8 ms·

From my point of view as an American who has lived in Europe (Sweden, later Germany, and the UK) my framing of the US political situation is as follows: Democr

From my point of view as an American who has lived in Europe (Sweden, later Germany, and the UK) my framing of the US political situation is as follows: Democrats tend to be authoritarian and pro-centralization of power. Republicans tend to be anti-authoritarian and pro-decentralization. Both major parties have a long history of deep corruption. They've essentially colluded to rob the American people blind. Unfortunately, until these two corrupt institutions get together and decide to eliminate parties from our political process, the American people will have to use the threat of supporting the opposite party to get them to stay even mildly in their lane. EDIT - The voting swings on this comment are interesting.

iSnow 6y ago
IDK man, the last POTUS didn't seem so anti-authoritarian to me, but that might again be an outside position.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  I'm a big believer in the life experience determining the politics and Trump, Bloomberg, Biden, Pelosi, and all those other "in the urban neoliberal ruling class, spent their early careers in the urban ruling class" seem to want to solve problems using the jackboot. If you look at actual policy Bernie, AOC, Warren, etc push (i.e. not the twitter crap they pile on to for virtue points) much less authoritarians stuff despite being "further" left because they all cut their teeth serving the interests of different demographics.
  - dfgjklj4 6y ago
    >...less authoritarian... "Green New Deal" harks back to a time when our government was literally being run by a single man. >The president stayed in charge of his administration...by drawing fully on his formal and informal powers as Chief Executive; by raising goals, creating momentum, inspiring a personal loyalty, getting the best out of people...by deliberately fostering among his aides a sense of competition and a clash of wills that led to disarray, heartbreak, and anger but also set off pulses of executive energy and sparks of creativity...by handing out one job to several men and several jobs to one man, thus strengthening his own position as a court of appeals, as a depository of information, and as a tool of co-ordination; by ignoring or bypassing collective decision-making agencies, such as the Cabinet...and always by persuading, flattering, juggling, improvising, reshuffling, harmonizing, conciliating, manipulating.[149] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Presidency_(1933%E2%80%931945) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Presiden...
- Proziam 6y ago
  I personally have very mixed feelings about Trump as a whole. On the one hand, I didn't vote for him. I see him as divisive and as an obstacle for progress on real issues that I personally care about. However, he has done a few things that I have sincere appreciation for. Primarily, we made significant gains towards peace in the middle east by negotiating treaties in the region. Another point in the win column (leading up the covid) was the economy. And the last major thing I cared about was reducing the US dependence on Chinese goods and labor (which are made so affordable due to inhumane practices). Regarding authoritarianism, he has a mixed track record. He had a thing for executive orders, but he also let the states largely handle the civil unrest and covid in the manner they saw fit. With that having been said, Trump was a Democrat for a long time, and was certainly not a typical political establishment individual. I find it difficult to attribute him to either party.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    His rhetoric against TPP did more harm to US China dependence than any good he did. "The Internet" was all in A Tizzy because the treaty spelled out some legal procedures (that withdrawing from the treaty would end), and forgot that it was aimed squarely at China.
    - Proziam 6y ago
      > His rhetoric against TPP did more harm to US China dependence than any good he did. I strongly agree. His rhetoric was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, issues with Trump as president overall. On that point, he failed miserably.
    - AzzieElbab 6y ago
      This is actually a good example of not recognizing bi-partisan positions due to lack of media coverage. Bernie Sanders Sep 14, 2016 Our free trade agreements have been a disaster. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is more of the same, but even worse. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/776111579058364420 https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/776111579058364420
  - AzzieElbab 6y ago
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
Um, no one would ever label Republicans "anti-authoritarian". When your ideology extends from rules concerning which water fountain you can drink from, it's hard to shake the authoritarian label.
- orblivion 6y ago
  "No one" - Lots of people have a lack of awareness of what the other side thinks. "They're fighters. When are we going to get a real fighter on our side to finally stand up to them?" "Look, I understand being principled, but get real. They don't give a damn about principles and will break every rule to get their way. It's time to fight dirty like they do." "Our side isn't perfect but they're authoritarians." BOTH sides say all of these things. And they seem to think it's a joke when the other side claims to see it the same way.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
    So we are supposed to listen to how they view themselves and not take into account the stances that they've actually supported and fought for?
- tastygreenapple 6y ago
  The democrats were the segregation party. Go read a history book.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Depends on the definitions. How would you describe a militia that distrust the authority of the government? Is that antiauthoritarian?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    No, it's just a preference for a different authority than the status quo government. Bolsheviks in Czarist Russia weren't anti-authoritarians, they were just preferred a different authority than was established.
trentlott 6y ago
> Democrats tend to be authoritarian and pro-centralization of power. > Republicans tend to be anti-authoritarian and pro-decentralization. I can't imagine a time that this would have been true in my life. Dems are pro-regulation, but I don't see that as authoritarian. Republicans want capitalism to determine who has power, rather than democracy. They both want to socialize corporate losses for billionaires, but Democrats are at least nominally comfortable making them pay taxes.
jcranmer 6y ago
It feels to me as if you are focusing your attention solely on the national parties and coming to view authoritarian and centralization on very narrow terms (e.g., use of executive orders). Take a step back, look at the broader contexts of the parties at the state and local levels, and it becomes more clear that your labels are not particularly accurate. Take centralization. You see that the Republicans are pro-decentralization. Except they're the party that's trying to delete California's air quality rules in favor of federalized ones. And also delete state net neutrality rules in favor of (lack of) federal ones. Drill down to the state level, and it's clear that their policy on centralization versus decentralization is actually about "the rules should be decided on whatever level we hold power." In states where there is a Republican lock on state government, any Democratic city that dares to pass progressive legislation will not infrequently be met with a state law restricting their ability to pass that legislation. A few states passed laws prohibiting localities from enacting mask mandates. The "bathroom bills" are another example of this effect.
- Proziam 6y ago
  I don't disagree. I believe both parties have deeply rooted issues with corruption. On the levels that I am most knowledgeable about, the trend is roughly true. For example, Dems are the party of gun control while simultaneously militarizing police (a bipartisan effort). The moves to licensing and excessive taxation for what should be fundamental rights (e.g licenses to operate businesses, high taxes on your primary residence) is another trend that concerns me, but quickly goes out of the scope of what can be readily discussed on a forum. My view is that both parties seek power on whatever levels they can get it. That's why I am for the abolition of political parties altogether, and a move towards a more direct democracy (public veto).
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    Direct democracy is worse - take a look at how California has been hurt by their referendum and recall processes. (Prop 13, first and foremost)
    - 6y ago
amaccuish 6y ago
Unfortunately this is one of those comments that tries to dress up a political score point as innocent-looking and "factual" based on "experience".
notacoward 6y ago
That's a ridiculous oversimplification. Republicans tend to be anti government power, but A-OK with other kinds - notably both Big Business and Big Church. I guess that qualifies as anti-authoritarian in the sense that "authority" and "power" aren't exactly the same thing, but that's not a particularly useful definition IMO. It's more a difference of opinion about which kind of coercion is worse.

iSnow 6y ago

IDK man, the last POTUS didn't seem so anti-authoritarian to me, but that might again be an outside position.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
I'm a big believer in the life experience determining the politics and Trump, Bloomberg, Biden, Pelosi, and all those other "in the urban neoliberal ruling class, spent their early careers in the urban ruling class" seem to want to solve problems using the jackboot. If you look at actual policy Bernie, AOC, Warren, etc push (i.e. not the twitter crap they pile on to for virtue points) much less authoritarians stuff despite being "further" left because they all cut their teeth serving the interests of different demographics.
- dfgjklj4 6y ago
  >...less authoritarian... "Green New Deal" harks back to a time when our government was literally being run by a single man. >The president stayed in charge of his administration...by drawing fully on his formal and informal powers as Chief Executive; by raising goals, creating momentum, inspiring a personal loyalty, getting the best out of people...by deliberately fostering among his aides a sense of competition and a clash of wills that led to disarray, heartbreak, and anger but also set off pulses of executive energy and sparks of creativity...by handing out one job to several men and several jobs to one man, thus strengthening his own position as a court of appeals, as a depository of information, and as a tool of co-ordination; by ignoring or bypassing collective decision-making agencies, such as the Cabinet...and always by persuading, flattering, juggling, improvising, reshuffling, harmonizing, conciliating, manipulating.[149] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Presidency_(1933%E2%80%931945) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Presiden...
Proziam 6y ago
I personally have very mixed feelings about Trump as a whole. On the one hand, I didn't vote for him. I see him as divisive and as an obstacle for progress on real issues that I personally care about. However, he has done a few things that I have sincere appreciation for. Primarily, we made significant gains towards peace in the middle east by negotiating treaties in the region. Another point in the win column (leading up the covid) was the economy. And the last major thing I cared about was reducing the US dependence on Chinese goods and labor (which are made so affordable due to inhumane practices). Regarding authoritarianism, he has a mixed track record. He had a thing for executive orders, but he also let the states largely handle the civil unrest and covid in the manner they saw fit. With that having been said, Trump was a Democrat for a long time, and was certainly not a typical political establishment individual. I find it difficult to attribute him to either party.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  His rhetoric against TPP did more harm to US China dependence than any good he did. "The Internet" was all in A Tizzy because the treaty spelled out some legal procedures (that withdrawing from the treaty would end), and forgot that it was aimed squarely at China.
  - Proziam 6y ago
    > His rhetoric against TPP did more harm to US China dependence than any good he did. I strongly agree. His rhetoric was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, issues with Trump as president overall. On that point, he failed miserably.
  - AzzieElbab 6y ago
    This is actually a good example of not recognizing bi-partisan positions due to lack of media coverage. Bernie Sanders Sep 14, 2016 Our free trade agreements have been a disaster. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is more of the same, but even worse. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/776111579058364420 https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/776111579058364420
- AzzieElbab 6y ago

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

Um, no one would ever label Republicans "anti-authoritarian". When your ideology extends from rules concerning which water fountain you can drink from, it's hard to shake the authoritarian label.

orblivion 6y ago
"No one" - Lots of people have a lack of awareness of what the other side thinks. "They're fighters. When are we going to get a real fighter on our side to finally stand up to them?" "Look, I understand being principled, but get real. They don't give a damn about principles and will break every rule to get their way. It's time to fight dirty like they do." "Our side isn't perfect but they're authoritarians." BOTH sides say all of these things. And they seem to think it's a joke when the other side claims to see it the same way.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  So we are supposed to listen to how they view themselves and not take into account the stances that they've actually supported and fought for?
tastygreenapple 6y ago
The democrats were the segregation party. Go read a history book.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Depends on the definitions. How would you describe a militia that distrust the authority of the government? Is that antiauthoritarian?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  No, it's just a preference for a different authority than the status quo government. Bolsheviks in Czarist Russia weren't anti-authoritarians, they were just preferred a different authority than was established.

trentlott 6y ago

> Democrats tend to be authoritarian and pro-centralization of power. > Republicans tend to be anti-authoritarian and pro-decentralization. I can't imagine a time that this would have been true in my life. Dems are pro-regulation, but I don't see that as authoritarian. Republicans want capitalism to determine who has power, rather than democracy. They both want to socialize corporate losses for billionaires, but Democrats are at least nominally comfortable making them pay taxes.

jcranmer 6y ago

It feels to me as if you are focusing your attention solely on the national parties and coming to view authoritarian and centralization on very narrow terms (e.g., use of executive orders). Take a step back, look at the broader contexts of the parties at the state and local levels, and it becomes more clear that your labels are not particularly accurate. Take centralization. You see that the Republicans are pro-decentralization. Except they're the party that's trying to delete California's air quality rules in favor of federalized ones. And also delete state net neutrality rules in favor of (lack of) federal ones. Drill down to the state level, and it's clear that their policy on centralization versus decentralization is actually about "the rules should be decided on whatever level we hold power." In states where there is a Republican lock on state government, any Democratic city that dares to pass progressive legislation will not infrequently be met with a state law restricting their ability to pass that legislation. A few states passed laws prohibiting localities from enacting mask mandates. The "bathroom bills" are another example of this effect.

Proziam 6y ago
I don't disagree. I believe both parties have deeply rooted issues with corruption. On the levels that I am most knowledgeable about, the trend is roughly true. For example, Dems are the party of gun control while simultaneously militarizing police (a bipartisan effort). The moves to licensing and excessive taxation for what should be fundamental rights (e.g licenses to operate businesses, high taxes on your primary residence) is another trend that concerns me, but quickly goes out of the scope of what can be readily discussed on a forum. My view is that both parties seek power on whatever levels they can get it. That's why I am for the abolition of political parties altogether, and a move towards a more direct democracy (public veto).
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  Direct democracy is worse - take a look at how California has been hurt by their referendum and recall processes. (Prop 13, first and foremost)
  - 6y ago

amaccuish 6y ago

Unfortunately this is one of those comments that tries to dress up a political score point as innocent-looking and "factual" based on "experience".

notacoward 6y ago

That's a ridiculous oversimplification. Republicans tend to be anti government power, but A-OK with other kinds - notably both Big Business and Big Church. I guess that qualifies as anti-authoritarian in the sense that "authority" and "power" aren't exactly the same thing, but that's not a particularly useful definition IMO. It's more a difference of opinion about which kind of coercion is worse.