will always be a political disadvantage to have to herd interparty cats while simultaneously fending off the pack of dogs.

I am pleased you abandoned the GOP, whatever the cause. Personally, I did so in the late 70s when I became aware the GOP decided the cause of social decay in this country was single black mothers (welfare queens).

It's in the first paragraph. I would consider a definition of 'progressivism' as "a collection of non-status-quo policies that are broadly considered to be more consistent with a utilitarian philosophy than the extant status quo" to be a fairly non-controversial definition. I question that definition on the grounds of the special interest politics problem inherent in progressivism, but I also think that it's extremely hard to argue that the special interest politics are a bigger problem than the broad opposition by the present right to what Samuelson had to say on anything other than adverse selection. They do love protecting their pet insurance interests.

Seeing how I was an infant in the late '70s, I didn't have the option. What I learned over the course of the 2000s was that, research into the validity of the 'welfare queen' argument aside, there are enormous structural problems in this country that tend to produce people (of all ethnicities, as it turns out) that are ill-suited to functioning at the level we would like them to function at. It doesn't really matter whether you got dealt a poor hand in the inner cities or rural America. You're going to end up a second-class citizen all the same, irrespective of ability, unless you have a great deal of fortune with respect to who you meet when.

 

[BlueTX]

It's in the first paragraph. I would consider a definition of 'progressivism' as "a collection of non-status-quo policies that are broadly considered to be more consistent with a utilitarian philosophy than the extant status quo" to be a fairly non-controversial definition. I question that definition on the grounds of the special interest politics problem inherent in progressivism, but I also think that it's extremely hard to argue that the special interest politics are a bigger problem than the broad opposition by the present right to what Samuelson had to say on anything other than adverse selection. They do love protecting their pet insurance interests.

Seeing how I was an infant in the late '70s, I didn't have the option. What I learned over the course of the 2000s was that, research into the validity of the 'welfare queen' argument aside, there are enormous structural problems in this country that tend to produce people (of all ethnicities, as it turns out) that are ill-suited to functioning at the level we would like them to function at. It doesn't really matter whether you got dealt a poor hand in the inner cities or rural America. You're going to end up a second-class citizen all the same, irrespective of ability, unless you have a great deal of fortune with respect to who you meet when.

Fair enough. Apologies for missing it.

My excuse is that, like the Transfer thread weirdos who watch 3rd division Filipino footy, I am a minor league baseball junkie and was watching the Sugar Land Space Cowboys score 17 runs in a single inning. It was wild.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Fair enough. Apologies for missing it.

My excuse is that, like the Transfer thread weirdos who watch 3rd division Filipino footy, I am a minor league baseball junkie and was watching the Sugar Land Space Cowboys score 17 runs in a single inning. It was wild.

I didn't spell it out - I left it as subtext - so no apology necessary. If I thought it was clear, and it wasn't, I tend to assume that the problem is at the originating end until unambiguously proven otherwise.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Utter murder. I can poke a lot of holes in the last third of this, but the general point that this particular election is being contested by clowns will remain.

 

[dublinbluenose]

This guys threads are wild. If even 1/4 accurate then the GOP is in a whole heap of trouble.

 

[Ruairi77]

You think I am on the side of Fox and Friends after reading that?

I'm not going to mess around at all here: if someone like me has to fully toe up to the Democratic party line on every single issue in order to be your ally, you are going to lose election after election. What I highlighted is that both sides are using actual human beings as pieces on a gameboard here. If you can't take criticism and adapt, you are going to lose to their tactical superiority. They are more cynical and more clinical. You cannot win by alienating all but your faithful.

Point blank: get off your high horse. It's why you lose.

Scaring people and appealing to base mob instincts is hardly superior tactics

 

[Martin Alvito]

Scaring people and appealing to base mob instincts is hardly superior tactics

If it works, it's superior tactics.

If it only works in the short term, it's Faustian tactics. Whether or not that's a good call depends on how long you expect to live.

 

[tsubaki]

If it works, it's superior tactics.

If it only works in the short term, it's Faustian tactics. Whether or not that's a good call depends on how long you expect to live.

TBF they have worked out a way of alienating all but their faithful and still winning - when a politics is divided as the US's is, you only need to have actual control of four or five percent of your sides voters to make it impossible for the rest of your side to ever win competitive races again without your support. As Frank Herbert said a long time ago, "he who can destroy a thing controls a thing".

It is long past time that his enemies in the GOP figured that out and note that it works just as well for them as him.

 

[Ruairi77]

If it works, it's superior tactics.

If it only works in the short term, it's Faustian tactics. Whether or not that's a good call depends on how long you expect to live.

is it working tho?

 

[summerisle]

Another normal day in America ; and he's a doctor.

 

[summerisle]

lol

 

[Tin-Tin]

 

[Huyton Layne]

Glad he doesn't sleep. Hope his health goes down the shitter because of it. He's in a position where he should be knowledgeable on everything he votes on. F that guy and his remorse.