Print

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

[smjjames]

Won't stop them from trying to recover, but recovery simply takes time, no getting around that. They're also trying (at least some sources anyway) to emulate the Tea Party route and go back to the basics and starting from the ground up again.

If there's anything they can use to their advantage, it's that the opposing party nearly always has gains in the midterms, though the Senate lineup is extremely punishing to the Dems.

Sure, the Democrats in their 2016 form might not recover and they have to rebuild almost from scratch, few young rising stars, no flagbearers (the Clintons are done and possibly toxic for some time, Obama doesn't want to, though he's willing to be a guiding voice), neo-liberalism has had a stake put through it, and they are in a position where they pretty much have to renew themselves.

Remember how we were all talking about the Republicans looking like they are going to collapse and splinter?

Also, the parties are really damn resilient. Pretty sure we are in the midist of one of those political realignment periods.

Also2, in order for there to be something TRULY new, we'd have to remove the FPTP system.

[PTTG??]

Remember how we were all talking about the Republicans looking like they are going to collapse and splinter?

Agreed on most of your points, but I would note that the Republicans are not exactly in a strong position here; they've alienated a huge portion of Americans and they don't have a strong core. They're very vulnerable... which is part of the reason that the Democrat's failures to seize that are all the more disillusioning.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

... MSH, that's the thing. There isn't a platform to establish when it comes to that, for these areas. The only substantial economic relief they're going to see is by welfare and government investment,* either directly, or indirectly via subsidies and tax breaks to offset of the costs of doing business in these areas. Long term economic success -- retraining (education funding, good luck), moving out of particularly impoverished areas into ones that can support you (welfare, tax breaks for travel et al, scholarships, etc., see previous paren, add in a dash of non-economic concerns like family history and environmental comfort and crap) -- is pretty much it. There's not a single other bloody option, particularly not one that's not going to dry up again within a generation or two at most.

Like. Businesses will not come to these areas. They're out of the way (transport costs), they're varying degrees of run down (infrastructure costs), the population is generally having one sort of problem or another (human resource costs, as well as shortage of qualified workers which adds even more because you have to bring folks in), and if there's no resources in the area (extractive, temporary, sometimes a net loss for the community due to working hazards et al t'boot), then there's no reason to be there because there is nothing there. Anything that will be able to profit in those conditions, will not be large enough to support more than maybe one or two communities, out of significantly more than that.

*And to a fair extent, the culture/general attitude in these areas, again particularly for the ones that have been there as things slid to shit, will refuse those as an option. You cannot get their votes with that message, because they will be significantly more likely to listen to someone saying there's another way -- even if said option is a complete impossibility -- over someone that is acknowledging the raw economic reality that has been shitting on their dignity and future for years.

There's absolutely a platform to establish. We've run the Washington Consensus so threadbare that alternatives are barely even considered before being dismissed out of hand. What we need is strong support for localism and in preparation for reinvesting automation output into the communities that automation exists in. Trying to solve this from the initial perspective of getting Ford and McDonalds on board is indeed doomed to failure, but we don't need to do so and companies who stick to what they're used to are themselves probably doomed.

If the WPA could do it with groups that were way closer to dirt farmers than almost any society still around, then we have it easy. And don't tell me it's politically untenable. We haven't even given it a fucking shot yet. Just last year Sanders vaguely hinted at the Bud Lite version of trying to pay any attention to the rural and poor, and look at the list of states it got him: West Virginia, Nebraska, Minnesota, Michigan (man, that foreshadowing), Wyoming, Idaho. People are clearly desperate to cling to a way out of the downward spiral, and so it's no surprise so much of the country bought into Trump's bullshit on the side bet that it might end up revitalizing if we toss out all the Mexicans and institute hostile tariffs.

There is an alternative to protectionism just as protectionism is an alternative to "fuck the poor". We merely need make the effort.

I don't really know if the Democrats can recover. They disavowed their most energetic supporters by rejecting Bernie, and it's clear that choosing Hillary over him wasn't some kind of tactical masterstroke. They have no young heirs, and they were outplayed by Trump of all people. Add to that the shameful performance in the lower races, the state levels, the congress.

And this coming out of the Obama years! There are no words for the level of systemic failure that has swept through the DNC!

The years of compromises that voters have had to endure because the democrats are "better than the other guy" is just annother embarrasment. Obama's continuing wars, his failure to shut down Guantanimo, the Democratic cowardice in the face of Republican threats to filibuster, Democrats utter failure to drive aggressive policy goals like banning coal, driving space exploration, developing a society ready to handle automation, or simply improving education... It's over.

Why support Democrats when they have demanded so much in exchange for the simple promise of "not being the Republicans," and then failed to deliver even on that?

Seriously, and it's not that goddamn hard. Stick to the values of seeking liberty and prosperity for everyone, stop throwing people under the bus, and great things will come. The factors that the Democrats tautologically can't claim: extreme religiosity, jingoism, some racial tension; are all ones that can be cornered and marginalized by economic policy and upstanding character.

The play is all wrong, it's like the weakest possible form of what's open to the Dems. Thank fuck that Trump isn't experienced enough to operate in national politics, because I think that sticking to your strengths is one thing that he basically does correctly, and is responsible for his hardcore supporters' enthusiasm in spite of their numbers

Every motherfucker with a D or an R tries to claim they're "fiscally conservative". Does anybody even know what the hell that means anymore? The Republicans who say it seem to have half an idea in the form of "tear it all down and laugh amongst the ashes we shall all be equal in death's embrace", and the Dems are just obviously trying to steal voters from the aforementioned. Our economic politics are dead in the fucking water trying to regain that heroin high of 1996. I definitely know nobody has a genuine conception of whatever "fiscally liberal" is supposed to be outside of an attack ad tearing down your opponent for assigning $5 to preschools that ended up stolen by administrators and used to fund gay Muslim sex parties.

[misko27]

I don't really know if the Democrats can recover.

This just shows a lack of imagination. You'd probably have said the same thing after the Civil war. You'd have had pretty good reasons to believe it too! But you'd have been wrong.

I don't really know if the Democrats can recover. They disavowed their most energetic supporters by rejecting Bernie, and it's clear that choosing Hillary over him wasn't some kind of tactical masterstroke. They have no young heirs, and they were outplayed by Trump of all people. Add to that the shameful performance in the lower races, the state levels, the congress.

And this coming out of the Obama years! There are no words for the level of systemic failure that has swept through the DNC!

And if this is the case then the democrats will spend a few years in the wilderness, so to speak. Perhaps longer. But again, that is not a perspective that is informed by the history of the parties in this country. Parties persevere. Ideals, and arguments don't, but parties as an institution do.

In my case, at least, I don't think I can support the Democratic party at all. We need something new.

Ahh the pronoun switch reveals my problem here. It switches from "I" to "we" without a hand-off, implying they are one and the same. I don't remember voting for you!

Reformation of the democratic party is an inevitability as long as the system stands. What it reforms into is as yet uncertain. How long is also unknown, if not unknowable. And what damage will be inflicted until then is also unknown, if not necessarily out of our hands.

[smjjames]

Remember how we were all talking about the Republicans looking like they are going to collapse and splinter?

Agreed on most of your points, but I would note that the Republicans are not exactly in a strong position here; they've alienated a huge portion of Americans and they don't have a strong core. They're very vulnerable... which is part of the reason that the Democrat's failures to seize that are all the more disillusioning.

Yeah, I was just saying that the Dems aren't the only ones in trouble. I'm of the opinion that, and I've said it before, that their internal fractures were just temporarily plastered over temporarily by unified opposition to Clinton. Now that the election is over, the fractures are starting to assert themselves again.

Every motherfucker with a D or an R tries to claim they're "fiscally conservative". Does anybody even know what the hell that means anymore? The Republicans who say it seem to have half an idea in the form of "tear it all down and laugh amongst the ashes", and the Dems are just obviously trying to steal voters from the aforementioned. Our economic politics are dead in the fucking water trying to regain that heroin high of 1996. I definitely know nobody has a genuine conception of whatever "fiscally liberal" is supposed to be outside of an attack ad tearing down your opponent for assigning 5$ to preschools that ended up stolen by administrators and used to fund gay Muslim sex parties.

Yeah, that's the thing, saying you're 'financially liberal' makes it sound like a spending spree. Using conservative and liberal as political poles for financial stuff doesn't work too well because unlike social conservative/liberal, you can almost literally quantify economic conservative/liberal into ones and zeroes, which doesn't work for the social side because there's a range. And so, saying financially liberal sounds bad no matter how you put it.

[PTTG??]

In my case, at least, I don't think I can support the Democratic party at all. We need something new.

Ahh the pronoun switch reveals my problem here. It switches from "I" to "we" without a hand-off, implying they are one and the same. I don't remember voting for you!

Reformation of the democratic party is an inevitability as long as the system stands. What it reforms into is as yet uncertain. How long is also unknown, if not unknowable. And what damage will be inflicted until then is also unknown, if not necessarily out of our hands.

I find it interesting that Obama can have a strong Democratic majority for two years and was constantly stymied by a tiny contingient of novice tea partiers, but now that the Democrats are the minority, they're totally powerless.

[smjjames]

In my case, at least, I don't think I can support the Democratic party at all. We need something new.

Ahh the pronoun switch reveals my problem here. It switches from "I" to "we" without a hand-off, implying they are one and the same. I don't remember voting for you!

Reformation of the democratic party is an inevitability as long as the system stands. What it reforms into is as yet uncertain. How long is also unknown, if not unknowable. And what damage will be inflicted until then is also unknown, if not necessarily out of our hands.

I find it interesting that Obama can have a strong Democratic majority for two years and was constantly stymied by a tiny contingient of novice tea partiers, but now that the Democrats are the minority, they're totally powerless.

Powerless? Pfft, more like not so willing to sink to the levels that the Republicans did, for now at least.

Besides, the Dems are the ones who shot themselves in the foot by nuking the 60 vote requirement for nominees because they were (rightfully) annoyed that the Republicans kept blocking them.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Haven't been neglecting the goddamn rural communities, the rural communities have been ignoring and/or rejecting attempts at attention while electing people that were intent on making sure their areas kept going to shit. Consistently. For decades. Identity politics are a pretty sizable part with that, but it's the conservative ones that are the key issue on that front, not the bits related to minorities (they're still an issue, but a smaller one), and in complete honestly there's functionally pretty much nothing the dems can do about that. You cannot spread a message when every venue you are willing to use is ignored or maligned. If they want to break into that about their only option is going to be to abandon every last iota of integrity and stridently lie out of every orifice. It's either going to take that, or the demographics in question becoming willing to listen to things from your corner that aren't blatant lies... and it's now pretty clearly demonstrated that anything that happens from that direction is going to come from inside the demographics in question and no where else.

They don't even fucking try.  Last election, you know how many seats that were even attempted to be contested below state level where I live?  Three, maybe four, most on the county level.  There were roughly fifteen spots up for election that I could vote for.  Pretty sure this makes a good amount of people around here tend to vote Republican on the higher levels because why should you vote for a party that doesn't care about you in the slightest?  Plus its even further hard to justify voting for Democrats when they're the ones running the nearby US per capita murder capital.


Huh.  This is interesting.

[wierd]

This is not a "republican" or "Democrat" issue. It is a human issue.

Humans, seemingly without fail, preferentially plan for "good times" instead of bad ones.  This is seen in the decline of civilizations from resource depletion (For ours, this is the looming exhaustion of fossil fuel, and resulting global climate changes-- Historically, this was water sources, herd populations, and other forms of mineral wealth such as gold), and is also represented in how our government behaves.

The democrats acted as if they will always have enough power to overrule any seriously egregious proposals by their political opponents, and disliked that their opponents were using the very measures intended to prevent such catastrophes when they were not the dominant power to prevent their own proposals (that their colleagues considered egregious), and so acted to remove those measures.

Now hell has come to breakfast.

Society would be better served by planning for catastrophic scenarios BEFORE they happen, rather than pretending that "because things have been so good, for so long, that the threat of a rough patch is nonsense." 

For the same reason why a journaling filesystem saves your bacon when a well behaved system suddenly misbehaves, by acknowledging that bad things can and eventually will happen, acknowledging that your skyward-bound political trend can and eventually will come to a sudden stop, and to have contingency plans to prevent backslides is just normal sanity.

Our politicians dont think about things that way though.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

I'm curious, wierd, if you had to point to a constitution that you would consider as having the best planning for dealing with catastrophic scenarios, which would you be pointing to?

[smjjames]

I'm curious, wierd, if you had to point to a constitution that you would consider as having the best planning for dealing with catastrophic scenarios, which would you be pointing to?

I don't think he's talking about the Constitution specifically, or only the Constitution, just humans in general.

[wierd]

Bingo.

The ancient Puebloans predate any notion of the american constitution.  The realities of resource depletion forced them to abandon their cliff dwellings all the same, because they grew too numerous, and did not plan for or realistically respond to, the contracting water supplies they depended on.

The same narrative can be seen in endless repetition if you look in a historical context.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

I'm curious, wierd, if you had to point to a constitution that you would consider as having the best planning for dealing with catastrophic scenarios, which would you be pointing to?

I don't think he's talking about the Constitution specifically, or only the Constitution, just humans in general.

I realize that.  I was just asking if there was a constitution/government in the world he thought best dealt with that blindspot.

[wierd]

I have yet to see one.  Predicting future calamity is hard. Investing large resources into protecting against "the cosmic space goat" is a dangerous game.  There is a delicate balance between understanding first order consequences and safeguarding against failure, and in going whole hog insane protectionist to the point where you bankrupt yourself trying to live in a perfectly safe bubble.

Human governments are historically very bad at striking this balance.

[smjjames]

I'm curious, wierd, if you had to point to a constitution that you would consider as having the best planning for dealing with catastrophic scenarios, which would you be pointing to?

I don't think he's talking about the Constitution specifically, or only the Constitution, just humans in general.

I realize that.  I was just asking if there was a constitution/government in the world he thought best dealt with that blindspot.

I doubt such a thing exists.

Contingency plans are a thing, yes, but for something as big and complex as the economy and jobs and everything we've been talking about, you run right up against human nature.