Cont: Trump's Coup - Part 3

[BobTheCoward]

Look at European history and the struggles between Catholics and Protestants. Having a population that is split on ideology and culture is a problem.

Which isn't the split in the US. Both parties are majority protestant and share the same culture, most people in both parties live in cities.

 

[shuttlt]

Which isn't the split in the US.

No. I was giving you an example of an ideological rather than a tribal/racial split that had caused problems. The split in the US at the moment is ideological. Ultimately one either has to be willing to use hard power to force the 40% to submit, as in 1860, or one has to be prepared to compromise even though one has a majority.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No. I was giving you an example of an ideological rather than a tribal/racial split that had caused problems. The split in the US at the moment is ideological. Ultimately one either has to be willing to use hard power to force the 40% to submit, as in 1860, or one has to be prepared to compromise even though one has a majority.

Can you give an example of a split on ideas that isn't ideological? It is unclear on what you see as the difference between the two?

Because Democrats do not really have ideological politics. They have coalition politics.

 

[shuttlt]

Can you give an example of a split on ideas that isn't ideological?

You said that problems were understandable if "the majority/minority split is arab/kurd", but not not based on a split of ideas. I gave you an example of a split of ideas and now you are asking me for a split of ideas that isn't ideological. I have no idea what point you are making.

It is unclear on what you see as the difference between the two?

You don't see ideological and cultural differences dividing the US at the moment? The Populist Republicans, the Progressives, everybody basically agrees about the core issues and is united behind a perceived common interest? If you are trying to say that the establishment Dems, and the establishment GOP don't really believe anything, sure. I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the public.

Because Democrats do not really have ideological politics. They have coalition politics.

what are those coalitions built out of if not people with particular ideologies and perceived interests? Let's pick 2A. If I'm all onboard with the right to own a gun, government tyranny and all that stuff.... should I regard the Democrat platform as being neutral on the whole thing because it isn't interested in ideas?

 

[shuttlt]

Which isn't the split in the US. Both parties are majority protestant and share the same culture, most people in both parties live in cities.

Does the US appear ideologically united to you?

 

[The Don]

The same argument that there has been for this since the 18th Century.


OK. This is a typical liberal progressive framing of the question. Everything is reduced down to ideological principles.

The reason that pure majoritarian rule is a problem is that you need to have a functioning country, or state, that isn't trying to tear itself apart. Imagine you have a 60% majority and a 40% minority who differ fundamentally in their world view and interests. One can solve that in a majoritarian way by just saying that that is too bad for the 40%. Different problems then arise from that, particularly if the two groups occupy different geographical areas. You set up a dynamic that is going to tend to drive the country or the state into splitting.

To deal with the tensions that this creates, you need to set up anti-majoritarian power centers within the state to force compromise and make the 40% feel they have some stake in the system. The alternative is the method used in the 1860s.

If there are no such forces at play, by all means, knock yourself out and let the majority get their way on everything. It seems to me as if what we see these days is nothing but these forces. Saying "yes, but we won the popular vote" doesn't solve this basic problem.

There are two opposing mutually incompatible sets of views and values in a country. Instead of attempting to design an electoral system which encourages those two groups to attempt to come to some mutually agreeable compromise (good), or even which gives the majority what they want (not great, but at least understandable), you support a system which actively encourages those differences and which allows the minority to impose what they want on the majority because it's fairer ?

Mind......boggled.......

 

[shuttlt]

There are two opposing mutually incompatible sets of views and values in a country. Instead of attempting to design an electoral system which encourages those two groups to attempt to come to some mutually agreeable compromise (good), or even which gives the majority what they want (not great, but at least understandable), you support a system which actively encourages those differences and which allows the minority to impose what they want on the majority because it's fairer ?

Mind......boggled.......

No. I am recommending a system whereby without a broad consensus it is very hard to change anything so different interests have to come to the table. One way of achieving that would be to have the executive elected by popular vote so that the majority were in day to day charge, then you could maybe have a more geographically based system for the legislature but give the executive veto power over it. It doesn't solve all problems, of course.... but it is a way of tackling the issue.

How do you propose setting up an electoral system to force the majority to compromise with the minority?

Fixating on the will of the majority blinds one to what actually needs to be done to keep a country or a state together.

I have no expectation that the direction of travel in terms of making everything majoritarian will change, so we will perhaps live to see what the consequences are.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Does the US appear ideologically united to you?

Ideologically neutral. There doesn't appear to be significant ideological disputes.

 

[BobTheCoward]

what are those coalitions built out of if not people with particular ideologies and perceived interests? Let's pick 2A. If I'm all onboard with the right to own a gun, government tyranny and all that stuff.... should I regard the Democrat platform as being neutral on the whole thing because it isn't interested in ideas?

A party that joins groups with different ideologies to form a coalition is not an ideological party. It is a coalition party and a demonstration that there isn't an ideological split.

 

[shuttlt]

A party that joins groups with different ideologies to form a coalition is not an ideological party. It is a coalition party and a demonstration that there isn't an ideological split.

You are the one making this about whether the internal party machine is ideological. I'm not. In any case, the parties evolve defacto ideologies, through the need to have policies that have some kind of coherence.

I'm talking about whether the ideas, culture, beliefs and interests of the 40% are able to find some common ground or compromise with the 60%. If both groups start to regard the difference in ideology as existentially important to them, you have a problem. Something like that is where we are now.

 

[shuttlt]

Ideologically neutral. There doesn't appear to be significant ideological disputes.

OK. Never mind then.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You are the one making this about whether the internal party machine is ideological. I'm not. In any case, the parties evolve defacto ideologies, through the need to have policies that have some kind of coherence.

I'm talking about whether the ideas, culture, beliefs and interests of the 40% are able to find some common ground or compromise with the 60%. If both groups start to regard the difference in ideology as existentially important to them, you have a problem. Something like that is where we are now.

You Ignore Citizens United and the Rise of the Darwinian Capitalist Science denying Cult in the Republican part, that have spawned atleast 3 Insurrections that I know of, possibly more could be attributed to them if you count the Branch Davidian Compound at Waco Texas.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You are the one making this about whether the internal party machine is ideological. I'm not. In any case, the parties evolve defacto ideologies, through the need to have policies that have some kind of coherence.

I'm talking about whether the ideas, culture, beliefs and interests of the 40% are able to find some common ground or compromise with the 60%. If both groups start to regard the difference in ideology as existentially important to them, you have a problem. Something like that is where we are now.

I reject your conclusion that the parties adopt defacto ideologies. I don't think Democrats have a consistent ideology.

 

[shuttlt]

You Ignore Citizens United and the Rise of the Darwinian Capitalist Science denying Cult in the Republican part, that have spawned atleast 3 Insurrections that I know of, possibly more could be attributed to them if you count the Branch Davidian Compound at Waco Texas.

How am I ignoring those things? Obviously the minority will have things that they are fixated on. If they didn't, there would be no problem. It could be the nature of the Trinity, or the evils of idolatry for all I care.

 

[The Don]

No. I am recommending a system whereby without a broad consensus it is very hard to change anything so different interests have to come to the table. One way of achieving that would be to have the executive elected by popular vote so that the majority were in day to day charge, then you could maybe have a more geographically based system for the legislature but give the executive veto power over it. It doesn't solve all problems, of course.... but it is a way of tackling the issue.

That would be a recipe for continual strife (if different parties are in charge of the Executive and Legislative branches) and it gives sparsely populated areas disproportionate political power. Why should there be a geographical basis for the system ?

Anyway, that's not the way it works in the US, the three branches of government, the legislative, the executive and judicial are equal so the executive isn't in charge to any great extent. Whatever they want to do can be overturned by the other two branches.

One party has managed to both politicise the legislative branch, and lock down that branch.

How do you propose setting up an electoral system to force the majority to compromise with the minority?

Without a multi-party political process, proportional representation, independent administration of the elections and more transparency in the lobbying process, there's little or no incentive to compromise.

The US has none of those things and has demonstrated no desire to move towards those things so you're left with government by minority (as is now the case in the US where one party has representation at a national and state level far beyond its electoral performance) or majority.

Fixating on the will of the majority blinds one to what actually needs to be done to keep a country or a state together.

It can't be any worse than the current system in the US where the will of the minority rules more often than not if Republicans are in power.

Republicans have won the presidential popular vote once since 1988 IIRC.

The 50 Republicans in the senate represent 41 million fewer people than the 50 Democrat senators.

I have no expectation that the direction of travel in terms of making everything majoritarian will change, so we will perhaps live to see what the consequences are.

 

[shuttlt]

I reject your conclusion that the parties adopt defacto ideologies. I don't think Democrats have a consistent ideology.

What do you mean by "consistent" here? You wouldn't maybe say that the Democrats want to present themselves as the anti-racist party of civil rights and a whole bunch of policies and ideas come with that. As Machiavellian as I'm sure the parties are, the need to present a brand and a narrative necessitates some surface level pretence at a coherent set of ideas.

Again, I'm not really talking about the party machines, but about the voting public. I'm not sure why the conversation keeps being steered back this way.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What do you mean by "consistent" here? You wouldn't maybe say that the Democrats want to present themselves as the anti-racist party of civil rights and a whole bunch of policies and ideas come with that. As Machiavellian as I'm sure the parties are, the need to present a brand and a narrative necessitates some surface level pretence at a coherent set of ideas.

Again, I'm not really talking about the party machines, but about the voting public. I'm not sure why the conversation keeps being steered back this way.

The voting public is definitely not ideological.

 

[Paul2]

That list is not very specific.

Does it need to be, and for what purpose?

I don't doubt that you can find examples of things I would disagree with, but I don't see anything rendering it "impossible to kick them out of power, regardless of what the electorate desires".

OK, then how about "almost impossible?"

 

[Paul2]

You want to centralise power so that it can deal with issues where local power becomes corrupt,

When did I say that?

but you aren't interested in how to stop that centralised power becoming corrupt?

When did I say that?

Then the whole question of power and corruption is beyond your paygrade, no?

When did I say that?

And why are you shifting the topic to *how* corruption is managed, when we haven't come to an agreement yet that the corruption from Repub legislatures - is actually happening. First things first.

 

[shuttlt]

OK, then how about "almost impossible?"

I don't see that. What is impossible about it? The examples I've been shown are ones where the Republican's get 45% and still win. What is impossible about beating them under those circumstances? Back in 2012 the counties were split Republican / Democrat about 50/50 based on Obama getting about 53% of the vote. In '08 Obama blew all those counties away.

Has redistricting changed that much since '08?