Print

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

[wierd]

You will find, sadly, that the whole "Cool kid in-crowd" phenomenon is a mainstay in politics.  In fact, "Cool kid in-crowd" exists as a persistent feature of adolescence, because it is the prototype for political social stratification.  Any more "Mature" behavior is learned, not innate.  If there is no incentive to be more adult and mature, it will not occur.  If they can get by with being petty and juvenile, they will be exactly that.

As long as both electorates continue to elect that kind of representative, that is the kind of representatives we will have.

[PTTG??]

In a decade or two, the Republican's base will be dead.

[wierd]

We can only hope.  Then again, we can only hope the country is still viable by then too. 

[PTTG??]

Can anyone find a more reputable source for this interpretation? It sounds reasonable but I'd like something I can point to when talking to non-liberals.

[sluissa]

Like what reasons?

Anything directed at me, at my problems. Something besides. "We're not Trump." Something that's not "Your skin must be this dark to ride this ride." Something besides pulling out the same tired old gun control talking points. Something besides the same hollow promises of economic stability, free trade and jobs, many of which the republicans are promising as well. Something besides pulling out someone with the Kennedy name and expecting us to bow down because Kennedy.

Bernie still seems like the only one that gets it that's standing up and saying anything and I desperately want someone else to take that torch from him because god knows he's held it long enough and I don't want to vote for someone pushing 80. Even he's not perfect, I'll fully admit, but he's a damn sight better than anyone else out there at the moment.

The current democratic party is offering me nothing other than "Not Trump." Hell, even Trump had something I notionally agree with. He had infrastructure investment as a significant talking point. Something I do agree with in principle (even if the ideas I've heard pitched I don't really like at all.) That's better than the democrats are doing.

I want to hear movement forward in environmental standards. I want to hear real health care reform. I'm not even asking for universal single payer health care as a requirement, I just want something other than them pretending Obamacare was the end of the road and we should have been happy there. I want progressive tax reform. I want a welfare system that works. That's not a full time job to simply maintain enrollment in and that doesn't punish a single paperwork accident with permanent expulsion from the program and is more or less at the whim of the states to dole out as they see fit.

Well up there, maybe even most of all based on the likely knock on effects it'd have in other areas, I think I want them to make steps towards fixing this gap between the government and the citizens. It's kind of a nebulous thing, seen more clearly in some areas (like policing) and less clearly in others. There's this almost universal perception, even among the majority of the left that the government is not working for the citizens. That they're more adversary than ally. If something in the government is actually there for you, you have to squeeze it out of them. It starts with the taxes taken from your paycheck, and it ends with the services you get back from the government in the forms of police, fire, roads, social security, etc. People almost universally resent the money taken from their check. The services those pay for are almost universally a pain to deal with until you actually need them. Patrolling police threaten to fine you for any or no reason. Fire services enforce their own rules about how many people can be in a bar at once, making people wait outside, or threaten you with fines for celebrating with fireworks or a bbq.(Not that I want more fire danger, but they do tend to be killjoys) Road work, rather than making people feel thankful about having nice fresh roads to drive on, make people complain about slow downs and delays and awkward turns to get to their destination. Social security haunts your pay check every day of your adult life until you need it or until you reach the magic age number and god forbid you ever have to go to an office or make a phone call to interact with them. It's not until thankfully rare events occur are we grateful. Police are nice to call for if someone harms you. Fire are nice if you DO catch something on fire. That bridge that collapsed? Well... it might take them 6 months to repave a mile of road, but they can fix that collapsed bridge in a week or two and clear that fallen tree in an hour or two. And social security, despite its problems, is still better than nothing and very appreciated if you ever get hurt or disabled to the point where you can't work.

The government is something which is just there to annoy and make your life miserable until the day comes you REALLY need something, and hey, if they come through, you're thankful from then on. If not, nothing's changed, life is still miserable and they're still taking their cut. But it shouldn't be that way. Better education. Better community outreach. More "how can I help you with the little things now." and less "Well, I'll be around just in case the worst happens." More "Is that your idea? Well here is how we need to do things to make that happen." and less "That's your idea? You can't do that because regulation 1A subsection IIb."

Anyway, I've droned on too long. If I'd spent as much effort on the project I'm coming up on a deadline on as I did on this post I'd be in bed by now. That's certainly not ALL of my answer to that question, but it's a start.

EDIT (I might sleep tonight, maybe.):

Can anyone find a more reputable source for this interpretation? It sounds reasonable but I'd like something I can point to when talking to non-liberals.

Not a reputable source myself, but I remember that part now and was thinking the exact same thought line.

[wierd]

Mixed feelings on the "ability to fire" thing.

On the one hand, there are government employees that REALLY DO need to be pitched. On the other, this power will surely just be abused for purely politically ideology based echochamber creation.

[EnigmaticHat]

In a decade or two, the Republican's base will be dead.

And a few years after Trump is gone we'll know what this new Republican party actually is.  Right now its in a transitional period.  Trump and his supporters are facing a lot of pushback, but no one else is emerging to guide the party to a new future.

I don't think Christian conservatives can take the party back.  Maybe for a few years, but the aging population and youth backlash against fundamentalism will likely end that.  I'd say aside from Trump supporters the next best contender would be... libertarians?  They've got youth support, they favor pot legalization, their views are not incompatible with economic or religious conservatives.  Would solve a lot of problems.  Especially if the more eccentric libertarians stayed third party.

They'd definitely need someone more popular and charismatic than Paul Ryan to represent their viewpoint.  And honestly, with Repeal and Replace being unpopular with the base, this is a bad time for libertarians to try and go mainstream.  I'm not sure what the path forward is for Republicans here, especially with the house and senate both representing different factions.  It feels arrogant to say the other party is going to collapse in a few years, but... that would be my guess at this juncture.

[SalmonGod]

And given that both electorates have demonstrated a desire for more "tit for tat" behavior, it's no surprise that they keep electing representatives who promise such behavior. Of course, not to build a false equivalence- Republicans have been encouraging this for a while, and are much more used to such actions than Democrats, who are still getting a handle for things. Give it a decade or two, and we'll reach equivalence.

Republicans have more than encouraged it.  They've made shitty, uncompromising behavior a requirement in order to not get walked all over.  As MSH puts it - screaming and stabbing.  Anyone who tries to act dignified gets stabbed.

[Reelya]

Can anyone find a more reputable source for this interpretation? It sounds reasonable but I'd like something I can point to when talking to non-liberals.

Well this one back that up, and there's a bill already proposed:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?utm_term=.28195ecb20bf

Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) considers his bill “a tool for … President [-elect Donald] Trump to use in draining the swamp.” In the process, it would eviscerate civil service protections for all new federal employees. His deceptively named “Promote Accountability and Government Efficiency Act” says staffers hired one year after enactment or later “shall be hired on an at-will basis.”

That raises the question — why would the Trump administration hire potential swamp dwellers? They would be the only folks affected at least for the next four years. The bill’s potential consequences are nonetheless ominous. In current form, it provides an appeal process for suspended staffers, but not for the fired.

Rokita’s bill makes the meaning of at-will status clear: “Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.”

[wierd]

While it is totally a step back (and in the wrong direction), maybe it will put more impetus on trying to kill "At-will" in general, and impose protections in the private sector as well as the public sector.

As-is, public sector workers often view the hostility and volatility of the private sector with a jaundiced eye, since it does not apply to them. (and being a rather large portion of the electorate, it makes the issue with killing at-will difficult, since it is a non-issue to so many.) Perhaps this will change that, and we can finally get rid of that feudalistic shit once and for all?

[Culise]

While it is totally a step back (and in the wrong direction), maybe it will put more impetus on trying to kill "At-will" in general, and impose protections in the private sector as well as the public sector.

As-is, public sector workers often view the hostility and volatility of the private sector with a jaundiced eye, since it does not apply to them. (and being a rather large portion of the electorate, it makes the issue with killing at-will difficult, since it is a non-issue to so many.) Perhaps this will change that, and we can finally get rid of that feudalistic shit once and for all?

Mmm, while I don't disagree with the meaning, it struck me as a bit amusing to call it "feudalistic."  I mean, say what you will about feudalism, but at least it conceptualized some basis of reciprocal obligations from the superior to the inferior, in addition to obligations from the inferior to the superior.  A lord simply couldn't cut his vassals loose: he was obligated to protect them, guarantee certain territorial rights of holding as extended by not only himself, but his own antecedents, the extension of feudal maintenance (read: pay) to those soldiers who fought for their lord, and theoretically acknowledge (if not necessarily follow) the counsel of those they ruled, which came from and in turn continued to express itself primarily in the form of assemblies either exclusively by or dominated by nobility such as the French General Estates or Anglo-Saxon Witanagemot.  Even serfs in most such countries had legal rights, frequently including the right to grow what they wished in addition to the minimum obligation owed to their liege, the right to not be dispossessed without legal process, the right to protection against brigandage, and the right to direct support in times of famine or deprivation.  Even serfs in Russia still maintained the right of petition to the Tsar directly, providing a theoretical legal recourse in the event their lord infringed upon such rights like the right of the mir/peasant collective to grow its own crops in addition to the lord's, their religious right to a free day, or their right to a livable stipend of food to be guaranteed in whatever circumstance.  Obviously, without any power, these rights were unfortunately more theoretical than practical in most circumstances, but the rights still theoretically existed, and a king or tsar either amenable to the serfs or particularly irritated at their lord could still use this as a pretext to act.

Of course, as it would seem from this description, it would then logically follow that at-will employment actually is *worse* than feudalism or serfdom in this respect, because it imposes absolutely no obligations even at the theoretical level which could be disputed in the appropriate court settings.  Indeed, it's all-but-explicitly the renunciation of reciprocal obligation or responsibility on the part of the company owner or boss to their employees.

[wierd]

I could have used "fascist", but that is a hotly contested word with extra baggage (even though it would actually fit better in many circumstances.)

The implication was that you have a "lordly class" (Midlevel and up) who consider everyone underneat them to be disposable cogs to be used and then discarded, without any consideration to the costs this dehumanization imposes on society. There is a detachment there much akin to the "let them eat cake" that is implicated in the french revolution. (From what I have been able to gather, obvious misinformation aside, Miss Antoinette was being deadpan serious; when the castle was short on bread, they would substitute cake, which is made from a different kind of flour. Since the peasants did not have bread, the obvious substitution was cake; at least to her. The conception that the people had *NOTHING*, did not occur to her, because it was outside her sphere of experience.) You see this kind of disconnection when you see midlevel and low C-level managers wondering why their employees are not super excited by how the company is growing-- Nevermind that that growth is directly attributable to often excessive burdens in manhours, at reduced or "manipulated" rates of pay, that were initially instituted to meet a crunch, but have now become the new "expected", and there is literally **NOTHING** to be excited about by the prospect that this trend is expected to "Grow."  Throw in "At-will" against people who complain or make waves about these decisions, and it gets volatile quickly.

In terms of theory vs practice, "feudal" applies pretty well here too.  Take for instance, "defacto racism" in a workplace.  An "at-will" employer can terminate for any reason, and does not have to give an explanation.  So, while there might be afforded protection for "Equal opportunity" in employment, that does not translate to "Equal retention"-- EG, they hire so many "non-desired" ethnicities for compliance, let them work for a few months, then fire them for no reason at all, keeping their desired ethnic demographic on staff.  This happens more often than you would expect, and no-- it is not always rich white people doing it. (In tech, you would be surprised how racist people from India are against non hindi.)

While such protections existed in theory, the truth was that the lords literally bribed the juries to buy verdicts in their favor when cases of abuse were brought up, and a bunch of other nasty dealings. 

I think feudal is a good word still.

[WealthyRadish]

I would say that describing corporate organization/culture as feudal is only reasonable in the common usage of monopolistic businesses ruling as petty "fiefdoms", but as mentioned wage labor and feudal tenure are strong opposites. I usually avoid describing things as fascist because of the baggage you mentioned, but in this case it seems more descriptive of the autocratic organization of businesses and their tendency towards petty totalitarianism and a leadership fetish.

[misko27]

Corporatist is an alternative which is at least accurate but perhaps has too little baggage.

[Loud Whispers]

Corporatist is an alternative which is at least accurate but perhaps has too little baggage.

Perhaps not, fascist economic theory calls for corporatism organizing all industries, professions and arts into state-controlled trade unions or corporations, each which negotiates the working conditions of their workers with the state. Citizens loyal to the state are rewarded with more pay, vacation and promotions, citizens disloyal to the state receive the inverse, or are even made redundant.  But there is another adequate descriptor that would probably be better suited here, that of plutocratic corporatism. In fascist corporatism, the collective of corporations is subservient to the state, in plutocratic corporatism, it is subservient to its own economic interests. Thus a plutocratic corporate system will place its economic interests above the state, reward its valuable workers and punish its underperforming workers, and woe betide those who act as whistleblowers or Union organizers that challenge their authority.

The implication was that you have a "lordly class" (Midlevel and up) who consider everyone underneat them to be disposable cogs to be used and then discarded, without any consideration to the costs this dehumanization imposes on society. There is a detachment there much akin to the "let them eat cake" that is implicated in the french revolution. (From what I have been able to gather, obvious misinformation aside, Miss Antoinette was being deadpan serious; when the castle was short on bread, they would substitute cake, which is made from a different kind of flour. Since the peasants did not have bread, the obvious substitution was cake; at least to her. The conception that the people had *NOTHING*, did not occur to her, because it was outside her sphere of experience.) You see this kind of disconnection when you see midlevel and low C-level managers wondering why their employees are not super excited by how the company is growing-- Nevermind that that growth is directly attributable to often excessive burdens in manhours, at reduced or "manipulated" rates of pay, that were initially instituted to meet a crunch, but have now become the new "expected", and there is literally **NOTHING** to be excited about by the prospect that this trend is expected to "Grow."  Throw in "At-will" against people who complain or make waves about these decisions, and it gets volatile quickly.
I think feudal is a good word still.

This is not how monarchies work, Marie Antoinette said no such thing - it was all slander attributed to her by historians who wanted to justify why their predecessors executed her. remov jacobin REMOV JACOBIN