My current thought is that corrupted capitalism has corrupted democracies making them unaccountable to the majority of people, leading to a massive and still accelerating level of economic inequality. When this happens all sorts of bad things happen; political monsters, populist demagogues, racism, loss of faith in democratic institutions etc. Leading to people wanting to radically change the system to someone who says they will 'get things done', which has to be outside of the system.
These are truly concerning times; in America at least, no one in political power is discussing serious policy proposals to reduce the influence of money in politics and hence address the accelerating transition of wealth from the lower and middle class to a tiny fraction at the very top. This is not a stable course. Even the current president elect despite his populist slogans is going to increase the regressive tax rate based on debunked trickle down economics (what actually helped lead to the current inequality in the 1980s), and wants to eliminate the estate tax all together. Both of these will merely accelerate the current course. No light is visible at the end of the tunnel.
Right now, for example, it is very hard for party leaders in the House and Senate to wrangle their followers, in part because they've lost the carrot and stick that earmarks used to represent (by the way, I used to be against earmarks and have changed my mind and realized that the "solution" is much worse than the problem). Consequently, we have much greater ideological coherence at the expense of actual government functioning.
I'd say there are many other ways to make politics less dogmatic, rather than increasing corruption and pork.
How about a more representative democracy, celebrating pluralism, and as a result, requiring parties to engage in coalitions as nobody ever has the majority.
Isn't money in media more of serious concern. What about billionaires co-opting media as their mouthpieces.
nytimes - carlos slim
slate/wapo.. - jeff bezos
salon - John Warnock
twitter - price al waleed
Ironically nytimes, for all their moral outrage, itself is funded by the money acquired through subversion of democracy in mexico , cheating mexicans out of billions of dollars every year. [1]
If money in media were having an immediate and crippling effect on democracy then it would have already.
The history of American media is a history of very rich people growing, owning and acquiring media. They've always had this influence.
And yes it may be sub-optimal, but it is not new and therefore difficult to directly attribute recent changes to. In fact, it's somewhat arguable that the current predicament we find ourselves in is the result of making media less expensive to disseminate, not the opposite.
Our society and biology are poorly trained to reject incorrect information. So when small unethical actors begin to proliferate doing quick profit cycles on sympathetic populations, we see a lot of uptake for those ideas.
Want a great example that won't pick a big 2016 political fight? PETA. Despite being a rather ineffective activist group with a large incoherent message, they can inexpensively produce tons of populist media that helps keep them in people's minds and associate them (however wrongly) with helping animals.
Media's always been controlled by certain interests, yes -- but one of the worst things ever was when Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine - it was the beginning of the end of true journalism -- that required equal time for ALL sides of an argument. Now it's all opinion pieces and slanted news is now the norm.
that required equal time for ALL sides of an argument.
How would that make things better? Not all sides deserve equal time, nor is there any requirement to present the 'other' side in a fair and accurate light. Having clearly stated up front biases is far better than biases hidden behind a veneer of faked impartiality and careful stage managed 'fairness'.
Even "educated" people here debate climate science with absolutely ridiculous claims. This is as good as it gets. That's the painful truth I've been trying to swallow.
where do 99.9% of people get the information they use to make an educated vote? where do people source policy, position, and historical information from?
Do you have any evidence that Carlos Slim has any influence on the editorial board of the New York Times? Or Jeff Bezos influencing the Washington Post editorial board?
I can't point to metrics but the current rash of Washington Post stories seem to be skewing much more left then in the past. It could just be the times we are in a lot of the news I follow seems to be that way.
In the past it may have been a cheap shot, but I think it's fair to say that reality has a left-wing bias right now. Denying climate change is now right-wing orthodoxy and is about to be entrenched in the White House.
Or to put it another way, I think politics has lurched right rather than the Post moving left. Do you have any particular stories in mind, though?
His assertion also made me curious. There seems to be a slight bias in favor of Slim at the NYT though.
Just read that article, it does portray the version from the other party, but always allowing for a proper justification for Slim's position so that one might find it reasonable.
My response was to a comment wanting generic policy towards "money in politics", assumption being that everyone who gets money is offering something in return. Your question is irrelevant in this context.
> Ironically nytimes, for all their moral outrage, itself is funded by the money acquired through subversion of democracy in mexico , cheating mexicans out of billions of dollars every year.
If by "funded" you mean a rich dude in Mexico owns just 16% of the stock.
You are going to need to provide more than Trump Campaign taking points if you are going to accuse NYT of being Slim's mouthpiece.
> no one in political power is discussing serious policy proposals to reduce the influence of money in politics and hence address the accelerating transition of wealth from the lower and middle class to a tiny fraction at the very top
This was the very platform Sanders ran on. Overturning citizens united was probably his #1 political priority.
I think a lot of voters found it impossible to take Clinton seriously on _any_ proposal she was making. The naked pandering and secret agendas were much too obvious.
Trump too was nakedly pandering. He was just better at it and had a more receptive base for it. He was better at keeping his agenda secret as well. Does anybody have a clear idea about what his administration policies will really be?
'Over the three decades following US entry into World War I, as working-class and socialist parties burgeoned throughout the industrialized world, American elites chose to deal with the problem by radically restricting access to the ballot. In state after state, petition requirements and filing deadlines were tightened and various forms of routine legal harassment, unknown in the rest of the democratic world, became the norm.
The new restrictions came in waves, usually following the entry of left-wing parties into the electoral process. According to data gathered by Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, in 1931 Illinois raised the petition requirement for third-party statewide candidates from one thousand signatures to twenty-five thousand. In California, the requirement was raised from 1 percent of the last total gubernatorial vote to 10 percent. In 1939, Pennsylvania suddenly decided it was important that the thousands of required signatures be gathered solely within a three-week period. In New York, according to one account, “minor-party petitions began to be challenged for hyper-technical defects.
"Although these statutes have been assailed on all sides,” a 1937 Columbia Law Review article reported, “their severity is constantly being increased, probably because the interests oppressed seldom have representation in the legislatures.” Indeed, when the Florida legislature found socialists and communists advancing at the polls, it responded in 1931 by banning any party from the ballot unless it had won 30 percent of the vote in two consecutive elections; naturally, when the Republican Party failed to meet that test, the state immediately lowered the threshold.
By comparison, in Britain getting on the ballot was never a major concern'
You don't need any. The problem, rather, is getting ballot access, election funding, and access to debates.
And even with all that, the FPTP system makes it virtually impossible for a third party candidate to win, unless one of the existing major parties collapses outright.
I think the recent election demonstrated that money doesn't matter that much. Voters actually have power. That's the silver lining to the depressing reality that voters don't care if industry writes regulations, the executive branch tortures people, and the rich pay even less in taxes.
I think the election proved the opposite - that if you can manipulate headlines, you can suppress voters from even coming out.
If you look past all of the fake news, twitter faux pas, etc., I think that FBI Director Comey's manipulation in the last week really did do a number on the voter base, and it's disappointing that nobody is enforcing the Hatch act.
When was the last time you spoke to people in towns of less than 10k people about their most serious issues?
It's so odd to me that Silicon Valley simply can't comprehend that their values aren't shared by the rest of the country. Literally the only explanation they can produce to explain Trump votes is that everyone must have been brainwashed by Facebook news (despite the fact that millions of voters probably don't even have social media).
There was a time when democrats represented the blue collar working class -- who have watched helplessly as their jobs and security has been outsourced to china and Mexico. Now it's Trump who represents their values and clearly they're not alone.
I grew up in an unincorporated town in WI, so to answer your accusatory question: Sunday was the last time I talked to people in a town <10k.
I'm also not sure what "silicon valley sentiment" has to do with wanting enforcement of the Hatch act either. The idea that rural white america is a victim and needs protecting is one of those being spread by the alt-right, and it's wrong to think it justifies manipulating the election.
>Have you tried to start a business before? Are you familiar with the debilitating beauracracy and taxes associated with running a small business (15-50 people) that doesn't take venture capital funding? Nope. I'm a computer engineer and everyone should care about what I care about or they're brainwashed.
Yes. Yes. And that last remark is uncalled for, since I'm not a computer engineer or think that.
What matters more is we don't create an environment where a facist government can thrive.
I am not calling Trump a facist but hand-waving away racist policies like deporting all Mexicans (Trump didn't say that, but it was taken that way) or disallowing all Muslims (again, Trump didn't say that but it was taken that way) as "SJW" is irresponsible.
I think we can have a country where both can co-exist. Maybe people need to realize they can't work 35-hour weeks at "the factory" anymore. Those jobs are long gone.
That sucks and we need to figure out how to get those people back to work but this whole "bringing back the jobs" is complete political BS.
>I am not calling Trump a facist but hand-waving away racist policies like deporting all Mexicans (Trump didn't say that, but it was taken that way) or disallowing all Muslims (again, Trump didn't say that but it was taken that way) as "SJW" is irresponsible.
It was taken that way by people opposed to him or trying to cut him down. I've never heard a supporter represent those as his positions, but rather constantly try to accurately represent what was said. If people decide to create absurd straw men, what responsibility do his supporters have to address them? And how does the wildly inaccurate view of his opponents make him or his supporters irresponsible?
A system where a fascist government can thrive is one wherein the press is in collusion with the government, and where people prop up ideological narratives in lieu of the truth. When we constantly push to dehumanize our opponents and their supporters, we start taking the first small steps down the ideological road that leads to the horrors of totalitarian governments.
Yeah, I agree with like 99% of what you are saying. All of that is right.
>(From my parent comment) But in the end, what matters more: "some democrat love-relationship with LGBT, environmental stuffs, SJWs, or whatever" -or- "food on your plate, and a place to live in with your family"?
What I disagree with is that we have to decide between denigrating others and fixing the economy. We can have both and it is irresponsible to pretend like we have to choose.
I am just hoping Trump and Senate Republicans understand that. But my guess is that they'll throw LGBT people under the bus when they need a distraction, which every politician eventually needs.
Politicians aren't dumb, their entire livelihood is dependent on knowing how to cater to their base.
(Sorry, I feel like my thoughts are becoming a little disjointed from what we are talking about. I buy into like 95% of what Trump supports but I don't buy we need to tear down 'SJW' so the economy can thrive, it is completely illogical to me)
I'm not sure I understand where the Trump is against gays things comes from. He's probably the most pro LGBT Republican candidate in the history of the country, and arguably has a better track record than Clinton.
Personally, I think political correctness is a problem, but that seems like a conversation for another time.
I would definitely agree with the political correctness comment.
I think the big issue with Trump isn't that he is anti-LGBT (He is actually quite LGBT friendly... the same cannot be said for Pence though), the issue is that his campaign has signaled that it is okay to not be. It doesn't matter what you believe, you still have to be civil and respectful of others.
It doesn't matter what Trump's position is, the issue is his spoken beliefs have somehow morphed into supporting alt-right beliefs.
I feel like on the LGBT issue, you might be falling into an echo chamber trap. If you have some campaign points that support your claim, I'd be happy to hear them. Points for consideration, particularly as far as campaign messaging goes:
-He had Peter Thiel speak at the RNC
-During his speech at the RNC he talked about defending LGBT rights and said that it felt good to say that at a Republican gathering and get cheers. Think about that. He has the Republican party cheering for gays. I never thought I'd see the day.
-When asked about the bathroom row in N.C. he said he doesn't care what bathroom people use.
-He said if Caitlin Jenner visits Trump Tower, she can use any bathroom she wants.
Mike Pence is an obvious appeal to the Republican base. I think it's important to keep in mind the the VP tends to not be all that important. Unless the president dies. If you got any friends planning a Trump assassination, remind them of that :)
I'd also like to point out that there's a decent chance his stance on this isn't a contrivance (though it might be). The LGBT population isn't considered part of the Republican base, and generally they either ignore or campaign against gays. In a lot of ways, being as openly pro-gay was probably considered a risk by establishment Republicans.
Oh no, I wasn't meaning Trump himself was anti-LGBT. I was meaning that his campaign was kind of about being politically incorrect which I feel has empowered the alt-right to be more bold.
In that, because they perceive Trump as being friendly to their cause, they feel their anti-social behavior is ok. Trump seemed hesitant during the campaign to take a strong stance against alt-right / anti-social thoughts. But maybe I am wrong, I wasn't exactly an avid Trump supporter, hah.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with LGBT people, I actually think it needs to happen more often. There is something wrong with feeling LGBT people are wrong to exist or are 2nd class citizens.
As long as Trump stays alive and unimpeached, I am not really worried about LGBT rights. He was pretty direct in that gay marriage was settled (which brings up the whole point about how does he accept Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage but not abortion?)
I don't think you really have anything to worry about. And if by alt-right you mean white nationalists, you're talking about almost nobody. They've just gotten a shitload of attention lately because it's the media's most recent boogey man.
Like, the white nationalist gather in D.C. that has gotten so much attention consisted of 300 people: 150 attending and 150 protesting. They're nothing.
The work at the factory is working wonders for the economy of Mexico and China. Add to that, the fact that US labor laws are pretty strict and you should have a steady source of jobs right there.
I'm sorry but bringing back the jobs is not bs. How do you justify that Ford and GMC took TARP funds but they still preferred to let Detroit rot? I did not like Clinton or Trump. Bernie Sanders probably had a better platform, but socialist policies rarely do something good for the economy. But on this point, Trump is absolutely right, to the point where Ford backed down from their plans to move a factory to Mexico.
Do we really want to stagnate just for the nostalgia of the past? I see letting go of these jobs as a freedom to move onto the next evolution of work.
Maybe that is incredibly idealistic but maybe it is better to accept that maybe NAFTA and letting jobs go to foreign countries was wrong and move onto building the future.
Corporations are definitely shitty but I am hesitant to cheer on bringing back the past just for the sake of thumbing our nose at people.
Why aren't people lamenting more over the loss of agricultural jobs? We went from 33% Agricultural jobs to just 2%, thanks to automation, yet we love one form of manual labor more than the other. Even in China and other outsourced countries, manufacturing jobs are being replaced by automation.
This romancing of manufacturing jobs is a strange cultural obsession in the U.S. Maybe it's because our "American" identity is tied to working hard to producing physical things, but I digress.
Easy, back then: heavy back-braking vastly underpaid agricultural jobs with inconsistent hours were replaced on a voluntary basis by offering people higher pay in factories. Aside from agricultural employers, no complaints.
Now: we'll take that $30 per hour job you've been doing for 15-20 years thank you. Oh you need a job ? How about this 10$ per hour (with unpaid overtime and a horrible boss) burger flipping job ? No ? How about these 3 part time $8.75 per hour jobs that will require you to commute between them, at least once per day, cannot be done without a car (that your employer is not paying for) ... Better job ? You do have a masters or phd, right ? No ? Well don't expect them to even call back.
There is no romancing of manufacturing jobs, I believe that's a misunderstanding. There is a romancing of reliable, long-term, well-paying jobs. Once you get that, it's very easy to understand.
If the service economy cannot provide that, it's just not a replacement of the manufacturing jobs. The leftist/democrat point of view used to be that if the "new economic reality" can't provide that, it needs to be legislated out of existence, attacked and opposed at every turn. Now Trump is the one providing that viewpoint on the republican side.
I seem to remember that in the late 80s we had a similar push. Everyone pushed to be "little entrepreneurs" (ha!). Doing package delivery. Cold calling sales. Pyramid schemes. It was legislated out of existence, rightfully.
And yes, I get it. This is hacker news. "Legislated out of existence, attacked and opposed at every turn", we're taking about airbnb, uber, sprig, delivery hero, ... and by extension about google, yahoo, facebook, etc ... You really don't want those companies opposed, or god help us, destroyed, for obvious reasons. You don't get why that people feel that needs to happen, because none of your friends are confronted with reality like this, and there aren't any family members providing a perspective of what manufacturing brings. I just hope I can bring some more viewpoints in the picture here.
Except nobody is talking about the bringing the reliable, long term service jobs back to the U.S. Manufacturing is only 11% of our jobs, Agriculture 2%, yet manufacturing is what is being romanced.
Nobody wants to be out in the summer heat, with the sun blazing down. And then, the work itself is back-breaking hard work. And it never paid as well as the industrial and manufacturing jobs paid.
And you're also competing (in the South) with temp immigrants at low low wages, because those wages are good compared to Mexico.
Again, look at countries that do keep their manufacturing jobs. So maybe you think China and Mexico are backwards countries, so let me put it this way then. Look at what Germany and Japan are still doing.
Service jobs are mostly waiting tables, generously interpreted (e.g. from in an Actual restaurant, in a bar, in McDonalds up to maybe stacking shelves).
Small towns of 10k? What about the city of hundred thousands? Or the city of millions? Off the top of your head, would you mind speculating as to what % of America lives in cities or urban environments?
Are we forgetting that small states and small districts generally get an unjust magnitude of political power? That the gerrymandering game of the last 30 years have favored these small states with small districts? Are all American lives equal or do those who live in cities matter less? The answer is yes. American lives are equal, and those who live in cities are worth less.
Trump did not win the populist victory. Hillary Clinton did. This is twice in recent memory that the majority of the United States was overruled by the minority.
As people criticize Hillary Clinton for arrogantly not visiting states and cities she thought were victories, do people in those states not realize that they get an unjust magnitude of power and influence every time election season rolls around? And that big cities and states basically get zero attention?
And why? Is it because big states like California or Texas are unworthy? Yes, thanks to the structure of American politics and districting. The Texan economy is doing great by the way.
Or did you think that Trump is a populist candidate? So popular that he didn't win the popular vote? Do you believe that Trump will ever win the popular vote?
How long should American voters remember that they were twice denied by minority voices? For how many years ought they bear this stain in their trust in government legitimacy?
>small states and small districts generally get an unjust magnitude of political power
The electoral college exists for a reason: precisely to protect the interests of the minority of people who don't live in cities from the whims of those who do. I live in Maine and we recently passed a citizen referendum for a large minimum wage increase in the state. This is almost entirely because of the people in a few population centers. These places will be able to absorb that hike moderately well, but the rural parts of the state are going to get crushed by it, and they're already the poorest parts of the state. It should have been a city ordinance, but was not.
>Trump did not win the populist victory. Hillary Clinton did.
Both campaigns were strategized around the existence of the electoral college. Winning the popular vote is merely an artifact of the system in place, but holds no real meaning. There's little reason to assume that were the popular vote what actually decided the election that the result of the election would have been different, as the strategies employed by both campaigns would have been different.
>protect the interests of the minority of people who don't live in cities from the whims of those who do
This is a straw man that is commonly made by advocates of the EC. The top 50 cities in the U.S. only account for 15% of the total population, so it's a nonexistent problem.
Yeah, I actually mispoke. the EC is to balance the larger more powerful states against the interests of the smaller ones. It is a compromise that was necessary to fashion the union in the first place. The reason it's not obvious is because of the federal government growing far beyond what it was intended to be.
Yes, both campaigns were strategized around the existence of the electoral college, but that's tweaking at the margins. It doesn't explain a vote difference in the millions.
The main reason for the difference in millions isn't even electoral college per se, it's the fact that most (all but 2) states allocate all their electors to whoever gets more votes in that state. In essence, every state throws all its minority votes away. If you think of it in terms of vote suppression (which, frankly, it is), it's one of such epic proportions that it dwarfs everything else, including redistricting, voter ID laws etc.
I mean, think about it. In California, 33% of residents voted for Trump this year - and those votes didn't count in any sensible way. In Texas, 43% of residents voted for Clinton this year - and those votes didn't count, either!
>This idea that there is impact from republicans not voting isn't true
Which is supported by what evidence?
There are tons of people that don't vote in any given election. Everyone has their reasons, and I'm sure apathy is the leading one, but it's crazy to suggest some portion of them don't vote because they live in a state that won't flip anyway. If you a Republican in California or a Democrat in Kansas, you don't really expect your vote to count.
Post election analysis. The Republicans came out and voted at the same levels as the last election, the Democrats did not. This is why the popular vote difference is exasperated, because the candidate with the most popular vote, by millions, had less of a turnout.
You seem to be missing my point. In any election, some large portion of the population doesn't vote at all. At least some of them are refraining because they know their state is a foregone conclusion.
And you're missing my point that your making broad generalizations about every election is pointless - that the difference between this election and other elections is what matters.
>This is twice in recent memory that the majority of the United States was overruled by the minority.
Which means nothing because they were not playing a popular vote contest. We will never know who would have won, on that day, in a pure popular vote contest.
Winning the popular vote and losing the contest means you miscalculated, and misprovisioned your campaign resources, focusing too heavily on areas you already won.
The problem is that this hasn't been a problem since the late 1800s. It's only in the last few elections that the combination of people moving to cities, polarization of most states, and capping the house have created a situation where you can actually lose the popular vote and still win the presidency (it's always been possible, but it didn't happen for over 100 years for good reason).
It also exists to give slave states power and to make the choice of president up to the electors but we don't use it for either of those purposes nowadays.
Plus, the number of representatives has been capped since the early 1900s. That serves to take things further away from even.
People who live in cities aren't real americans. They are the white collar elite. THey don't deserve votes worth as much as those hard working, blue collar gents in the Heartland of America.
IMO, Democrats are STILL speaking to the plight of the poor far more than the Republicans are.
The problem is, whether through 'natural' forces, the destruction of union power, etc, most of the "we fight for the poor" is about implementing social programs, and, at best, the minimum wage.
But most people don't want handouts. Most people want to be proud and find value from their work.
The Republican party doesn't show more interest in this than they have in the past, but neither does the Democratic party.
Trump can appeal because he can tell them they can have THEIR jobs back. THEIR past glory. Something they were proud of. This is very different from telling a 50 year old "don't worry, we'll send you to 6 months of 'retraining' and you can start your career over in a minimum wage job -- but don't worry, it'll be the NEW minimum wage, $1 higher than the old one!"
Now, obviously Trump can't deliver on his promise. But then again, neither has anyone else, and at least his promise is appealing to them.
Here's the thing though, Trump didn't get appreciably more voter turnout than Mitt Romney. Hillary on the other hand, got a lot less Democratic voters to turn out than Obama did.
We don't know how much damage Comey's actions in particular did to Hillary's candidacy but there is no doubt that the email scandal damaged her prospects tremendously.
> There was a time when democrats represented the blue collar working class -- who have watched helplessly as their jobs and security has been outsourced to china and Mexico. Now it's Trump who represents their values and clearly they're not alone.
Trump clearly tapped into that sentiment, particularly on trade deals. However, the Republican party has largely pushed policies that increase income inequality and hurt blue collar workers for some time now. Republicans have consistently attempted to weaken unions that tended to benefit blue collar workers.
Republican voters don't tend to hold them to account for that because the GOP campaigns successfully on wedge social issues, conservative media still largely supports trickle down economics and said social issues. Fake media only reinforces the echo chamber there.
Unfortunately there isn't much honest discourse on what to do about the effects of globalization and automation on the blue collar workforce now and into the future. I suspect that the job-reducing effects will continue to be used as a weapon for grievance politics but effective policy solutions will be hard to come by.
> We don't know how much damage Comey's actions in particular did to Hillary's candidacy but there is no doubt that the email scandal damaged her prospects tremendously.
I don't understand what logic there is in blaming Comey for actions Clinton made. Her and her staff decided to run the server. The FBI did not fabricate something here that needed to be investigated.
Comey violated the Hatch act, which is in place to prevent people of his station from manipulating U.S. elections.
He outright disobeyed the Attorney General's (his bosses) orders and released the information before he even had a warrant approved by a judge to investigate, just days before the election.
Hillary's campaign failed because it was so fucking forced. Come on guys, you have to vote for Hillary because she's a woman and its her turn and shame on you for thinking this was a democratic process.
I think a lot of Democrats were put off and disillusioned. Hillary wasn't a candidate to be excited about, she was the candidate waiting in line whom you were told you had to vote for.
> Come on guys, you have to vote for Hillary because she's a woman
For me, one of the biggest WTFs this election season was when I noticed that Hillary was literally selling "woman cards" on her website. The article below mentions at was meant as a joke, though I'm not sure most people took it that way...
It's pretty clear that "republican" and "democrat" have largely lost their meanings, as Trump is more independent and pretty much hated by his own party, and the democrat running has a historical record of being friends with Wall Street.
This appears to happen every so often. After all, who do you know who votes for the Whig party?
>There was a time when democrats represented the blue collar working class -- who have watched helplessly as their jobs and security has been outsourced to china and Mexico. Now it's Trump who represents their values and clearly they're not alone.
Judging by the way blue-collar communities turned out for Bernie Sanders, I don't think "their values" are the fascist tripe being pushed by the Trump campaign and transition stuff. No, blue-collar people are not automatically violent rubes who want to throw Jews, Muslims, and Hispanics from the country while reinstituting slavery and criminalizing abortion -- while telling people wages are too high.
I was ready for Bernie. I changed my party affiliation so I could vote for him in the primaries. Are you as upset as I am at the DNC's collusion to suppress his campaign?
Of course I'm upset. I'm upset enough that I joined Democratic Socialists of America and have been involved in activism, rather than just getting mad and sending money to corporate shills on occasion.
You're ignoring the fact that inequality has increased in a measurable way, it's not something that can be solved on an individual level. As the saying goes, when your neighbor loses his job, it's a recession - when you lose yours it's a depression.
Also, by definition, not everyone can out-compete the average, if everyone in the country had a PhD, there'd still be unemployment. Not everyone in such a large country can do the same thing.
And yes, maybe lots of these people are stupid. But they're part of society, and societal problems manifest themselves in ways that assuredly don't benefit people like you.
> And yes, maybe lots of these people are stupid. But they're part of society, and societal problems manifest themselves in ways that assuredly don't benefit people like you.
Everyone seems to forget this. A large part of society is simply not cut out for academia and they still need to make a life for themselves somehow.
Clinton speaking against torture because it's ineffective even though Salon (and I!) would have preferred she'd publicly made the case against it for additional reasons doesn't make it any harder to figure out which candidate one should vote for if they want industry to write regulations, the executive branch to torture people, and the rich to pay even less in taxes. False equivalence is fun until, say, the 2000 or 2016 elections happen.
Well, Trump is a multi-millionaire, perhaps a billionaire. His level of spending may not be remarkable by American standards, but it is by the standards of most other countries. It still means that to get into power in America you either have to be an extremely wealthy businessman, or you have to be supported by big-business.
We see hints in the Trump campaign (and concrete evidence in the Obama campaign) that a lot of the cost for running is interfacing with entities that expect a lot of money to play ball.
It may be that a canny candidate with a good but small PR department can do just as well. Certainly Twitter, YouTube and Facebook seem to be having outsized impact and they're relatively inexpensive.
It's worth noting that Trump's campaign was also deeply invested in using data to drive campaign strategy. Here's a relevant excerpt from an interview with Jared Kushner, Trump's son in law, who apparently masterminded the campaign strategy.
"This wasn’t a completely raw startup. Kushner’s crew was able to tap into the Republican National Committee’s data machine, and it hired targeting partners like Cambridge Analytica to map voter universes and identify which parts of the Trump platform mattered most: trade, immigration or change. Tools like Deep Root drove the scaled-back TV ad spending by identifying shows popular with specific voter blocks in specific regions–say, NCIS for anti-ObamaCare voters or The Walking Dead for people worried about immigration. Kushner built a custom geo-location tool that plotted the location density of about 20 voter types over a live Google Maps interface.
Soon the data operation dictated every campaign decision: travel, fundraising, advertising, rally locations–even the topics of the speeches. “He put all the different pieces together,” Parscale says. “And what’s funny is the outside world was so obsessed about this little piece or that, they didn’t pick up that it was all being orchestrated so well.”
For fundraising they turned to machine learning, installing digital marketing companies on a trading floor to make them compete for business. Ineffective ads were killed in minutes, while successful ones scaled. The campaign was sending more than 100,000 uniquely tweaked ads to targeted voters each day. In the end, the richest person ever elected president, whose fundraising effort was rightly ridiculed at the beginning of the year, raised more than $250 million in four months–mostly from small donors."
Holy shit. I just made a peer comment to yours talking about how I think Trump's campaign used technology really effectively, but I had no idea about any of this.
Any sense for how Clinton's campaign compared on a tech front? I get the sense that similar to the article's description of Trump, she's...uh...not too tech savvy. Was her campaign similarly data driven as his?
My general impression from reading on the subject is that most of the other political campaigns were not nearly as tech savvy as Trump's was. Generally speaking Clinton seemed to rely mostly on the traditional approach to election strategy that would have guaranteed victory in the 90s and early 2000s. It seems that political operatives in general have been much slower to adapt to the new generation of tools that have been made available to them or just don't understand the implications. This does not come as a huge surprise. Unless you grew up interacting with technology in the same way as the younger generation has, it's harder to digest, envision, and utilize new tech. Even my stepfather who coded with punch cards and builds old motherboards for fun struggles a bit with his smartphone.
I think this election has been a good demonstration of how rapidly tech is changing the world and how asymmetric the adaptation has been. The ground is shifting so fast that it's much harder to predict and imagine the myriad of implications and the way they will feedback into systems.
I've been saying that had Clinton run her campaign the way Trump did, she would have been lauded as being a political genius who had learned to embrace being a political candidate in the age of the internet. I've run into some good analysis talking about how this election was a technology shift election in the same way Nixon v. Kennedy was. Just as Nixon didn't play well to television audiences, Clinton doesn't play well to internet audiences, particularly due to the persistence of information. There was a moment in the VP debate where Pence said something like: "This isn't the old days anymore, you can't just say whatever you want without repercussion." (that's a paraphrase).
I think people overlook how effectively Trump uses Twitter. To this day. He drove a ton of outreach and messaging even when he couldn't get it framed the way he wanted in the news, and twice in the last couple weeks he's done some pretty interesting stuff where he represents a position his opponents hold, then watches as the press attacks him for it. He relies on the fact that the internet will get the truth out.
> I think people overlook how effectively Trump uses Twitter.
It's difficult to be enthusiastic about the propagation of outrageous lies as a communication revolution. Say what you will about effectiveness, he's said things he can't back up and it's hard to laud that.
I think that was indeed a silver lining, but the scary question is does that make any difference in terms of inequality in America? His economic cabinet is mostly old faces of industry, his tax plan is a continuation of trends since the 1980's (when inequality in America started increasing). We can all wait and see what happens in the next four years, but if inequality increases even more, the people will lose even more faith in democracy.
Are you ignoring all the congress member races and looking at just the presidential election? The problem is biggest in congress; the influence of money is making the institution wholly nonfunctional.
I think he meant that despite all the big money and power behind the Clinton campaign, enough of the electorate chose to vote against the establishment to render it ineffectual.
The Trump campaign as massively outspent by the Clinton campaign almost 2-1. It also received much less outside money - 60 million versus 190 million. [1]
According to OpenSecrets, Trump spent 56 million on his own campaign. [2]
In historical US election terms, that is quite the underdog story, even if it's still a lot of money.
For me, an underdog story would be a common citizen getting elected with little money, and 100% crowd funded money from the people, at that. A billionaire heir getting elected by spending his millions, and "only" 60 million from someone else, leaves absolutely no sense of being an underdog, even if he did spend less than his rival (100mil instead of 200mil. Big whoop)
> A billionaire heir getting elected by spending his millions
I don't think that's an accurate way of describing his campaign. The campaign funding includes donations to the campaign in those figures. Only 22% of Trump's campaign funding was from himself, while 27% was from small individual contributors and 15% from large individual contributors. Clinton obviously had much less self-financing (0.27%), while 18% was small individual contributions and 53% was large individual contributions.
The 'someone else' in my post is money spent outside the campaign altogether from superpacs. SuperPACs are associated with 'big money' but to my knowledge there's nothing stopping normal people from donating to them.
Unfortunately, your underdog story is just not viable in a democracy of three hundred million. A common citizen, as you put it, simply has no means of getting the attention of enough people, and standing out from the crowd, without money, or to raise that much money. Even wealthy, well-known non-politicians have trouble with that - you see them pop up sometimes in the primaries. There's a reason most American Presidents were already politicians.
If you add your email to your profile, maybe we can talk about it offline? I'm interested but I have a hard time seeing how we can have national politics without money playing a big role.
If I understand correctly, Clinton poured far more money into the campaign than Trump did. She also had much more media support. It didn't matter, because there were enough voters that didn't want her no matter how many ads she bought.
Insofar as there was a late push against Trump by some of the mainstream media, it was after they spent many months fawning over him and giving him a multi-billion dollar free media advantage that was never erased.
Given that people rarely change their view once it is well-established (rejecting new I formation which conflicts with it), even if there was quantitative balance, the fawning early coverage would be more significant in effect.
Is it really a silver lining if the voters can be so easily manipulated into exercising that power to vote against their own interests and to magnify (or at least maintain) the same problems the demagogue claimed to want to solve for them?
Is it possible the former status quo, while far from optimal, was at least being stewarded by adults who knew how to keep it from going off the rails? A given Democrat or Republican has to at least preserve their party's ongoing reputation. Donald is a nihilist who doesn't even have that constraint.
They did not vote against their own interests. They voted for their interests in the only choice available that claimed to represent their interests. The point is the voters don't have an actual choice and never did, most of the consent is manufactured. The ultimate point I guess is that liberal democracy, which often does not represent mass opinion is becoming more direct and the system does not really support that sort of decision making because only people like Trump can get up there to be voted for, demagogues. The elite now don't know how to put the genie back in the bottle. This article is crying out HALP!
Of course, the irony is that Trump, an ardent capitalist and pursuer of wealth, ran on a platform of decreasing the influence of money in politics. According to his 100 day plan, he is going to put a number of serious barriers on lobbying.
I found this out after the election. It wouldn't have changed my vote had I known about it before the election (way too many other issues with Trump) but, at the very least, it is a hope that maybe something good will come out of this presidential cycle.
He literally had working on his campaign the guy who headed Citizens United, the group behind the court case that allowed tremendous amounts of unchecked money into the political system.
Trump has no interest in reducing the influence of money in politics.
To me this is a really interesting problem. Imagine for a moment that you became the president. The people you pick to do things is really important. You have to choose from: People you've relied on who will need time to build expertise; people who have been in the system forever and are part of the problem, but are also knowledgeable in how to operate it, and people who are part of the problem and incompetent.
To me, it seems you have to pull from the first two groups and hope you can use the people you know and trust and your own influence to get the necessary change from the people who have been thus far malignant, but know important things like how to get votes, how to draft legislation, etc.
This is where every presidential candidate succeeds or fails, and most of them end up failing. I feel like it would be hard to argue that Obama wasn't completely co-opted by monied interests as he took office. The finance sector got their claws into him from the beginning.
> ... people who have been in the system forever and are part of the problem...
Not everyone who works in government is part of the problem. Many of them are working very hard to solve real problems. No one's perfect -- that's for sure -- but I'm worried we're throwing out very talented and well-intentioned babies with our bathwater.
And the Trump administration, such as it is, has already proven that the government doesn't have a monopoly on corruption. The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s and people seem to give him a pass. Weird.
I'm sure some of them are good people trying to do good things. I'll spare cynical rejoinders and just concede the point. I think many people would agree that there aren't very many of them in the government. There are of course various axioms about people seeking power and the corrupting effects of power.
>The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s
Yes! The public doesn't have anybody from group A to choose from, and essentially always gets to choose from group B or C. The hope is that we might get lucky one day and get someone for the group you brought up. We want the D.
There will never be a candidate who does exactly what you want. Bernie would've pissed his supporters off for some reason or other had he been elected. We have to pick from an array of imperfect options. Whichever candidate you feel is the perfect candidate, when put in power, they will make choices you don't like. And we all have to realize the difference between sloganeering and governing.
Which is why I really dig guys like Obama who have academic credentials and seem to understand the problems they will face. Then, at least, if they do something I don't want I can look at that decision and ask why they felt it was the best one.
Hillary wasn't perfect. So we screamed about it as a nation and, well, now look at the mess we've gotten ourselves into.
>Whichever candidate you feel is the perfect candidate, when put in power, they will make choices you don't like
I forget where I heard it, but there was a comment about Trump that was something to the effect of: The office of the President is so powerful that in essence the position itself controls whoever is in it. To that end, results can't really vary as much as people think. There is also out there, somewhere on the internet, an essay written by a European leader who garnered the mantle of power despite deep reservations and wrote about the effect holding the position had on him. I wish I could remember who he was / where he governed. It is a really amazing piece. Maybe someone else on here knows what I'm talking about?
>Which is why I really dig guys like Obama who have academic credentials
An immoral act is an immoral act. You just get fancier rationalizations. I don't see the advantage. I actually think it's a disadvantage. To some extent Obama's charisma has kept people from being overly critical of a lot of the terrible things that can be laid at his feet, whereas, if it was still G.W. Bush he'd have been excoriated.
>now look at the mess we've gotten ourselves into
It seems to me to be an error to treat this being bad as a foregone conclusion. Maybe yes, maybe no. Time will reveal.
> There is also out there, somewhere on the internet, an essay written by a European leader who garnered the mantle of power despite deep reservations and wrote about the effect holding the position had on him.
Are you referring to Václav Havel?
> "With your permission, I would like to take advantage of my unusual experience and try to cast a critical eye of an intellectual on the phenomenon of power as I have been able to observe it so far from the inside, and especially on the nature of the temptation that power represents." - Václav Havel on the temptations of political power[1]
and
> "Someone who forgets how to drive a car, do the shopping, make himself coffee, and place a telephone call is not the same person who had known how to do those things all his life. A person who had never before had to look into the lens of a television camera and now has to submit his every movement to its watchful eye is not the same person he once was.
He becomes a captive of his position, his perks, his office. What apparently confirms his identity and thus his existence in fact subtly takes that identity and existence away from him. He is no longer in control of himself, because he is controlled by something else: by his position and its exigencies, its consequences, its aspects, and its privileges."
> The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s and people seem to give him a pass.
I would argue that the election results show that most people don't give him a pass, it just happens that those that do have a favorable geographic distribution.
> Trump has no interest in reducing the influence of money in politics
If you wanted to fix it, do you vote for the person who said he wants to change it or the person who profited from that system for decades? Both parties need to end if you want change on this.
Citizens United vs FEC is only ~7 years old and, if I recall, Hillary only ran in one election during that time frame. The same number that Trump ran in.
Regardless: The whole idea of campaign finance reform is that it's too powerful: Most politicians can't do the right thing because it would hobble them too much in elections.
>Citizens United vs FEC is only ~7 years old and, if I recall, Hillary only ran in one election during that time frame. The same number that Trump ran in.
We didn't have corruption prior to Citizens United? Here's my purposed rule, if you take a nickel from a company you don't get to vote on anything that would effect them. No way in hell the neo-cons or the neo-liberals in Washington pass that.
>Regardless: The whole idea of campaign finance reform is that it's too powerful: Most politicians can't do the right thing because it would hobble them too much in elections.
That might be changing. People are pissed at the establishment. This is the first time since the 50's that the person who spent the most money lost.
His 100 day plan says a lot of things, like 'cut taxes for the middle class', but if you look at his actual tax plan most of the benefits go to the top 1% and many middle class earners (especially single parents) will see their taxes increase: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/11/...
I wouldn't trust his 100 day plan further than I can throw it.
The guy lies and lies and lies. The only way to know what he is really going to do is to wait for him to do it. However, calling him the smartest, most powerful, and most beautiful person ever seems to go a long way with him so I would at least try that to try to get him on your side. Problem is, everybody seems to know that he is a sucker for complement.
This is why I say there's no excuse for voting trump. "According to his hundred day plan..." you have no reason to believe a word he says and every reason not to. afaic, voting for trump's like buying a car off him, or lending him money, or attending his university, or signing an employment contract with him, and so on. He says what he needs to.
> corrupt capitalism has corrupted democracies making them unaccountable to the majority of people, leading to a massive and still accelerating level of economic inequality
That's it, right there. The US is on a declining path regarding this most central issue, and I don't see any signs of change or social/political will for change.
I agree, all of these feel like symptoms of systemic failure on a global scale.
From that POV how could we get back to a state where influence is in the hands of polticians (public servants) again?
What if neo-liberalism really is a super contagious virus to economies/societies?
Correlating, Žižek likes to emphasize how important global decision-making bodies are - now more than ever (e.g. in undermining tax-havens trans-nationally, setting up binding climate-change policies, etc) so damn if we get rid of them (lack of directed global power towards global problems) and damn if we don't (coporate shills)?
Maybe we do need something new this time?
I don't know, I don't see it - I'm solution blind myself. I just have got this feeling looking back into our huge catalog of isms - that we can't (and for many should not/must not) rely on those anymore.
IMHO we definitely need to become more creative again..
Are you suggesting that communism is somehow less corrupt? If so, I encourage you to read about how communism was practiced in the real world, and the meaning of the phrase "All people are equal, but some are more equal than others".
Governments have, and will, always be corrupt. Politicians don't decide to become corrupt, it's part of the job. It's how power has always worked.
If you want to reduce this corruption, the best thing you can do is to limit the power and money the government has. And the best way to do that is by passing solid constitutional laws.
Surely not an easy task, but a real first step in the direction of a stable democracy.
What is the opposite then? You can imagine a lot, but I don't see how telling the very same people that were supposedly corrupted by capitalism to regulate it would change anything.
If you look at the post-war period, from 1946 till 1970s/early 1980s, the US has a much more progressive tax rate, and there was more bank regulation. It was also coincidentally the golden age of American economics. Since the 1980's, taxes have become more and more regressive and regulation on all fronts against corporate excess and distortion of markets has increased. Government has a very important role in capitalism (bust monopolies, ensure companies compete fairly etc). Since 1980's there have been steadily greater and greater economic crises. Many would argue that capitalism has been corrupted through a corruption of politics.
>Since 1980's there have been steadily greater and greater economic crises
There were some pretty deep recessions in the 50's and 70's. With the very important exception of the great recession, this doesn't really hold up against inspection.
There are a lot of different political systems - it's not a binary choice between unregulated capitalism and communism dictatorship. For example - democratic socialism, regulatory capitalism, state capitalism, etc.
I have no idea how it will happen, but I hope we won't need a bloody revolution to reduce the influence of finance and economic markets on modern life.
You misunderstood me. I don't argue that there is a binary choice, nor do I argue that unregulated capitalism is what we need.
I'm merely arguing that corruption isn't inherently tied to capitalism or any other economic system. That Governments will always be corrupt.
Meaning that blaming capitalism for being "corrupt" is about as productive as blaming people for being selfish.
Capitalism is not inherently corrupt, nor is it the only system which can be corrupted. I think we can both agree on that.
But the current version of capitalism dominant in the world is corrupt, and desperately needs radical change. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many well-thought out alternatives with good leaders - so we end up with Trump and Farage peddling demagoguery.
> Capitalism is not inherently corrupt, nor is it the only system which can be corrupted. I think we can both agree on that.
Capitalism is inherently and fundamentally the corruption of government to organize society and basic law (especially property relations) to favor the narrow, capitalist class, which is the fact for which critics of capitalism coined the term "capitalism" to refer to the system corrupted in that way.
You seem to be ignoring the lives lead by those not in the elite ruling class prior to capitalism. There is more wealth, distributed more evenly (though still unequally) now then there ever was under various forms of fuedalism, etc. And communism has a well established track record of lowering quality of life for the lower classes while serving to consolidate more wealth and power to the few, as evidenced by the 20th century.
I look forward to the day we take the next step in human organization, but surely it can be seen that, to this point, capitalism is the high water mark.
> but surely it can be seen that, to this point, capitalism is the high water mark.
The dominant system of the developed west in the 19th Century for which the term "capitalism" was coined was certainly an improvement in most respects over its predecessors, as was recognized by its critics who named it.
The modern mixed economy, which has generally displaced that system in the developed west (and much of the rest of the world), which incorporates significant elements of the program of the socialist critics who named "capitalism" without, as those critics would generally have preferred, replacing entirely it's fundamental structure of property, is, while certainly far from ideal, I would say much better than capitalism, though it constantly seems to want to slide back into capitalism (or, rather, powerful interests want to force it back to that state).
Do you see any contradiction in advocating for the current mixed economy structure while also (hopefully, presumably?) decrying the trend of increasing wealth inequality that's been going on for much of the 20th century?
Not essentially; the modern mixed economy is a fairly broad umbrella, and it's at least arguable that reforms within it that would still be within that broad umbrella could roll back some of the growth in inequality (and particularly the growth in inequality of opportunity produced by growing inequality of outcomes.)
OTOH, I think it's a mistake to see the particular shape of the modern mixed economy (even recognizing it as a broad umbrella) as the ultimate stage in economic progress, just as it would be to see capitalism or feudalism as the ultimate stage.
>and it's at least arguable that reforms within it that would still be within that broad umbrella could roll back some of the growth in inequality
Yes, it's just that many people believe the current mix too heavily favors the government, which creates a massive consolidation of power & resources as well as a weak point susceptible to being co-opted or corrupted. This is what people who want the 'slide back into capitalism' are concerned about. Moving more towards state intervention moves us more towards the horrors of systems that are worse than wild west capitalism.
>I think it's a mistake to see the particular shape of the modern mixed economy (even recognizing it as a broad umbrella) as the ultimate stage in economic progress
I wasn't accusing you of claiming that.
My main point is that by most trends as the power of the US federal govt has grown it has correlated with wealth inequality and stagnation for most of the people in the country. Basically, the greater the mix, the worse things have gotten. As we look towards the ultimate outcome of too much mix, it would seem that if we're not going to move towards something better, then we shouldn't be too quick to write off moving towards a more pure capitalism.
You're saying that capitalism corrupts government by its very definition? That begs the question of the natural form of government that would exist without capitalism.
It seems to me that once societies are big enough to need government, they first reach for something like feudalism, then capitalism. That's a simplified version of Marx. I don't see capitalism as inherently corrupt, but I can see how it has a tendency to become corrupt without tight regulation. It does favour the ruling class, but that's the inherent nature of government - those who put it in place put something that suits their interests.
> You're saying that capitalism corrupts government by its very definition?
No, I'm saying "capitalism" is a name for a particular manner of corruption of government.
Or, more fully, a particular-but-still-quite-corrupt stage in the evolution of government away from the perfectly corrupt state of public power unified with the personal interest of the ruler or members of the ruling class with no distinction, wherein the structure of property rights established by government creates and maintains a ruling class which still has disproportionate and dominant power over the formal public power, but in which nevertheless (unlike preceding stages) there exists a formal, if often misleading, distinction between the formal institutions of public power and the members of the ruling class.
You sound quite interested and interesting on this topic. Any recommended reading?
I'm a bit of a lefty, but don't see any particular innovation - the fight is between those who prioritise 'being electable' (Clinton, Blair) because you can't change anything if you're not in power, and those who focus on emphasising the genuine problems (Sanders, Corbyn) but are unlikely to gain power. Neither seem to have any real solutions, it's just a matter how much they tap into the anger and frustration of the non-elites. Trump, Farage, Le Pen mine that frustration much deeper but don't seem to have any wide-ranging agenda beyond protecting the elites while pretending to do the opposite.
> no one in political power is discussing serious policy proposals to reduce the influence of money in politics and hence address the accelerating transition of wealth from the lower and middle class to a tiny fraction at the very top.
Clinton talked about attempting to get in a more liberal justice who could have helped reverse course on the citizens united ruling.
I find the rather scant coverage of election topics on HN to be a glaring warning in its own right... if the technocratic class is focused on bricklaying (Go, TensorFlow, Docker, etc.), who is deciding what gets built at the macro level? Maybe it's time we all take responsibility for creating a fair, just, open, and economically robust society?
I know its fun to think of us tech crowd as being somehow superior to the rest of the populace, but nothing could be further from the truth. We are just as ignorant and naive as the next set of folks down the line. Believing anything else is craziness.
I agree that it's a trap to think that working in tech makes us inherently smarter or more capable. But, I think our particular perspectives and biases are valuable to understanding the world outside of tech, if only because what we do has a significant influence on so many peoples experiences of the world.
Consider: Trump's campaign relying so heavily on social media; social media as a recruiting and organizational tools for extremist organizations; the issue of fake news sites; the role tech plays in enabling/accelerating globalization; tech as integral to global surveillance apparatuses.
> We are just as ignorant and naive as the next set of folks down the line.
Sure, averaged out over the variety of ways a person can be ignorant and naive (emotionally, financially, politically, etc). But nonetheless I think it would behoove us to stay engaged and reflective about our role in the world beyond tech, rather than saying "Nope, nothing for us to discuss, just keep laying the bricks".
Our perspectives are indeed valuable, but the problem is that here we are on Hacker News in our own little bubble, disengaged from the rest of society.
After Trump's election I came to the conclusion that I had let myself get sucked into a left-leaning filter bubble, which was why I was so surprised when Clinton lost. I realized I had no clue what really mattered to "the other half" of the country, and that terrified me. Equally terrifying was that there are (at least) two bubbles, neither of which comprehends the other, and very few central mediating platforms that connect these two worlds.
On Twitter I decided to follow Breitbart. Yes, Breitbart, the much-reviled bogey-man of the left. And yes, I find some of it objectionable. But really the surprise has been how not-totally-insane it is. It presents an alternate worldview which is in its own way coherent and (dare I say it?) legitimate. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, it doesn't matter---the point is that without bringing these separate worlds into meaningful communication, America is in for some real turmoil. And HN is part of this. It's rare for me to see things here that really challenge the mainstream narrative. It basically all confirms what I already believe. That's what drew me here in the first place, and though many of us probably like to think of ourselves as free-thinking and willing to confront contrary evidence, I'd imagine that's why many of you are here, too.
From my perspective on the other side of the Atlantic, the result of the election is coming from deep division within America, with people on each side of the divide not communicating / understanding each other (hell, even Sam Altman wrote about this before the election).
I agree with you that we should be engaged, but I don't think there's a simple solution.
> Trump's campaign relying so heavily on social media; social media as a recruiting and organizational tools for extremist organizations; the issue of fake news sites; the role tech plays in enabling/accelerating globalization; tech as integral to global surveillance apparatuses.
These are all interesting points, but I don't think they explain Trump's win. Trump's win was about a voting demographic that felt Washington, and to a lesser extent, cities generally – were out of touch with their problems and they were willing to overlook flaws that are core values for us to get there.
It was also about another voting demographic that may have been appalled at Trump on a personal level but not in a way that translated to 2008 turnout.
It was also about a political system that turned out two very disliked candidates and produced one of the most extraordinarily negative campaigns in history.
Technology played a small hand in greasing each of those, but it did not create any of them. Nor can it fix them. It is human nature, perhaps, to focus on things we can control in dire situations. As technologists, we can control technology.
But creating a webapp to combat fake news is not going to make Washington feel in touch, motivate voter turnout, or fix the primaries. It won't do anything actually, because Politifact already exists. If we want to do something, we need to do something that strikes at a real problem. Perhaps that requires technology, but what it requires more is empathy. Too many technologists and not enough empathists.
Don't get me wrong, build a webapp if that helps you. I build antisurveillance tech, it helps me. But I also know that being reactionary and clique-ey got us into this mess. It won't get us out.
>It was also about another voting demographic that may have been appalled at Trump on a personal level but not in a way that translated to 2008 turnout.
And of course, demographics who had their right to vote restricted starting in 2013.
This is very true. Putting engineers and scientists in politics doesn't make better politics. There have been lots of STEM-turned politician types, and there have been for hundreds if not thousands of years, and they're no better or worse than the others.
Well, have you ever tried to submit a political article? Even from very mainstream sources? It gets flagged within seconds - it's flagged like a rotten vegetable in the fridge that has to be tossed right away. How an article like this one didn't get flagged is surprising to me. Actually, HN is pretty direct, the moderators have explained many times how it's not within policy to promote political discussions.
On the one hand, I get it: these are terribly subjective, more so than some Go hack, or release of a new version of Python major release.
On the other hand, a lot of the people are smart, sometimes domain experts. It's fascinating and rewarding to read a back-and-forth between two calm, but fully disagreeing individuals.
My secret wish is some sort of "HN Politics" or "HN Social" or something. The .js frameworks discussions and the weekly 'tech interview' complaints get tiring.
I agree that hackers and techies should be more civic minded, it's really a disgrace how ill informed we are on something so important. Unfortunately the site guidlines pretty explicitly declare politics off topic.
i'll be less blunt than the OP: the fact that politics pisses you off is fine, but the fact that people who are able to see through this bullshit (which is what makes you pissed off, i assume) don't want to be involved is very bad. "somebody else's problem" and "it's not going to be that bad (again)" clearly aren't working.
I would be interested in a forum where we can discuss how to creeate "a fair, just, open, and economically robust society", but I wouldn't want it to be HN. I want those two to be separate.
As a side note, I'm sure fora like that exist already... anyone care to recommend some?
Building software is a task for experts, who have spent years if not decades learning the technical sciences. It's going to be next impossible for someone who has such a deep knowledge of a field to re-specialize into a policy economist and also retain their previous skills.
You don't see economists deciding and dictating you how software should be built and what technological stack to use, presumably because they have the foresight to assume you are an expert in your field and can do so better than them.
My point is thus: leave it to the experts in their own field. The hubris required to believe that software engineers can somehow "take responsibility" overnight to create a "fair, just, open, and economically robust society" and do so better than experts, is astonishing.
This isn't directed in particular at anyone and isn't mean as an insult, but the amount of economic illiteracy here on HN is staggering, but that's not the annoying part.
The annoying part is that there is at the very least a vocal minority of software engineers who believe they have the solutions to hard problems in other fields, typically negligent of the problems and of the nuances of that field and most frequently of limitations of human nature itself.
I come here in big part because politics is not much involved. You need to be careful about injecting politics into things that people traditionally have relied on as an escape from that. See NFL declining ratings.
I believe he is referring to Colin Kaepernick and his actions on the field (taking the knee during the national anthem to bring attention to police shootings) as well as his statements to the press about other political matters.
Rightly or wrongly, many people are not pleased with this. Especially as other players have either joined in or spoken out.
Got it. It seems that the NFL has always been political in some way, from racism and homophobia to the military-industrial complex. I reckon it depends on where one sits, though.
What gets built, of course, is what the market opportunities are. I don't think we've had a serious conversation about how, say, IBM responded to the genuinely profitable market opportunities in big data in the US and Germany in the 1940s. The physicists, for their part, had their soul-searching after realizing what it was they'd researched, and how even having the technology meant it was at risk of being used to kill. Of course the technology is going to get researched at some point, and they knew that, but they got themselves involved in the political process, working on disarmament and peace. That conversation never happened among the computer scientists, despite our technology enabling an order or two of magnitude more deaths.
I'm assuming you are talking about US election topics? Please keep in mind that the readership of Hacker News covers a much larger base than the United States. Technology is not bound by geography as much as politics, and therefore is often more interesting and relevant to the whole world.
No, you're pushing these as accepted theories when they are not. Strauss-Howe has had quite a bit of criticism and so far as I can tell Kyklos/Anacyclosis seems to have little attention at all except from people interested in historical philosophy.
You're also conflating two different theories that don't mesh meaningfully. The Strauss-Howe theory is predicated on complete cycles of ~90 years. I'm utterly confident that the US has not cycled through anarchy, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy twice.
Actually, they are so baked into economics that they are overlooked. Sismondi in his development of the business cycle theory, now a fundamental feature of economic theory and thus political theory, cited Polybius frequently. The point is that there are cycles of societal organization that can be demonstrated fairly unambiguously.
It's one thing to say that social structures show evidence of cyclic behavior. It's another thing entirely to say that it's an accepted fact that every democratic society will inevitably fall to anarchy and be reborn as a monarchy.
I mean history is pretty replete with examples...more than enough books have been written on this.
Note that the Anarchic period is usually very short and often accompanied by war because people can't figure out how to live without a ruler apparently.
The idea is, there are seven stages of governance for people.
1. Monarchy, 2. Kingship, 3. Tyranny, 4. Aristocracy, 5. Oligarchy, 6. Democracy, and 7. Ochlocracy
The cycle just endlessly repeats itself through time.
We're really talking the same thing...as they come from the same school. Point being that there are "natural" cycles to human organization and that recognizing them is important.
I don't know if there is a way, or if it's even desirable to stop them.
I agree and I think this theory is absolutely correct, and we're seeing it in action right now.
I think the US is at the last stage right now. Which very oddly means, North Korea is now closer to democracy than the US is.
Hear me out, I think the US is going to have to go back through all the cycles before going back to democracy. Whereas a country like North Korea is further along the cycles.
Your link for Kyklos doesn't match up with your summary. Polybdius's description cited on Wikipedia suggests that the cycle is Anarchy -> Monarchy -> Tyranny -> Aristocracy -> Oligarchy -> Democracy -> Anarchy, with each pair forming a basic government + degenerate form of that government and the cycle trending towards greater dispersal of power, until the final degenerate form of democracy (anarchy/mob rule) fails to provide a society at all and a new strong-man emerges to rule it.
The Strauss-Howe cycle has a very different mechanism; in particular, the time scales are much shorter (80 years vs. several generations), and the mechanism proposed is each generation's individual childhood/formative experiences rather than interactions & social cohesion between individuals.
"According to Polybius, who has the most fully developed version of the cycle, it rotates through the three basic forms of government, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy"
The version you describe is the Anacyclosis, which is equally valid IMO but not what I linked.
"According to Polybius, who has the most fully developed version of the cycle, it rotates through the three basic forms of government, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy and the three degenerate forms of each of these governments ochlocracy, oligarchy, and tyranny. Originally society is in anarchy but the strongest figure emerges and sets up a monarchy. The monarch's descendants, who because of their family's power lack virtue, become despots and the monarchy degenerates into a tyranny. Because of the excesses of the ruler the tyranny is overthrown by the leading citizens of the state who set up an aristocracy. They too quickly forget about virtue and the state becomes an oligarchy. These oligarchs are overthrown by the people who set up a democracy. Democracy soon becomes corrupt and degenerates into mob rule, beginning the cycle anew."
To coin a phrase, it's the income inequality stupid.
Current trends are inherently unstable. You can't have a workable political system when nearly all the economic gains accrue to a small group at the top.
This has been the fundamental tension in political systems since we've had political systems. Some have been screaming their heads off about it for years, but with minor exceptions there haven't been genuine working and middle class focused political movements in the west with actual power in at least a generation. This is what happens when you do that.
Current trends are inherently unstable. You can't have a workable political system when nearly all the economic gains accrue to a small group at the top.
I don't think that's necessarily true (unfortunately). There's probably a threshold where inequality becomes unsustainable, but it could be very high.
See Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation. It's most famous for the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma contest, where the simple "tit for tat" strategy beat all the others, but there's a lot more great material in there. "Tit for tat" is just one stable solution, but there are others.
Another stable solution is an unpleasant-sounding caste system, where everybody is nice to people of higher rank and nasty to people of lower rank. That system is self-sustaining and resistant to interlopers as long as it's self-policing, i.e. the insiders punish people who buck the system. Even people at the bottom of the pecking order are incentivized to play along and keep their heads down.
Similarly, I think extreme inequality could be stable and self-sustaining. I think it would require people to actively reject "government handouts", which is exactly what we see in a lot of political rhetoric these days.
Almost all large corporations have extreme salary inequality, but they're still relatively stable and successful entities. Why wouldn't the low-level workers demand more pay? Because it's a "meritocracy" -- we need high executive salaries to attract the best people, and if you just work a bit harder maybe you'll get promotion and earn the big bucks for yourself.
> Another stable solution is an unpleasant-sounding caste system, where everybody is nice to people of higher rank and nasty to people of lower rank.
Yes, to some extent. I suppose there is an argument you can make that there's another Nash equilibrium at the point of extreme inequality, where a couple people are rich and everyone else is essentially starving. But that sort of seems besides the point, given how complex and interconnected our current economic and political structures are.
> Almost all large corporations have extreme salary inequality, but they're still relatively stable and successful entities.
On what time scale? I would argue that if governments were even 1/10 as likely to fail as large corporations the world would be quickly reduced to rubble.
I suppose there is an argument you can make that there's another Nash equilibrium at the point of extreme inequality, where a couple people are rich and everyone else is essentially starving.
I meant more an equilibrium where there's a pyramid and everyone knows their place. (Maybe the lowest class needs to be small rather than large, I'm not sure.)
But that sort of seems besides the point, given how complex and interconnected our current economic and political structures are.
I don't understand this, can you elaborate?
On what time scale? I would argue that if governments were even 1/10 as likely to fail as large corporations the world would be quickly reduced to rubble.
You're right, corporations are definitely shorter-lived on average (although there are some very long-lived ones).
I guess there are some important differences between companies and countries, notably that countries are tied to a particular land area and population. And they're far less numerous than companies.
I still think my point is relevant and worth exploring, though. If democracy (or any other system) is so great, why don't companies tend to use it? Even companies that are worker-owned tend to be run in fairly traditional ways (see e.g. John Lewis in the UK).
Something I've wondered recently: in the past 10-15 years, how many functioning democracies have fallen apart vs been created?
I'm fairly ignorant about this, so please correct me if my perceptions ar wrong, but Turkey seems to have devolved to autocracy after being democratic for a while. I've heard scary things about Poland. Venezuela, as mentioned in the article, fell apart. Obviously there's Putin's Russia, though I'm not sure Russia was ever really democratic.
I can't think offhand of any new, functioning, democracies.
'Functioning democracies' are probably better thought of as being a gradient rather than a binary property. There are a number of indices of varying regional and temporal scope, e.g. you could look at the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index for 2006 onward [1].
There's a lot of latent causes that move these indices (e.g., the collapse of the Soviet Union) so theoretical frameworks are useful for understanding the raw data, e.g. Samuel Huntington's 'waves' characterization of democracy [2]. Not saying that this is right, but sometimes it helps to think about the underlying currents.
Finally, democracy and liberal institutions are not concomitant... in fact it's sort of a bug in democracy that you can totally democratically dismantle institutions like court systems, press freedoms, and even voting [3].
> Finally, democracy and liberal institutions are not concomitant... in fact it's sort of a bug in democracy that you can totally democratically dismantle institutions like court systems, press freedoms, and even voting [3].
Actually, I believe that to avoid those Russell-style paradoxes, it should be a rule that the vote must be potentially reversible in the future with the same process. So the decisions like
- strip democratic rights to a minority
- kill a specific person
cannot be democratic. On the other hand, creating a democracy then cannot be democratic decision either.
Dismantling press freedoms and courts would still be democratic (in fact, many democratic countries do not have full freedom of speech), as long as people could vote again on the issue (I don't see why they would vote to dismantle it, so it's not a big deal).
Poland is still as functioning a democracy as it was 15 years ago. They elected a party that's a bit on the extreme, so what, isn't that how it's supposed to work ? Does Trump's election means american democracy has "fallen appart" ?
Turkey is still democratic. Yes, the rule of law is taking massive hits, and yes, Erdogan really wants to be sultan and makes his way there, but so far he has always won in the election in the same way and rules people won with 15 years ago there. He didn't have a 50+% majority of votes to be PM but neither did the torries in the UK. It might go wrong if there are more actions against legislative political opponent.
Venezuela went from a pretend democracy where everyone massively voted for the popular charismatic dictator to a pretend democracy where everyone massively dislike the unpopular dictator, nothing fell apart because there was nothing to break there.
Trump's election may very well cause US democracy to "fall apart". He's already signaled that he wants to stifle a free press, and he's made a lot of campaign promises that go against the rule of law. Congress doesn't seem willing to stand up to him, and there are a lot of vacancies in the judiciary that Trump can fill with people more likely to give him a free pass. Trump's greatest enemy in accomplishing his undemocratic agenda is his own incompetence and unfamiliarity with Washington DC politics. He'd be the next Erdogan or Putin if he could be.
It's worrying that he tweets that. It's like he doesn't have a clue about the first amendment or the rule of law. We elected him to be president, not to be a dictator.
So he's, essentially, ignorant about American civics. It's a shame that he's ignorant, and more of a shame that a person ignorant on that topic got elected. That said, the courts are supposed to limit the effect of such ignorance about how the system works, and about what our rights are.
If the courts start failing in that role, that will be cause for very serious concern.
> If the courts start failing in that role, that will be cause for very serious concern
Courts are mostly able to act after-the-fact of alleged violations; by the time they fail to do their job, it will be way too late to start being concerned.
True. But say somebody burns a flag on inauguration day (probable). Say Trump tweets that the person should be arrested (also probable). What happens? Does the person get arrested, or do the police know (and follow) the relevant court rulings?
If the person gets arrested, do they get prosecuted, or does the prosecutor know and follow the relevant court rulings?
If the person gets prosecuted, does it come to trial, or does the judge throw it out?
If it comes to trial, does the person get convicted, or does the judge or jury rule that this behavior is protected by the First Amendment?
At every step, the flag burner should be home free. If they wind up facing a year in jail or losing their citizenship, that is not just time to start being concerned - it's time to start thinking seriously about leaving the country. But I'm more optimistic than that. I think, however, that it will be interesting to see how far it goes before it's thrown out, to see exactly how broken things currently are...
Loss of citizenship? People of a certain age will remember Viktor Korchnoi playing Anatoli Karpov, and Korchnoi with the white flag of the stateless. That's what the sworn enemy, the arch-Satan would do to dissidents! The US, on the other hand, would be the empire of free speech and capitalism.
But under Trump there's no need to be a dissident, just burning the flag is enough. How lame is that?
The Flag Protection Act of 2005, the one cosponsored by Clinton, would have prohibited destroying the flag for the primary purpose of intimidation, inciting immediate violence, or terrorism.
While one can certainly argue that there is little merit in specially punishing that particular mechanism of achieving those unlawful ends, that clearly is not the same thing (or even a similar thing) to a general ban on flag burning.
Titles of laws are rarely accurate indications of their substance.
Except who decides what that intimidation, violence or terrorism is ?
If you are burning it in public, it could easily be spun different ways. We know some police officers treat minorities differently, so the line gets blurry.
Does a white college educated young person burn the flag with no consequences, and everyone else gets hit with intimidation ?
These are great questions, but in the end they are ones that the left didn't bother to ask when they dropped a principled support of the first amendment for "hate speech" as intimidation, in particular on college campuses as enforced by the US Justice Department. Personally I am against criminalizing flag burning, but for the purpose of highlighting hypocrisy I would like to be the first conservative to cite Karl Popper to argue for it: tolerant societies have a right to be intolerant of intolerance. Burning the flag is hate speech and intimidation based on rejection of our shared American values, and shall be banned.
Anyone on the left who disagrees with this argument? Re-evaluate your own principles then, in a way that doesn't assume "my values are right and yours are wrong" in the context of a democratic republic.
I'm on the left, and I disagree with your argument - but then again, I disagree with hate speech laws in general.
Then again, why is burning the flag necessarily "hate speech". I would dare say that it's perfectly legitimate way to protest any abuses that are carried out presumably in the name of that flag - like, say, Gitmo or Patriot Act.
Because sometimes speech really is intended to arouse unmotivated hate in the audience. I don't have a problem calling such speech "hate speech" - it's a perfectly accurate label. It's also subjective, insofar any emotion is subjective, which is why it doesn't have place in law.
The same people who would do so for an incitement to immediate violence, intimidation, or terrorism (which are generally illegal under other criminal laws alreadyn whether or not destroying
a flag is involved): prosecutors, judges (trial and appellate), and juries.
Can these actors be unfair and express biases not in the text of the law? Sure. But that's more an argument for policies to address that problem than it is an argument against additional criminalization of a subset of a category of generally already-criminal acts. (And against which, I should add, there are plenty of other arguments.)
While still a bad bill, that is not quite the same thing. The Flag Protection Act made it criminal to burn the flag for the purpose of inciting violence. Not just randomly burning it. It's the same idea as yelling fire in a crowded theatre, or holding a rally telling people to go riot.
>Poland is still as functioning a democracy as it was 15 years ago. They elected a party that's a bit on the extreme, so what, isn't that how it's supposed to work ?
dismantling the constitutional tribunal is hardly "a bit" on the extreme. there are two law systems in the country right now - one where rulings of this tribunal hold (in the judiciary branch) and one where they don't (the legislative branch). please tell me how this is democratic again?
>Viktor Orban and his right-wing Fidesz party, running on a joint list with the K.D.N.P., a Christian Democratic party, have won the last two parliamentary elections in Hungary, worrying many Western leaders about his increasingly authoritarian rule. The party also decisively won in voting for the European Parliament in May 2014.
Jobbik, a far-right, anti-immigration, populist and economic protectionist party, won 20 percent of the vote in parliamentary elections in 2014, making it Hungary’s third-largest party.
Its policy platform includes holding a referendum on membership in the European Union and a call to “stop hushing up such taboo issues” as “the Zionist Israel’s efforts to dominate Hungary and the world.”
Jobbik wants to increase government spending on ethnic Hungarians living abroad and to form a new ministry dedicated to supporting them. In a 2012 bill targeting homosexuals, the party proposed criminalizing the promotion of “sexual deviancy” with prison terms of up to eight years.
Poland is fine, don't listen to the bullshit in mass media. That was just some noise of little importance to anything whatsoever, perpetuated because the party that lost last elections wasn't too happy about that fact.
In Poland, the ruling party (Party of Law and Justice) is a right-wing, populist party, which has tried to nominate/replace judges and to some extent, control the media. EU is has voiced concerns, but Poland's democratic processes still work, as evidenced in the recent recall of controversial abortion bill.
A Similar, but perhaps further evolved situation is in Hungary, where right-wing populists have held the power for quite a long. But even in Hungrary the rulings party's power is not absolute, at the moment, and you don't get thrown into jail for having wrong opinions.
> That was just some noise of literally zero importance to aything whatsoever, perpetuated because the party that lost last elections wasn't too happy about that fact.
That seems eerily similar to what happened in the US.
The government’s attempts to undermine the country’s constitutional tribunal, for instance, set off an investigation by the European Union. The resulting report warned that the government’s actions “endanger not only the rule of law, but also the functioning of the democratic system.”
How is any of it undemocratic ? If people elect candidates who are anti abortion and pro surveillance, then being democratic means those laws should happen.
"Democracy" doesn't mean "they do what you agree with" nor even "they do what's best for their citizen", it means the citizens elects the one they want, even if it's the guy whose policies are so bad he's going to send them backward 20 years.
> How is any of it undemocratic ? If people elect candidates who are anti abortion and pro surveillance, then being democratic means those laws should happen.
See, this is why the US is supposed to be ruled by a constitution, rather than just be a democracy. The constitution says that there are things you can't do, even if you have a majority (unless you have enough of a majority to amend the constitution).
Now, granted, that's been eroded under the last few presidents, with (probably) worse to come under Trump. But this is why it matters that we have a constitution that limits what a president can do.
If people elect candidates who are pro-totalitarian surveillance state and limitation of individual freedoms, then being democratic means those laws should happen as well?
Basically if people elect candidates that want to kill democracy then the democratic thing would be to let it die?
> So the proposal to ban abortions was just a lie?
Yes. I.e. not the proposal itself, but the stories about it being likely to be implemented - yes. The "Black Protest" thing was a media-inspired panic.
> What about the story that Poland is one of the few European countries that want access to encrypted communications?
That is indeed worrying, but I don't see anything different here than happens in many other western countries.
Some countries that became more democratic over the past 10-15 years would probably include places like Tunisia, Pakistan, Myanmar, and Georgia (to name a few).
It's a complex issue, and like others have pointed out, being democratic isn't a binary switch. Take Turkey, for example - in a country prone to military coups, the most recent military coup failed. Erdogan has autocratic tendencies, but people really do support him and he seems to be in power because of mostly democratic elections.
In Poland it's just poor people electing populist leaders and well off people taking their nice and modern country for granted and not bothering to show up at the election or spreading their votes on anti-system small parties because it's rad.
Russia was a democracy that, in less then a decade completely fell apart economically. Putin, and the rising price of oil can be credited for stabilizing the country, and largely pulling it out of a dystopian horror show.
Freedom and democracy is nice, but having the means to buy bread, and not being robbed and killed by desperate people is even nicer.
Edit: I presume the downvotes aren't coming from people who lived in Russia through the 90s.
I see this as part of the waning influence of the USA as a world hegemon. The USA and its allies, as a matter of foreign strategy, have propped up secular "democracies" since WWII. This has led to world-wide stability and peace (especially post-cold war, when its sphere of influence expanded into Soviet territory). But, this often involved supporting unpopular and/or autocratic leaders who would maintain a democracy as long as they could overthrow unsuitable leaders (often with covert American help).
I think there have been multiple backlashes to this in recent times. The socialist revolutions of central and south america, the arab spring, the rise of Putin's influence in the ex-soviet sphere of influence, and now the rise of nationalist anti-globalization leaders like Trump. A lot of people world-wide are deciding that America's place in world affairs is no longer tenable or desirable.
I'm totally mixed on this and consider myself fairly neutral. I appreciate the relative peace and stability that we've had, but I also think it's been untenable. A better world will likely come, eventually, from more distributed decision making that doesn't involve just a small % of the world's population.
"The USA and its allies, as a matter of foreign strategy, have propped up secular "democracies" since WWII."
While that is certainly the rhetoric, that isn't actually true. We have propped up secular democracies in Western Europe, but in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and South America we often propped up dictators as long as they allowed American businesses to do business there. In some cases the CIA orchestrated a coup of democratically elected leaders such as in Iran in 1953 [1] which eventually lead to the Iranian revolution in 1979 [2].
When taking the full, real US history and foreign policy since WWII into account, it actually makes sense why some parts of the world are revolting. That does not excuse terrorism, but I do think it is important to understand the motivations so that we can solve the problem(s).
> I appreciate the relative peace and stability that we've had
But we have extreme anti-American sentiment that has been brooding for quite some time in some of these countries, which we are now seeing actualized in the form of terrorist attacks.
I think we will have to live with those for a while after our meddling in other countries' affairs ceases--if it ever does.
I'm thinking 20-50 years from now as the developing world develops and embraces globalization on its own. In the next couple decades we're likely going to see some bad (or at least chaotic) times :(
"In The Demon in Democracy, Legutko explores the shared objectives between these two political systems, and explains how liberal democracy has over time lurched towards the same goals as communism, albeit without Soviet style brutalality.
"
Unelected bureaucrats become nonviolent totalitarians.
The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies
Unelected bureaucrats become nonviolent totalitarians.
I for once am grateful to the faceless bureaucrat at the FDA who demanded that Theranos submit their device to FDA for appproval. This unnamed fellow is the Stanislav Petrov of medicine.
On the other hand, you also have FDA certification process to thank for the Daraprim monopoly and its consequences (like the ability to raise prices 50x).
Which is to say, regulation can be good sometimes, and it can be bad sometimes, even when it's the same exact regulation. The trick is to find a balance that is beneficial to all of us overall.
It's unfair to pin Daraprim (and stock price movements when a candidate fails Stage 3 trial) on the FDA. They are tasked with safety. Pricing is an issue outside the remit of the FDA, one that most of the civilized world has dealt with successfully, usually through some form of centralized buying.
It is fair to compare FDA to similar agencies in other countries, and ask whether their focus on safety is too extreme, to the point where it hampers other issues of importance.
For example, is there any European country in which a generic alternative to Daraprim hasn't been certified yet? If there isn't one, then why is US special in that regard?
Centralized buying is only a partial solution to drug prices. Access to cheap generics is also a part of that puzzle. If FDA procedures get in the way of that, it may very well be that the net balance for us is negative.
To take the US as an example, there's about 2.5 million people in the federal civil service - assuming a generous 1:8 ratio of bureaucrats to workers, that's about 300 thousand bureaucrats at just the federal level. I'm guessing you're not proposing that they all be elected.
It seems simple -- progressive extremism and progressive supremacy is what threatens democracy in today's West. The obstinate and divisive leaders of neo-liberalism have made absolutely no effort to reach across the aisle and greet their political opponents midway, instead opting for tasteless attacks and tone-deaf dismissal.
Democracy involves meeting each-other half-way without exception and clearly the likes of Merkel and Clinton have shown no interest in budging on wedge issues, which only accelerates their fall from leadership. Clutching onto power through underhanded further ensures our dangerous position on the edge of a precipice.
I'm confused which wedge issues they aren't budging on?
I also find this statement laughable when you consider that the republicans have made up excuses and refused to vote for a year on the Garland nomination. That nomination would also be considered reaching accross the aisle, given the Obama picked a candidate that he thought the republicans could live with.
The republicans have thrived on obstructionism and blaming the other side.
How valid is this research? They seemed to have arbitrarily chosen factors that the researchers seem to feel is "essential to democracy" and then simply decide that these factors are in decline. Maybe I missed this but I didn't see the researcher list what the actual factors were that were "essential for democracy" and how these factors were chosen. It seemed as they just arbitrarily picked factors that they felt were essential for a democracy and then showed that these factors were experiencing a decline.
The countries chosen in the study, Poland and Venezuela are particularly poor examples as they were both countries that were under long periods or autocratic rule and then briefly attempted a transition to democracy which failed. To hold these up as examples of a general trend of failing democracy seems misleading.
What this really seems to me is people with a particular political bias sounding the bell of doom because a candidate they dislike won the election. Really they even mention Trump in the article and mention his election as a sign of failing democracy - you can't get much more biased than that.
Also Venezuela has the curse of easy natural resources it's generally awful for a functioning democracy. That really skewed things in my opinion and isn't very helpful in comparison to a nation like the U.S.
It's hard not to think that democracy could be on the way out. People losing interest in democracy qua democracy, rather than what they can get out of it; the hero-worship of entrepreneur barons like Musk and Zuckerberg. Maybe the best we can hope for in the future is a benevolent corporate-style government.
For all the current furore right now about whether we're "normalizing" fascism, note that communism (as practised in China) is already pretty well normalized. Other countries are judged on how friendly they are, not their political systems, so China and Saudi Arabia are okay.
It would be great to see some real willingness to repair democracy in the US. Ditching the electoral college would be a small but significant step. Almost nobody likes it, after all! If we can just keep the discussion clear and calm, and separate the proposal to improve the system from the result of this election, maybe we could make progress. I'm not holding my breath, though...
I would also love to see experimentation with really radical forms of democracy. For example, Arthur C Clarke's The Songs of Distant Earth has a fun aside about random selection of leaders. The Venetian Republic apparently used multiple rounds of lotteries and nominations; incredible to think that such a complex system was used successfully for centuries. (Excellent writeup in the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/07/26/win-or-lose)
Take this, and remove all references to "workers" and "proletariat", and it sounds like it could be a very workable system, more stable than direct democracy, but with a much faster feedback loop than any modern representative democracy (since any council can recall its delegate to the higher-level council at any point).
Yes, that's interesting! It failed pretty quickly in the USSR, though, so clearly additional checks and balances are needed:
Lenin […] issued a "temporary" ban on factions in the Russian Communist Party. This ban remained until the revolutions of 1989 and according to critics made the democratic procedures within the party an empty formality.
In USSR, it was "workers' and peasants' councils" from the get go (so those not belonging to these two categories were excluded). And the real power was always in the hands of Sovnarkom. So I would say that USSR never really had council democracy other than in name - just like most "democratic people's republics" out there aren't democratic.
One of the biggest irony is that a lot of dictators and there cronies are worried more then we are on democracy. Dislike it all you want- the day, your generals decide that you are no longer need - having money in a stable place half the world away, is a value for itself.
Maybe those declining political party's could ask some African dictators for donation?
The NYT were enthusiastic supporters of Fidel Castro, who was a communist. He visited their offices in person, mentioning that he couldn't have gotten into power without them. It could be that there is systematic bias at the NYT opposing democracy, except as a rhetorical technique to appeal to its readers. Castro's chief executioner had this to say:
A foreign reporter -- preferably American -- was much more valuable to us at that time (1957) than any military victory. Much more valuable than rural recruits for our guerrilla force, were American media recruits to export our propaganda.
They didn't seem to like Hugo Chavez(mentioned in the article, and a socialist) at the time, which is evidence against it being a general trend. I'd need to look at other leaders to see if it is systematic from the NYT. Maybe Hugo just wasn't as good at dealing with the media: http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/venezuela/chavez2.htm
There could be bias from this specific author, though. If this author was going to write any article at all, it was going to be about Trump destroying Democracy. The same author used to work at Vox and there are many other articles comparing him to a dictator: http://www.vox.com/authors/amanda-taub
How much independence are NYT writers given? Does the company take a stance on certain issues? Is there selection bias for certain employees, even if there's no explicit company policy on politics? This could be measured to some extent by checking political donations from employees associated with the NYT. I think that data is public.
None of these necessarily oppose their argument, but good evidence and arguments subjected to enough selection bias can say any story you want it to. http://lesswrong.com/lw/js/the_bottom_line/
Does the difference correlate well with immigration patterns? A lot of the European countries are admitting many refugees and migrants from countries with a lot of corruption. The US might have many migrants from Mexico or other Central or South American countries with a higher corruption index. It could be that the migrants don't care about democracies, because they weren't raised in a culture that cares about democracies.
I'm 27 and prefer a Republic to a Democracy, since it keeps more power closer to the people governed. I haven't looked at their study to see if I would count as a younger person opposed to Democracy.
Sanders is a socialist and he seems to be pretty popular. It could be that people are warming up to socialism or communism. That's different from the system of government, but depending on how they did the study they could've said that socialists are not in favor of democracies.
Couldn't agree more! But in fairness, I think that could and should be said about all american media. AKA Tabloid media, cause god knows they've all forgotten how to do journalism except for quoting tweets and making life nothing more than a sensationalized reality show.
But sure, NYTimes during the election, def took the cake.
Your claim is inaccurate. The NYT and half the Republican leadership (among others) has rather consistently said this candidate was exceptionally unqualified.
Something like 99% of the major newspapers, even those with conservative histories, disavowed Trump as being exceptionally unqualified for president too.
It's time to stop the unsubstantive and politically-motivated comments like this. They do nothing but derail the civil and thoughtful discussions that we're trying to have here.
Not to fear my fellow Americans! The U.S.A is a Republic not a Democracy. . .
Although, many view it as a democracy. . .even president's do the same.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13019834
The USA is a democracy under the 21st century dictionary definition of the word "democracy", which includes representative democracies like USA.
It is also a republic.
To be very specific, it is a constitutional federal democratic representative republic.
Now, back when the Declaration of Independence was written, your statement was true - for the simple reason that the word "democracy" was very exotic then, as was the form of government itself. The people who used it then, used it more in a sense of Aristotelian dichotomy between demokratia and politeia (the latter word was later somewhat incorrectly translated to Latin as "res publica"), and generally implying direct democracy.
Since then, numerous new democratic states appeared, with various differences in their specific arrangements - and so there was a need for a word that would describe the things that are common to all of them, and distinguish them from states with other forms of government. "Democracy" happened to be the one that was already in use, but also rare enough that its evolution wouldn't be bothersome, and its etymology made it the perfect candidate; and so, here we are.
So, what you were really trying to say - assuming that you meant the original 18th century meanings of the words - translates to modern English as, "USA is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy".
These are truly concerning times; in America at least, no one in political power is discussing serious policy proposals to reduce the influence of money in politics and hence address the accelerating transition of wealth from the lower and middle class to a tiny fraction at the very top. This is not a stable course. Even the current president elect despite his populist slogans is going to increase the regressive tax rate based on debunked trickle down economics (what actually helped lead to the current inequality in the 1980s), and wants to eliminate the estate tax all together. Both of these will merely accelerate the current course. No light is visible at the end of the tunnel.