6 ms·

The thing is, right now there seems to be a disturbing pattern of the world falling apart at the end of every GOP administration. This is problematic, because w

The thing is, right now there seems to be a disturbing pattern of the world falling apart at the end of every GOP administration. This is problematic, because we still need the GOP so that we can vote out democrats when they mismanage the nation's affairs. We can't have one party, that's not safe for us as the citizenry for obvious reasons. At the same time, we can't have this, "the world ends", at the end of every GOP administration either. So we really do need to fix this. The alternative is we get some different parties, and I've seen little to no indication of that happening. The other parties have neither shown an ability to evoke a response large enough to get elected. Nor have they shown an ability to govern even in the extremely unlikely event that they were elected. For the foreseeable future, we are stuck with the dem-rep dichotomy. Which can work. We just need for the reps to stop running the nation into the ground when it's their turn. Other nations have shown us that reasonable and effective responses to the pandemic were possible. Why are we here? What is the set of missteps or issues that got us here? We have to identify those issues, and fix them.

cleandreams 7y ago
Single party rule in California has been an improvement. We have a functioning government. Kinda helps in a pandemic. When we got rid of our last Republican governor we paid down our debt and California entered this dire period with a big reserve. The notion that some sort of optimal condition is reached by trashing government is just a clueless and stupid idea.
- rauchp 7y ago
  "Single party rule in California has been an improvement." I just moved to California so I don't have too much of a personal opinion yet but that sounds like a bold claim. From what I've seen, people over the age of 30 seem split on whether or not it's an improvement. You look at mismanaged cities like SF where there's insane homeless budgets but very little action and results and wonder if the monopoly on political power has made politicians here complacent. Then there's the whole NIMBY thing. There's a whole lot of Democrats (arguably DINO's) that are very anti-building. They run under the Democrat banner so they'll probably keep getting re-elected. Obviously a solution here is people getting involved in local party politics to primary these candidates out, but that sounds like a miracle that'll happen as soon as we get nuclear fusion power plants. The whole thing makes me wish 3rd party candidates were more viable in the US. This flip-flopping really sucks and creates a lot of chaos but political monopolies, from what I've seen, are able to hide mismanagement and bad policies really well. (Texas is probably a similar example from the other spectrum.)
  - bsder 7y ago
    You are choosing really bad examples, because Republicans are even more extreme than the Democrats on them. Homelessness is an infinite money sink coupled with very problematic civil rights issues. It takes a unified effort at the federal level when states are willing to just ship their problems to other states. It also requires a unified effort at healthcare--both physical and mental. Nobody has come up with a good solution to homelessness yet--anywhere. If you have one, put it out there as lots of governments are desperate for a fix. While NIMBY is bad irrespective of party, the YIMBY movement only started gaining traction once the Republicans were purged as the NIMBY movement could COUNT on them as a unified bloc of obstruction. And, as for NIMBY, renters outnumber property owners, yet don't show up to vote. Well, then what results do you think you're going to get? As for Texas, it isn't as uniformly Republican as you think. The major cities are gaining significant Democratic representation (the Republicans just banned straight ticket voting because it destroyed them in Houston last cycle). You can also see this in the Covid-19 response--the mayors for big Texas cities almost uniformly shut down--Austin declared very early in order to avoid the disaster that would have been SXSW. Yes, the gerrymandering in Texas is horrific, and the areas outside the cities are as stupid red as it gets. However, Texas isn't as unified as you think--in spite of the human-shaped Senator known as Ted Cruz.
    - cactus2093 7y ago
      The homeless coming in from out of state turns out not to actually be that prevalent in practice. In LA, for instance, only 18% of currently homeless residents became homeless while living out of state [0]. So if you could magically get everyone from out of state off the streets, you'd still be left with 82% of the homeless population, i.e. there'd still be a big homeless problem. To a first order approximation, the majority of homeless are simply residents who lose a job or can't earn enough money, can't afford their rent, and end up on the street. Making a lot more housing available so it's not so impossible to afford is clearly an important part of the solution, which we seemingly can't do as long as progressive democrats are in charge. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/homeless-population.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/homeless-population.ht...
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  Would that be the last Republican governor who actually tried to prepare for the pandemic with ventilator stockpiles and mobile hospitals?
- kortilla 7y ago
  California has gotten significantly worse over the last 10 years or so for residents though, even if some debt has been paid off. Rent control, nimbyism, etc all backed by the current government have made the housing market a hellscape. Nothing has been done to address the education system and huge pension liabilities either. The issue with Democrats in charge without any meaningful opposition is that none of the Democratic radioactive stuff gets touched (excessive regulation, entitlements, etc).
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    > Rent control, nimbyism, etc all backed by the current government have made the housing market a hellscape. The question is if California is soooo bad. Why are smart, intelligent people coming here? Why does capital still invest here? Part of the answer is other places in the US are slowly failing. So many of the problems have to due with California serving as a refuge from failed economic and social policy in other states and countries.
    - newfriend 7y ago
      If California is so great, why are so many people moving away? [1] California is being propped up by the tech industry because historically the biggest tech companies are headquartered here, which caused all the talent to be clustered here, and then new tech companies were forced to be here to attract that talent. Obviously, smart, intelligent people move here because jobs are here, and capital invests here because talent is here -- but things are changing quickly and other cities are becoming tech hubs. If these other states have such "failed economic and social policies", why are so many people moving there? The worst will be when Californians move to other states and then vote for policies that ruined the place they just fled. [1] https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/31/190122-more-people-left-california-last-year-vs-arrived-a-38-jump/ https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/31/190122-more-people-lef...
      - Gibbon1 7y ago
        Anecdote: Friend manages a call center in California. Couple of years ago Texas using a bunch of sleazy tax incentives tried to get the center moved from California to Texas. Friend said none of the gay boys wanted to move. And parents were horrified by the idea sending their kids to public school in Texas. Move never happened as a result.
- dkdk8283 7y ago
  I left California long ago because it’s so polarized towards blue. I share different ideals and tend to get ostracized for them - not a community I want to be part of.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Has it? Can you name 10 things that have gotten better in California over the last decade?
danans 7y ago
> We just need for the reps to stop running the nation into the ground when it's their turn If you think that is what the Republicans are doing each time it's their turn, not sure there is much hope in changing that pattern. After all, they clearly think they are not running the nation into the ground when it's their turn.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  They'd probably agree that they were, actually, as long as you constrained the definition of 'nation' to 'federal government.'
bsder 7y ago
> We can't have one party, that's not safe for us as the citizenry for obvious reasons. Why not? If one party doesn't actually want to govern, kill it. In addition, the Democrats are hardly a unified bloc. And, if the Democrats, themselves, split into 2 parties because they have buried the Republicans, that would solve your problem, no? California is your counterexample. Excising the Republican party like a tumor made things a LOT better. I see burying the Republican party as a patriotic duty at this point. It is so rife with corruption from Russian and Chinese infiltration that it should be regarded as a foreign enemy.
- sojournerc 7y ago
  Just wow. Hope your dictators benevolent. Just as our legal system is adversarial, where two "teams" enter a court to at least attempt justice, it seems crucial to a successful political system that there be a dialectic between opposing views, hoping compromise benefits the whole. Comments such as this, dismissing a huge portion of fellow citizens out of hand, without so much as recognizing that "they" might be trying to do what's best in their eyes is so far from a democratic ideal...
  - bsder 7y ago
    > Comments such as this, dismissing a huge portion of fellow citizens out of hand, without so much as recognizing that "they" might be trying to do what's best in their eyes is so far from a democratic ideal... Explain to me what I'm supposed to do with people who wear "Better Russian than Democrat" t-shirts or my father-in-law who literally said "Her views are everything I want, but I can't vote for her because she's with the Democrats." That kind of stuff is not anti-Democratic party--it is anti-Democracy. > Just wow. Hope your dictators benevolent. Sorry, I'm pretty comfortable burying a party that is anti-Democracy. However, it turns out that the California jungle primary gives the opposing party more power because it often gets to be the king-maker between the two Democratic candidates rather than simply getting ignored because one candidate won the primary and now can roll over the general election. So, that actually approximates your dialectic as opposed to mouthing it and never compromising. Unlike the Republicans, Democrats don't seek to silence the opposing party. But, yeah, the jungle primary is going to do a good job of removing the wing nuts from both parties from the conversation. I consider that a feature and not a bug. I suggest some further research.
JoBrad 7y ago
We don't need the GOP for that. Both the RNC and DNC have dramatically changed their positions over the past 30-40 years. That could happen again (and probably will) if either party suffers a life-threatening loss in elections. Or another party will rise to power, and one of the current powerhouses will fade away.

cleandreams 7y ago

Single party rule in California has been an improvement. We have a functioning government. Kinda helps in a pandemic. When we got rid of our last Republican governor we paid down our debt and California entered this dire period with a big reserve. The notion that some sort of optimal condition is reached by trashing government is just a clueless and stupid idea.

rauchp 7y ago
"Single party rule in California has been an improvement." I just moved to California so I don't have too much of a personal opinion yet but that sounds like a bold claim. From what I've seen, people over the age of 30 seem split on whether or not it's an improvement. You look at mismanaged cities like SF where there's insane homeless budgets but very little action and results and wonder if the monopoly on political power has made politicians here complacent. Then there's the whole NIMBY thing. There's a whole lot of Democrats (arguably DINO's) that are very anti-building. They run under the Democrat banner so they'll probably keep getting re-elected. Obviously a solution here is people getting involved in local party politics to primary these candidates out, but that sounds like a miracle that'll happen as soon as we get nuclear fusion power plants. The whole thing makes me wish 3rd party candidates were more viable in the US. This flip-flopping really sucks and creates a lot of chaos but political monopolies, from what I've seen, are able to hide mismanagement and bad policies really well. (Texas is probably a similar example from the other spectrum.)
- bsder 7y ago
  You are choosing really bad examples, because Republicans are even more extreme than the Democrats on them. Homelessness is an infinite money sink coupled with very problematic civil rights issues. It takes a unified effort at the federal level when states are willing to just ship their problems to other states. It also requires a unified effort at healthcare--both physical and mental. Nobody has come up with a good solution to homelessness yet--anywhere. If you have one, put it out there as lots of governments are desperate for a fix. While NIMBY is bad irrespective of party, the YIMBY movement only started gaining traction once the Republicans were purged as the NIMBY movement could COUNT on them as a unified bloc of obstruction. And, as for NIMBY, renters outnumber property owners, yet don't show up to vote. Well, then what results do you think you're going to get? As for Texas, it isn't as uniformly Republican as you think. The major cities are gaining significant Democratic representation (the Republicans just banned straight ticket voting because it destroyed them in Houston last cycle). You can also see this in the Covid-19 response--the mayors for big Texas cities almost uniformly shut down--Austin declared very early in order to avoid the disaster that would have been SXSW. Yes, the gerrymandering in Texas is horrific, and the areas outside the cities are as stupid red as it gets. However, Texas isn't as unified as you think--in spite of the human-shaped Senator known as Ted Cruz.
  - cactus2093 7y ago
    The homeless coming in from out of state turns out not to actually be that prevalent in practice. In LA, for instance, only 18% of currently homeless residents became homeless while living out of state [0]. So if you could magically get everyone from out of state off the streets, you'd still be left with 82% of the homeless population, i.e. there'd still be a big homeless problem. To a first order approximation, the majority of homeless are simply residents who lose a job or can't earn enough money, can't afford their rent, and end up on the street. Making a lot more housing available so it's not so impossible to afford is clearly an important part of the solution, which we seemingly can't do as long as progressive democrats are in charge. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/homeless-population.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/homeless-population.ht...
selimthegrim 7y ago
Would that be the last Republican governor who actually tried to prepare for the pandemic with ventilator stockpiles and mobile hospitals?
kortilla 7y ago
California has gotten significantly worse over the last 10 years or so for residents though, even if some debt has been paid off. Rent control, nimbyism, etc all backed by the current government have made the housing market a hellscape. Nothing has been done to address the education system and huge pension liabilities either. The issue with Democrats in charge without any meaningful opposition is that none of the Democratic radioactive stuff gets touched (excessive regulation, entitlements, etc).
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  > Rent control, nimbyism, etc all backed by the current government have made the housing market a hellscape. The question is if California is soooo bad. Why are smart, intelligent people coming here? Why does capital still invest here? Part of the answer is other places in the US are slowly failing. So many of the problems have to due with California serving as a refuge from failed economic and social policy in other states and countries.
  - newfriend 7y ago
    If California is so great, why are so many people moving away? [1] California is being propped up by the tech industry because historically the biggest tech companies are headquartered here, which caused all the talent to be clustered here, and then new tech companies were forced to be here to attract that talent. Obviously, smart, intelligent people move here because jobs are here, and capital invests here because talent is here -- but things are changing quickly and other cities are becoming tech hubs. If these other states have such "failed economic and social policies", why are so many people moving there? The worst will be when Californians move to other states and then vote for policies that ruined the place they just fled. [1] https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/31/190122-more-people-left-california-last-year-vs-arrived-a-38-jump/ https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/31/190122-more-people-lef...
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      Anecdote: Friend manages a call center in California. Couple of years ago Texas using a bunch of sleazy tax incentives tried to get the center moved from California to Texas. Friend said none of the gay boys wanted to move. And parents were horrified by the idea sending their kids to public school in Texas. Move never happened as a result.
dkdk8283 7y ago
I left California long ago because it’s so polarized towards blue. I share different ideals and tend to get ostracized for them - not a community I want to be part of.
manigandham 7y ago
Has it? Can you name 10 things that have gotten better in California over the last decade?

danans 7y ago

> We just need for the reps to stop running the nation into the ground when it's their turn If you think that is what the Republicans are doing each time it's their turn, not sure there is much hope in changing that pattern. After all, they clearly think they are not running the nation into the ground when it's their turn.

rootusrootus 7y ago
They'd probably agree that they were, actually, as long as you constrained the definition of 'nation' to 'federal government.'

bsder 7y ago

> We can't have one party, that's not safe for us as the citizenry for obvious reasons. Why not? If one party doesn't actually want to govern, kill it. In addition, the Democrats are hardly a unified bloc. And, if the Democrats, themselves, split into 2 parties because they have buried the Republicans, that would solve your problem, no? California is your counterexample. Excising the Republican party like a tumor made things a LOT better. I see burying the Republican party as a patriotic duty at this point. It is so rife with corruption from Russian and Chinese infiltration that it should be regarded as a foreign enemy.

sojournerc 7y ago
Just wow. Hope your dictators benevolent. Just as our legal system is adversarial, where two "teams" enter a court to at least attempt justice, it seems crucial to a successful political system that there be a dialectic between opposing views, hoping compromise benefits the whole. Comments such as this, dismissing a huge portion of fellow citizens out of hand, without so much as recognizing that "they" might be trying to do what's best in their eyes is so far from a democratic ideal...
- bsder 7y ago
  > Comments such as this, dismissing a huge portion of fellow citizens out of hand, without so much as recognizing that "they" might be trying to do what's best in their eyes is so far from a democratic ideal... Explain to me what I'm supposed to do with people who wear "Better Russian than Democrat" t-shirts or my father-in-law who literally said "Her views are everything I want, but I can't vote for her because she's with the Democrats." That kind of stuff is not anti-Democratic party--it is anti-Democracy. > Just wow. Hope your dictators benevolent. Sorry, I'm pretty comfortable burying a party that is anti-Democracy. However, it turns out that the California jungle primary gives the opposing party more power because it often gets to be the king-maker between the two Democratic candidates rather than simply getting ignored because one candidate won the primary and now can roll over the general election. So, that actually approximates your dialectic as opposed to mouthing it and never compromising. Unlike the Republicans, Democrats don't seek to silence the opposing party. But, yeah, the jungle primary is going to do a good job of removing the wing nuts from both parties from the conversation. I consider that a feature and not a bug. I suggest some further research.

JoBrad 7y ago

We don't need the GOP for that. Both the RNC and DNC have dramatically changed their positions over the past 30-40 years. That could happen again (and probably will) if either party suffers a life-threatening loss in elections. Or another party will rise to power, and one of the current powerhouses will fade away.