Ten oz

U.S. Democratic Primary

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

So, there is an interesting book by Metzl that just been out that explains to some degree how politicians manage to maintain these policies (though not necessarily why). The provocative title is "Dying by Whiteness" and the author argues that certain white folks are voting against government health programs, gun control and tax laws that would actually benefit them and actually hurting their own health in the process. The way politicians convince them to do so is by selling them as countermeasures against what they describe as criminals, lazy government moochers and Big government. In other words, they sell these measures as ways, to safeguard to position of white folks in today's society. Politicians tap into the fear that redistribution of resources may endanger to their privilege. A barely veiled implication that is sold heavily is that these social measures will take away from whites and benefit minorities. Metzl is a psychologist but has taken an epidemiological view on these policies and demonstrates that they actually hurt (poor) white folks as badly as the minorities against which those measures are supposed to be leveraged against. The interesting bit is that while policies were shaped by racial tension, the individuals do not necessarily have an explicit racist world view (and aspect that he highlighted in interviews), but politicians heavily tap into the fear of loss and the use of scapegoats.

I think despite the issues Canada may have, there a bit less fear that someone undeserved may come up. Though I am pretty sure instances likes this where folks work against their interest may also be present (I guess that is something to read up on).

We see a fair bit of this in Alberta, the Texas of the North. I have clients on permanent disability who vote conservative because they think conservative policies are aimed at cutting funding for deadbeats, not themselves. It’s a great con. Down east, this is less prevalent. I’m progressive because I’m economically conservative. It’s cheaper to provide free addictions services than pay for multiple emergency room visits and incarcerations. Welfare is cheaper than the cost of crime and incarcerations. Spending on infrastructure maintenance is cheaper than rebuilding neglected infrastructure. I could go on, but you get the point. Being conservative is the opposite of what conservatives sell us as a message. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@iNow as a continuation to the point I made in the reparations thread regarding activism I think too much activism from our national leaders is part of the reason divisiveness is so great. People are fearful of what happens if the other side wins in part because they don't trust the other side cares about their interests. For example Republicans promote NRA positions claiming they are in the publics best interest but the arguments are clearly contrived. They ignore what the majority supports in favor of what their fringe supports. I don't wish to see Democrats behaving the same way. I think candidates should error toward what is broadly supported by all. The President is everyones President equally and not merely the President for those who voted for them. 

 

****edit - I am not implying they should appeal to the other side or be moderate by default. Rather they need to ensure their policies are for everyone. Universal healthcare isn't commonly thought of as a moderate position but by design is meant to benefit everyone. 

Edited by Ten oz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

@iNow as a continuation to the point I made in the reparations thread regarding activism I think too much activism from our national leaders is part of the reason divisiveness is so great. People are fearful of what happens if the other side wins in part because they don't trust the other side cares about their interests. For example Republicans promote NRA positions claiming they are in the publics best interest but the arguments are clearly contrived. They ignore what the majority supports in favor of what their fringe supports. I don't wish to see Democrats behaving the same way. I think candidates should error toward what is broadly supported by all. The President is everyones President equally and not merely the President for those who voted for them. 

 

****edit - I am not implying they should appeal to the other side or be moderate by default. Rather they need to ensure their policies are for everyone. Universal healthcare isn't commonly thought of as a moderate position but by design is meant to benefit everyone. 

Finally signs of your taking responsibility...:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

****edit - I am not implying they should appeal to the other side or be moderate by default. Rather they need to ensure their policies are for everyone. Universal healthcare isn't commonly thought of as a moderate position but by design is meant to benefit everyone. 

 

55 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Finally signs of your taking responsibility...:P

Having solutions that work for everyone is consistent with the way Obama and Clinton governed. It is generally Republicans who betray the public's best interest in favor of satiating the worst inclinations of their base.

*Edit- also this applies based on who ones constituency is. AOC for example has no obligation to give 2 *#its about out of work factor works in West VA. They are not who she was elected to represent. 

Edited by Ten oz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

Having solutions that work for everyone is consistent with the way Obama and Clinton governed. It is generally Republicans who betray the public's best interest in favor of satiating the worst inclinations of their base.

*Edit- also this applies based on who ones constituency is. AOC for example has no obligation to give 2 *#its about out of work factor works in West VA. They are not who she was elected to represent. 

I wasn't sure I used the right icon...but rest assured I was at least somewhat commensurate with your plight.

...or should I say blight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I think too much activism from our national leaders is part of the reason divisiveness is so great. People are fearful of what happens if the other side wins in part because they don't trust the other side cares about their interests. 

Divisiveness is so great because we’ve evolved along the ape line of primates. We’re tribal monkeys. 

I appreciate where you’re coming from and see the inherent ethics of expecting these things from presidential candidates. 

I also see, however, a rapidly shifting global landscape wherein tribes are no longer separated by oceans or arbitrary cartographical boundaries. 

We’re connect in ways never previously possible, and those connections are algorithmacally magnified and shaped. We’re mostly hairless apes being led around by the nose; marionettes ties to strings held by AI puppeteers. 

Perhaps having a few “pied pipers” leading us toward something more positive, communal, and even foundational is a good thing. Perhaps it’s what the times call for.

Sure, we rationalize our decisions after the fact... come up with clever narratives for why we did X, Y, and Z, but it’s our passion that pulls the vote lever and checks the box on the ballet. It’s our bellies that decide. 

Maybe having aspiration and vision as core to the message is exactly what we need in a leader. Maybe the mythology is more central in voters hearts... maybe pathos overrules logos... and maybe that passion should be focused on positive active causes that actually matter in everyone’s daily lives.

You know, or maybe we should set arbitrary expectations for how a candidate should behave. I suppose that’s an option, too.  

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, iNow said:

Maybe having aspiration and vision as core to the message is exactly what we need in a leader. Maybe the mythology is more central in voters hearts... maybe pathos overrules logos... and maybe that passion should be focused on positive active causes that actually matter in everyone’s daily lives.

You know, or maybe we should set arbitrary expectations for how a candidate should behave. I suppose that’s an option, too.  

Pragmatism isn't arbitrary though. I think Obama campaigned from the left advocating policies which were good for everyone and practical. Despite all the complaining about the ACA done from the Right it reduced deficit spending and got more people healthcare. Part of the problem today seems to be that people have lost faith that smart policy making can resolve our current issues. With someone like Trump in office it isn't hard to understand why faith has been so greatly diminished. Many people want to just start over fro scratch or just totally change course but that isn't possible. One cannot through a car in reverse while traveling forward at freeway speeds. 

I am no Donald Rumsfled fan but he did make an interesting statement once "'You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." I agree with its basic theme. One must manage what they have and not what they wish they will eventually have. The Democratic Candidates are running to become President of the United States as it exists here and now. That means they will be burdened with cleaning up the messes we currently have. 

We have a budget deficit of over a trillion a year, ongoing trade disputes with the world, an opioid crisis, there is a humanitarian crisis in Yemen, refugee crisis in the Mediterranean, and etc, etc. Once Trump is gone executive authority will need to be overhauled. There will need to be changes to our Nepotism laws, the Emoluments Clause, financial disclosures by elected officials, and etc, etc, etc. It seems silly but things like whether or not a President should be allowed to threaten a citizen via media (social or otherwise) will need to be addressed.

Candidates are talking about things like UBI and Reparations but I believe the sobering reality is the next President will spend the bulk of their first term working on more straight forward and boring things like restoring all necessary funding for the ACA and fighting to make DACA permanent. The Green New Deal is awesome but we aren't even in the Paris Agreement currently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now