Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

My platonic ideal is, among other things, a party that prefers to govern more than it prefers to win. I'm not asking for perfect competence, and I'm not asking for universal appeal, and I'm not asking for complete agreement with my policy ideas when it comes to a real party. I'm asking for politicians that make decisions because they believe they're the correct ones for the nation, even when that makes them less likely to get elected again.

Frankly, I think you've replaced cynicism toward the elected with cynicism toward the electorate, hiding every legitimate complaint about your favored party behind accusations of hypocrisy on the part of the complainer.

[mainiac]

Well that directly contradicts your previous statement but might I offer you the example of the Free-Soil part of 1856?  The party that was very successfully denigrated as race traitors who encouraged all sorts of things that aren't family friendly to discuss?  Stood by their principles.  Vindicated by history.  At the time people said they weren't fit to govern.

Frankly, I think you've replaced cynicism toward the elected with cynicism toward the electorate, hiding every legitimate complaint about your favored party behind accusations of hypocrisy on the part of the complainer.

I think most of the complaints against the republicans are crap too.  The republicans give the people what they want.  I could pretend they fool people and that really everyone agrees with me but that's just not true even if I would like to think that everyone secretly agrees with me.

Median voter theory tells us that in a well functioning democracy the parties are going to settle on issues that people disagree with and disagree with them.  Yet when it happens people act like the parties are doing something wrong.  Literally that's their entire job.

[Bauglir]

I'm going to try and be clear about what I am not saying, and then I'm going to restate what I am saying, because I'm not sure I've managed to distinguish the two so far. I apologize for that.

When I bring a complaint against the major parties, that does not mean that literally any party that does not have that particular flaw is good. That is not how a criticism works. I do not become a fan of FATAL by claiming that the d20 system is too granular. Thus, the Free-Soil party is irrelevant.

I am not saying the parties are wrong for settling on issues that divide voters. This is a natural outcome of the voting system we've got, and while I think that system could stand to be changed, it's not what I'm complaining about. Thus, median voter theory is irrelevant.

I am not demanding that parties offer contradictory things, to the best of my knowledge, and at no point has any proof or evidence been offered that I am. Near as I can tell, you're firing off a kneejerk reaction to criticism of both parties aimed at what you think I'm saying. Maybe that's because I've been surprisingly unclear, or maybe it's because most people who dislike both parties do make the argument you're targeting, or maybe it's because you're being very dishonest about this. I honestly don't know, and for what it's worth I apologize for whatever part I've played in that.

I am not demanding that any party represent the wants of the whole of society. You made that up. Neither do I demand that any particular, real party be extremely competent, friendly to my beliefs, or whatever. You made that up. Those claims are irrelevant.

I much prefer the Democrat philosophy over the Republican philosophy, but that's not the point, either. I can still dislike the Democratic party if I see it as the lesser evil. I'm not saying both parties are equally awful, so if at some point you want to accuse me of something like advocating just giving up and letting the system slide into ruin as a necessary consequence of cynicism, that's irrelevant, too.

What I am saying is that both parties prioritize elections over policy. This means that they do what voters want them to do, instead of what's in voters' best interest according to the party's philosophy. Moreover, this means that both parties prioritize the attention of individuals and organizations that help them win elections over ones that do so less; that is, they prefer wealthy donors. Both of these trends mean that parties spend a great deal of time trying to humiliate the other party. As opposed to governing.

That is the criticism, here. That obtaining power has become more important than using it. And I'm getting really tired of your attempts to obfuscate that, whether intentional or not.

[mainiac]

What I am saying is that both parties prioritize elections over policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample

might I offer you the example of the Free-Soil part of 1856?

Which is the ideal party according to the standard you are laying out.  They didn't compromise to win the election.  However:

Even the platonic ideal of a party would appear to have flaws when perceived through a partisan political system

Which is why you dismiss a party that meets the exact standard you want as "irrelevant".

Which is why I labeled your criteria:

It's a bullshit criticism because it's not falsifiable.

What you are asking for is something that no human political body can achieve.  It doesn't matter what the political system is, it doesn't matter if the elections are every five minutes or hereditary rule by philosopher kings, you have created a non falsifiable argument.  A statement that is not falsifiable is meaningless.  When you say "not fit to govern" the statement has no meaning.

[smjjames]

Combination opinion polling for likely Republican candidates continues to point to a significant problem as the Presidential race gets close to organized debates.  The problem: nobody knows who is or is not significant enough to bother inviting and giving screen time.

Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, Macro Rubio and Ben Carson are currently leading opinion polling, a marginal change from last month's leaders of Bush, Huckabee, Walker, and Ted Cruz.  Everything in the preceding lists is meaningless, because when you consider the 4-6% margin of error in most early polling, anyone could be currently leading, and it would only be a lead of fractions.  Well, anyone except George Pataki, coming in at an unmatched zero percent both months running.

"Anyone not listed" is also poling at essentially zero percent, the surest possible sign that the candidacy field is oversaturated when people literally can't think of anyone else they'd want to see.  Ironically, even when nobody can think of anyone else to nominate, "None of the choices available" is currently way out ahead of all actual people with a combined 22%.

So far, everything is going pretty much exactly like 2012.

EDIT: Just read through some more of that report, and this really stuck out to me:

Fewer GOP voters say that abortion or education will be a litmus test in their choice for the party’s 2016 nominee.  Just under half (48%) say they will only support a candidate who agrees with them on abortion, 27% might support someone they disagree with, and 19% say that a candidate’s abortion position is not an important factor in their vote choice.

Finally, 34% say they would only vote for a candidate who shares their views on the Common Core [education plan], 28% say they would consider someone they differ with on this issue, and 25% say it is not all that important in the choice for the GOP nomination.

And bear in mind, this is mostly poling of Republican voters.  The Culture Wars are an ever-shifting battlefield.

Well, the first debate is usually the first step towards thinning the herd so to speak, so it's sort of a paradox here.

Also, it seems even more crowded than it was in 2012 or 2008.

Ben Carson

Delicious.

Don't forget that the Herminator (Chairman Pizza, Ol' Nine Ninety-Nine) was also very briefly a frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2012.  While it would be pretty fantastic watching people's hair light on fire if the Republican party picked a black man for a candidate, that is also exactly why it won't happen.

Yeah it definetly would have been interesting if people were forced to select an African American for president simply because that's who the candidates are. His eccentricity and those strange commercials of his wouldn't have helped either.

[Bauglir]

@mainiac

What?

No, seriously. What?

What does that party demonstrate about my claim? That a party that values policy over elections can be painted as deeply flawed? That it can fail to win elections?

Because neither of those have to do with my claim. At all.

I'm also very confused over the relevance of falsifiability. Everything I've said has either been unfalsifiable because it's been an opinion about what I'd like in a party, or else it's been an entirely falsifiable claim about how party activities depend on their motivations. If you could demonstrate to me that parties which prioritize elections over policy nevertheless govern without concern for electability, then that would falsify my claims, for example.

Either the word doesn't mean what you think it means, doesn't mean what I think it means, or some third alternative. For the record, I think it means that a claim is capable of being proven wrong, and can therefore be tested.

[mainiac]

I'm also very confused over the relevance of falsifiability.

You made a blanket statement.  As far as I can tell there is no counterexample that could possibly exist to the blanket statement.  I would suggest that if you disagree you explain what kind of counter example that could exist in the real world would meet your standard.

Yeah it definetly would have been interesting if people were forced to select an African American for president simply because that's who the candidates are. His eccentricity and those strange commercials of his wouldn't have helped either.

Republicans looooove token black men.  They validate in a way no other politician can.

[Bauglir]

A Free-Soil Party that won, I suppose, if your characterization of it as perfectly meeting the particular criterion I'm putting forward.

Say that, despite negative portrayals, it still managed to appeal to enough people to win a meaningful chunk of votes. Perhaps they ran an effective campaign based on presenting the virtues of their policies, and upon winning relied primarily on their voting record and a platform with concrete proposals for the future. Say they emphasized compromise with their political opponents in office in order to get things done, instead of willfully obstructing them for the sake of earning political points with the electorate. On the other hand, they might be willing to obstruct other policies if they clash with their philosophical underpinnings, even if they're wildly popular policies. Likely, they would earnestly congratulate opponents who beat them in elections as being a better fit for the electorate, and if they adjust their proposals for future elections, it's because they've adjusted their thoughts about what is good for the nation instead of an attempt to eke out enough percentage points to squeak by with the win next time.

EDIT: Such a saintly ideal will never happen, of course, but it'd be nice if the major parties could get their fixation with Beating The Other Tribe out of the spotlight.

But you seem intent on conflating my ideal with the way in which real parties could work toward addressing the criticism. I really hope you don't do that in your next post.

[mainiac]

Ah so they need to put policies first and promote their convictions but be infinitely malleable and appeal to people who oppose their ideals.

[Bauglir]

Nope! They need to put policies first and promote their convictions, understanding that in the real world compromise is necessary in order to make progress toward those convictions. That is, they run on their platform, and then do their best to achieve that once they get into office, even if that means making concessions in order to get something. They don't need to appeal to people who oppose their ideals, but in order to actually win they would need a lot of people to not oppose their ideals. If that's not the case, they shouldn't win.

Basically, what I want are parties that see things like, "Our goal is to make sure Obama is a one-term President", and call that political fucking heresy.

[mainiac]

Nope! They need to put policies first and promote their convictions, understanding that in the real world compromise is necessary in order to make progress toward those convictions. That is, they run on their platform, and then do their best to achieve that once they get into office, even if that means making concessions in order to get something.

CONGRATS ON DESCRIBING WHAT A POLITICAL PARTY DOES

[Bauglir]

Nope! They need to put policies first and promote their convictions, understanding that in the real world compromise is necessary in order to make progress toward those convictions. That is, they run on their platform, and then do their best to achieve that once they get into office, even if that means making concessions in order to get something.

CONGRATS ON DESCRIBING WHAT A POLITICAL PARTY DOES

Yeah except the compromise they make isn't on policy it's on who they make policy for and... goddammit. I don't know if you're stupid or if I'm stupid, but I do know this conversation is stupid. I'm out. Feel free to have the last word.

[mainiac]

Well there are some examples of parties not behaving in that fashion.  Like the *ahem* elephant in the room right now.

[Helgoland]

I can't conceive of a world where both parties are that dumb.

"In a democracy, each party devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule — and both commonly succeed and are right."

—H. L. Mencken

Objection, you anglocentric scum! Firstly, there are indeed systems with more than two parties (gasp!) and secondly my country is currently ruled by this.

[mainiac]

Huh, that's a good point.  The Grand Coalition has rendered both parties unfit to rule.  Instead of arguing over macro policy they both buy into the same short sighted ideas.  Maybe there is something to this...