U.S. Politics

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think what @chrisp65 is saying, or what I take him to be saying and think is right is 'what they appear to need is exactly what they perversely dismiss as 'socialism''. We can quibble about the difference between socialism and social democracy if we want, but the truth is most of these people thought Obama was a communist.

Exactly.

Socialism doesn’t have to mean 10 years plans handed down from the unelected politburo. That’s the opposite.

They need (in my ‘mumble opinion) and equal and fair chance, access to health and education, protection from robber barons, a sense of community. To truly embrace America as a refuge and as the land of the free and home of the brave. Not 330 million people desperate to be a lottery winner.

[VILLAMARV]

Yeah, but if we don't create labels to bat back and forth or pigeon holes to identify huge swathes of populations and label them as different how will we ever convince people to dehumanise their plight?

[blandy]

22 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think what @chrisp65 is saying, or what I take him to be saying and think is right is 'what they appear to need is exactly what they perversely dismiss as 'socialism''. We can quibble about the difference between socialism and social democracy if we want, but the truth is most of these people thought Obama was a communist.

Yeah. That's exactly why I said "it depends how you define it". If you use the kind of dictionary definition, then it's not remotely appropriate for them. If you use, as you say, their view of it, or at least a reasonably common, reasonable US view of what it might entail, then totally. Their political system is even more rotten than ours.

[villakram]

In the meantime... we all played soldier as kids, right 

 

[il_serpente]

6 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think what @chrisp65 is saying, or what I take him to be saying and think is right is 'what they appear to need is exactly what they perversely dismiss as 'socialism''. We can quibble about the difference between socialism and social democracy if we want, but the truth is most of these people thought Obama was a communist.

Yes, it's sadly ironic that the ones protesting that they need to go back to work to avoid eviction, starvation, loss of home or business, etc.  are the same ones who vote for politicians who tell them that a safety net to prevent those losses is only needed by lazy people so they can get out of working.  And, of course, they're protesting only against states run by Democrats, most of whom would have supported a bigger safety net if they could get it through Congress.

The scary part is how easily Trump has been able to convince them that their problems stem not from a nasty virus, not from Trump's failure to lead and respond quickly to the threat, not from decades of the right wing convincing them that any and all social services are a path toward communism that must be avoided at all costs,  but from Democratic governors (and only Democratic ones unless they've criticized Trump) who are trying to prevent thousands of unnecessary deaths and the overwhelming of their local health care systems.  I've read commentaries that the public's willingness to accept expansion of social services is going to be increased and things like Medicare for All could actually have a chance, but I don't see it.  Too many people have been brainwashed for too long to oppose policies that are in their own best interest and Trump has taken it to a new level.  As soon as the dust settles from this I can guarantee that the Republican (and many Democratic) senators and reps will insist we just can't afford these things, particularly after the 2 trillion just spent on the stimulus, of which the amount going to those in greatest need will probably not be enough to make much of a difference and of which too much went to people who are wealthy and had no need for it whatsoever.

[HanoiVillan]

30 minutes ago, il_serpente said:

Yes, it's sadly ironic that the ones protesting that they need to go back to work to avoid eviction, starvation, loss of home or business, etc.  are the same ones who vote for politicians who tell them that a safety net to prevent those losses is only needed by lazy people so they can get out of working.  And, of course, they're protesting only against states run by Democrats, most of whom would have supported a bigger safety net if they could get it through Congress.

The scary part is how easily Trump has been able to convince them that their problems stem not from a nasty virus, not from Trump's failure to lead and respond quickly to the threat, not from decades of the right wing convincing them that any and all social services are a path toward communism that must be avoided at all costs,  but from Democratic governors (and only Democratic ones unless they've criticized Trump) who are trying to prevent thousands of unnecessary deaths and the overwhelming of their local health care systems.  I've read commentaries that the public's willingness to accept expansion of social services is going to be increased and things like Medicare for All could actually have a chance, but I don't see it.  Too many people have been brainwashed for too long to oppose policies that are in their own best interest and Trump has taken it to a new level.  As soon as the dust settles from this I can guarantee that the Republican (and many Democratic) senators and reps will insist we just can't afford these things, particularly after the 2 trillion just spent on the stimulus, of which the amount going to those in greatest need will probably not be enough to make much of a difference and of which too much went to people who are wealthy and had no need for it whatsoever.

I can't 'like' your post for obvious reasons, but you're right that everything will probably be rubbish afterwards, because it always is.

I guess we've still got to try though!

[LondonLax]

37 minutes ago, il_serpente said:

Yes, it's sadly ironic that the ones protesting that they need to go back to work to avoid eviction, starvation, loss of home or business, etc.  are the same ones who vote for politicians who tell them that a safety net to prevent those losses is only needed by lazy people so they can get out of working.  And, of course, they're protesting only against states run by Democrats, most of whom would have supported a bigger safety net if they could get it through Congress.

The scary part is how easily Trump has been able to convince them that their problems stem not from a nasty virus, not from Trump's failure to lead and respond quickly to the threat, not from decades of the right wing convincing them that any and all social services are a path toward communism that must be avoided at all costs,  but from Democratic governors (and only Democratic ones unless they've criticized Trump) who are trying to prevent thousands of unnecessary deaths and the overwhelming of their local health care systems.  I've read commentaries that the public's willingness to accept expansion of social services is going to be increased and things like Medicare for All could actually have a chance, but I don't see it.  Too many people have been brainwashed for too long to oppose policies that are in their own best interest and Trump has taken it to a new level.  As soon as the dust settles from this I can guarantee that the Republican (and many Democratic) senators and reps will insist we just can't afford these things, particularly after the 2 trillion just spent on the stimulus, of which the amount going to those in greatest need will probably not be enough to make much of a difference and of which too much went to people who are wealthy and had no need for it whatsoever.

It’s a bit of a chicken and egg debate though. Did the politicians produce a population that thinks that way or did a population that thinks that way elect politicians that would represent them?

I’m not as convinced as you that it’s the former.

Many Americans have a strong individualism and libertarian way of thinking that is alien to us. The whole ‘prepper’ movement or the citizen militias etc comes from a way of thinking that doesn’t exist in Western Europe. For a lot of them the idea of needing a government safety net would be an affront to their independence and sense of self worth, a bit like how we would feel if we were in our middle age but still living in our parents basement. 

[HanoiVillan]

16 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

It’s a bit of a chicken and egg debate though. Did the politicians produce a population that thinks that way or did a population that thinks that way elect politicians that would represent them?

I’m not as convinced as you that it’s the former.

Many Americans have a strong individualism and libertarian way of thinking that is alien to us. The whole ‘prepper’ movement or the citizen militias etc comes from a way of thinking that doesn’t exist in Western Europe. For a lot of them the idea of needing a government safety net would be an affront to their independence and sense of self worth, a bit like how we would feel if we were in our middle age but still living in our parents basement. 

It's neither of those two things, at least in those stark binary terms. Politicians emerge from competing interests amongst those who have the most economic and social capital, would be my formulation.

I think you're maybe leaning a bit too hard on the 'libertarian frontiersman' trope here. You talk about 'the idea of needing a government safety net' being 'an affront' but I don't see many Republican seniors refusing to use Medicare. Maybe there are some true libertarian don't-tread-on-me types in these protests, but my guess is that the majority are there because they engaged in the eternal ape-think that we all get into sometimes, 'I like the leader - the leader has been attacked - I must defend the leader'.

[LondonLax]

23 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's neither of those two things, at least in those stark binary terms. Politicians emerge from competing interests amongst those who have the most economic and social capital, would be my formulation.

I think you're maybe leaning a bit too hard on the 'libertarian frontiersman' trope here. You talk about 'the idea of needing a government safety net' being 'an affront' but I don't see many Republican seniors refusing to use Medicare. Maybe there are some true libertarian don't-tread-on-me types in these protests, but my guess is that the majority are there because they engaged in the eternal ape-think that we all get into sometimes, 'I like the leader - the leader has been attacked - I must defend the leader'.

Sure, not everyone is going to be there for the same reason but in a tribal culture war you pick your tribe based on your belief system. It’s not like these people were bleeding heart liberals until Trump came along and changed their views. 

[snowychap]

US to stop permanent residency immigration on economic (and not public health) grounds for at least 60 days.

I think that's a very worrying development.

Edit:

Although maybe not much more than a bit of show if the following is right -

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

13 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Sure, not everyone is going to be there for the same reason but in a tribal culture war you pick your tribe based on your belief system. It’s not like these people were bleeding heart liberals until Trump came along and changed their views. 

I don't think this has much to do with ideology though. If you'd asked all those people in January 2019, and then again today, about their views on abortion, guns, or the merits of a lower rate of income tax, I'm sure you'd have got very similar answers on both occasions. But if you'd asked in January 2019 whether they would prioritise public health or economic recovery in a global pandemic, would they really have all lined up on one side?

Another way to think about this is, if in some hypothetical world Donald Trump thought that the complete opposite course of action [a stronger lockdown] were better for his re-election prospects, would he be pursuing this one [pushing for an end to distancing as soon as possible]? And if not, would these people be making this argument [for a fast end to distancing], or his other argument [the hypothetical argument for a stronger lockdown]?

Edited April 22, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[blandy]

12 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Another way to think about this is, if in some hypothetical world Donald Trump thought that the complete opposite course of action were better for his re-election prospects, would he be pursuing this one? And if not, would these people by making this argument, or his other argument?

I genuinely don't understand this paragraph. It might be the way I'm reading it/it's written. When you write "would he be pursuing this one?" by "this" do you mean the hypothetical one (that one), or the current one (this one)?

Regardless, and excuse me if I've got confused or got you wrong, but it makes no sense in the context of @LondonLax's comment.

If we accept that the US population broadly has "a strong individualism and libertarian way of thinking"  - leading to prioritising freedom to move etc. & the economy over state/national collective lockdown, then the current Trump tactic for his re-election of prioritising the economy (if so it will/may fail, due to his incompetence and flaws) aligns with the population's desire. If he were to (hypothetically) believe that prioritising public safety over the economy and pursue that path, then no, the people wouldn't agree with him, they would still be demanding "freedom" because that's what they want. A minority would perhaps put personal allegiance to Trump over their "normal" viewpoint, but only a small one. We've seen from Fox News and so on, when they think he's wrong and going against their ideals (twisted as they are) they shout it out loud. He's playing to them, not the other way round. He used to be a moderate Democrat, but has shifted over time and is now...well, what he is.

Further he's basically bet the Nation on economic growth to use as (if it happens) electoral "credit" for himself. If the economy fails, or if their health and virus crisis escalates to a very severe extent, then he's goosed either way. I'm not sure it will, though. The nature of the states being so disparate between sparsely populated Rep. rural Staes, and densely populated Dem. states (bit of an over simplification, I admit) - but if the Dem states are the ones that suffer, and the Rep ones don't so much health wise, then he may be able to hold the Rep ones, while letting the Dem governors take the blame for the Dem state problems. Maybe that's why he's stepping back from his responsibilities to co-ordinate the response and instead doing headline grabbing stuff that actually doesn't have much impact on anything?

Sorry if I've missed what you're trying to say - but that's my reading./response to what I think (perhaps wrongly) you were saying.

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

If we accept that the US population broadly has "a strong individualism and libertarian way of thinking"  - leading to prioritising freedom to move etc. & the economy over state/national collective lockdown, then the current Trump tactic for his re-election of prioritising the economy (if so it will/may fail, due to his incompetence and flaws) aligns with the population's desire. If he were to (hypothetically) believe that prioritising public safety over the economy and pursue that path, then no, the people wouldn't agree with him, they would still be demanding "freedom" because that's what they want. A minority would perhaps put personal allegiance to Trump over their "normal" viewpoint, but only a small one.

No, I don't think you've misunderstood. This is the key section, and I don't agree with any of it. I don't believe the 'US population broadly has a strong individualism and libertarian way of thinking', and I don't believe that (many, if any) of the same protestors would be disagreeing with Trump if he was calling for a stronger lockdown; they would simply be arguing for the opposite thing.

We just disagree.

[blandy]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

We just disagree.

Again

But that's cool.

[LondonLax]

Yes to echo the above, there is no point imagining a hypothetical world where people do the opposite of what they have done.

Trump is a populist, he’s found a significant group of voters who were previously under represented and has represented them with great success (i.e. winning an election no one saw coming but everyone knew why it happened with hindsight). 

His opinions on things blow with the wind (often a simple as whatever he saw on Fox News that day) and he is jumping on the bandwagon for these lockdown protests, not leading them. Again he’s representing the views of his group of ‘deplorables’. 

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, LondonLax said:

Yes to echo the above, there is no point imagining a hypothetical world where people do the opposite of what they have done.

Trump is a populist, he’s found a significant group of voters who were previously under represented and has represented them with great success (i.e. winning an election no one saw coming but everyone knew why it happened with hindsight). 

His opinions on things blow with the wind (often a simple as whatever he saw on Fox News that day) and he is jumping on the bandwagon for these lockdown protests, not leading them. Again he’s representing the views of his group of ‘deplorables’. 

Go back to my post of last night. Do you truly believe that, if you had asked every one of these protestors in January 2019 if they would prioritise economic recovery or public health in the event of a global pandemic, that they would all have agreed? A 100-0 split?

This isn't a deep matter of personal ideology, it's a small section of the population picking up on culture war signalling. As you yourself say, Trump is not just a producer of culture war guff, he's also an avid consumer who spends many hourse each day watching Fox News.

[HanoiVillan]

Edited the post above for clarity.

[HanoiVillan]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

Again

But that's cool.

LOL yes, we often seem to be on the opposite side of things. It's nothing personal though

[blandy]

21 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Go back to my post of last night. Do you truly believe that, if you had asked every one of these protestors in January 2019 if they would prioritise economic recovery or public health in the event of a global pandemic, that they would all have agreed? A 100-0 split?

Depends how you phrase that question.

"Do you believe that in a pandemic the President should be able to prevent people going to work, to deprive them of their healthcare and their livelihood?"

"Do you believe that in a pandemic the President should not be able to overrule the need to keep people safe, sacrificing lives for the sake of the bankers and stock market?"

You can get whatever answer you want.

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

LOL yes, we often seem to be on the opposite side of things. It's nothing personal though

They're the interesting ones. All the stuff we agree on, we just "like" or whatever. The ones we discuss are the interesting ones for me, at least. Not remotely personal.