[Discussion] So... How's that democracy working out for you?

Is democracy a system capable of dealing with the challenges of the future, and if not, what alternatives exist?

Axon wrote:

America is diverse but I not uniquely so. Belgium is made up of two completely different cultures that don't even share a language.

I'd say it's uniquely diverse. Like, if you're going to compare Belgium to America, it's more like if the Congo wasn't on another continent, but was the southern part of Belgium.

America is certainly a diverse but I contend that's it's problems are not the diverse nature of the country but how those diverse cultures get represented in government state and federal. People are divided because vast swathes of the country feel that they are not represented by anyone in government.

This is too abstract to capture how the history of that diversity gets America to where you see it today. The division you see in the country is a result of a Democratic Party that dominated government from the 30's until the 70s. When you hear about a time in America where things got done and American government worked, this is the period you're hearing about.

The dirty little secret is that the Democratic Party was able to get things done because it was an alliance of European immigrants who took power in the cities of the industrial North and, well, agrarian racists in the South. That alliance broke down as the Democrats became the party of civil rights. In the South you had Dixiecrats switch from the Democrats to the Republicans, while in the North you had 'whites' leaving the cities and also switching over to the Republican Party.

maybe the problem is that word 'diverse'. Maybe just stick with the specifics of American history and compare them to other democracies and their specific history, and the differences and legacies will be more apparent.

edit: maybe this clarifies things--like, the reason there are only two parties to pick from the America is that one party always winds up being the party of racists. It was the Democrats, and then it was the Republicans. If the Republicans starting in the 60s had had the moral courage to never let the racists in, the history of America would look a lot different.

And yes, you are bang on about tribalism. But look at those former Yugoslavian countries now. Throw Northern Ireland into that mix. I'm not suggesting things are perfect by a long shot but if you give those tribes a responsibility on how to form the future for their people, by and large the leaders choose non-destructive paths.

This I'd agree with in America. edit: maybe an even better, simpler way to put this is that I don't think people of color in America are looking to settle any scores.

I think one of the keys issues is classical democracy relies on the enfranchised bloc to be educated in (or at least familiar with and respectful of) civics, logic, rhetoric, and critical thinking in order to participate successfully in the system. The rise of populism is a direct result of the undermining of this principle as people no longer engage with civics and instead are led by personality which, ninety-nine times out of ten, focuses on tactical frustrations rather than the maintenance and progress of government institutions.

In my darker hours I feel that we need a full reset to get anywhere close to returning to a place where fixing this is possible... Pred's 'The internet was a mistake' has become my mantra recently as I think communications technology has far outpaced our ability to filter and process information. Couple this with a general disregard for the classical educational components outline above and we exist in a twilight place where everything is known but nothing is contextualised or understood, and our individual frustrations are magnified and manifested by whoever howls the loudest into broad, ugly, totems of othering.

In short, I think democracy is unable to function healthily in the current Western technological, educational, economic and cultural context but I have no idea what the alternative is. I suspect the answer lies amongst the myriad societal experiments going on in other places, but the diseases that have been introduced and propogated by cultural hegemony are creeping and insidious and I worry that inoculation is prohibitive to the core values themselves...

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Axon wrote:

America is diverse but I not uniquely so. Belgium is made up of two completely different cultures that don't even share a language.

I'd say it's uniquely diverse. Like, if you're going to compare Belgium to America, it's more like if the Congo wasn't on another continent, but was the southern part of Belgium.

If you want to go by skin colour, then New Zealand has you beat. But I'm being petty and this is really for another thread (and one I think we had about American exceptionlism?) but long story short, there is really nothing particularly unique about the demographics of the US that will always result in division. The division is created by policy which relates back to how government is formed.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Axon wrote:

America is certainly a diverse but I contend that's it's problems are not the diverse nature of the country but how those diverse cultures get represented in government state and federal. People are divided because vast swathes of the country feel that they are not represented by anyone in government.

This is too abstract to capture how the history of that diversity gets America to where you see it today. The division you see in the country is a result of a Democratic Party that dominated government from the 30's until the 70s. When you hear about a time in America where things got done and American government worked, this is the period you're hearing about.

The dirty little secret is that the Democratic Party was able to get things done because it was an alliance of European immigrants who took power in the cities of the industrial North and, well, agrarian racists in the South. That alliance broke down as the Democrats became the party of civil rights. In the South you had Dixiecrats switch from the Democrats to the Republicans, while in the North you had 'whites' leaving the cities and also switching over to the Republican Party.

maybe the problem is that word 'diverse'. Maybe just stick with the specifics of American history and compare them to other democracies and their specific history, and the differences and legacies will be more apparent.

edit: maybe this clarifies things--like, the reason there are only two parties to pick from the America is that one party always winds up being the party of racists. It was the Democrats, and then it was the Republicans. If the Republicans starting in the 60s had had the moral courage to never let the racists in, the history of America would look a lot different.

Yes, yes and then Nixon formed the "South strategy" to get the racists to vote for him. And Roger Ailes was there too. It's almost compulsory for us Irish to know it as far back as the 1850s. But you break that system with my old dead horse, proportional representation.

Take Northern Ireland as an example. The Unionists gerrymandered it for years to secure Unionist majorities. There was violence for 40 years and everyone agreed Stormont needed to reflect the population better. Did the violent extremists go away? Nope. Are they getting elected? Oh, big time yes. But things are getting better while at the same time less reactionary parties like the UUP, SDLP and Alliance are gaining seats. Which has a virtuous cycle effect.

It's not perfect by a long shot but once people feel represented as opposed to feeling imposed we see better societies. I'm not saying the racists will go away, you just avoid the "all-or-nothing" type voting.

DC Malleus wrote:

I think one of the keys issues is classical democracy relies on the enfranchised bloc to be educated in (or at least familiar with and respectful of) civics, logic, rhetoric, and critical thinking in order to participate successfully in the system. The rise of populism is a direct result of the undermining of this principle as people no longer engage with civics and instead are led by personality which, ninety-nine times out of ten, focuses on tactical frustrations rather than the maintenance and progress of government institutions.

In my darker hours I feel that we need a full reset to get anywhere close to returning to a place where fixing this is possible... Pred's 'The internet was a mistake' has become my mantra recently as I think communications technology has far outpaced our ability to filter and process information. Couple this with a general disregard for the classical educational components outline above and we exist in a twilight place where everything is known but nothing is contextualised or understood, and our individual frustrations are magnified and manifested by whoever howls the loudest into broad, ugly, totems of othering.

In short, I think democracy is unable to function healthily in the current Western technological, educational, economic and cultural context but I have no idea what the alternative is. I suspect the answer lies amongst the myriad societal experiments going on in other places, but the diseases that have been introduced and propogated by cultural hegemony are creeping and insidious and I worry that inoculation is prohibitive to the core values themselves...

I would point out, DC Malleus, you live in the Mordoch sphere of influence. All of my issues with duopolies in political parties applies with the media. Again, it's not perfect elsewhere but it's fair to say that a media environment dominated by sober reporting and analysis does help an awful lot to alleviate the issue you raise.

trichy wrote:

So is the problem systemic, or cultural? If it's a systemic issue, that argues that there might be a way to adjust our government to allow for democracy to function the way it's supposed to. But if it is cultural, if the national attitude of independence over community is so deeply ingrained that any attempt to reform the system is doomed to failure, what then?

Regarding the States in particular, I think the problem is systemic, but the barriers against changing it are cultural (with a lot of encouragement from those who benefit from the system).
IMAGE(https://giphy.com/gifs/chris-odowd-tony-awards-good-losers-tBlhAndQZzfwc)

Axon wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Axon wrote:

America is diverse but I not uniquely so. Belgium is made up of two completely different cultures that don't even share a language.

I'd say it's uniquely diverse. Like, if you're going to compare Belgium to America, it's more like if the Congo wasn't on another continent, but was the southern part of Belgium.

If you want to go by skin colour, then New Zealand has you beat.

Er, no? Why would I go by that?

What's I'm going by is identity and history. How many of these other democracies could become majority minority countries? How many of them include a former colony as part of the home country? How many of them have populations that are today a minority, but could be assimilated into the majority to maintain majority rule? Stuff like that. That's the point I'm trying to make.

But I'm being petty and this is really for another thread (and one I think we had about American exceptionlism?) but long story short, there is really nothing particularly unique about the demographics of the US that will always result in division. The division is created by policy which relates back to how government is formed.
Yes, yes and then Nixon formed the "South strategy" to get the racists to vote for him. And Roger Ailes was there too. It's almost compulsory for us Irish to know it as far back as the 1850s. But you break that system with my old dead horse, proportional representation.

Well, we're back to you magic wand then, too ; D

How can you break a system with a tool that system will never allow in your hand in the first place?

Take Northern Ireland as an example. The Unionists gerrymandered it for years to secure Unionist majorities. There was violence for 40 years and everyone agreed Stormont needed to reflect the population better. Did the violent extremists go away? Nope. Are they getting elected? Oh, big time yes. But things are getting better while at the same time less reactionary parties like the UUP, SDLP and Alliance are gaining seats. Which has a virtuous cycle effect.

It's not perfect by a long shot but once people feel represented as opposed to feeling imposed we see better societies. I'm not saying the racists will go away, you just avoid the "all-or-nothing" type voting.

Uh, we don't have a problem with violent extremism among the people who don't feel represented in America, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this example. I don't think you're trying to say people of color in America should start engaging in acts of violence?

I think it boils down to this: sure, stuff like proportional representation is part of the solution. What I'm talking about is *how* you get the political power to institute things like that. You said "everyone agreed Stormont needed to reflect the population better." That will *so* not happen in America anytime soon.

Seeing as the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland started in the early 1960s, lets say I'll give you 40 years to campaign for it and not the "anytime soon" time frame. Or as I tend to joke during some large projects: We only need to boil this lake one pot at a time. There does seem to be several groups, like Stenagh's in Maine, getting the system changed at city level but the most prominent seems to be FairVote. Very Democrat heavy, I grant you, but just like the Labour Party in Britain realising that the liberal/progressive/left leaning space is becoming a crowded, they realise their party might have accept change to regain and return to power with some degree of certainty.

Perhaps reach out to these organisations and see what tactics they think will work in the long run? Nothing is happening now but that tends to be the way in campaigning in politics. Years of nothing and then it all happens in an instant. Feck, I was still unsure we'd ever repeal the 8th amendment even after decades of rattling away at it. Nobody is claiming it's easy, people will resist you, but if my time on this planet has taught me anything people can be convinced to do all sorts. Good and bad unfortunately.

But let's say you don't think grass-roots/bottom-up isn't enough. There are moves to reform the electoral college which removes the winner takes all system. One could hope that reform from the top and the bottom will have effects on both.

I really think this issue has quite fertile ground these days. I mean 15 years ago when I advocated for a proportional representation system on this forum it was viewed as crazy. Now, not so much.

Edit: As for the other questions, happy to discuss in another thread. Just getting a little off topic.

Axon wrote:

Seeing as the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland started in the early 1960s, lets say I'll give you 40 years to campaign for it and not the "anytime soon" time frame. Or as I tend to joke during some large projects: We only need to boil this lake one pot at a time. There does seem to be several groups, like Stenagh's in Maine, getting the system changed at city level but the most prominent seems to be FairVote. Very Democrat heavy, I grant you, but just like the Labour Party in Britain realising that the liberal/progressive/left leaning space is becoming a crowded, they realise their party might have accept change to regain and return to power with some degree of certainty.

Perhaps reach out to these organisations and see what tactics they think will work in the long run? Nothing is happening now but that tends to be the way in campaigning in politics. Years of nothing and then it all happens in an instant. Feck, I was still unsure we'd ever repeal the 8th amendment even after decades of rattling away at it. Nobody is claiming it's easy, people will resist you, but if my time on this planet has taught me anything people can be convinced to do all sorts. Good and bad unfortunately.

But let's say you don't think grass-roots/bottom-up isn't enough. There are moves to reform the electoral college which removes the winner takes all system. One could hope that reform from the top and the bottom will have effects on both.

I really think this issue has quite fertile ground these days. I mean 15 years ago when I advocated for a proportional representation system on this forum it was viewed as crazy. Now, not so much.

Edit: As for the other questions, happy to discuss in another thread. Just getting a little off topic.

Okay, but I don't see how that challenges anything I said (if anything, it leaves out the work that is being done already and has been since the 60s in America as well) besides the time frame, which if you're pushing things out to 40 years...um, okay.

It won't happen in an instant, it'll be a long, slow battle. Because it'll be because of long-term demographic changes unique to the American situation.

If anything, I sure *hope* those don't take 40 years to bear fruit!

In fact, there's stuff in the back of my mind through all this, and that I post in P&C a lot so sometimes I feel like I'm posting the same thing over and over, but given the specificity of this discussion, let me explain something that plays a huge role in my thinking:

American Politics is now the politics of Negative Partisanship

a lot of these reforms people are talking about are good, and there's even a limited place for them in a Negative Partisanship reality, but I think they assume lots of swing voters or that people vote based on issues and stuff like that.

Nope.

There's a political data researcher named Rachel Bitecofer. Her analysis (building on the work of others, but she really put it together and nailed the '18 mid-terms) shows that in America today, people have mostly sorted themselves into a partisan identity. There are very few true independents--instead, there are people who *say* they are independents, but will only vote for one party if they do vote.

So when you win an election in America today, very little of it was about convincing swing or third party voters with intelligent policy proposals, or even convincing your own party members of the details. Instead, it's all about reminding your partisans--and remember, almost everyone in America today is a partisan--about how much they hate the other party. Specifically, it's about triggering their fear of what the other party will do to them. Even more than what you promise to do for them.

So maybe that explains why (edit) I think it's about more than just these good government reforms, especially from a chicken-and-egg perspective. Elections in America today are not about appealing to the civic minded, they're about fear. Maybe someday they won't be. For now, though, they are.

If you're interested in American politics, her Twitter feed is really worth following (even if she lapses into anti-progressive dumbassery sometimes). She's written a lot, so in addition to that link above, you can find plenty of her stuff. Don't want to turn this into an election thread, so I'll just link this one. After a quick search, I think it's the one that most fully explains her theory as a long-term political trend:

Signs, Signs, Everywhere Are Signs: Why Democrats Will Win Big in the 2018 Midterms

I would think that giving it 40 years for US is laughably optimistic. It's rather naive to equate the Northern Ireland ..umm..process to US. When Axon mentions political violence, it wasnt some roleplay thugs showing up armed at town hall, it meant decades of terrorism. Weekly bombings on the streets. And THAT took 40 years for everyone involved basically..to getting exhausted on both sides and certain changes were made.

US seems to be in permanent stupor and mostly it boils down to stupefying media shellshock, both tv and social.
If we disregard the extreme violence angle, then perhaps the battle has to be faught on the media side. Certain ideas can be made cool. Yeah, it sounds weird to even say that but maybe Great Meme Wars will be how we remember this period all around the world.
If that fails..well, dont underestimate the capacity of established systems push people way too far and then the rich or the perceived rich and the establishment might find themselves hanging by the lamp posts and future historians will be like "the elites had it so good, how did they manage to f*ck that up?"

I also want to note that even though I tend to be disdainful of US situation, by no means I feel as if its the only country in the world. Its just that its so easy to exemplify since many trends in US politics are pushed at such extremes.
All ovee the world we have way too much power for rich dumplings who can manipulate democracy as they see fit. And neither is it a new phenomena of course. We are perhaps just more aware of it if we pay even just the modicum of attention since information flows way more freely these days.
World is currently hinging on bread and circuses and there definitely is being less and less of bread thown at the plebs. And circuses might be not enough at some point.

Most wrote:

US seems to be in permanent stupor and mostly it boils down to stupefying media shellshock, both tv and social.

Seriously, read that stuff I posted from Rachel Bitecofer (or her other stuff). There's a lot of political movement that has happened in America over the last couple of years, let alone decades. It boils down to hyper-polarization (whatever the story of how America got there), but Democrats outnumber Republicans.

The difference is Republicans are always triggered. Republicans show up for every election because, well, I personally think that it's a simple answer: of *course* conservatives are always triggered. That's what it means to be conservative: to be more fearful of new things and change.

Democrats are not as fearful. That makes sense because the parties have sorted into conservative and liberal (or at least non-conservative). So they don't vote as reliably as Republicans. Until now--Trump has triggered Democrats in America. That's why you saw Democrats in '18 able to overcome even the gerrymanders of '10.

It didn't take 40 years. It took Trump to trigger Democrats, because of Demographics.

The one big structural problem is the Senate and the way Americans have sorted into the two parties, and one party dominates many small states each of which get as many senators as any of the big ones.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Most wrote:

US seems to be in permanent stupor and mostly it boils down to stupefying media shellshock, both tv and social.

Seriously, read that stuff I posted from Rachel Bitecofer (or her other stuff). There's a lot of political movement that has happened in America over the last couple of years, let alone decades. It boils down to hyper-polarization (whatever the story of how America got there), but Democrats outnumber Republicans.

The difference is Republicans are always triggered. Republicans show up for every election because, well, I personally think that it's a simple answer: of *course* conservatives are always triggered. That's what it means to be conservative: to be more fearful of new things and change.

Democrats are not as fearful. That makes sense because the parties have sorted into conservative and liberal (or at least non-conservative). So they don't vote as reliably as Republicans. Until now--Trump has triggered Democrats in America. That's why you saw Democrats in '18 able to overcome even the gerrymanders of '10.

It didn't take 40 years. It took Trump to trigger Democrats, because of Demographics.

The one big structural problem is the Senate and the way Americans have sorted into the two parties, and one party dominates many small states each of which get as many senators as any of the big ones.

So change it. Oh, wait, you can't.

trichy wrote:

It definitely feels like once you pass a certain point, the very mechanisms designed to protect the population become the exact tools that are used to suppress any concrete oppositions.

Your broader post was about how white nationalism is not specifically a problem of the US, and I agree with that.

However, it's worth keeping in mind with the US that it was explicitly and purposefully founded as a racist white nation. The system was designed from the ground up to disenfranchise and oppress minorities, and the tools to reinforce that and prevent change were baked in.

The whole country was built on racism just as much as apartheid South Africa or Rhodesia. The fact that the country continually tips back to rule by wealthy white men is because it was always meant to do exactly that.

The tools being used by white nationalist groups today and people like Trump and McConnell aren't being coopted. Those tools were always meant to be used to do exactly what they're doing. The difficulty of changing those structures? That was by design, as well.

Most wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Most wrote:

US seems to be in permanent stupor and mostly it boils down to stupefying media shellshock, both tv and social.

Seriously, read that stuff I posted from Rachel Bitecofer (or her other stuff). There's a lot of political movement that has happened in America over the last couple of years, let alone decades. It boils down to hyper-polarization (whatever the story of how America got there), but Democrats outnumber Republicans.

The difference is Republicans are always triggered. Republicans show up for every election because, well, I personally think that it's a simple answer: of *course* conservatives are always triggered. That's what it means to be conservative: to be more fearful of new things and change.

Democrats are not as fearful. That makes sense because the parties have sorted into conservative and liberal (or at least non-conservative). So they don't vote as reliably as Republicans. Until now--Trump has triggered Democrats in America. That's why you saw Democrats in '18 able to overcome even the gerrymanders of '10.

It didn't take 40 years. It took Trump to trigger Democrats, because of Demographics.

The one big structural problem is the Senate and the way Americans have sorted into the two parties, and one party dominates many small states each of which get as many senators as any of the big ones.

So change it. Oh, wait, you can't.

There's quite a lot of distance between "permanent stupor" and "the people getting in the way are easily and accurately identified among the members of a 100 person body."

But those 100 are by no means a monolith or unchanging. The best thing about politics is it's a game you can get involved in and don't have to sit in the stands. Sure, the other side might cheat but I love winning those games all the more. You and many others have just been convinced that they is no point playing anymore. Now, why do you think you have been left with that feeling?

Axon wrote:

But those 100 are by no means a monolith or unchanging. The best thing about politics is it's a game you can get involved in and don't have to sit in the stands. Sure, the other side might cheat but I love winning those games all the more. You and many others have just been convinced that they is no point playing anymore. Now, why do you think you have been left with that feeling?

That's wrong though--they haven't been left with that feeling, certainly not to the extent that it makes winning elections impossible.

Seriously, check out the Bitecofer research!

A huge number of those people who call themselves independents are actually partisan. If they don't get involved, it's because they're not scared enough. Scare them with "the other side is going to do nasty things to you!" and they come out and vote.

Sure, there are some true independent swing voters who may think there's no point. Some of the far left can be peeled off with stoking those feelings that there's no difference between the two parties. There are a lot of people who are politically uninvolved, and I'm sure some of them are that way because they just don't see the point.

None of that changes the fact that there's a *whole* lot of people who can be motivated by fear of the other side. Enough that they can produce not just a political wave, but a tsunami like '18, where even with all the gerrymandering done in '10, the Democrats were able to win a ridiculous number of races.

All these big, structural changes are good and I agree with them. All these wide cultural changes would be good and I agree with them. They're not necessary to win elections, though. There's a very sufficient number of them that you don't have to convince there's a point, because they already know there's a point. You have to remind them of how much they hate the other side.

You don't need a constitutional amendment to get Democrats to realize the political ground has shifted, and start maximizing their resources by turning out their base instead of squandering them by trying to appeal to a political middle that just doesn't exist anymore. You just need the centrists to get their heads out of their behinds.

Was poking around, and found one of those sources Bitecofer probably built on, and this one is from before the '16 election and I think really gets it across concisely (LINK):

The results displayed in Figure 1 show that party supporters’ ratings of their own party have changed very little over this time period. The average rating by voters of their own party went from 72 degrees in 1980 to 70 degrees in 2012. In contrast, voters’ feelings toward the opposing party have fallen sharply over this time period. The average rating of the opposing party fell from 45 degrees in 1980 to 30 degrees in 2012. Moreover, this increasing negativity toward the opposing party affected all types of party supporters. Between 1980 and 2012, the mean rating of the opposing party on the feeling thermometer scale fell from 41 degrees to 24 degrees among strong party identifiers, from 47 degrees to 36 degrees among weak party identifiers, and from 48 degrees to 35 degrees among leaning independents.

Today, far larger proportions of Democratic and Republican voters hold strongly negative views of the opposing party than in the past. In 1980, 55% of voters gave the opposing party a neutral or positive rating while only 27% gave the opposing party a rating of 30 degrees or lower. By contrast, in 2012 only 26% of voters gave the opposing party a neutral or positive rating while 56% gave the opposing party a rating of 30 degrees or lower.

People are more negative about politics, but it's wrong to say they're confused or they don't know what might make things better.

or more accurately, make things less worse. They believe they know--oh boy, do they ever believe they know: it's the other side. There doesn't seem to be any doubt in their minds.

I think all this adds up to a different picture of the American voter: they're not sitting it out, waiting for nobility to be restored to our civic life. Someone who promises to defend them from the other side is good enough for now.

(The article states it's both R's and D's, but I still tried to find those numbers broken down into R's and D's just to make sure it's not just increasingly negative R's pulling the average down but couldn't. I don't see any reason to think it's just R's though--the results in '18 and everything I've read in the Bitecofer stuff makes it clear that it's a significant D phenomenon as well)

I don't think Most is saying the American voter is in a permanent stupor, but rather the entire governmental/electoral/media system as a whole.

Well, if the American voter isn't lost, then the system as a whole isn't nearly as lost. Like I said, Democrats had a *huge* wave election in 2018, and that came after losing so many elections since 2010.

Im kinda feeling two ways about all the voters. Like..99% of people I know have healthy enough common sense and then election comes and some stupid sh*t happens. I gather its the same for americans here. Means we really really live in a bubble. I get glimpses at it at bars and parks where poor peeps chat casually about politics and usually they get excited about the next show monkey with shiny feathers and a banana they throw to masses time to time.
My faith in people has deteriorated heavily since my thirties.
Then again, there *can* be inspiring moments. They are rare but sometimes people gather around more idealistic movements. The last couple of years have been real crapshow of social media manipulation which coincides with the fact that social media has established itself firmly in the mainest of mainstream now, covering all ages, classes etc.
My feeling is that the manipulative noise is here to stay forever now and any kind of positive movement will be forever fragmented from now on.
Can democracy function in such a noise? Technically yes, because sure- there is voting and stuff. But with peeps basically being mentally hacked by fb and twitter...its just a technicality in a way.

The folks that complain loudest about America's diversity do so because they wish to restrict the franchise of full citizenship to one particular race and cultural background. It is their intransigence on widening the acceptance of other peoples that makes the country ungovernable, not the arrival of immigrants. This is not new. It is precisely the same sh*t they pulled on the Irish, Italians, Jews, and Eastern and Southern Europeans. Now they want to extend that cultural bigotry against people who have been here longer than they have (i.e.: Latin Americans).

If diversity is a problem for governance, it is a white problem.

I was always taught that the entire point of America was being diverse. The Great Melting Pot was a very strong theme here, the idea that we were stronger with lots of cultures interacting, making a greater whole out of the sum of the parts. Of course, while I was being taught that, minorities were learning quite different lessons.

We often haven't been very good at living up to our ideals, but at least we used to have them.

Paleocon wrote:

The folks that complain loudest about America's diversity do so because they wish to restrict the franchise of full citizenship to one particular race and cultural background. It is their intransigence on widening the acceptance of other peoples that makes the country ungovernable, not the arrival of immigrants.

Well, it's more complicated than that.

This is not new. It is precisely the same sh*t they pulled on the Irish, Italians, Jews, and Eastern and Southern Europeans.

Like I said on the other page, the America from the New Deal to Nixon that we think of as being the height of American democracy was ruled by a Democratic party that kept a peace between two groups: the European ethnic industrial North and the neo-Confederate agrarian South. When the Democratic party became the party of civil rights, that tore the country apart, and led to Whites having to open up the books of Whiteness to those Europeans to keep supremacy.

So America is this sad paradox: you've got a country that went from WASP bigotry towards European Catholics to one where Evangelicals keep putting Catholics (and often Jesuit trained!) on the Supreme Court to protect Christian 'religious liberty'. Integration in America is as much a story of reinforcing racism as it is of acceptance.

That's not new--even Native American were caught up in a system of reinforcing racism in an attempt to become more white.

Now they want to extend that cultural bigotry against people who have been here longer than they have (i.e.: Latin Americans).

Well, not exactly. You can see the smart racists in the Republican party were trying to flip things around and do with Latin Americans what people like Reagan did with European Catholic Americans. Demographics Are Not Destiny if you can keep moving the goalposts on who is and is not 'white'. This was Jeb!'s job, until Trump came down that escalator and crushed the project like that tire rolling over Phil Leotardo's head in The Sopranos.

If diversity is a problem for governance, it is a white problem.

The problem is the political unit of the colonizer did not leave the colonies behind in America. That is also its greatest opportunity. For a country of America's size and strength to become a majority minority country.

Sure, there's another history where the Union loses, the American South become a South Africa of the western hemisphere, and the North winds up in political union with Canada. Like I said, one America based on the St. Lawrence, another America based on the Mississippi.

I don't know how that timeline plays out. Maybe it's better, maybe it's worse. It means a much lower chance of the America of Trump and his legacy. It also means no chance for Obama's America and his legacy of a Coalition of the Ascendant, either.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The folks that complain loudest about America's diversity do so because they wish to restrict the franchise of full citizenship to one particular race and cultural background. It is their intransigence on widening the acceptance of other peoples that makes the country ungovernable, not the arrival of immigrants.

Well, it's more complicated than that.

This is not new. It is precisely the same sh*t they pulled on the Irish, Italians, Jews, and Eastern and Southern Europeans.

Like I said on the other page, the America from the New Deal to Nixon that we think of as being the height of American democracy was ruled by a Democratic party that kept a peace between two groups: the European ethnic industrial North and the neo-Confederate agrarian South. When the Democratic party became the party of civil rights, that tore the country apart, and led to Whites having to open up the books of Whiteness to those Europeans to keep supremacy.

So America is this sad paradox: you've got a country that went from WASP bigotry towards European Catholics to one where Evangelicals keep putting Catholics (and often Jesuit trained!) on the Supreme Court to protect Christian 'religious liberty'. Integration in America is as much a story of reinforcing racism as it is of acceptance.

That's not new--even Native American were caught up in a system of reinforcing racism in an attempt to become more white.

Now they want to extend that cultural bigotry against people who have been here longer than they have (i.e.: Latin Americans).

Well, not exactly. You can see the smart racists in the Republican party were trying to flip things around and do with Latin Americans what people like Reagan did with European Catholic Americans. Demographics Are Not Destiny if you can keep moving the goalposts on who is and is not 'white'. This was Jeb!'s job, until Trump came down that escalator and crushed the project like that tire rolling over Phil Leotardo's head in The Sopranos.

If diversity is a problem for governance, it is a white problem.

The problem is the political unit of the colonizer did not leave the colonies behind in America. That is also its greatest opportunity. For a country of America's size and strength to become a majority minority country.

Sure, there's another history where the Union loses, the American South become a South Africa of the western hemisphere, and the North winds up in political union with Canada. Like I said, one America based on the St. Lawrence, another America based on the Mississippi.

I don't know how that timeline plays out. Maybe it's better, maybe it's worse. It means a much lower chance of the America of Trump and his legacy. It also means no chance for Obama's America and his legacy of a Coalition of the Ascendant, either.

Obama was an okay president, but I feel like he betrayed the left that put him there, and he talked a better game about hope and change then actually walking it. I did just about everything right, and I'm *still* dirt poor and jobless, and approaching 40. I'm *never* going to be middle class. This recent depression slammed the door on that thin beam of hope. America has always been failing since I was born. I'm ready for it to end. I just hope it's sooner rather then later.

Drazzil wrote:

Obama was an okay president, but I feel like he betrayed the left that put him there, and he talked a better game about hope and change then actually walking it. I did just about everything right, and I'm *still* dirt poor and jobless, and approaching 40. I'm *never* going to be middle class. This recent depression slammed the door on that thin beam of hope. America has always been failing since I was born. I'm ready for it to end. I just hope it's sooner rather then later.

Man, I cannot tell you how much I could have written (edit) parts of that myself. So I know what you're talking about. The Obama Presidency and its failures even resulted in me being, basically, in lockdown for most of the last decade, and right when it looked like I might get to rejoin society, they cancelled Outside.

So I feel it, man do I feel it.

However, maybe it's my fault for not being clear in trying to draw a contrast between Trumpworld and Obamaland, but it's bigger than Obama. I'd even go so far as to say he didn't just let down the left, but he let down his own larger coalition.

What his election represented, however, was a new future for America. For the world. The possibility that a country the size and strength of America could be run by a coalition where people of color are essential members. The capacity for that to change this country, to change this world cannot be overstated.

Even if it leaves behind people like me, and maybe you.

I'd love to live in a country that was a political union of Canada and the Union. I also know that happens in a timeline where the global north gets to walk away from the global south completely. I can't help but think that's a better timeline for me, but a much worse timeline for most of the rest of the world. Certainly for the people of the States that would have been left out of The Laurentian States of America.

I know it sucks for me. (edit) So much of you wrote I could write myself, so I know exactly how it sucks. I also still have a hope for a better future for the many, even if it won't be for me.

(edits just because in my case it was sicknesses that took everything, so our stories aren't *exactly* the same as I first read them)

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Drazzil wrote:

Obama was an okay president, but I feel like he betrayed the left that put him there, and he talked a better game about hope and change then actually walking it. I did just about everything right, and I'm *still* dirt poor and jobless, and approaching 40. I'm *never* going to be middle class. This recent depression slammed the door on that thin beam of hope. America has always been failing since I was born. I'm ready for it to end. I just hope it's sooner rather then later.

Man, I cannot tell you how much I could have written (edit) parts of that myself. So I know what you're talking about. The Obama Presidency and its failures even resulted in me being, basically, in lockdown for most of the last decade, and right when it looked like I might get to rejoin society, they cancelled Outside.

So I feel it, man do I feel it.

However, maybe it's my fault for not being clear in trying to draw a contrast between Trumpworld and Obamaland, but it's bigger than Obama. I'd even go so far as to say he didn't just let down the left, but he let down his own larger coalition.

What his election represented, however, was a new future for America. For the world. The possibility that a country the size and strength of America could be run by a coalition where people of color are essential members. The capacity for that to change this country, to change this world cannot be overstated.

Even if it leaves behind people like me, and maybe you.

I'd love to live in a country that was a political union of Canada and the Union. I also know that happens in a timeline where the global north gets to walk away from the global south completely. I can't help but think that's a better timeline for me, but a much worse timeline for most of the rest of the world. Certainly for the people of the States that would have been left out of The Laurentian States of America.

I know it sucks for me. (edit) So much of you wrote I could write myself, so I know exactly how it sucks. I also still have a hope for a better future for the many, even if it won't be for me.

(edits just because in my case it was sicknesses that took everything, so our stories aren't *exactly* the same as I first read them)

See. Theres the diff between you and I. I won't root for/work towards/campaign for a nation that'll leave me behind for the sake of staying together. IMO that's not just foolish, its borderline stockholm syndrome. Not only that, it's the same decision every minority and disenfranchized person in this country has decided to make since the founding of this country (hows that worked out for them? Really?) The people who gave Trump his victory, the actively hateful stupid and misled Faux news Trumpaloo's didn't just screw up their own country, they betrayed everything America was *supposed* to be. They PUT us in this sh*t. I say let em go wallow in their own filth.

Maybe in 20-30 years when they become Africa or South America they can come crawling back to the US and we will rebuild them. But they don't get any voting rights for a generation (maybe two!) and we of the Canadian Pacific Union won't spend one thin dime rebuilding them. We will only use and administer THEIR blood sweat and treasure. If we did anything else we would be in the SAME place in a generation.

I won't damn another generation to this bs. Let beds be laid in, let suffering happen so lessons can be learned and we can go from there.

This is why I voted for Drumph in 16. I figured he would either be the best president ever or result in imploding the system. Further suffering for me or the working class who would have been just as neglected under Clinton, who would have kept this awful racist oglarchy crawling along for another 8 was just... not in the cards for me.

I pulled the lever for T in a safe state, but I know there were more marginalized wage slaves and locked out desperate working class ppl in swing states who made the same calculations in their head as I did. Prolly enough to throw it to Trump so we could witness the end of this farce writ large.

Drazzil wrote:

I pulled the lever for T in a safe state, but I know there were more marginalized wage slaves and locked out desperate working class ppl in swing states who made the same calculations in their head as I did. Prolly enough to throw it to Trump so we could witness the end of this farce writ large.

So in your calculus... what comes next? Did we see the end of the farce as you had hoped? Do we need another four years of Trump? We only have two choices, really.

It also sounds like the most important thing is to dismantle America, due to its current faults, one way or another whether we can create a progressive utopia or eliminate black and brown people.

Removing one's frustration is not the most important thing and will never completely happen. We have to work together. We only lose when we stop or listen to those who divide us.

Are there any historical examples where electing an unqualified, racist, wannabe strongman resulted in net positive change? To me this sounds a bit like wanting to “implode the system” and end the farce that was the Weimar Republic.

gewy wrote:

To me this sounds a bit like wanting to “implode the system” and end the farce that was the Weimar Republic.

Trading the Weimar Republic for post-war Germany probably sounds like a good deal if you're not a Jew, a person of color, gay, disabled, or a Communist.