3 ms·

Democracy is sometimes a lesson in priorities. The polling figures showed by the author in the beginning of the article are missing other dimensions where Ameri

by nis0s 1y ago

Democracy is sometimes a lesson in priorities. The polling figures showed by the author in the beginning of the article are missing other dimensions where Americans also wanted action, and which differ from the Democratic agenda, so a Republican was elected. The question which needs to be asked is how should people be brought to some moderate or centrist position along all vectors to discourage residing on political extremes, and prevent destabilizing behaviors. You can guarantee civil rights for all citizens under a center-left or center-right political alignment. If you look at the figures, approximately 71% of Americans make $56000 or more per year, where the middle class is around 52% earning between 56K-169K per year. So it seems unlikely that the majority of Americans might want to vote for anything which further increases the strain on their expendable income, but they might vote for something which reduces their tax burden, which is higher on middle income earners for any number of reasons. So it’s understandable why driving people to political extremes is desirable for in-state actors in such a scenario because someone may be more likely to vote against their interests if they’re emotionally charged, which doesn’t even include the action of nation state actors for further increasing a political divide. It seems to me at least one way to ensure alignment along center-left or center-right positions is by stabilizing the economic positions of the middle and upper earners, while providing support and mobility for those earning below 56K. In some respects, a strong economy covers most issues for middle income earners and above.

palmfacehn 1y ago
>...someone may be more likely to vote against their interests... The author makes the same presumption. How is it that he knows what is in the voter's best interest, yet the voter does not? The premise is antithetical to democracy. If he genuinely believes this, then perhaps the author would be more suited to becoming a technocratic philosopher king, rather than participate in a democracy. Another explanation would be that some of these voters know what is in their self-interest, but those reasons challenge the partisan dogma of the author. Therefore he is unwilling to critically examine his own ideas or how others perceive them.
- nis0s 1y ago
  Sure, it’s a fair point that there’s no need to assume irrationality on the part of a moral agent, or unnecessarily characterizing some actions as immoral. It’s harder to justify voting behavior which doesn’t prioritize national interests or national sovereignty. Regardless of how much spin you put on an issue, the practical effects of those issues will force voting behavior to address it. Take homelessness for example. It’s currently marketed as an untenable crisis for all of America, when really it’s maybe one or two states near-ish the border which face the brunt of the issue. The relative proportion of homeless versus the U.S. population is 0.0022% (about 771K), and effectively managed in some respects by non-profits and state welfare in functioning states. So, voters don’t prioritize homelessness as an issue. But if lower income earners in local economies are impacted by illegal immigrants, then they will prioritize immigration as an issue to address. Should there be a large-scale discussion on how to address the impacts of colonialism and imperialism on citizens of other nations. Sure, and I think a lot of that needs to be held at nation state level via appropriate bodies such as the UN, or a continental body, so you can curtail the negative effects of poor diplomacy or historical missteps. I’ll just say this though, a lot of what nations achieve (or don’t) depends on their own culture, leaders and elite, but it’s easier to blame nebulous forces. Let’s take Iraq for example. Its GDP has gone up ~1000% since it was bombed in early 2000s. Is lack of money or resources it’s problem, currently. Not necessarily. Note, culture doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with race or religion.

by nis0s 1y ago

palmfacehn 1y ago

>...someone may be more likely to vote against their interests... The author makes the same presumption. How is it that he knows what is in the voter's best interest, yet the voter does not? The premise is antithetical to democracy. If he genuinely believes this, then perhaps the author would be more suited to becoming a technocratic philosopher king, rather than participate in a democracy. Another explanation would be that some of these voters know what is in their self-interest, but those reasons challenge the partisan dogma of the author. Therefore he is unwilling to critically examine his own ideas or how others perceive them.

nis0s 1y ago
Sure, it’s a fair point that there’s no need to assume irrationality on the part of a moral agent, or unnecessarily characterizing some actions as immoral. It’s harder to justify voting behavior which doesn’t prioritize national interests or national sovereignty. Regardless of how much spin you put on an issue, the practical effects of those issues will force voting behavior to address it. Take homelessness for example. It’s currently marketed as an untenable crisis for all of America, when really it’s maybe one or two states near-ish the border which face the brunt of the issue. The relative proportion of homeless versus the U.S. population is 0.0022% (about 771K), and effectively managed in some respects by non-profits and state welfare in functioning states. So, voters don’t prioritize homelessness as an issue. But if lower income earners in local economies are impacted by illegal immigrants, then they will prioritize immigration as an issue to address. Should there be a large-scale discussion on how to address the impacts of colonialism and imperialism on citizens of other nations. Sure, and I think a lot of that needs to be held at nation state level via appropriate bodies such as the UN, or a continental body, so you can curtail the negative effects of poor diplomacy or historical missteps. I’ll just say this though, a lot of what nations achieve (or don’t) depends on their own culture, leaders and elite, but it’s easier to blame nebulous forces. Let’s take Iraq for example. Its GDP has gone up ~1000% since it was bombed in early 2000s. Is lack of money or resources it’s problem, currently. Not necessarily. Note, culture doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with race or religion.