4 ms·

One thing that people ignore is how corrupt machine politics and the ability to dole out jobs for supporters had the benefit of tying people to a party that was

One thing that people ignore is how corrupt machine politics and the ability to dole out jobs for supporters had the benefit of tying people to a party that was divorced from their politics - not that I'd advocate going back. I'm not sure that I buy that geographic identities were less dangerous than current party identities. The only thing that worries me is when people's multiple identities (race, religion, party, ideology, geography) start overlap more than they have in the past. Or if the extent people were to ever STOP identifying as Americans before party or citizens of their state (looking at you, Texas!).

hodlbtc 8y ago
Speaking just from personal experience — a lot of young progressives look fairly negatively upon the label of American and American identity in general, but identify strongly with the Democratic Party. So, maybe you should be a little worried.
- elicash 8y ago
  I think there's something to that first half. On the second half, young people I've heard from seem more open-minded to third parties than older generations. But that's also just personal experience.
Spooky23 8y ago
Geography was better because it ended up being more democratic. Even Tammany Hall paid attention to their voters. Now you get bullshit memes that activate supporters longitudinally across the country. Obama was “Hope” and “Change”, Trump is MAGA. Institutional candidates like Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney can’t fight populist bullshit. It’s dangerous because it disenfranchises. If you were a Republican in New York, things were tough, but they are plain grim now, as you need to be a right winger or you lose these “activated” crazy people.
- elicash 8y ago
  By "better" all I really mean is stable. > It’s dangerous because it disenfranchises. Yeah, but there were also downsides. This isn't my example, but if you wanted to vote for civil rights candidates before that legislation got voted into law, what party would you vote for? There really wasn't a party for you. Even if you voted for a pro-Civil Rights northern democrat, you were still voting for a party leadership that at the time didn't believe in equal rights and for a majority that was fighting against equality.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    That’s definitely a problem, but the same thing is happening now. If you are a otherwise progressive/liberal who has a moral objection to abortion, what do you do?
empath75 8y ago
Yeah I actually think that anti-corruption reforms have done a lot of damage to the American political system. It used to be that a politician got rewarded for bringing home the bacon but now that they can no longer get earmarks, it’s all about culture wars instead. Without horse trading, Congress is all about paying off big donors and yelling about abortion instead of getting things done.

hodlbtc 8y ago

Speaking just from personal experience — a lot of young progressives look fairly negatively upon the label of American and American identity in general, but identify strongly with the Democratic Party. So, maybe you should be a little worried.

elicash 8y ago
I think there's something to that first half. On the second half, young people I've heard from seem more open-minded to third parties than older generations. But that's also just personal experience.

Spooky23 8y ago

Geography was better because it ended up being more democratic. Even Tammany Hall paid attention to their voters. Now you get bullshit memes that activate supporters longitudinally across the country. Obama was “Hope” and “Change”, Trump is MAGA. Institutional candidates like Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney can’t fight populist bullshit. It’s dangerous because it disenfranchises. If you were a Republican in New York, things were tough, but they are plain grim now, as you need to be a right winger or you lose these “activated” crazy people.

elicash 8y ago
By "better" all I really mean is stable. > It’s dangerous because it disenfranchises. Yeah, but there were also downsides. This isn't my example, but if you wanted to vote for civil rights candidates before that legislation got voted into law, what party would you vote for? There really wasn't a party for you. Even if you voted for a pro-Civil Rights northern democrat, you were still voting for a party leadership that at the time didn't believe in equal rights and for a majority that was fighting against equality.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  That’s definitely a problem, but the same thing is happening now. If you are a otherwise progressive/liberal who has a moral objection to abortion, what do you do?

empath75 8y ago

Yeah I actually think that anti-corruption reforms have done a lot of damage to the American political system. It used to be that a politician got rewarded for bringing home the bacon but now that they can no longer get earmarks, it’s all about culture wars instead. Without horse trading, Congress is all about paying off big donors and yelling about abortion instead of getting things done.