4 ms·

I'm not sure that would work. The Republican party, at least the powerful do seem to believe that government can do no right. Even Donald Trump could not turn t

I'm not sure that would work. The Republican party, at least the powerful do seem to believe that government can do no right. Even Donald Trump could not turn them toward fiscal stimulus nor infrastructure. Whereas democrats seem willing to take just about anything (though this has stemmed a bit under Trump). In this case there is no middle as there is no place to compromise between "any" and "none".

js2 6y ago
> Even Donald Trump could not turn them toward fiscal stimulus nor infrastructure. He can't pass an infrastructure plan because anything of that scope requires persuasion and compromise across many competing interests, things I believe he's constitutionally incapable of. It's the same reason he never had a healthcare bill. If he can't strong arm a deal, he can't get it done at all. I think he actually used the bully pulpit of the presidency to pretty poor effect as far as that goes.
- NateEag 6y ago
  To be effective, a US president needs to be a consensus-builder and compromise-broker. I think Trump doesn't even know what those words mean.
- ianai 6y ago
  Don’t forget the wide reports of death threats towards republicans and democrats - anyone remotely open to pushing back gets death threats. And they’re credible. That clearly has kept progress from being made.
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  I disagree. I think that Trump, freed of McConnell would have been for using a ton of debt to build things. Would he have insisted that a ton of that spending take place in states that votes for him? Absolutely. But he is not a deficit hawk.
  - RobAtticus 6y ago
    Does this actually disagree with what he said? OP said Trump doesn't put in the effort to persuade (aka, get McConnell to focus on his agenda) and used his bully pulpit ineffectively (aka, putting enough pressure on McConnell to act). That seems to square with your thoughts.
    - DubiousPusher 6y ago
      No. This is heralding to a different era of Sorkinesque politics. There are just things the Republican caucus is not going to do because of their philosophical and public commitment to austerity. My point is that Trump is almost the perfect president to get this done because he has purchase with the base even when he contradicts orthodoxy. A conservative nervous about being primaried for voting for a big government program like this has all the necessary cover to vote for it under Trump. That they could not get it done under Trump I see as incredible evidence of the party's commitment to austerity government. Look at the fight over food stamps we have every time the farm bill comes around. SNAP costs about 1/3 of 1 percent of GDP. It helps ag and basically extends food security to the entire country. But Republicans fight over it like it's Medicare. I'm not condemning them for this. I happen to disagree but they fundamentally believe, no matter the cost benefit analysis that the government should not do these things and cannot conduct them effectively. It is hard for people to understand because we are so used to the post war order in which both sides believe in government up to a certain point at least.
ianai 6y ago
Republicans have been getting death threats towards themselves and their families for even looking likely to disagree with the president for years now. They also had no problem passing huge tax cuts without funding and thus exploding the deficit. I think it’s imperative that the next president start by trying to stem the online propaganda and anything else contributing to those death threats. The US simply cannot tolerate death threats against its elected officials. They’ve affected our politics for years and progress may be impossible until the propaganda is halted. Edit-On the original topic of getting the two sides to agree on things, I think the fundamental problem is the us/them dynamic between urban and rural communities. I further posit that a large government program to employ these two communities together would go a long way toward building a communal bridge between them. If people in rural America saw the rest of the country building things like high speed rail to make them less isolated they would see promise for better days in the future. Ie make it so that people can live in rural areas and take a train into work in a city in minutes. Property valuations will increase. Crime will decrease through frankly there being better options all around. (Though I still think a revamped drug scheduling system needs to address the source of crime.)
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Re high speed rail: The problem is, there aren't enough people in the rural area. You wouldn't have a high-speed rail stop in every other town in rural Kansas - if you did, it wouldn't be high speed rail. You're not going to connect all the farmer's kids to Kansas City that way, still less to Chicago.
  - ianai 6y ago
    I’m sure there’s a way around it. Got any ideas?
    - pdonis 6y ago
      Of course there's a way around it. It's this great technology called "cars". Sure, push to make cars more fuel efficient, push for ways to make fuel for cars that's more closed cycle (like biofuel), push to spread more infrastructure to make things like electric cars or plug-in hybrids feasible. But when you have a population that is very, very spread out, there is no such thing as "mass transit", and we just have to deal with that fact.

js2 6y ago

> Even Donald Trump could not turn them toward fiscal stimulus nor infrastructure. He can't pass an infrastructure plan because anything of that scope requires persuasion and compromise across many competing interests, things I believe he's constitutionally incapable of. It's the same reason he never had a healthcare bill. If he can't strong arm a deal, he can't get it done at all. I think he actually used the bully pulpit of the presidency to pretty poor effect as far as that goes.

NateEag 6y ago
To be effective, a US president needs to be a consensus-builder and compromise-broker. I think Trump doesn't even know what those words mean.
ianai 6y ago
Don’t forget the wide reports of death threats towards republicans and democrats - anyone remotely open to pushing back gets death threats. And they’re credible. That clearly has kept progress from being made.
DubiousPusher 6y ago
I disagree. I think that Trump, freed of McConnell would have been for using a ton of debt to build things. Would he have insisted that a ton of that spending take place in states that votes for him? Absolutely. But he is not a deficit hawk.
- RobAtticus 6y ago
  Does this actually disagree with what he said? OP said Trump doesn't put in the effort to persuade (aka, get McConnell to focus on his agenda) and used his bully pulpit ineffectively (aka, putting enough pressure on McConnell to act). That seems to square with your thoughts.
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago
    No. This is heralding to a different era of Sorkinesque politics. There are just things the Republican caucus is not going to do because of their philosophical and public commitment to austerity. My point is that Trump is almost the perfect president to get this done because he has purchase with the base even when he contradicts orthodoxy. A conservative nervous about being primaried for voting for a big government program like this has all the necessary cover to vote for it under Trump. That they could not get it done under Trump I see as incredible evidence of the party's commitment to austerity government. Look at the fight over food stamps we have every time the farm bill comes around. SNAP costs about 1/3 of 1 percent of GDP. It helps ag and basically extends food security to the entire country. But Republicans fight over it like it's Medicare. I'm not condemning them for this. I happen to disagree but they fundamentally believe, no matter the cost benefit analysis that the government should not do these things and cannot conduct them effectively. It is hard for people to understand because we are so used to the post war order in which both sides believe in government up to a certain point at least.

ianai 6y ago

Republicans have been getting death threats towards themselves and their families for even looking likely to disagree with the president for years now. They also had no problem passing huge tax cuts without funding and thus exploding the deficit. I think it’s imperative that the next president start by trying to stem the online propaganda and anything else contributing to those death threats. The US simply cannot tolerate death threats against its elected officials. They’ve affected our politics for years and progress may be impossible until the propaganda is halted. Edit-On the original topic of getting the two sides to agree on things, I think the fundamental problem is the us/them dynamic between urban and rural communities. I further posit that a large government program to employ these two communities together would go a long way toward building a communal bridge between them. If people in rural America saw the rest of the country building things like high speed rail to make them less isolated they would see promise for better days in the future. Ie make it so that people can live in rural areas and take a train into work in a city in minutes. Property valuations will increase. Crime will decrease through frankly there being better options all around. (Though I still think a revamped drug scheduling system needs to address the source of crime.)

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Re high speed rail: The problem is, there aren't enough people in the rural area. You wouldn't have a high-speed rail stop in every other town in rural Kansas - if you did, it wouldn't be high speed rail. You're not going to connect all the farmer's kids to Kansas City that way, still less to Chicago.
- ianai 6y ago
  I’m sure there’s a way around it. Got any ideas?
  - pdonis 6y ago
    Of course there's a way around it. It's this great technology called "cars". Sure, push to make cars more fuel efficient, push for ways to make fuel for cars that's more closed cycle (like biofuel), push to spread more infrastructure to make things like electric cars or plug-in hybrids feasible. But when you have a population that is very, very spread out, there is no such thing as "mass transit", and we just have to deal with that fact.