6 ms·

People don't want "normal parameters" though. The normal parameters may have worked well for P.J. O'Rourke, a rich and famous dude, but they haven't been workin

by lapcat 2y ago

People don't want "normal parameters" though. The normal parameters may have worked well for P.J. O'Rourke, a rich and famous dude, but they haven't been working well for normal people. For better or worse, they want to shake things up. People do want a kind of chaos agent. Just look at all of the love for Luigi Mangione. Is Mangione the right chaos agent? Rationally speaking, no. Is Trump? Rationally speaking, no. But the desire for fundamental change is palpable. Those who pearl-clutch the "norms" will continue to lose, and continue to be perplexed about why they lose.

bsder 2y ago
> People do want a kind of chaos agent. Evidence is that they don't. They send the same reps and senators back over and over and over. If they truly wanted a chaos agent, they should be turning over all the offices. They wanted Trump--specifically.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > They send the same reps and senators back over and over and over. > If they truly wanted a chaos agent, they should be turning over all the offices. I'm primarily talking about the swing voters, who can swing elections only when they're close. Large groups of partisans also exist who vote Democrat or Republican no matter what, no matter the candidate, so it doesn't really matter to them whether the candidate is a chaos agent or not. And of course the House of Representatives is heavily gerrymandered precisely to avoid close elections. Moreover, an individual member of Congress, 1 out of 100 in the Senate, 1 out of 535 in the House, doesn't have much power to change things. Their primary function is to support the President's agenda. That's why people focus more on the Presidential race, because the President makes a lot more of a difference than a member of Congress. In any case, though, Congress does tend to change hands according to how the public feels about the President, especially the House, the entirety of which is up for election every 2 years.
bagels 2y ago
Those people have a severe lack of imagination, because they fail to see how much worse they can make it for themselves.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > Those people have a severe lack of imagination, because they fail to see how much worse they can make it for themselves. It's interesting that in this entire thread following my original comment, not one comment has defended Democrats by describing how they do good things and significantly help the public. Talk about a severe lack of imagination. That the choice is always phrased in terms of harm reduction just proves my point about the duopoly and corruption. Why are better things never possible?
  - bagels 2y ago
    I'll name one: affordable care act
    - lapcat 2y ago
      Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42865354 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42865354
pjc50 2y ago
> "I never thought the leopard would eat MY face" sobs man who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party. One of the all time great tweets. People might well want a chaos agent on their TV, because politics has become wrestling. They absolutely will not like it when the chaos comes back to them, which they have assumed it won't. Look at how many people were complaining about the price of eggs before the election; now watch how the US responds to avian flu with a nonfunctional federal government.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > now watch how the US responds to avian flu with a nonfunctional federal government. What makes you think we had a "functional" federal government before the election? You appear to be ignoring how both Democrats and Republicans have consistently, completely failed to function for the public they're supposed to serve, for many decades. When the people are desperate, they make desperate choices. There's a reason that Biden was extremely unpopular at the end of his term. Don't ignore that.
  - DFHippie 2y ago
    > You appear to be ignoring how both Democrats and Republicans have consistently, completely failed to function for the public they're supposed to serve, for many decades. False equivalence or just false. By many measures the Democratic Party is still an ordinary political party that tries to enact particular policies to address particular problems based on facts and a cost-benefit analysis. The ACA is one example. The IRA is another. There are many. While in power they diligently seek to pass legislation addressing priorities they ran for office on. You may disagree with these priorities, but the majorities who elected them do agree with them. And in fact, typically a majority of Americans, including many who vote against Democrats, also agree with these priorities. The Republicans also run on platforms but are much less successful at converting their positions into legislation, largely because their coalition contains a fractious contingent that is motivated by attention more than policy goals, but also because in the event they get cold feet: they realize in the event that repealing the enormously popular policy they ran against would have enormous blowback for them. Repealing Roe is one example. The repeated attempts to repeal the ACA is another. What you're reacting to, I think, is the failure to pass policy due to checks and balances -- you need both houses of the legislature, the executive, and, increasingly, agreement of the courts. But even if the policy passed, nearly 50% of the populace would think they had been failed by its passage. I hope you and I don't have to learn how functional the government was before the Republicans broke it. The avian flu is a great test case. International trade is another. Here's hoping the mass layoffs Trump intended to set into motion and the collapse of state and local governments due to sudden budget shocks doesn't set off another Great Depression. That would be another interesting test case. What happens when ram the ship of state into a granite cliff?

by lapcat 2y ago

bsder 2y ago

> People do want a kind of chaos agent. Evidence is that they don't. They send the same reps and senators back over and over and over. If they truly wanted a chaos agent, they should be turning over all the offices. They wanted Trump--specifically.

lapcat 2y ago
> They send the same reps and senators back over and over and over. > If they truly wanted a chaos agent, they should be turning over all the offices. I'm primarily talking about the swing voters, who can swing elections only when they're close. Large groups of partisans also exist who vote Democrat or Republican no matter what, no matter the candidate, so it doesn't really matter to them whether the candidate is a chaos agent or not. And of course the House of Representatives is heavily gerrymandered precisely to avoid close elections. Moreover, an individual member of Congress, 1 out of 100 in the Senate, 1 out of 535 in the House, doesn't have much power to change things. Their primary function is to support the President's agenda. That's why people focus more on the Presidential race, because the President makes a lot more of a difference than a member of Congress. In any case, though, Congress does tend to change hands according to how the public feels about the President, especially the House, the entirety of which is up for election every 2 years.

bagels 2y ago

Those people have a severe lack of imagination, because they fail to see how much worse they can make it for themselves.

lapcat 2y ago
> Those people have a severe lack of imagination, because they fail to see how much worse they can make it for themselves. It's interesting that in this entire thread following my original comment, not one comment has defended Democrats by describing how they do good things and significantly help the public. Talk about a severe lack of imagination. That the choice is always phrased in terms of harm reduction just proves my point about the duopoly and corruption. Why are better things never possible?
- bagels 2y ago
  I'll name one: affordable care act
  - lapcat 2y ago
    Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42865354 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42865354

pjc50 2y ago

> "I never thought the leopard would eat MY face" sobs man who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party. One of the all time great tweets. People might well want a chaos agent on their TV, because politics has become wrestling. They absolutely will not like it when the chaos comes back to them, which they have assumed it won't. Look at how many people were complaining about the price of eggs before the election; now watch how the US responds to avian flu with a nonfunctional federal government.

lapcat 2y ago
> now watch how the US responds to avian flu with a nonfunctional federal government. What makes you think we had a "functional" federal government before the election? You appear to be ignoring how both Democrats and Republicans have consistently, completely failed to function for the public they're supposed to serve, for many decades. When the people are desperate, they make desperate choices. There's a reason that Biden was extremely unpopular at the end of his term. Don't ignore that.
- DFHippie 2y ago
  > You appear to be ignoring how both Democrats and Republicans have consistently, completely failed to function for the public they're supposed to serve, for many decades. False equivalence or just false. By many measures the Democratic Party is still an ordinary political party that tries to enact particular policies to address particular problems based on facts and a cost-benefit analysis. The ACA is one example. The IRA is another. There are many. While in power they diligently seek to pass legislation addressing priorities they ran for office on. You may disagree with these priorities, but the majorities who elected them do agree with them. And in fact, typically a majority of Americans, including many who vote against Democrats, also agree with these priorities. The Republicans also run on platforms but are much less successful at converting their positions into legislation, largely because their coalition contains a fractious contingent that is motivated by attention more than policy goals, but also because in the event they get cold feet: they realize in the event that repealing the enormously popular policy they ran against would have enormous blowback for them. Repealing Roe is one example. The repeated attempts to repeal the ACA is another. What you're reacting to, I think, is the failure to pass policy due to checks and balances -- you need both houses of the legislature, the executive, and, increasingly, agreement of the courts. But even if the policy passed, nearly 50% of the populace would think they had been failed by its passage. I hope you and I don't have to learn how functional the government was before the Republicans broke it. The avian flu is a great test case. International trade is another. Here's hoping the mass layoffs Trump intended to set into motion and the collapse of state and local governments due to sudden budget shocks doesn't set off another Great Depression. That would be another interesting test case. What happens when ram the ship of state into a granite cliff?