Short thoughts on the Democratic Primary

#1

I want as much radical change as we can get in several directions. There is a lot clearly wrong that can be fixed [especially a huge variety of economic, regulatory and political organizational issues. ideally some constitutional amendments…] Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren seem like the most aggressive reformers (especially Bernie), but I haven’t looked into the details of all of their proposals (where there are details), so I can’t say they where are right and where they might be wrong. You can’t expect a political platform to ever be quite right. You just have the choose the one that will bring us in the best direction. (If their policies are economically ruinous that would not be the case, but I’d caution to anyone concerned here that few or no mainstream economic policy ideas are academically sound…)

In general I’ve not agreed with the electability and mass-appeal argument for Joe Biden. But combined with some of his proposals in the past week for serious political reform, I think there is an argument for him best being able to improve the basic functioning of our country, which may make us better off in the end. The number one issue for our long-term success is our total dysfunction. America is angrily and unproductively divided. The political system is partisan and openly antagonistic. We increasingly can’t agree even on basic facts.

We could use a president who can help “heal” the nation. And it may be more productive to be able to make some of the many important issues bipartisan, even if it delays the most progressive reforms. And the process is probably more sustainable.

I haven’t watched any of the debates and probably won’t this one, so the above is more of a philosophical perspective in which you can insert your ideas of about the political candidates and their platforms.

2 Likes
#2

Finally responding to something on here. Sorry to keep you waiitng Kyle.

I agree that significant–even structural–changes need to be made in several directions.

There are two thoughts here. One is healing. The other is winning.

I abhor centrism as I believe every government needs to stand for some set of basic principles. Otherwise you end up with a scenario like today where given a draft you couldn’t unite a platoon of American soldiers around anything in particular worth defending. But no one will defend America for “bipartishanship”…it’s utterly meaningless and fake. Recently, many pundits gushed over Ellen Degeneres hanging out with George Bush as a shining example of friendship that we–the dirty and uneducated masses–can look up to. Why should I care about a talk show host’s opinion? Why should I put aside war crimes on the altar of friendship? I wouldn’t break up with a friend who supports Bush, but that friend isn’t the one who ordered the bombs.

Different factions exist to serve the divergent interests of our country. Bipartisanship is fake, and politics is downstream from culture. We should stop looking to Washington to solve these issues as if one Leviathan-like figure can rescue us from societal damage slowly wrought over years. The healing needs to be localized.

But obviously we would like the best person possible to be in the White House, so we need to worry about winning as well. My advice for Democrats is to choose a candidate who represents real interests. Bernie, Yang, and Tulsi are among those who stand for something. Hillary didn’t stand for anything and Trump beat her without ever giving an inch on what he wanted. There’s a lesson there. The same will happen to Biden.

All or none of what I said could be true. Politics makes no sense today. It’s fun though.

1 Like
#3

I agree in general, so let me nitpick.

It seems every president is a war criminal. Then perhaps it’s not them, but the office? Or the country? Or humanity?

What do you mean here? Is this a truism or a conspiracy?

This is really interesting. Is it? I suppose it depends on your definitions. If you wanted you could call the combination of all human behavior culture. Then politics is a strict subset. But I certainly think public opinion can diverge from political orthodoxy. The culture of the many vs. the culture of the powerful.

Political agents (not just public faces) are influenced by their own culture, of course, but they don’t need to subscribe to a changing common culture. Politicians are theoretically constrained by the culture of their constituencies, but in some convoluted way, because representatives and especially policies are not determined by a yea or nay vote. They have some degrees of freedom to work with. It’s good business, after all. For example, however much Trump played on people’s problems, he’s increasingly defined the conversation and policy with his own eccentricities…

So political agents influence mainstream culture? Fox News is an obvious example. Their message is crafted by elites, and they are constrained only by their ability to convince their target demographics. And that is not the same as conforming to their preexisting beliefs!

Of course, the way I’ve described it here is also too reductionist.

I don’t know if that’s the way the world works any more. People aren’t just connected to their community, they’re connected to the world.