15 ms·

This flip-flopping happens because there is no commonality to find. One of the only (effectively) two major political parties of the United States is completely

by feoren 2y ago

This flip-flopping happens because there is no commonality to find. One of the only (effectively) two major political parties of the United States is completely uninterested in governing. They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. Their only goal is the piecemeal selloff of government powers to the highest bidder, and they convince their stalwart followers of this by making sure they get their daily dose of other people suffering. As long as others are suffering, their base will support the wholesale takeover of government by the rich. The other half is pretty bad at governing, but at least they try to govern. So when they're in power, the first thing they have to do is try to build back up the institutions that have been disabled or dismantled by the party of government-cannibals. Don't ask me which half is which. You know.

s3r3nity 2y ago
> They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. This is an unfair analysis, and is either naive at best or disingenuous at worst. I'm not a registered Republican, but I AM strongly against an all-powerful centralized body of government that continues to expand exponentially. I would rather focus powers in a more decentralized direction closer to the individuals and the States themselves. e.g. "Think globally - act locally." The parent's comment is the EXACT problem that comes with a central government that is too powerful: you have to be mindful that "your party" will not be in "charge" about ~50% of the time. For a concrete example, I don't like expanding Presidential powers nor extensive use of Executive Orders because likely there will be a president I don't support in that position, and I'd rather her/him NOT have that type of power. States and local communities are more knowledgable about what their constituents need, and the more local you go, the more homogeneous that group becomes - leading to a higher degree of success for those policies. For example, I have never lived on a farm, nor have every lived remotely _near_ a farm...so how can I properly empathize with their needs or considerations in a fair way? States and more local forms of government also provide solid grounds for the greatest real-life A/B test of policies in the world: if you are living in an area that doesn't align with your values and/or needs, you have _so many_ other options to consider settling. e.g. if you like living in California where virtually all the policies and politicians are left of center, then great! You can live there and it doesn't impact me in any way over in where I live.
- slantedview 2y ago
  > They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. > This is an unfair analysis, and is either naive at best or disingenuous at worst. It's fair given that the party literally produced no platform ahead of the last presidential election.
  - struant 2y ago
    I would say that is unfair because their actual platform is deliberately sabotaging any kind of functional governance and refusing to change any government policy that is clearly broken and in desperate need of change. Obviously they won't admit that. But that is what they have been doing for decades. They wouldn't want to accidentally make things better for people because then they can't campaign on fixing the problems.
    - sircastor 2y ago
      I recall reading or hearing that a bunch of senior GOP leadership got together immediately after Barack Obama’s election and agreed explicitly that their approach was going to be obstruction. And that worked, but then the next generation of elected party members seemed to be obstructionist only. So much so that in 2017 when they held the executive branch and both houses of congress, they couldn’t get anything done. We’re all sleeping in that bed that they made.
- feoren 2y ago
  Homogeneity also comes with its own problems -- smaller, more homogenous governments are much more likely to discriminate against the "out group", for instance. Government grows because what we do grows. We didn't need legislation on airspace and radio waves and net neutrality and cyber bullying when our Constitution was written. In many cases, powers simply come into existence, and I'd rather the government have those powers than a monopoly or oligopoly of private rich entities. Rather than limited Government, I'd rather see an Open Government -- one that is accountable to, accessible to, and made up of us. Then why does it matter if government gets big? Government is us, after all. At least we can work toward that. Maybe?
jahewson 2y ago
Neither party is interested in governing - have you seen the border right now? The out of control spending? Instead we have a crusade against the number of Doritos in a bag https://news.yahoo.com/elizabeth-warrens-shrinkflation-rant-incredible-173033739.html https://news.yahoo.com/elizabeth-warrens-shrinkflation-rant-...
da_chicken 2y ago
I think they have a clear plan in two parts. 1. Since the opposition seeks progress in many forms, blindly obstruct them in all cases. 2. Legislate the country back to 1953. When that is accomplished, legislate the country back to 1853. The only part I'm unsure about is whether they're interested in renaming the nation "Gilead."
- redeeman 2y ago
  if you're just halfway serious, perhaps its time to seek some medical help
  - MOARDONGZPLZ 2y ago
    That’s a bit of an extreme comment “seeking medical help” but to be fair I’m only aware of the “to 1953” legislation and not the additional “to 1853” legislation.
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      Are you aware that Arizona recently reinstated an abortion ban from 1864? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/us/arizona-abortion-ban.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/us/arizona-abortion-ban.h...
      - redeeman 2y ago
        did they actually reinstate? isnt it just that newer legislation was made illegal, and it DEFAULTED back to this, where there is proposals by republicans to make legislation that in many ways mirrors most EU countries, but that is unacceptable to the democrats?
        ModernMech 2y ago
        "just that".... the newer legislation was made illegal by Republicans, and Republicans decided the 1864 law is still valid. This is how you roll back the country 160 years. And it's not just that this particular law is literally from 1864, it's that even new laws are mirroring these 160 year old laws. Many have no exception for rape, incest, or the life of the mother [1]. That's barbaric. The reason that Democrats find all of this unacceptable is that Republicans have either failed to anticipate the chaotic consequences of their actions, or -- as they argue in court in support for jail terms for people who have abortions, and that doctors should not have exception in the case of life of the mother or rape -- that they intend the chaos and resulting harm to women. As people suffer and die due to their actions, it's not hard to see why rolling back laws to 1864 is objectionable to Democrats. I appreciate you bringing up EU countries, but if we are striving to emulate them, we should strive to match their maternal mortality rates by providing adequate healthcare to pregnant people [2]. Instead, by upending abortion rights in this country, we are worsening these trends. You can't use the EU as a benchmark if you're not willing to implement EU-like healthcare and social services in the US. [1] https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/a-review-of-exceptions-in-state-abortions-bans-implications-for-the-provision-of-abortion-services/ https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/a-revie... [2] https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/nov/maternal-mortality-maternity-care-us-compared-10-countries https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2...
lolinder 2y ago
This comment isn't directed at OP, it's directed at anyone reading this who might be tempted to get swept up in OP's stereotypes without thinking critically about them. I'm writing this as a left-leaning moderate who grew up among staunch conservatives and understands their philosophy very well. Conservatives sincerely believe that government bureaucracies are less efficient than a free market economy. That's not a cover or a motte and bailey, it's legitimately and literally true. Conservative politicians dismantle government when given the opportunity because that's what their base wants them to do because, again, their base sincerely believes that the government is bad at most things it does. It's true that Republican politicians (like most politicians) are mostly charlatans who are intentionally creating circumstances that reinforce the belief in the ineffectiveness of government, but OP's stereotype of conservative voters as simply wanting a "daily dose of other people suffering" is baseless, wrong, offensive, and extremely counterproductive. This stereotype is a misrepresentation of the other core tenet of conservative philosophy, which is that what is right and wrong is not up to humans to decide, it comes either from God or from long-standing and proven traditions. Conservative opposition to LGBT rights and similar have nothing to do with wanting to see people suffer, they have to do with their deep-seated belief that some things are simply wrong because something greater than us has said so. They can be wrong in that deep-seated belief, but it's unfair of OP to characterize it as sadism.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  Part of the reason liberals hate conservatives and vice versa is that they think the government is actually representing their opponents. The reality is that influence is severely concentrated on every "side," and things that average people believe are only used to justify actions that a truly influential coalition wants to take. Your disagreeable family relations are as powerless to get a new issue introduced as you are, but they're going to be blamed for whatever advances the oligarchs who are opposed to your oligarchs have recently made.
  - thomastjeffery 2y ago
    On the contrary: most liberals (or anyone else who doesn't identify as a [neo]conservative) are painfully aware that the democratic party is failing to represent them. We just know that that failure is less damaging than what the Republican party is up to. The Republican party is the party of unification and engagement. The Democratic party is the tent for everyone else. The presence of the former demands the existence of the latter.
skyfaller 2y ago
I have to disagree that the Republicans do not have a plan. They have a very clear and public plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 Yes, they spend a lot of energy on obstructing the government from functioning, and creating a naked kleptocracy to use the government to funnel money into their own pockets. But they are also moving openly towards a fascist dictatorship with very specific ideas about how society should function, and how (and when) people should be permitted to live.
- s3r3nity 2y ago
  > But they are also moving openly towards a fascist dictatorship Democrats have been calling on Biden to increase his power through just writing Executive Orders to act on their platform, and bypass all other branches of government...but THAT's not dictatorship?
  - a_wild_dandan 2y ago
    Nope! That's called doing your job with the tools you've been given.
    - redeeman 2y ago
      funny, thats definitely not what it was called when trump issued executive orders, there we had to endure things like the definition of dictator which tends to include "rules by decree" etc, as proof of him being a dictator :) oh how the winds are fleeting
      - xbar 2y ago
        Every President is equivalently, and rightly, castigated by the opposition party over their executive orders. Every executive order by every President is an abuse of power, as far as I'm concerned. 55/yr for Trump? 44/yr for Biden? No one should be proud of their side.
  - lokar 2y ago
zoeysmithe 2y ago
This is sort of a democrat neolib explanation that's only possible if you ignore the corrupting effects of capitalism and the unending class struggle between workers and capital, regardless of party. The GOP isn't some weird guys who can't govern, but an incredibly powerful group that works almost exclusively for the capital owning class and uses social issues to empower that class. The GOP caters a bit to the workers class but not a lot and is actively radicalizing them to believe they have the same interests as the capital owning class. The culture war is by accident. If the GOP could do this all without the culture war, selling hate, etc then it would. These are merely tools for an end. The Democrats are almost as bad, but also are beholden to some level of will of the working class, but generally default to the whims of the capital owning class as much as practically possible. The Dems need to get the working class on its side to continue to exist. The pure capital owner party is the GOP and they can't compete against them without this rhetoric. Hence, a lot of Dem ideology being lip service for populist worker issues and actual change from Dems is very rare, and when it happens, its under the approval of the many/most capital owners (see Obamacare being a mandatory private insurance program instead of a Euro-style socialized medicine program.) The better governing of the dems is by accident. If the dems govern better its only by accident due to the strong influence of the middle-class dependent on good government to survive, and if the dems could maintain power with more corrupt governing, they would. This is your classic conservative vs liberal divide that defines nearly all modern capitalist nations. The difference between the two parties isn't that strong. Under capitalism, the government is a capitalist government and is nearly fully corrupted by it, regardless of party. The only real fix is to replace capitalism with socialism, but neither party will allow that, so here we are with the usual back and forth and hiding issues with workers class and capitalism under whatever social issues of the day best distract.
- smallerfish 2y ago
  > The difference between the two parties isn't that strong. That's the kind of thinking that led to Bush in 2000. Say what you like about Gore, but his administration would have done a great number of things differently from how it worked out. Additionally, you wouldn't see e.g. Trump's EPA turning up the pressure on coal power plants. In fact hundreds of effective EPA staffers left (/were purged from) the EPA in 2017/2018.
DeusExMachina 2y ago
I recommend looking at your motives. Thinking that people who disagree with you politically want nothing else than other people to suffer, while being unfair and inaccurate, probably betrays your own desires.
hathawsh 2y ago
Don't you think that is a very cynical view? The party or parties you disagree with may not share your views, but they do have many things in common with you. In order to build bridges with other parties, it's important to believe that the majority of people who get involved in government, regardless of party, are motivated primarily by the desire to serve their neighbors and their country; otherwise they would find better ways to spend their time. Without that belief, it will be near impossible to form agreements across the aisle.
- Aloha 2y ago
  it is cynical - but its not wrong either. Nothing will change until average Americans are fed up with the status quo, and force change - that goes for basic things like making the parties work together.
- the_gastropod 2y ago
  Look, I'm not saying the Republican Party are Nazis. But let's just imagine they were. Would we still have to believe they were good-faith actors just trying to improve their country? I do not believe the majority of Republican politicians today are trying to improve the country. I think the majority are self-serving, self-interested, and corrupt. This isn't the party of George Bush—who I disagree with about virtually everything, but seemed genuinely interested in trying to do a good job. This is now the party of Donald Trump, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, James Comer, Ted Cruz, and so on. There is no equivalent to any of these characters on the left. There is no compromising with obviously bad-faith actors like this.
  - iaaan 2y ago
    As a trans person (and you can substitute pretty much any identity that is commonly understood to be marginalized and the point stands), there is no middle ground to be found working with republicans. I'm either allowed to exist, work, own property, access healthcare, etc., or I'm not. I'm either being discriminated against or I'm not. I'm not interested in compromise here.
- lokar 2y ago
bityard 2y ago
The poor state of democracy in the US is not a one-party problem, it's a two-party problem. My proof is the fact that each party holds almost exactly 50% of the mindshare of the US. As far as I can tell, this was achieved through gerrymandering, one party automatically and consistency taking the opposite view of a contentious issue the moment the other adopts any particular stance, and backroom deals among congress and senate members ("You support my bill for X," spin it to your constituents as good for them, and I'll do the same for your bill Y.") Neither party wins elections based on which candidates are more suited to the job, they win based on who can out-trash-talk the other side. If this was not true, negative campaign ads would not be the main form of advertising during election season. I predict that if one of the parties fails and dissolves due to severe missteps, there will be a period of severe democratic instability, followed by a split of the surviving party into two major factions, each of which settles out at around exactly 50% of voter mindshare again.
- redmajor12 2y ago
  [dead]
- ModernMech 2y ago
  > I predict that if one of the parties fails and dissolves due to severe missteps, there will be a period of severe democratic instability, followed by a split of the surviving party into two major factions, each of which settles out at around exactly 50% of voter mindshare again. I actually see this too. The Republican party is on the verge of collapse not because of anything Democrats have done, but because of what Trump has done to the Republican party apparatus. He's redirecting all funds to his legal bills instead of electing candidates. He's causing them to lose in red districts because of abortion by previously unseen margins. He's telling everyone that voting is fraudulent so Republicans aren't voting. I mean, Trump has never been the head of a non fraudulent, successful company in his entire life. Why would we not expect him to similarly destroy the RNC? So if the Democrats are left standing, I see them cleaving in two, with one half being the Biden/Manchin/Romney axis. The other party would be more like the Warren/AOC/Bernie axis. MAGA types would be left in the political wilderness. I would actually be fine with either of those parties in power.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nullc 2y ago
Your comment works from an assumption that bad governing is superior to not governing. I don't agree. I think particularly at the federal level a deadlocked government that is only able to accomplish a few things that can achieve broad consensus is preferable to one that governs badly and will invade the autonomy of the public who is, by the large part, capable of governing themselves. Political gridlock is, from that perspective, a feature. Not a bug. In terms of revealed preferences, clearly the bulk of the US agrees. :) I think a point that gets missed is that in terms of capacity for causing great evil, money hardly moves the needle. People do-- of course-- intentionally perform minor evils for money, or negligently do somewhat greater evils because of money. Worse than money in terms of ability to do evil is shame and gross incompetence combined with power. But to do grandiose evil, the kind of evil that murders tens of millions, requires someone who wants to "do good". So to many, a party that wants to "do good" but is transparently incompetent or beholden to irrational views is a lot more troubling than someone who wants to sell things off to the highest bidder and otherwise keep themselves out of trouble. Selling things off to the highest bidder is evil, but evil in bounded, largely predictable, and often recoverable ways. If you really think that the public in general are rooting for other people's suffering in a meaningful way then I think you need to get offline and go spend time in person with the people who you believe are doing that. I am confident you will find that they aren't.
dang 2y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40160755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40160755.
dang 2y ago
Please don't start tedious political flamewars on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by feoren 2y ago

s3r3nity 2y ago

> They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. This is an unfair analysis, and is either naive at best or disingenuous at worst. I'm not a registered Republican, but I AM strongly against an all-powerful centralized body of government that continues to expand exponentially. I would rather focus powers in a more decentralized direction closer to the individuals and the States themselves. e.g. "Think globally - act locally." The parent's comment is the EXACT problem that comes with a central government that is too powerful: you have to be mindful that "your party" will not be in "charge" about ~50% of the time. For a concrete example, I don't like expanding Presidential powers nor extensive use of Executive Orders because likely there will be a president I don't support in that position, and I'd rather her/him NOT have that type of power. States and local communities are more knowledgable about what their constituents need, and the more local you go, the more homogeneous that group becomes - leading to a higher degree of success for those policies. For example, I have never lived on a farm, nor have every lived remotely _near_ a farm...so how can I properly empathize with their needs or considerations in a fair way? States and more local forms of government also provide solid grounds for the greatest real-life A/B test of policies in the world: if you are living in an area that doesn't align with your values and/or needs, you have _so many_ other options to consider settling. e.g. if you like living in California where virtually all the policies and politicians are left of center, then great! You can live there and it doesn't impact me in any way over in where I live.

slantedview 2y ago
> They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. > This is an unfair analysis, and is either naive at best or disingenuous at worst. It's fair given that the party literally produced no platform ahead of the last presidential election.
- struant 2y ago
  I would say that is unfair because their actual platform is deliberately sabotaging any kind of functional governance and refusing to change any government policy that is clearly broken and in desperate need of change. Obviously they won't admit that. But that is what they have been doing for decades. They wouldn't want to accidentally make things better for people because then they can't campaign on fixing the problems.
  - sircastor 2y ago
    I recall reading or hearing that a bunch of senior GOP leadership got together immediately after Barack Obama’s election and agreed explicitly that their approach was going to be obstruction. And that worked, but then the next generation of elected party members seemed to be obstructionist only. So much so that in 2017 when they held the executive branch and both houses of congress, they couldn’t get anything done. We’re all sleeping in that bed that they made.
feoren 2y ago
Homogeneity also comes with its own problems -- smaller, more homogenous governments are much more likely to discriminate against the "out group", for instance. Government grows because what we do grows. We didn't need legislation on airspace and radio waves and net neutrality and cyber bullying when our Constitution was written. In many cases, powers simply come into existence, and I'd rather the government have those powers than a monopoly or oligopoly of private rich entities. Rather than limited Government, I'd rather see an Open Government -- one that is accountable to, accessible to, and made up of us. Then why does it matter if government gets big? Government is us, after all. At least we can work toward that. Maybe?

jahewson 2y ago

Neither party is interested in governing - have you seen the border right now? The out of control spending? Instead we have a crusade against the number of Doritos in a bag https://news.yahoo.com/elizabeth-warrens-shrinkflation-rant-incredible-173033739.html https://news.yahoo.com/elizabeth-warrens-shrinkflation-rant-...

da_chicken 2y ago

I think they have a clear plan in two parts. 1. Since the opposition seeks progress in many forms, blindly obstruct them in all cases. 2. Legislate the country back to 1953. When that is accomplished, legislate the country back to 1853. The only part I'm unsure about is whether they're interested in renaming the nation "Gilead."

redeeman 2y ago
if you're just halfway serious, perhaps its time to seek some medical help
- MOARDONGZPLZ 2y ago
  That’s a bit of an extreme comment “seeking medical help” but to be fair I’m only aware of the “to 1953” legislation and not the additional “to 1853” legislation.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    Are you aware that Arizona recently reinstated an abortion ban from 1864? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/us/arizona-abortion-ban.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/us/arizona-abortion-ban.h...
    - redeeman 2y ago
      did they actually reinstate? isnt it just that newer legislation was made illegal, and it DEFAULTED back to this, where there is proposals by republicans to make legislation that in many ways mirrors most EU countries, but that is unacceptable to the democrats?
      - ModernMech 2y ago
        "just that".... the newer legislation was made illegal by Republicans, and Republicans decided the 1864 law is still valid. This is how you roll back the country 160 years. And it's not just that this particular law is literally from 1864, it's that even new laws are mirroring these 160 year old laws. Many have no exception for rape, incest, or the life of the mother [1]. That's barbaric. The reason that Democrats find all of this unacceptable is that Republicans have either failed to anticipate the chaotic consequences of their actions, or -- as they argue in court in support for jail terms for people who have abortions, and that doctors should not have exception in the case of life of the mother or rape -- that they intend the chaos and resulting harm to women. As people suffer and die due to their actions, it's not hard to see why rolling back laws to 1864 is objectionable to Democrats. I appreciate you bringing up EU countries, but if we are striving to emulate them, we should strive to match their maternal mortality rates by providing adequate healthcare to pregnant people [2]. Instead, by upending abortion rights in this country, we are worsening these trends. You can't use the EU as a benchmark if you're not willing to implement EU-like healthcare and social services in the US. [1] https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/a-review-of-exceptions-in-state-abortions-bans-implications-for-the-provision-of-abortion-services/ https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/a-revie... [2] https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/nov/maternal-mortality-maternity-care-us-compared-10-countries https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2...

lolinder 2y ago

This comment isn't directed at OP, it's directed at anyone reading this who might be tempted to get swept up in OP's stereotypes without thinking critically about them. I'm writing this as a left-leaning moderate who grew up among staunch conservatives and understands their philosophy very well. Conservatives sincerely believe that government bureaucracies are less efficient than a free market economy. That's not a cover or a motte and bailey, it's legitimately and literally true. Conservative politicians dismantle government when given the opportunity because that's what their base wants them to do because, again, their base sincerely believes that the government is bad at most things it does. It's true that Republican politicians (like most politicians) are mostly charlatans who are intentionally creating circumstances that reinforce the belief in the ineffectiveness of government, but OP's stereotype of conservative voters as simply wanting a "daily dose of other people suffering" is baseless, wrong, offensive, and extremely counterproductive. This stereotype is a misrepresentation of the other core tenet of conservative philosophy, which is that what is right and wrong is not up to humans to decide, it comes either from God or from long-standing and proven traditions. Conservative opposition to LGBT rights and similar have nothing to do with wanting to see people suffer, they have to do with their deep-seated belief that some things are simply wrong because something greater than us has said so. They can be wrong in that deep-seated belief, but it's unfair of OP to characterize it as sadism.

whatshisface 2y ago
Part of the reason liberals hate conservatives and vice versa is that they think the government is actually representing their opponents. The reality is that influence is severely concentrated on every "side," and things that average people believe are only used to justify actions that a truly influential coalition wants to take. Your disagreeable family relations are as powerless to get a new issue introduced as you are, but they're going to be blamed for whatever advances the oligarchs who are opposed to your oligarchs have recently made.
- thomastjeffery 2y ago
  On the contrary: most liberals (or anyone else who doesn't identify as a [neo]conservative) are painfully aware that the democratic party is failing to represent them. We just know that that failure is less damaging than what the Republican party is up to. The Republican party is the party of unification and engagement. The Democratic party is the tent for everyone else. The presence of the former demands the existence of the latter.

skyfaller 2y ago

I have to disagree that the Republicans do not have a plan. They have a very clear and public plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 Yes, they spend a lot of energy on obstructing the government from functioning, and creating a naked kleptocracy to use the government to funnel money into their own pockets. But they are also moving openly towards a fascist dictatorship with very specific ideas about how society should function, and how (and when) people should be permitted to live.

s3r3nity 2y ago
> But they are also moving openly towards a fascist dictatorship Democrats have been calling on Biden to increase his power through just writing Executive Orders to act on their platform, and bypass all other branches of government...but THAT's not dictatorship?
- a_wild_dandan 2y ago
  Nope! That's called doing your job with the tools you've been given.
  - redeeman 2y ago
    funny, thats definitely not what it was called when trump issued executive orders, there we had to endure things like the definition of dictator which tends to include "rules by decree" etc, as proof of him being a dictator :) oh how the winds are fleeting
    - xbar 2y ago
      Every President is equivalently, and rightly, castigated by the opposition party over their executive orders. Every executive order by every President is an abuse of power, as far as I'm concerned. 55/yr for Trump? 44/yr for Biden? No one should be proud of their side.
- lokar 2y ago

zoeysmithe 2y ago

This is sort of a democrat neolib explanation that's only possible if you ignore the corrupting effects of capitalism and the unending class struggle between workers and capital, regardless of party. The GOP isn't some weird guys who can't govern, but an incredibly powerful group that works almost exclusively for the capital owning class and uses social issues to empower that class. The GOP caters a bit to the workers class but not a lot and is actively radicalizing them to believe they have the same interests as the capital owning class. The culture war is by accident. If the GOP could do this all without the culture war, selling hate, etc then it would. These are merely tools for an end. The Democrats are almost as bad, but also are beholden to some level of will of the working class, but generally default to the whims of the capital owning class as much as practically possible. The Dems need to get the working class on its side to continue to exist. The pure capital owner party is the GOP and they can't compete against them without this rhetoric. Hence, a lot of Dem ideology being lip service for populist worker issues and actual change from Dems is very rare, and when it happens, its under the approval of the many/most capital owners (see Obamacare being a mandatory private insurance program instead of a Euro-style socialized medicine program.) The better governing of the dems is by accident. If the dems govern better its only by accident due to the strong influence of the middle-class dependent on good government to survive, and if the dems could maintain power with more corrupt governing, they would. This is your classic conservative vs liberal divide that defines nearly all modern capitalist nations. The difference between the two parties isn't that strong. Under capitalism, the government is a capitalist government and is nearly fully corrupted by it, regardless of party. The only real fix is to replace capitalism with socialism, but neither party will allow that, so here we are with the usual back and forth and hiding issues with workers class and capitalism under whatever social issues of the day best distract.

smallerfish 2y ago
> The difference between the two parties isn't that strong. That's the kind of thinking that led to Bush in 2000. Say what you like about Gore, but his administration would have done a great number of things differently from how it worked out. Additionally, you wouldn't see e.g. Trump's EPA turning up the pressure on coal power plants. In fact hundreds of effective EPA staffers left (/were purged from) the EPA in 2017/2018.

DeusExMachina 2y ago

I recommend looking at your motives. Thinking that people who disagree with you politically want nothing else than other people to suffer, while being unfair and inaccurate, probably betrays your own desires.

hathawsh 2y ago

Don't you think that is a very cynical view? The party or parties you disagree with may not share your views, but they do have many things in common with you. In order to build bridges with other parties, it's important to believe that the majority of people who get involved in government, regardless of party, are motivated primarily by the desire to serve their neighbors and their country; otherwise they would find better ways to spend their time. Without that belief, it will be near impossible to form agreements across the aisle.

Aloha 2y ago
it is cynical - but its not wrong either. Nothing will change until average Americans are fed up with the status quo, and force change - that goes for basic things like making the parties work together.
the_gastropod 2y ago
Look, I'm not saying the Republican Party are Nazis. But let's just imagine they were. Would we still have to believe they were good-faith actors just trying to improve their country? I do not believe the majority of Republican politicians today are trying to improve the country. I think the majority are self-serving, self-interested, and corrupt. This isn't the party of George Bush—who I disagree with about virtually everything, but seemed genuinely interested in trying to do a good job. This is now the party of Donald Trump, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, James Comer, Ted Cruz, and so on. There is no equivalent to any of these characters on the left. There is no compromising with obviously bad-faith actors like this.
- iaaan 2y ago
  As a trans person (and you can substitute pretty much any identity that is commonly understood to be marginalized and the point stands), there is no middle ground to be found working with republicans. I'm either allowed to exist, work, own property, access healthcare, etc., or I'm not. I'm either being discriminated against or I'm not. I'm not interested in compromise here.
lokar 2y ago

bityard 2y ago

The poor state of democracy in the US is not a one-party problem, it's a two-party problem. My proof is the fact that each party holds almost exactly 50% of the mindshare of the US. As far as I can tell, this was achieved through gerrymandering, one party automatically and consistency taking the opposite view of a contentious issue the moment the other adopts any particular stance, and backroom deals among congress and senate members ("You support my bill for X," spin it to your constituents as good for them, and I'll do the same for your bill Y.") Neither party wins elections based on which candidates are more suited to the job, they win based on who can out-trash-talk the other side. If this was not true, negative campaign ads would not be the main form of advertising during election season. I predict that if one of the parties fails and dissolves due to severe missteps, there will be a period of severe democratic instability, followed by a split of the surviving party into two major factions, each of which settles out at around exactly 50% of voter mindshare again.

redmajor12 2y ago
[dead]
ModernMech 2y ago
> I predict that if one of the parties fails and dissolves due to severe missteps, there will be a period of severe democratic instability, followed by a split of the surviving party into two major factions, each of which settles out at around exactly 50% of voter mindshare again. I actually see this too. The Republican party is on the verge of collapse not because of anything Democrats have done, but because of what Trump has done to the Republican party apparatus. He's redirecting all funds to his legal bills instead of electing candidates. He's causing them to lose in red districts because of abortion by previously unseen margins. He's telling everyone that voting is fraudulent so Republicans aren't voting. I mean, Trump has never been the head of a non fraudulent, successful company in his entire life. Why would we not expect him to similarly destroy the RNC? So if the Democrats are left standing, I see them cleaving in two, with one half being the Biden/Manchin/Romney axis. The other party would be more like the Warren/AOC/Bernie axis. MAGA types would be left in the political wilderness. I would actually be fine with either of those parties in power.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

nullc 2y ago

Your comment works from an assumption that bad governing is superior to not governing. I don't agree. I think particularly at the federal level a deadlocked government that is only able to accomplish a few things that can achieve broad consensus is preferable to one that governs badly and will invade the autonomy of the public who is, by the large part, capable of governing themselves. Political gridlock is, from that perspective, a feature. Not a bug. In terms of revealed preferences, clearly the bulk of the US agrees. :) I think a point that gets missed is that in terms of capacity for causing great evil, money hardly moves the needle. People do-- of course-- intentionally perform minor evils for money, or negligently do somewhat greater evils because of money. Worse than money in terms of ability to do evil is shame and gross incompetence combined with power. But to do grandiose evil, the kind of evil that murders tens of millions, requires someone who wants to "do good". So to many, a party that wants to "do good" but is transparently incompetent or beholden to irrational views is a lot more troubling than someone who wants to sell things off to the highest bidder and otherwise keep themselves out of trouble. Selling things off to the highest bidder is evil, but evil in bounded, largely predictable, and often recoverable ways. If you really think that the public in general are rooting for other people's suffering in a meaningful way then I think you need to get offline and go spend time in person with the people who you believe are doing that. I am confident you will find that they aren't.

dang 2y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40160755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40160755.

dang 2y ago

Please don't start tedious political flamewars on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html