6 ms·

The spoils system… > contrasts with a merit system, where offices are awarded or promoted based on a measure of merit, independent of political activity. What

by Erem 4mo ago

The spoils system… > contrasts with a merit system, where offices are awarded or promoted based on a measure of merit, independent of political activity. What is commendable about this? Why should anyone who isn’t close enough with political winners to get the spoils want this?

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
hollerith 4mo ago
He's not commending it. He's using it to point out that the reaction, "Well, america had a good run i guess? Hope china can step up and fill the gap," is simplistic, hyperbolic and maybe a little hysterical.
- JKCalhoun 4mo ago
  Not sure how hysterical the notion that China is in ascendency on the world stage and the U.S. is retreating.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - hollerith 4mo ago
    Implying that this particular story ("WH proposes rules") is the final piece of evidence that might cause a reasonable person to conclude that the US is finished as world power does strike me as maybe a little hysterical. If someone has an extremely simplistic view of how our society works and where our power comes from, then it is regrettable for that someone to even offer a prediction in public about whether our society's power will wane or (continue to) wax, especially a prediction as confident as "Well, america had a good run i guess? Hope china can step up and fill the gap." And I love how Rayiner got downvoted severely for daring to point out that predicting the effects of this move ("WH proposes rules") is not as easy or as simple as many here seem to think it is.
    - JKCalhoun 4mo ago
      Final piece of evidence? Of course not. But it's part of a stream of news for some time now that points in the same direction. (And I have no idea why Rayiner was downvoted. I'm happy for them though—for sticking to principles and posting what may well be downvoted to oblivion. It's something I have become more comfortable with myself.)
      - TimorousBestie 4mo ago
        Insinuating that the administrative state is racist by genetic fallacy while longing for a return to the era of Jim Crow is hypocritical enough for me to disregard his opinion.
        rayiner 4mo ago
        The administrative state wasn’t merely created by the same progressives that gave us eugenics. It has its roots in the same dim view of the common man and how much agency they should be given. Woodrow Wilson and other progressives were deeply skeptical of democracy. He wrote about the how the “unphilosophical bulk of mankind” didn’t know what was good for them. And his solution to that was to have the government run by experts insulated from democratic politics: https://faculty.fiu.edu/~revellk/pad3003/Wilson.pdf https://faculty.fiu.edu/~revellk/pad3003/Wilson.pdf. That’s still the same mentality that underlies the modern administrative state. > while longing for a return to the era of Jim Crow Last I checked you guys are the ones who went to the supreme court to defend racial discrimination in college admissions and racially segregated voting districts. Within just a few terms!
        TimorousBestie 4mo ago
        > [blah, blah, progressives are the real racists, blah] I never argued that you don’t believe this. I guess you’re disputing the word “insinuating”? Fine, you’re explicitly saying the administrative state is racist. > Last I checked you guys are the ones who went to the supreme court to defend racial discrimination in college admissions and racially segregated voting districts. Nice tu quoque but I’m neither a Democrat nor a liberal. You make this mistake with people a lot! Have you considered not assuming everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal? The person I actually replied to wondered why you got downvoted. Thanks for the demonstration.
- Erem 4mo ago
  Ah I read it as “the US was corrupt before, and that was OK because GDP was growing! So we are just returning to our roots now” Now understanding the good faith argument better, doesn’t it even further support the ascendancy of China? The argument is: despite rampant spoils system corruption, the US eclipsed Great Britain on the strength of a large population with low trade barriers alone (both internal and external) But China is now the country with the largest population and low trade barriers. So aren’t they playing the role of 1800s USA and we the role of Great Britain here in 2026? Aside, I appreciate the content of your post, but it really does distract your point to sling insults like hysterical towards other commenters
  - hollerith 4mo ago
    >it really does distract your point to sling insults like hysterical towards other commenters Thanks for this.

by Erem 4mo ago

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

hollerith 4mo ago

He's not commending it. He's using it to point out that the reaction, "Well, america had a good run i guess? Hope china can step up and fill the gap," is simplistic, hyperbolic and maybe a little hysterical.

JKCalhoun 4mo ago
Not sure how hysterical the notion that China is in ascendency on the world stage and the U.S. is retreating.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- hollerith 4mo ago
  Implying that this particular story ("WH proposes rules") is the final piece of evidence that might cause a reasonable person to conclude that the US is finished as world power does strike me as maybe a little hysterical. If someone has an extremely simplistic view of how our society works and where our power comes from, then it is regrettable for that someone to even offer a prediction in public about whether our society's power will wane or (continue to) wax, especially a prediction as confident as "Well, america had a good run i guess? Hope china can step up and fill the gap." And I love how Rayiner got downvoted severely for daring to point out that predicting the effects of this move ("WH proposes rules") is not as easy or as simple as many here seem to think it is.
  - JKCalhoun 4mo ago
    Final piece of evidence? Of course not. But it's part of a stream of news for some time now that points in the same direction. (And I have no idea why Rayiner was downvoted. I'm happy for them though—for sticking to principles and posting what may well be downvoted to oblivion. It's something I have become more comfortable with myself.)
    - TimorousBestie 4mo ago
      Insinuating that the administrative state is racist by genetic fallacy while longing for a return to the era of Jim Crow is hypocritical enough for me to disregard his opinion.
      - rayiner 4mo ago
        The administrative state wasn’t merely created by the same progressives that gave us eugenics. It has its roots in the same dim view of the common man and how much agency they should be given. Woodrow Wilson and other progressives were deeply skeptical of democracy. He wrote about the how the “unphilosophical bulk of mankind” didn’t know what was good for them. And his solution to that was to have the government run by experts insulated from democratic politics: https://faculty.fiu.edu/~revellk/pad3003/Wilson.pdf https://faculty.fiu.edu/~revellk/pad3003/Wilson.pdf. That’s still the same mentality that underlies the modern administrative state. > while longing for a return to the era of Jim Crow Last I checked you guys are the ones who went to the supreme court to defend racial discrimination in college admissions and racially segregated voting districts. Within just a few terms!
        TimorousBestie 4mo ago
        > [blah, blah, progressives are the real racists, blah] I never argued that you don’t believe this. I guess you’re disputing the word “insinuating”? Fine, you’re explicitly saying the administrative state is racist. > Last I checked you guys are the ones who went to the supreme court to defend racial discrimination in college admissions and racially segregated voting districts. Nice tu quoque but I’m neither a Democrat nor a liberal. You make this mistake with people a lot! Have you considered not assuming everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal? The person I actually replied to wondered why you got downvoted. Thanks for the demonstration.
Erem 4mo ago
Ah I read it as “the US was corrupt before, and that was OK because GDP was growing! So we are just returning to our roots now” Now understanding the good faith argument better, doesn’t it even further support the ascendancy of China? The argument is: despite rampant spoils system corruption, the US eclipsed Great Britain on the strength of a large population with low trade barriers alone (both internal and external) But China is now the country with the largest population and low trade barriers. So aren’t they playing the role of 1800s USA and we the role of Great Britain here in 2026? Aside, I appreciate the content of your post, but it really does distract your point to sling insults like hysterical towards other commenters
- hollerith 4mo ago
  >it really does distract your point to sling insults like hysterical towards other commenters Thanks for this.