8 ms·

Serious question, does anyone have any insight into how we got into this mess? It seems like the past few years has seen a whirlwind of anti-democratic rule at

Serious question, does anyone have any insight into how we got into this mess? It seems like the past few years has seen a whirlwind of anti-democratic rule at almost every level of government - state, local, and federal.

clairity 5y ago
as hinted at in my sibling comment, there’s a natural gradient toward the consolidation of power, propelled by individual actions to that end. we’ve reached a tipping point in the past 40–50 years where enough consolidation has happened that politicians no longer need to genuinely care about the populace at large, but rather only the plutocratic class.
RickJWagner 5y ago
IMHO, it's been an escalation of tit-for-tat from both sides of the aisle. News sources, 'Community organizers', corporate activists, religious leaders etc. have all been increasingly brazen as they take increasingly polarized positions to counter actions from the other side. What's missing is common decency and sympathy for the other person's point of view. We won't find it by clinging to our own political party or news sources. We're going to have to interact with real, actual people who are different than we are and learn to strike a balance between their needs and our own.
- rayiner 5y ago
  Exactly. It's tit-for-tat. Moderate Democrats won't push back against the "community organizers" when they push highly questionable practices such as ballot harvesting or allowing ballots to be counted that arrive days after election day. Moderate Democrats also never pushed back on two decades of claims about election fraud and stolen elections from the likes of people like Terry McAuliffe and Stacey Abrams: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/terry-mcauliffe-spreads-another-stolen-election-conspiracy-theory/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/terry-mcauliffe-sprea... That, in turn, has destroyed trust. Now, moderate Republicans won't push back against Trump's outrageous claims of voter fraud and stolen elections. Nobody trusts each other to act in good faith and do the right thing.
  - random314 5y ago
    Ultimately, it is almost always the fault of Democrats- whether it is fake electoral fraud allegations, gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement. Stacey Abrams and fauci are the true villains here. /s Btw, electoral fraud via voter disenfranchisement is a well established reality. Voter disenfranchisement has been a Republican tactic for decades that Democrats are finally fighting against. Yes, this is fraud - which is why Republicans are now upset that their fraud is being shut down by Stacey Abrams. Georgia already proved this.
    - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
      Your partisan colors are showing. Strong election processes and voting processes can go both ways.
      - random314 5y ago
        > Your partisan colors are showing Is this the best counter argument to support voter disenfranchisement that you were able to come up with?
  - tptacek 5y ago
    The last major story about ballot harvesting was a conviction for a Republican operative doing it in North Carolina.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      Great point. Mail-in voting is a disgraceful corruption of the voting process. You'd think that the elementary task of getting rid of it would be a shoe-in bipartisan issue. Not so fast, this is USA, the beacon of hope for democracy in the world. Or have we moved on to identity based rights instead? I'm losing track of the excuses. Tribal brain kicking in 5... 4... 3...
      - mthoms 5y ago
        Why is mail-in voting a “disgraceful corruption of the voting process?”. Lots of people can’t vote in person (eg military and others temporarily overseas). Note: I’m not American and have no stake in this. I’ve just never seen such a strong negative opinion about mail in voting in principle.
- freeopinion 5y ago
  Almost like they were cooperating?
spaetzleesser 5y ago
I think this is the normal evolution of political systems. Historically it needs something like war, revolution or a big crisis to break things up and start again.
rayiner 5y ago
We got into this mess because the activist wing of the Democratic party doesn't know how to accept a win. For example, in 2019, Pennsylvania did a bi-partisan electoral reform allowing widespread mail-in voting: https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/governor-wolf-signs-election-reform-bill-including-new-mail-in-voting/ https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/governor-wolf-signs-ele... What did Democratic activists do then? They sued to gut every compromise in that bi-partisan bill, including provisions that are common in mail-in voting systems all around the world, like requiring ballots to arrive by election day.
- tptacek 5y ago
  I don't think I understand how delivered-by could possibly be a better standard than postmarked-by. Once postmarked, delivery is out of the hands of the voter (and, in fact, there are some really fucked up incentives for the party that controls postal delivery). The postmarked-by standard didn't meaningfully delay the Pennsylvania count (the drastic shift from in-person to mail-in ballots sure did, but the ballots that decided the election on D+4 weren't late-to-arrive so much as they were late-to-count).
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > I don't think I understand how delivered-by could possibly be a better standard than postmarked-by. The purpose of delivered-by is obviously to allow for the election results to be known on election day (or as soon thereafter as possible). A sensible alternative would be to use postmarked-by, but make the postmarked-by date sufficiently in advance of "election day" to allow for the ballots to have been delivered by then. In practice this is the same result while addressing your concern for intentional postal system delays, since now intentional delays wouldn't change the result so there would be no incentive to do it. (And a large number of ballets mailed well in advance of election day but delivered after would then be highly suspicious, as it ought to be.) > The postmarked-by standard didn't meaningfully delay the Pennsylvania count (the drastic shift from in-person to mail-in ballots sure did, but the ballots that decided the election on D+4 weren't late-to-arrive so much as they were late-to-count). A delay that was overwhelmed by a different delay in a specific election doesn't mean it isn't a delay.
hodgesrm 5y ago
Well, to begin with, the the United States has never been completely democratic even at the best of times. If you run the clock back 50 years+ full rights were denied to many minorities. This was not microaggressions. It was full out refusal to treat people equally based on race. For example, my first grade class in Alexandria, Virginia was in a segregated school. It was appropriately named Robert E Lee Elementary. Alexandria desegregated in 1966 and I went to school two blocks down the street instead of across town. For more on how uneven progress in rights has been I highly recommend "The Republic for Which It Stands - The United States during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, 1865-1896" by Richard White. [0] It's a weighty tome but helped me see through a lot of the myth-making about American Democracy. Also, at least some of the issues dividing the nation seem like replays of disagreements that were never resolved after the Civil War. [0] https://history.stanford.edu/publications/republic-which-it-stands-united-states-during-reconstruction-and-gilded-age-1865-1896 https://history.stanford.edu/publications/republic-which-it-...
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  > If you run the clock back 50 years+ full rights were denied to many minorities. Are you sure on your math? That is 1971 btw.
bsanr 5y ago
Any answer that doesn't include the phrase "Southern Strategy" is suspect. Not that that is the ultimate source of the issue; but that, from that era forward, there is an unbroken through-line of tone and tactic.
vkou 5y ago
Due to demographic shifts, much of the Republican party has discovered that it won't get what they want through democracy, so when pressed with the choice of weakening its power, and weakening democracy, it has taken the second one. In parallel, due to the difficulty of getting legislature through a 50/50 deadlocked congress, the power of the executive has grown to fill the gaps, so you get people on both sides grousing about executive overreach. If congress would do its job, that problem wouldn't be present.

clairity 5y ago

as hinted at in my sibling comment, there’s a natural gradient toward the consolidation of power, propelled by individual actions to that end. we’ve reached a tipping point in the past 40–50 years where enough consolidation has happened that politicians no longer need to genuinely care about the populace at large, but rather only the plutocratic class.

RickJWagner 5y ago

IMHO, it's been an escalation of tit-for-tat from both sides of the aisle. News sources, 'Community organizers', corporate activists, religious leaders etc. have all been increasingly brazen as they take increasingly polarized positions to counter actions from the other side. What's missing is common decency and sympathy for the other person's point of view. We won't find it by clinging to our own political party or news sources. We're going to have to interact with real, actual people who are different than we are and learn to strike a balance between their needs and our own.

rayiner 5y ago
Exactly. It's tit-for-tat. Moderate Democrats won't push back against the "community organizers" when they push highly questionable practices such as ballot harvesting or allowing ballots to be counted that arrive days after election day. Moderate Democrats also never pushed back on two decades of claims about election fraud and stolen elections from the likes of people like Terry McAuliffe and Stacey Abrams: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/terry-mcauliffe-spreads-another-stolen-election-conspiracy-theory/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/terry-mcauliffe-sprea... That, in turn, has destroyed trust. Now, moderate Republicans won't push back against Trump's outrageous claims of voter fraud and stolen elections. Nobody trusts each other to act in good faith and do the right thing.
- random314 5y ago
  Ultimately, it is almost always the fault of Democrats- whether it is fake electoral fraud allegations, gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement. Stacey Abrams and fauci are the true villains here. /s Btw, electoral fraud via voter disenfranchisement is a well established reality. Voter disenfranchisement has been a Republican tactic for decades that Democrats are finally fighting against. Yes, this is fraud - which is why Republicans are now upset that their fraud is being shut down by Stacey Abrams. Georgia already proved this.
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    Your partisan colors are showing. Strong election processes and voting processes can go both ways.
    - random314 5y ago
      > Your partisan colors are showing Is this the best counter argument to support voter disenfranchisement that you were able to come up with?
- tptacek 5y ago
  The last major story about ballot harvesting was a conviction for a Republican operative doing it in North Carolina.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Great point. Mail-in voting is a disgraceful corruption of the voting process. You'd think that the elementary task of getting rid of it would be a shoe-in bipartisan issue. Not so fast, this is USA, the beacon of hope for democracy in the world. Or have we moved on to identity based rights instead? I'm losing track of the excuses. Tribal brain kicking in 5... 4... 3...
    - mthoms 5y ago
      Why is mail-in voting a “disgraceful corruption of the voting process?”. Lots of people can’t vote in person (eg military and others temporarily overseas). Note: I’m not American and have no stake in this. I’ve just never seen such a strong negative opinion about mail in voting in principle.
freeopinion 5y ago
Almost like they were cooperating?

spaetzleesser 5y ago

I think this is the normal evolution of political systems. Historically it needs something like war, revolution or a big crisis to break things up and start again.

rayiner 5y ago

We got into this mess because the activist wing of the Democratic party doesn't know how to accept a win. For example, in 2019, Pennsylvania did a bi-partisan electoral reform allowing widespread mail-in voting: https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/governor-wolf-signs-election-reform-bill-including-new-mail-in-voting/ https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/governor-wolf-signs-ele... What did Democratic activists do then? They sued to gut every compromise in that bi-partisan bill, including provisions that are common in mail-in voting systems all around the world, like requiring ballots to arrive by election day.

tptacek 5y ago
I don't think I understand how delivered-by could possibly be a better standard than postmarked-by. Once postmarked, delivery is out of the hands of the voter (and, in fact, there are some really fucked up incentives for the party that controls postal delivery). The postmarked-by standard didn't meaningfully delay the Pennsylvania count (the drastic shift from in-person to mail-in ballots sure did, but the ballots that decided the election on D+4 weren't late-to-arrive so much as they were late-to-count).
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > I don't think I understand how delivered-by could possibly be a better standard than postmarked-by. The purpose of delivered-by is obviously to allow for the election results to be known on election day (or as soon thereafter as possible). A sensible alternative would be to use postmarked-by, but make the postmarked-by date sufficiently in advance of "election day" to allow for the ballots to have been delivered by then. In practice this is the same result while addressing your concern for intentional postal system delays, since now intentional delays wouldn't change the result so there would be no incentive to do it. (And a large number of ballets mailed well in advance of election day but delivered after would then be highly suspicious, as it ought to be.) > The postmarked-by standard didn't meaningfully delay the Pennsylvania count (the drastic shift from in-person to mail-in ballots sure did, but the ballots that decided the election on D+4 weren't late-to-arrive so much as they were late-to-count). A delay that was overwhelmed by a different delay in a specific election doesn't mean it isn't a delay.

hodgesrm 5y ago

Well, to begin with, the the United States has never been completely democratic even at the best of times. If you run the clock back 50 years+ full rights were denied to many minorities. This was not microaggressions. It was full out refusal to treat people equally based on race. For example, my first grade class in Alexandria, Virginia was in a segregated school. It was appropriately named Robert E Lee Elementary. Alexandria desegregated in 1966 and I went to school two blocks down the street instead of across town. For more on how uneven progress in rights has been I highly recommend "The Republic for Which It Stands - The United States during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, 1865-1896" by Richard White. [0] It's a weighty tome but helped me see through a lot of the myth-making about American Democracy. Also, at least some of the issues dividing the nation seem like replays of disagreements that were never resolved after the Civil War. [0] https://history.stanford.edu/publications/republic-which-it-stands-united-states-during-reconstruction-and-gilded-age-1865-1896 https://history.stanford.edu/publications/republic-which-it-...

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
> If you run the clock back 50 years+ full rights were denied to many minorities. Are you sure on your math? That is 1971 btw.

bsanr 5y ago

Any answer that doesn't include the phrase "Southern Strategy" is suspect. Not that that is the ultimate source of the issue; but that, from that era forward, there is an unbroken through-line of tone and tactic.

vkou 5y ago

Due to demographic shifts, much of the Republican party has discovered that it won't get what they want through democracy, so when pressed with the choice of weakening its power, and weakening democracy, it has taken the second one. In parallel, due to the difficulty of getting legislature through a 50/50 deadlocked congress, the power of the executive has grown to fill the gaps, so you get people on both sides grousing about executive overreach. If congress would do its job, that problem wouldn't be present.