8 ms·

> Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both sides of the aisle One side believes that government can be, and should be, improved by collective

> Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both sides of the aisle One side believes that government can be, and should be, improved by collective effort. The other side believes government cannot be improved because government itself is per se bad. There is zero equivalence between the two.

minikites 6y ago
Exactly. So many people want to seem enlightened and "above the fray" and blaming "both sides" is an easy way to sound smart and perceptive. Only one side attacks democracy and government as concepts.
calvinmorrison 6y ago
> The other side believes government cannot be improved because government itself is per se bad. I agree - it's clear that the social democrats and other leftists would clearly like to remove government entirely and achieve a stateless society. Or did you mean the right-wing libertarian types who want to have no government so they can own nukes? These analogies are just silly and not really the point - the goals don't really matter to the point. The point is that when there is less perceived legitimacy of government, people are more willing to look for other options.
herval 6y ago
I know this is usually how americans explain democrats vs republicans, but is it really how the parties function? As an outsider (not american) looking in, and judging by the policies of the last couple decades, it seems republicans always increase government spending (therefore they don't actually believe in "small government"), and democrats pretty much rule for the oligarchs (therefore they don't really believe in the better of the "collective")?
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Which oligarchs do you have in mind?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Miner49er 6y ago
  As an American, I can say that what OP is saying is not at all how the parties function, but it is maybe what most Americans think. I think, the real answer is that both parties rule for the oligarchs, just different ones, and they also take on opposing sides in certain culture wars that Americans care about to win votes.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  You're making the mistake of believing that the parties represent the sides that exist in America. Most people on the right would disagree that the Republican party represents them, and most of the left would disagree that the Democratic party represents them.
  - danans 6y ago
    > Most people on the right would disagree that the Republican party represents them, and most of the left would disagree that the Democratic party represents them. Most of those people would say that the party they vote for represents them "enough", which is at the end of the day what matters electorally.
    - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
      People are mostly voting against the other side today, not in support of one party, but to prevent the other from gaining power. For example, Biden. A lot of people voted for Biden not because they think of themselves as Democrats but because they don’t want republicans in power (this includes former republicans)
  - herval 6y ago
    That's basically what the original poster said - "Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both sides of the aisle". I can imagine Americans of both sides don't see the parties as representing them. This seems to be a theme these days, no matter if the party in power is left/right/center, and it's not only contained to democracies either (it's pretty clear by now that turkish and russian folks aren't happy w/ their dictatorships either, for instance). It somewhat feels _distrusting centralized forms of government_ is the (new?) trend?
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      > It somewhat feels _distrusting centralized forms of government_ is the (new?) trend? I think it is more that people recognize that many parties and politicians exist to serve those with power, and act to enforce plutocracy over those without power.
- Zigurd 6y ago
  It is possible to be too cynical. One party has this in their 2020 platform: _____ believe that the interests and the voices of the American people should determine our elections. Money is not speech, and corporations are not people. _____ will fight to pass a Constitutional amendment that will go beyond merely overturning Citizens United and related decisions like Buckley v. Valeo by eliminating all private financing from federal elections. In the meantime, _____ will work with Congress on legislation to strengthen the public funding system by matching small-dollar donations for all federal candidates, crack down on foreign nationals who try to influence elections, and ensure that super PACs are wholly independent of campaigns and political parties. We will bring an end to “dark money” by requiring full disclosure of contributors to any group that advocates for or against candidates, and bar 501(c)(4) organizations from spending money on elections. _____ will ban corporate PACs from donating to candidates and bar lobbyists from donating, fundraising, or bundling for anyone they lobby. Guess which party. You may say they don't mean it. But there is no symmetry in the parties in this issue.
- ardy42 6y ago
  >> One side believes that government can be, and should be, improved by collective effort. >> The other side believes government cannot be improved because government itself is per se bad. > I know this is usually how americans explain democrats vs republicans, but is it really how the parties function? As an outsider (not american) looking in, and judging by the policies of the last couple decades, it seems republicans always increase government spending (therefore they don't actually believe in "small government"), and democrats pretty much rule for the oligarchs (therefore they don't really believe in the better of the "collective")? IIRC. Republicans pretty much always try to cut or reduce social spending, regulation, and programs meant to help poor and middle class Americans; and their stated reasons are basically "government itself is per se bad." They don't mind military spending, and tend to increase the deficit through tax cuts (despite making a big deal about how deficits are bad whenever Democrats are in power). The Democrats generally believe the government can perform useful social functions, so they pursue social spending, regulation, and government programs. However, they're often milquetoast about it and tend to preemptively cave to anticipated Republican objections.
ceilingcorner 6y ago
This sort of onesidedness is exactly the cause of the issue. Virtually all of the great crimes of the last century were conducted by governments. While I wouldn’t consider myself an anarchist/libertarian/anti-government, it seems eminently reasonable to me to be deeply skeptical of centralized governmental authority. Whether that’s actually desirable or practical is a different matter.
- kergonath 6y ago
  Virtually all the great crimes were conducted by people. Let's just kill them all... Seriously though, large-scale crimes are committed by people with power, so it's not surprising to see governments in there. But that would be ignoring all gangs, guerrillas, sects, etc. You cannot really put in the same bag dictatorships and democracies. Not to say the latter are perfect. There are many examples of atrocities committed under democratic regimes, which are indeed cautionary tales of government gone wrong. But under a dictatorship, the state serves one person or clan, it's a completely different beast. The lesson from these is more like "don't ever put a strongman in power". Also, limiting yourself to the last century is very reductive, because it was a period with strong governments and powerful nations, which limited excesses from private entities. But if you take government control away, those will back filling up the power vacuum. I am not certain we would be enthusiastic bout a 21st century version of the East India Company, and several corporations would have the resources to do something like that.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    It seems to me that great crimes are only possible with centralized power sources. Typically that is a government, but it is often an unaccountable corporation, too. If power is distributed, you may have more gang and guerrilla activity, but that seems far less damaging than the Holocaust or the Soviet purges. As I said, while I don’t follow the position myself, I think it’s pretty reasonable to be skeptical of powerful centralized governments.
    - n4r9 6y ago
      Great crimes are possible with centralised power sources led by a single strong person who cannot be removed. If you spread the power amongst a committee and enforce a regular turnover of it as part of your political process, then you greatly mitigate the risk of "great crimes". In fact I regard this as a cornerstone of democracy.
trhway 6y ago
both sides are very ok with using power of government to further their agenda, and both sides are making the government as big as possible when and where it serves their interests. What worst is both sides are using power of majority to attack, instead of protecting, the rights of the minority. That usage of democracy as an attack weapon destroys public trust for democracy and transforms the democracy into ochlocracy, and thus moves the society one step closer to totalitarism.
api 6y ago
The right is absolutely not anti-government. They're just against the use of government to disrupt existing hierarchies or interfere with tradition. For concrete proof look at Federal deficits and spending under right and left wing administrations, or the corresponding growth in the size and scope of government. There is at best no difference, and in a few cases government actually shrank in nominal terms under more left-leaning administrations. The left believes we need government for pragmatic reasons, but most of them could be sold on the idea of giving up state power if alternative mechanisms to achieve their goals could be found and demonstrated to work in real life. The right on the other hand worships hierarchy and authority as a good in and of itself and almost deifies the state and its hierarchy as a manifestation of a divine order. The right would never let go of the state even if it were no longer needed, for doing so would mean there would be no mechanism for enforcement of divinely ordained hierarchy. (This is why libertarians are neither left nor right.)
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > (This is why libertarians are neither left nor right.) I'd have to say that the Americans that adopted the libertarian label are on the right, but the original anarchists for whom the term 'libertarian' was coined were on the left. That dichotomy is where the labels right-libertarian[1] and left-libertarian[2] were derived. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
  - api 6y ago
    I mostly agree. A lot of American libertarianism also comes via Ayn Rand, whom I consider to be more of a liberal heretic than a conservative. "Racism is the lowest form of collectivism." - Ayn Rand I've read Randian / Marxist where there is broad agreement as to many humanistic goals. There's just a deep disagreement about how best to get there. (I'm not a Randian, though I do think she's worth reading and had some valid points about a number of things.) In the past few years alt-right types have started trying to bogart the term libertarian as part of their broad recruitment efforts. I no longer use the term much for that reason. I did back when words meant things.

minikites 6y ago

Exactly. So many people want to seem enlightened and "above the fray" and blaming "both sides" is an easy way to sound smart and perceptive. Only one side attacks democracy and government as concepts.

calvinmorrison 6y ago

> The other side believes government cannot be improved because government itself is per se bad. I agree - it's clear that the social democrats and other leftists would clearly like to remove government entirely and achieve a stateless society. Or did you mean the right-wing libertarian types who want to have no government so they can own nukes? These analogies are just silly and not really the point - the goals don't really matter to the point. The point is that when there is less perceived legitimacy of government, people are more willing to look for other options.

herval 6y ago

I know this is usually how americans explain democrats vs republicans, but is it really how the parties function? As an outsider (not american) looking in, and judging by the policies of the last couple decades, it seems republicans always increase government spending (therefore they don't actually believe in "small government"), and democrats pretty much rule for the oligarchs (therefore they don't really believe in the better of the "collective")?

mhh__ 6y ago
Which oligarchs do you have in mind?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Miner49er 6y ago
As an American, I can say that what OP is saying is not at all how the parties function, but it is maybe what most Americans think. I think, the real answer is that both parties rule for the oligarchs, just different ones, and they also take on opposing sides in certain culture wars that Americans care about to win votes.
heavyset_go 6y ago
You're making the mistake of believing that the parties represent the sides that exist in America. Most people on the right would disagree that the Republican party represents them, and most of the left would disagree that the Democratic party represents them.
- danans 6y ago
  > Most people on the right would disagree that the Republican party represents them, and most of the left would disagree that the Democratic party represents them. Most of those people would say that the party they vote for represents them "enough", which is at the end of the day what matters electorally.
  - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
    People are mostly voting against the other side today, not in support of one party, but to prevent the other from gaining power. For example, Biden. A lot of people voted for Biden not because they think of themselves as Democrats but because they don’t want republicans in power (this includes former republicans)
- herval 6y ago
  That's basically what the original poster said - "Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both sides of the aisle". I can imagine Americans of both sides don't see the parties as representing them. This seems to be a theme these days, no matter if the party in power is left/right/center, and it's not only contained to democracies either (it's pretty clear by now that turkish and russian folks aren't happy w/ their dictatorships either, for instance). It somewhat feels _distrusting centralized forms of government_ is the (new?) trend?
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    > It somewhat feels _distrusting centralized forms of government_ is the (new?) trend? I think it is more that people recognize that many parties and politicians exist to serve those with power, and act to enforce plutocracy over those without power.
Zigurd 6y ago
It is possible to be too cynical. One party has this in their 2020 platform: _____ believe that the interests and the voices of the American people should determine our elections. Money is not speech, and corporations are not people. _____ will fight to pass a Constitutional amendment that will go beyond merely overturning Citizens United and related decisions like Buckley v. Valeo by eliminating all private financing from federal elections. In the meantime, _____ will work with Congress on legislation to strengthen the public funding system by matching small-dollar donations for all federal candidates, crack down on foreign nationals who try to influence elections, and ensure that super PACs are wholly independent of campaigns and political parties. We will bring an end to “dark money” by requiring full disclosure of contributors to any group that advocates for or against candidates, and bar 501(c)(4) organizations from spending money on elections. _____ will ban corporate PACs from donating to candidates and bar lobbyists from donating, fundraising, or bundling for anyone they lobby. Guess which party. You may say they don't mean it. But there is no symmetry in the parties in this issue.
ardy42 6y ago
>> One side believes that government can be, and should be, improved by collective effort. >> The other side believes government cannot be improved because government itself is per se bad. > I know this is usually how americans explain democrats vs republicans, but is it really how the parties function? As an outsider (not american) looking in, and judging by the policies of the last couple decades, it seems republicans always increase government spending (therefore they don't actually believe in "small government"), and democrats pretty much rule for the oligarchs (therefore they don't really believe in the better of the "collective")? IIRC. Republicans pretty much always try to cut or reduce social spending, regulation, and programs meant to help poor and middle class Americans; and their stated reasons are basically "government itself is per se bad." They don't mind military spending, and tend to increase the deficit through tax cuts (despite making a big deal about how deficits are bad whenever Democrats are in power). The Democrats generally believe the government can perform useful social functions, so they pursue social spending, regulation, and government programs. However, they're often milquetoast about it and tend to preemptively cave to anticipated Republican objections.

ceilingcorner 6y ago

This sort of onesidedness is exactly the cause of the issue. Virtually all of the great crimes of the last century were conducted by governments. While I wouldn’t consider myself an anarchist/libertarian/anti-government, it seems eminently reasonable to me to be deeply skeptical of centralized governmental authority. Whether that’s actually desirable or practical is a different matter.

kergonath 6y ago
Virtually all the great crimes were conducted by people. Let's just kill them all... Seriously though, large-scale crimes are committed by people with power, so it's not surprising to see governments in there. But that would be ignoring all gangs, guerrillas, sects, etc. You cannot really put in the same bag dictatorships and democracies. Not to say the latter are perfect. There are many examples of atrocities committed under democratic regimes, which are indeed cautionary tales of government gone wrong. But under a dictatorship, the state serves one person or clan, it's a completely different beast. The lesson from these is more like "don't ever put a strongman in power". Also, limiting yourself to the last century is very reductive, because it was a period with strong governments and powerful nations, which limited excesses from private entities. But if you take government control away, those will back filling up the power vacuum. I am not certain we would be enthusiastic bout a 21st century version of the East India Company, and several corporations would have the resources to do something like that.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  It seems to me that great crimes are only possible with centralized power sources. Typically that is a government, but it is often an unaccountable corporation, too. If power is distributed, you may have more gang and guerrilla activity, but that seems far less damaging than the Holocaust or the Soviet purges. As I said, while I don’t follow the position myself, I think it’s pretty reasonable to be skeptical of powerful centralized governments.
  - n4r9 6y ago
    Great crimes are possible with centralised power sources led by a single strong person who cannot be removed. If you spread the power amongst a committee and enforce a regular turnover of it as part of your political process, then you greatly mitigate the risk of "great crimes". In fact I regard this as a cornerstone of democracy.

trhway 6y ago

both sides are very ok with using power of government to further their agenda, and both sides are making the government as big as possible when and where it serves their interests. What worst is both sides are using power of majority to attack, instead of protecting, the rights of the minority. That usage of democracy as an attack weapon destroys public trust for democracy and transforms the democracy into ochlocracy, and thus moves the society one step closer to totalitarism.

api 6y ago

The right is absolutely not anti-government. They're just against the use of government to disrupt existing hierarchies or interfere with tradition. For concrete proof look at Federal deficits and spending under right and left wing administrations, or the corresponding growth in the size and scope of government. There is at best no difference, and in a few cases government actually shrank in nominal terms under more left-leaning administrations. The left believes we need government for pragmatic reasons, but most of them could be sold on the idea of giving up state power if alternative mechanisms to achieve their goals could be found and demonstrated to work in real life. The right on the other hand worships hierarchy and authority as a good in and of itself and almost deifies the state and its hierarchy as a manifestation of a divine order. The right would never let go of the state even if it were no longer needed, for doing so would mean there would be no mechanism for enforcement of divinely ordained hierarchy. (This is why libertarians are neither left nor right.)

heavyset_go 6y ago
> (This is why libertarians are neither left nor right.) I'd have to say that the Americans that adopted the libertarian label are on the right, but the original anarchists for whom the term 'libertarian' was coined were on the left. That dichotomy is where the labels right-libertarian[1] and left-libertarian[2] were derived. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
- api 6y ago
  I mostly agree. A lot of American libertarianism also comes via Ayn Rand, whom I consider to be more of a liberal heretic than a conservative. "Racism is the lowest form of collectivism." - Ayn Rand I've read Randian / Marxist where there is broad agreement as to many humanistic goals. There's just a deep disagreement about how best to get there. (I'm not a Randian, though I do think she's worth reading and had some valid points about a number of things.) In the past few years alt-right types have started trying to bogart the term libertarian as part of their broad recruitment efforts. I no longer use the term much for that reason. I did back when words meant things.