4 ms·

Both parties are bad because only bad parties can succeed in our bad system. Also because they're basically identical. They are ants contending over a postage s

Both parties are bad because only bad parties can succeed in our bad system. Also because they're basically identical. They are ants contending over a postage stamp, on a continent of political possibility. The only thing we can expect them to do is what they've already been paid by lobbyists to do before. That's why CARES Act is more of the same, except worse, that we already saw in the 2008-9 "bailouts". The next time most Americans suffer some easily foreseeable disaster, we can be sure that billionaires will feast even more and regular people will be helped even less. There's no logical reason to be fighting seven wars, having 5% of the world's population but 25% of its prisoners and 20% of its covid deaths... and 800 billionaires. Our polity is shit. We're not in a local maxima. Literally any possible change would be for the better. The system we have cannot be changed via the methods it allows, however. Juvenile pleas for understanding only prolong our misery.

nitrogen 6y ago
I agree with most of what you're saying. There's a huge space of possibilities that are completely invisible to the current system. But I disagree weakly with the second to last sentence, and strongly with the last sentence. The system we have cannot be changed via the methods it allows, however. Not all at once, that's for sure. But the right small changes early on can lead to very large changes later. Some of those are possible, like voting methods other than first-past-the-post or instant-runoff. Some of them are in the direct control of people who visit HN, like the nature of social networking algorithms, and the metrics chosen to optimize them. Juvenile pleas for understanding only prolong our misery. For what it's worth, when I was a teenager, I was far less interested in understanding or compromise. That was about two decades ago. It's only after living in many, many different places as an adult that I think that "understanding" is not only possible, but necessary. My perspective now is anything but juvenile. When I'm saying we need to bridge the gap between left and right, I'm not saying we need to preserve the status quo exactly as it is. I'm saying that not doing so will practically guarantee that all sides end up worse than the status quo.
- minikites 6y ago
  >When I'm saying we need to bridge the gap between left and right, I'm not saying we need to preserve the status quo exactly as it is. The Democrats have been trying to bridge the gap for 30 years and the Republicans keep spitting in their face (Newt Gingrich in the 90s, the entire party vs Obama in the 00s). The Democrats seem to have finally figured this out and Republicans are now upset that it isn't working any more. Republicans aren't interested in bridging the gap because if they do, their base will find someone who's "a real fighter, not a RINO".
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    We have about as much chance of changing politicians by talking about their parties as we do of changing the outcome of a sporting event by yelling harder for our favorite team at the (30-second-delayed) TV. Maybe we should be more interested in what people can do, than what politicians can't.
    - minikites 6y ago
      I thought our government was supposed to be "of the people" (also known as a democracy). Maybe we should expand access to voting (e.g. easier to register, no-excuse mail-in ballots, adding polling places, making election day a holiday, and/or extending voting days). We could also address gerrymandering and other structural issues (e.g. some system other than first-past-the-post). Now think about which side wants to do this and which side wants to stop them.
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        Now think about which side wants to do this and which side wants to stop them. And then? Instead of lumping people into "sides" like some seem to want us to do because they benefit from conflict, we can ask "Okay, the party can't be reasoned with, but what about the people?" I'm not denying there are politicians and pundits and whatnot who do everything they are accused of. I'm saying we can try to ignore them and focus on human connection with the people who follow them out of tradition but don't fully agree with them. Do you have any ideas for how to start doing that? I don't normally read people's comment history. I read your past day or so of comments to see why we seem to be talking past one another. IMO the phrasing of some of your comments tends toward escalation rather than discussion. (Disclaimer: I don't represent HN itself in the slightest, nor are my views likely to be fully correlated with the HN mainstream)

nitrogen 6y ago

I agree with most of what you're saying. There's a huge space of possibilities that are completely invisible to the current system. But I disagree weakly with the second to last sentence, and strongly with the last sentence. The system we have cannot be changed via the methods it allows, however. Not all at once, that's for sure. But the right small changes early on can lead to very large changes later. Some of those are possible, like voting methods other than first-past-the-post or instant-runoff. Some of them are in the direct control of people who visit HN, like the nature of social networking algorithms, and the metrics chosen to optimize them. Juvenile pleas for understanding only prolong our misery. For what it's worth, when I was a teenager, I was far less interested in understanding or compromise. That was about two decades ago. It's only after living in many, many different places as an adult that I think that "understanding" is not only possible, but necessary. My perspective now is anything but juvenile. When I'm saying we need to bridge the gap between left and right, I'm not saying we need to preserve the status quo exactly as it is. I'm saying that not doing so will practically guarantee that all sides end up worse than the status quo.

minikites 6y ago
>When I'm saying we need to bridge the gap between left and right, I'm not saying we need to preserve the status quo exactly as it is. The Democrats have been trying to bridge the gap for 30 years and the Republicans keep spitting in their face (Newt Gingrich in the 90s, the entire party vs Obama in the 00s). The Democrats seem to have finally figured this out and Republicans are now upset that it isn't working any more. Republicans aren't interested in bridging the gap because if they do, their base will find someone who's "a real fighter, not a RINO".
- nitrogen 6y ago
  We have about as much chance of changing politicians by talking about their parties as we do of changing the outcome of a sporting event by yelling harder for our favorite team at the (30-second-delayed) TV. Maybe we should be more interested in what people can do, than what politicians can't.
  - minikites 6y ago
    I thought our government was supposed to be "of the people" (also known as a democracy). Maybe we should expand access to voting (e.g. easier to register, no-excuse mail-in ballots, adding polling places, making election day a holiday, and/or extending voting days). We could also address gerrymandering and other structural issues (e.g. some system other than first-past-the-post). Now think about which side wants to do this and which side wants to stop them.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      Now think about which side wants to do this and which side wants to stop them. And then? Instead of lumping people into "sides" like some seem to want us to do because they benefit from conflict, we can ask "Okay, the party can't be reasoned with, but what about the people?" I'm not denying there are politicians and pundits and whatnot who do everything they are accused of. I'm saying we can try to ignore them and focus on human connection with the people who follow them out of tradition but don't fully agree with them. Do you have any ideas for how to start doing that? I don't normally read people's comment history. I read your past day or so of comments to see why we seem to be talking past one another. IMO the phrasing of some of your comments tends toward escalation rather than discussion. (Disclaimer: I don't represent HN itself in the slightest, nor are my views likely to be fully correlated with the HN mainstream)