The Age of Ideologues: how do we resurrect pragmatism and good-faith governance?

[12ga.]

LOL Democrats are no better my friend.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-coming-collapse/

The Clintons the Schummers, DLC democrats are creations of corporate America and aided and abetted the plutocracy hand in hand with their Republican colleagues..


When they are in power do they hire nobel prize winners like Joe Stiglitz to run things? Hell no they hire same wall street bankers Republicans do. Who do you think repealed Glass Stegall and put everyone life savings and whole economy in Wall Street casino?

As far as how? No way until we get money out of running for Politics which will never happen since ones voting are the ones benefiting from existing system or catastrophic collapse. But thats very dangerous. Fascism could come or good governance again. Could go either way.

 

[asdffdsa]

Artificial intelligence

 

[franklinstower]

Actually, I think you wrote correctly, and I wrote poorly – my apologies for that.

I meant to say "Publicly funded campaigns? No! Are you crazy?" Why should we pay for Anthony Weiner's mayoral candidacy after he already got busted tweeting his namesake body part? You wanna pay for Larry Flynt to run? Vermin Supreme? Dennis Hastert? Stormy Daniels? Don Blankenship? Fuck no. Nobody does. It's a fun thought, but hell no we don't want publicly funded campaigns.

I think you vastly underestimate the damage done by money in politics. It is the ONLY reason that the federal government has not sided with the people VS corporate interests in 30 years.

If we got money out of politics we would have a real democracy and in every way people would have better lives.

 

[Denter]

Has the country actually gotten more right-wing? I think the right has moved right quickly, and the left has moved left to a lesser extent. The center is probably more left now than it's been in a while. Right-wing economic policy has probably never been less popular.

1920-1970 was a unique time in history for reasons not directly related to politics that might weigh on politics. Most of the improvement in human living standards occurred during that period (and most of the improvement that didn't occur in that period occurred in the 50 years immediately preceding it or the 48 years since--so pretty much all in the past 150 years). You could argue that the liberal consensus was both a cause and a result of the explosive improvement in quality of life. And the slowdown in growth since then could be both an effect and a cause of the cracking of the liberal consensus.

It also had unique levels of trust in government, unique levels of social consensus, and generally higher levels of social trust than existed before or after.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It also had unique levels of trust in government, unique levels of social consensus, and generally higher levels of social trust than existed before or after.

Hmm. I'm pretty sure that's not true. Don't know what you're looking at, though.

 

[kpt018]

You win the war of ideas by presenting your ideas more persuasively. I disagree with a lot of what the GOP has done recently but their success speaks to their ability to present their message in such a way that enough people will support it. Complaining that it's a bad message misses the point.

It's not flawed ideology. That's a misrepresentation. It's an ideology that only serves a limited few.

In many ways, this conversation goes back to the modern weaponization of identity politics by Nixon to turn the South to the GOP. Nixon pitted white voters against black voters to ensure GOP success for decades to come by using racial tension to secure a greater percentage of the white vote. And it was a perfectly fine strategy except he never calculated on the demographics changing significantly.

A good short term plan, a bad long term one.

When you say "war of ideas" what are you referring to exactly as it pertains to Republicans?

From my perspective they push really unpopular policies but get support through other ways (appealing to tribalism and lying, primarily), so I don't actually see it as a war of ideas unless you mean something else.

 

[panamaican]

When you say "war of ideas" what are you referring to exactly as it pertains to Republicans?

From my perspective they push really unpopular policies but get support through other ways (appealing to tribalism and lying, primarily), so I don't actually see it as a war of ideas unless you mean something else.

It's still the war of ideas. Even if they're lying or appealing to tribalism to sell some aspect of their policies, that doesn't take it out of the war of ideas. Nothing requires them to sell their ideas in a way that appeals to you or someone else so long as their model appeals to their intended audience.

 

[kpt018]

It's still the war of ideas. Even if they're lying or appealing to tribalism to sell some aspect of their policies, that doesn't take it out of the war of ideas. Nothing requires them to sell their ideas in a way that appeals to you or someone else so long as their model appeals to their intended audience.

I'll begrudgingly grant you lying here (you're right, but it's ugly) but appealing to tribalism is actually an attempt to gain support by avoiding the war of ideas. They do it specifically because their policy positions are not popular. I get what you're saying here but if we're talking about policy, the right is not winning that war of ideas, they're winning other battles that aren't even ideas. Convincing someone to vote for you despite their dislike of your ideas because they like you more or dislike your opponent more isn't winning the war of ideas, it's winning the war of feelings.

So you're not wrong, but we have a disconnect on which ideas are being battled. If you want to say both sides are waging a war of ideas based on identity politics I agree with you. If we are talking about policy I do not agree with you (the right tries but they badly lose yet still win elections).

 

[Falsedawn]

Maybe in 2000, but not anymore.

The entire reason why we even have the issue of limitless money in politics is because of conservative pioneers like NCPAC and Citizens United. How in the hell can you say that conservatives are in favor of getting lobbyist money out of politics when they're the entire reason things are in the state they are? That's pretty disingenuous no? Maybe i'm misunderstanding.

 

[InternetHero]

Hmm it is quite the question.

I feel the answer is in a single word: Trust.

If Americans can see past wanting everything and sacrificing nothing, that there is more to gain from long term compromise and caring than short term conquests and loathing, we can build again.

The mistrust though has deep, deep roots.

Deeper than the deep state, wider than a Kardashian posterior adorning the most Oval of offices, greener with envy than Baron Von Trump's money clip, and more callow in nature than a whole closest full of Hillary Clinton pant suits.

Why did we trust each other in the past? Why were we more understanding of each other?

I don't think it is so much a political question than a question of where the American people's search for the future is leading them.

What do Americans want for their future? What do they see when they look across Blue and Red State borders? What are we teaching them to think about each other?

If I had to have one piece of cultural advice, it would be to get our facts from better places.

The left ought to avoid mixing mockery of everything with news, the Daily Show or Colbert's rank cynicism are toxic, and it almost goes without saying that anyone listening to talk radio or most Fox News personalities is in peril of losing IQ points.

 

[Gutter Chris]

I think that once you work as an elected official you should never be able to hold a job or earn money ever again. Pay them there salary for life so that no one can go work for some company the second they get out of office and get paid the bribe money.

 

[unimackpass]

Sometimes it takes people a lot of time to give up on their delusions.
I'll hand it to Hitchens that he was honest enough to allow himself to see reality over ideology. All to often pride and anger will abort the process.

 

[panamaican]

I'll begrudgingly grant you lying here (you're right, but it's ugly) but appealing to tribalism is actually an attempt to gain support by avoiding the war of ideas. They do it specifically because their policy positions are not popular. I get what you're saying here but if we're talking about policy, the right is not winning that war of ideas, they're winning other battles that aren't even ideas. Convincing someone to vote for you despite their dislike of your ideas because they like you more or dislike your opponent more isn't winning the war of ideas, it's winning the war of feelings.

So you're not wrong, but we have a disconnect on which ideas are being battled. If you want to say both sides are waging a war of ideas based on identity politics I agree with you. If we are talking about policy I do not agree with you (the right tries but they badly lose yet still win elections).

But tribalism is an idea. And the model seems to be "Our tribe should support these ideas. Their tribe supports those ideas. Are you in our tribe - proven by your support by these ideas? Or are you in their tribe - proven by support for those ideas?"

It's probably the most core element in the war of ideas. The idea of which tribe you're in.

 

[franklinstower]

I'll begrudgingly grant you lying here (you're right, but it's ugly) but appealing to tribalism is actually an attempt to gain support by avoiding the war of ideas. They do it specifically because their policy positions are not popular. I get what you're saying here but if we're talking about policy, the right is not winning that war of ideas, they're winning other battles that aren't even ideas. Convincing someone to vote for you despite their dislike of your ideas because they like you more or dislike your opponent more isn't winning the war of ideas, it's winning the war of feelings.

So you're not wrong, but we have a disconnect on which ideas are being battled. If you want to say both sides are waging a war of ideas based on identity politics I agree with you. If we are talking about policy I do not agree with you (the right tries but they badly lose yet still win elections).

This is why we have to get money out of politics in order to see the fruits of a true democracy. What the majority of people really want is not being put into policy at all.

 

[Darth_Inv1ctu5]

In post-Reagan, post-Gingrich, and post-McConnell America, the Republican Party has increasingly advocated policy making (and obstruction of policy making) that is empirically indefensible, from financial deregulation and insistence on long-debunked trickle-down economics, to repealing of environmental and consumer welfare laws, to furthering voter ID laws that are known to be frivolous, based on nonexistent premises, and which only serve to disenfranchise voters.

This may be ultra-partisanship, outright corruption, or as more optimistic persons like @Jack V Savage believe, actual commitment to flawed ideology. This disregard for good faith governance was recently epitomized by the budget-busting 2017 tax cuts.

However, it was not always like this, and during the years of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon conservatives engaged in good faith reaches across the aisle to pass laws on topics like progressive taxation, environmental regulation, consumer protections, and labor organizing rights. Today, conservatives championing social programs, graduated tax brackets, and regulation of industry for the good of the American people would be nearly sacrilegious.


How do we recapture the pre-Reagan days of good faith governance that allows Democrats and Republicans to agree on meritorious policies that do not fit an ideological agenda of deregulation, upward distribution, or (if you are to represent that the Democrats are ideologues as well) social justice?

Purge: DC Edition IRL

 

[Denter]

I'll begrudgingly grant you lying here (you're right, but it's ugly) but appealing to tribalism is actually an attempt to gain support by avoiding the war of ideas. They do it specifically because their policy positions are not popular. I get what you're saying here but if we're talking about policy, the right is not winning that war of ideas, they're winning other battles that aren't even ideas. Convincing someone to vote for you despite their dislike of your ideas because they like you more or dislike your opponent more isn't winning the war of ideas, it's winning the war of feelings.

So you're not wrong, but we have a disconnect on which ideas are being battled. If you want to say both sides are waging a war of ideas based on identity politics I agree with you. If we are talking about policy I do not agree with you (the right tries but they badly lose yet still win elections).

The idea that there is a "we" is an idea.

 

[Denter]

I think that once you work as an elected official you should never be able to hold a job or earn money ever again. Pay them there salary for life so that no one can go work for some company the second they get out of office and get paid the bribe money.

Where is our American Lycurgus?

 

[kpt018]

But tribalism is an idea. And the model seems to be "Our tribe should support these ideas. Their tribe supports those ideas. Are you in our tribe - proven by your support by these ideas? Or are you in their tribe - proven by support for those ideas?"

It's probably the most core element in the war of ideas. The idea of which tribe you're in.

The idea that there is a "we" is an idea.

I'm not disputing any of that. What I am saying is that when we discuss good faith governance we should be clear and specific about what that means as it pertains to the war of ideas. We should want good faith, fact based attempts to present your ideas or your side and the best ideas win out. What we have is lying and tribalism which get in the way of that.

I take both your points that tribalism is a form of war of ideas, but it's the one we need to get away from politically. It's the very reason we're in this fucking mess. And I'm not naive here, tribalism seems to be human nature and will likely always exist. But we're at a point in society and in politics that it's just totally toxic and blinds us to even acknowledging the truth.

What I'm trying to convey is that tribalism and appeals to tribalism are an attempt to change the war of ideas (away from policy and towards affinity). And most voters aren't interested in policy and care mostly about tribes and affinities.

One more final point. Tribalism is an idea but membership need not be based on actual ideas. The color of your skin, the country in which you were born, the team you root for, etc. is often enough. It's based on affinities, not deep ideology. Of course it can and often is based on ideology as well.

 

[panamaican]

I'm not disputing any of that. What I am saying is that when we discuss good faith governance we should be clear and specific about what that means as it pertains to the war of ideas. We should want good faith, fact based attempts to present your ideas or your side and the best ideas win out. What we have is lying and tribalism which get in the way of that.

I take both your points that tribalism is a form of war of ideas, but it's the one we need to get away from politically. It's the very reason we're in this fucking mess. And I'm not naive here, tribalism seems to be human nature and will likely always exist. But we're at a point in society and in politics that it's just totally toxic and blinds us to even acknowledging the truth.

What I'm trying to convey is that tribalism and appeals to tribalism are an attempt to change the war of ideas (away from policy and towards affinity). And most voters aren't interested in policy and care mostly about tribes and affinities.

One more final point. Tribalism is an idea but membership need not be based on actual ideas. The color of your skin, the country in which you were born, the team you root for, etc. is often enough. It's based on affinities, not deep ideology. Of course it can and often is based on ideology as well.

Tribalism is not an attempt to change the war of ideas. It is the first battle in the war of ideas.

And while you might deem it toxic, that's part of the problem. Obviously, a decent subset of the population is still hung up on that question. Dismissing it is ceding that first battle.

You see part of why the identity politics conversation continues is because of this battle. "Side A" is arguing that there are 2 distinct tribes and that helping the other tribe means hurting their tribe. "Side B" is arguing that there is one tribe with different subgroups and that all subgroups deserve help.

Unless the "Side B" convinces the 2 tribe group of the idea that it's one tribe, they will always fail in their efforts. Because Side B's secondary ideas are predicated on Side A's idea about 1 vs 2 tribes is wrong.

That has to be the first battle. 1 tribe or 2?

 

[kpt018]

Tribalism is not an attempt to change the war of ideas. It is the first battle in the war of ideas.

And while you might deem it toxic, that's part of the problem. Obviously, a decent subset of the population is still hung up on that question. Dismissing it is ceding that first battle.

You see part of why the identity politics conversation continues is because of this battle. "Side A" is arguing that there are 2 distinct tribes and that helping the other tribe means hurting their tribe. "Side B" is arguing that there is one tribe with different subgroups and that all subgroups deserve help.

Unless the "Side B" convinces the 2 tribe group of the idea that it's one tribe, they will always fail in their efforts. Because Side B's secondary ideas are predicated on Side A's idea about 1 vs 2 tribes is wrong.

That has to be the first battle. 1 tribe or 2?

If tribalism is the first battle on the war of ideas it cannot be based on sound ideology, right? If idea A is used to get people into your tribe you won the war of idea A first, now they're in your tribe. If tribalism is coming first then it's based on affinities and feelings and that is my point. We're tribal by nature. Being born into a village makes you part of that tribe before you can even form ideas (happens as a kid). Politically, sound ideas must come before we enter a tribe or we're fucking doomed. Like, how can you be a Republican without knowing what the platform is and seeing if that maps on to your world view? Don't you want Republicans to win the idea that we should have a smaller, restricted and disciplined government to get more voters into your tribe? Or you want blind loyalty and they'll agree to the ideas later to remain in the tribe?

I get that tribalism is part of politics and part of our society, but if we care about good, sound policy we want our ideas to drive the tribalism not the other way around or at least a much better balance.