POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Idaho]

So Athens was not a democracy. BTW are we currently living in a democracy? Scots have a more universal vote than we do, as 16 year olds have the vote.

In the modern sense, Athens was not a democracy, no.

We are living in a democracy with some flaws and inconsistencies - if you think that's the same as denying half the population the vote, or tolerating slavery, then you have issues.

[Pannonian]

In the modern sense, Athens was not a democracy, no.

We are living in a democracy with some flaws and inconsistencies - if you think that's the same as denying half the population the vote, or tolerating slavery, then you have issues.

We are living in a modern democracy. Before that, we were living in a not so modern democracy. And so on. A large chunk of my history lessons at school covered the evolution of our modern democracy into what it is. I learned that there wasn't a specific cut off point between democracy and not democracy.

What do you think of the House of Lords? Do you think it needs to be democratised?

[ReluctantSamurai]

A well written piece, IMHO, on the recent vote certification fiasco here in Michigan:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...mocracy-440475

A bit exaggerated on the Van Langevelde hero worship perhaps, but spot on for the skullduggery that now seems to pervade the Republican Party. I also don't buy in that Trump never asked that Michigan's GOP-dominated legislature just ignore the vote and send in the electors votes for him:

As a Republican, his mandate for Monday’s hearing—handed down from the state party chair, the national party chair and the president himself—was straightforward. They wanted Michigan’s board of canvassers to delay certification of Biden’s victory. Never mind that Trump lost by more than 154,000 votes, or that results were already certified in all 83 counties. The plan was to drag things out, to further muddy the election waters and delegitimize the process, to force the courts to take unprecedented actions that would forever taint Michigan’s process of certifying elections. Not because it was going to help Trump win but because it was going to help Trump cope with a loss. The president was not accepting defeat. That meant no Republican with career ambitions could accept it, either.

[...] Trump’s allies in Michigan proved to be more career-obsessed, and therefore more servile to his whims, than GOP officials in any other state he has cultivated during his presidency, willing to indulge his conspiratorial fantasies in ways other Republicans weren’t.

[...] the essential difference between Michigan and other states. However sloppy Trump’s team was in contesting the results in places like Georgia and Wisconsin, where the margins were fractional, there was at least some plausible justification of a legal challenge. The same could never be said for Michigan. Strangely liberated by his deficit of 154,000 votes, the president’s efforts here were aimed not at overturning the results, but rather at testing voters’ faith in the ballot box and Republicans’ loyalty to him.

After 24 hours of letting the democratic process work, Republicans around the country—watching Trump’s second term slipping through their fingers—began crying foul and screaming conspiracy. No state cornered the hysteria market quite like Michigan.

When Trump addressed the nation from the White House on Thursday night, insisting the election had been “stolen” from him, he returned time and again to alleged misconduct in Michigan’s biggest city. Detroit, he smirked, “I wouldn’t say has the best reputation for election integrity.” He said the city “had hours of unexplained delay” in counting ballots, and when the late batches arrived, “nobody knew where they came from.” He alleged that Republicans had been “denied access to observe any counting in Detroit” and that the windows had been covered because “they didn’t want anybody seeing the counting.”

All of this was a lie. Republicans here—from Ronna Romney McDaniel to Laura Cox to federal and local lawmakers—knew it was a lie. But they didn’t lift a finger in protest as the president disparaged Michigan and subverted America’s democratic norms. Why?

In the days following Trump's shameful address to the nation, two realities became inescapable to Michigan’s GOP elite. First, there was zero evidence to substantiate widespread voter fraud. Second, they could not afford to admit it publicly.

Honesty and decency have not been hallmarks of Republicanism during Trump’s presidency. They certainly are not priorities now. With Trump entering the anguished twilight of his presidency, all that appears to matter for someone like McDaniel—or Cox, the state party chair, who faces an upcoming election of her own—is unconditional fidelity to the president.

“The unfortunate reality within the party today is that Trump retains a hold that is forcing party leaders to continue down the path of executing his fantasy of overturning the outcome—at their own expense,” said Jason Cabel Roe, a Michigan-based GOP strategist who once worked as a vendor for McDaniel, and whose family goes back generations with hers. “But if they want a future within the party, it is required of them to demonstrate continued fealty. Principled conservatives who respect the rule of law and speak out suddenly find themselves outcasts in a party that is no longer about conservativism but Trumpism. Just ask once-conservative heroes like Jeff Flake, Justin Amash and Mark Sanford.”

As much as anything else, Trump's mark on the GOP is to resort to, not only spreading mis-information, but bullying:

Within minutes of Van Langevelde’s vote for certification—and of Shinkle’s abstention, which guaranteed his colleague would bear the brunt of the party’s fury alone—the fires of retaliation raged. In GOP circles, there were immediate calls for Van Langevelde to lose his seat on the board; to lose his job in the House of Representatives; to be censured on the floor of the Legislature and exiled from the party forever. Actionable threats against him and his family began to be reported. The Michigan State Police worked with local law enforcement to arrange a security detail.

The name Van Langevelde is already so infamous in Michigan Republican lore that those associated with him are at risk of being branded turncoats, too.

And what the GOP has devolved into:

That contours of that identity—what it means to be a Trump Republican—have gained clarity over time. The default embrace of nationalism. The indifference to ideas as a vision for governing. The disregard for institutional norms. The aversion to etiquette and the bottomless appetite for cultural conflict. Now there is another cornerstone of that identity: The subversion of our basic democratic process.

More than any policy enacted or court vacancy filled, Trump’s legacy will be his unprecedented assault on the legitimacy of the ballot box. And it will not be considered in isolation. Future iterations of the GOP will make casual insinuations of voter fraud central to the party’s brand. The next generation of Republicans will have learned how to sow doubts about election integrity in one breath and in the next breath bemoan the nation’s lack of faith in our elections, creating a self-perpetuating justification to cast suspicion on a process that by raw numbers does not appear conducive to keeping them in power.

And a conclusion that nearly 74 million Americans do not share:

“The people of this country really need to wake up and start thinking for themselves and looking for facts—not conspiracy theories being peddled by people who are supposed to be responsible leaders, but facts,” Thomas said. “If they’re not going to be responsible leaders, people need to seek out the truth for themselves. If people don’t do that—if they no longer trust how we elect the president of the United States—we’re going to be in real trouble.”

And perhaps a glimmer of hope in Georgia, as the GOP demonstrates that the Dems aren't the only party with ongoing infighting:

https://www.vox.com/2020/11/24/21612...eorgia-runoffs

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My son and a few others with whom I have spoken believe that the GOP needs to rethink things. They do, but it will not happen.

The hard core of the GOP now is Trump supporters and the "Contours of Identity" you note from that article are pretty much what I am seeing as well. In Trump they finally have someone who will fight without ceasing against the evil left and they adore him for it.

I really suspect that, since the GOP was not trounced soup to nuts but held onto much of its control and made some small gains along the margins (aside from the White House), the lesson they draw is that they need to "Trump harder." This will distill the GOP further down into a party of Trumpism as they discard those who will not adopt the faith fully.

And many people ARE seeking the truth for themselves -- using the carefully honed analytical skills and rational evaluation process skills they have. Of course, since a shocking number of my fellow Americans are pig-ignorant (by choice, it is not difficult to acquire an education and such skills in our system if you even half-way bother) of such skills and never bother to retain the stuffed they learn to pass through their courses, they rely on listening to those who already share their views. Why suffer through cognitive dissonance when you can just revel in your own convictions?

AAAAAArgh.

[spmetla]

My son and a few others with whom I have spoken believe that the GOP needs to rethink things. They do, but it will not happen.

The hard core of the GOP now is Trump supporters and the "Contours of Identity" you note from that article are pretty much what I am seeing as well. In Trump they finally have someone who will fight without ceasing against the evil left and they adore him for it.

I really suspect that, since the GOP was not trounced soup to nuts but held onto much of its control and made some small gains along the margins (aside from the White House), the lesson they draw is that they need to "Trump harder." This will distill the GOP further down into a party of Trumpism as they discard those who will not adopt the faith fully.

And many people ARE seeking the truth for themselves -- using the carefully honed analytical skills and rational evaluation process skills they have. Of course, since a shocking number of my fellow Americans are pig-ignorant (by choice, it is not difficult to acquire an education and such skills in our system if you even half-way bother) of such skills and never bother to retain the stuffed they learn to pass through their courses, they rely on listening to those who already share their views. Why suffer through cognitive dissonance when you can just revel in your own convictions?

AAAAAArgh.

I'm seeing the same with my circle of friends, they are repeating the matra of "the dems didn't accept Trump for four years why should I have to accept Biden" not understanding the difference between "not my president" and "not THE president." Not to mention the difference between Russian interference which did happen but didn't actually make Trump less legit compared to wanted to discount other peoples vote because of the method used. The loss being razor thing instead of a resounding defeat has many saying that the appeal of republican policies is strong and that the down ballot votes for R demonstrate that.

It's a shame that with Georgia's senate seats still up for grab that the fanatical mentality persists, the rhetoric is one of vote Republican to save the US from communist, socialist, social-justice-warrior anarchist totalitarianism. Pointing out that even if the President wanted to implement that, it'd be impossible without strong majorities in favor nationwide doesn't help. The rush to buy guns and ammo among friends is happening again, as if Biden wanted to or even could 'take our guns' which is just ridiculous.

I find it worrying that Biden's technocrat centrist (and of course solid Democrat) picks so far are being toted as swamp creatures again. The idea that any form of competence must been deep-state swamp creatures is distressing for me to hear. Hearing foreign policy experience and expertise being summed up as "the world first, america last" is so small minded and ignorant I have to walk away from conversations.

It's crazy being called an un-american democrat when this is the first time I've voted for a democrat for President, I treasure a strong US that is globalists in its policies.

[Idaho]

The idea that any form of competence must been deep-state swamp creatures is distressing for me to hear. Hearing foreign policy experience and expertise being summed up as "the world first, america last" is so small minded and ignorant I have to walk away from conversations.

It's akin to the Chinese cultural revolution, or similar spasms of orchestrated political irrationality. Experts are counter revolutionary! Send the intellectuals to work the fields!

The right is triggered and motivated by loss aversion and fear of the other. The left isn't necessarily correct because this dynamic is absent. It might come to wrong decisions by a more rational method. However there is an absence of that fear mongering and vitriol - except in the cause of anti fascism, which, in my opinion, is fighting fire with fire.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In the modern sense, Athens was not a democracy, no.

We are living in a democracy with some flaws and inconsistencies - if you think that's the same as denying half the population the vote, or tolerating slavery, then you have issues.

So you deny the existence of any 'illiberal democracies'? It's all or nothing? FYI, you live under a Constitutional Monarchy, not a democracy ya dum dum (your logic, not mine).

[Idaho]

So you deny the existence of any 'illiberal democracies'? It's all or nothing? FYI, you live under a Constitutional Monarchy, not a democracy ya dum dum (your logic, not mine).

The significant element of a democracy is that the public are consulted. If you exclude significant parts of that public, it ceases to be legitimate consultation. The existence of some old lady with the job of rubber stamping laws makes no significant difference to this. Consultation of the public is key.

So Israel is a democracy in it's borders, but in the land it occupies, it is not a democracy, but a military dictatorship.

1910s England was not a democracy because it entirely excluded women from public consultation. 1930s England was a democracy, with plenty of issues and flaws, but a democracy none the less.

1950s America didn't allow black people to vote in much of the country. That is, by any reckoning, undemocratic. 1830s America didn't even allow them basic human rights. It's a simple point, but Americans struggle with it.

[rory_20_uk]

The significant element of a democracy is that the public are consulted. If you exclude significant parts of that public, it ceases to be legitimate consultation. The existence of some old lady with the job of rubber stamping laws makes no significant difference to this. Consultation of the public is key.

Surely there's more to it than that - when the consultation is choosing one pre-selected person from a list where generally 3 or less have a hope and run on a "manifesto" which neither the individual nor the party they represent have to follow in the slightest, and there are even people called "Whips" to coerce party members to vote the "right" way; independents can of course stand, but the system is basically designed that party backing is required and to get a winnable seat requires doing what the party wants, not the populace. Parties never have more than one option in a given area, and rarely replace the current candidate, rendering this a weird permanent job with a 5 year farce.

Only in the last few years was there any way to recall any politician by the people - and even now this is extremely difficult to do, and viewed with horror by politicians.

And this is apparently the populace being "consulted"...? Well, yes, if only to exclude them from any meaningful choice as far as humanly possible.

[Pannonian]

The significant element of a democracy is that the public are consulted. If you exclude significant parts of that public, it ceases to be legitimate consultation. The existence of some old lady with the job of rubber stamping laws makes no significant difference to this. Consultation of the public is key.

So Israel is a democracy in it's borders, but in the land it occupies, it is not a democracy, but a military dictatorship.

1910s England was not a democracy because it entirely excluded women from public consultation. 1930s England was a democracy, with plenty of issues and flaws, but a democracy none the less.

1950s America didn't allow black people to vote in much of the country. That is, by any reckoning, undemocratic. 1830s America didn't even allow them basic human rights. It's a simple point, but Americans struggle with it.

I have a couple of questions.

1. Do you think that democracy is a good thing in and of itself?
2. Do you think that more democracy is always better?

[Idaho]

I have a couple of questions.

1. Do you think that democracy is a good thing in and of itself?
2. Do you think that more democracy is always better?

Well I'm an anarchist/Communist in terms of my long term politico/religious beliefs. In that fantasy scenario, there is more direct democracy and participation. So I suppose that counts as "more democracy", and I suppose I consider that better. Not sure if that really answers your question.

[Pannonian]

Well I'm an anarchist/Communist in terms of my long term politico/religious beliefs. In that fantasy scenario, there is more direct democracy and participation. So I suppose that counts as "more democracy", and I suppose I consider that better. Not sure if that really answers your question.

If there is a repeat of the Indiana Pi Bill or something similar, do you think that democracy should prevail?

If you're not familiar with that incident, it was a (passed) Bill in the state of Indiana to set pi (the mathematical value) to 3.2.

[Idaho]

If there is a repeat of the Indiana Pi Bill or something similar, do you think that democracy should prevail?

If you're not familiar with that incident, it was a (passed) Bill in the state of Indiana to set pi (the mathematical value) to 3.2.

Not really sure what point you are groping for. Foolish legislation is not a valid contradiction to the principle of democracy.

[Montmorency]

For the comity-trolls of the world, there is a congenial dispensation on the horizon: Should Democrats win both Georgia Senate seats on the cusp of Biden's inauguration, they will have the power to begin legislating unilaterally, which unrestrained wickedness the Republican base will have the opportunity to behold for the first time since the earliest Obama days, galvanizing them to rout the Democrats in the 2022 midterms, thus paving the way for the triumphant return of the prodigal Trump in 2024, healing the divisions of the country and making it great forever and ever, amen.


Georgia finished counting its ballots fast enough that its recent recount was done in less than a week. Meanwhile, New York is the last state still counting at scale and has missed its expected deadlines for reporting certifiable results. A shitshow almost as bad as in the Democratic primary this summer, where it took a month and a half to complete the count. A large part of the problem, carried over to the late election, is that mail votes are not allowed to be counted until a week after the election. Hopefully we've identified another element of the byzantine New York Way to dispense with forever. At least there's progress: before 2018 our electoral laws and accessibility would have been shameful for a red state; now they're merely substandard.



Good guy Bernstein outed some of the ranking Republicans who privately badmouth Trump without sticking their necks out (some of them are already retired or defeated). Interesting contrast to his buddy Woodward (recall the exclusive Trump interviews).

I'm not violating any pledge of journalistic confidentially in reporting this: 21 Republican Sens–in convos w/ colleagues, staff members, lobbyists, W. House aides–have repeatedly expressed extreme contempt for Trump & his fitness to be POTUS.

The 21 GOP Senators who have privately expressed their disdain for Trump are: Portman, Alexander, Sasse, Blunt, Collins, Murkowski, Cornyn, Thune, Romney, Braun, Young, Tim Scott, Rick Scott, Rubio, Grassley, Burr, Toomey, McSally, Moran, Roberts, Shelby.

With few exceptions, their craven public silence has helped enable Trump’s most grievous conduct—including undermining and discrediting the US the electoral system.

Former counsel for the Watergate special prosecutor tells of his strong opposition to Ford's pardon of Nixon, and warns Biden to resist preemptive surrender.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...p-accountable/


Remember when I mentioned the concept of Trump as a disjunctive president and promised to return to that? Well, this election has been hard to square with a label of Disjunctive for Trump.

Skowronek’s writing about political time casts disjunctive and preemptive presidents as different kinds of outsiders, lurking on the margins of their own parties. Disjunctive leaders come in as the old party coalition is falling apart, and their outsider status allows them to briefly transcend factional disagreements and offer the elusive promise of something new. Preemptive leaders, on the other hand, come in from the non-majority party, often by accident. These are presidents like conservative (Bourbon) Democrat Grover Cleveland, “third way” Bill Clinton and “modern Republican” Dwight Eisenhower. They come to office in three-candidate contests, with a plurality of the vote, or – as with Eisenhower – by way of personal popularity. They borrow ideas and policies from the other party, never quite establishing ideological authenticity either way.

I don't know if I would place Trump in the Preemptive category though. Biden obviously is from the perspective of the Left, but it's not clear what reigning orthodoxy Trump is assimilating. They could both be preemptive only in the sense of there no longer being a reigning orthodoxy to frame against, with both figures failing (I presume) to either reconstruct American politics or overturn the politics of the opposition. Hmmm....

I mean, there's always time for Biden to pull out a shocking transformation of American politics, and there have been multiple surprises in recent history, but I'm not hedging my bets for now.


On reparations for land theft from black farmers.
https://www.motherjones.com/food/202...oward-justice/

After the US Civil War, newly emancipated Black growers won a share of the agricultural landscape. They did so despite fierce backlash and the ultimately failed promises of Reconstruction. By the 1910s, nearly a million Black farmers, a seventh of the nation’s total, owned an estimated 20 million acres of land, mostly in the South. * That turned out to be a peak. Since then, due largely to lingering white supremacy and racist machinations within the US Department of Agriculture, the number of Black farmers has plunged by 98 percent. The remaining few managed to hold on to just 10 percent of that hard-won acreage.

A new Senate bill, called the Justice for Black Farmers Act, set to be released November 30, would mount a long-delayed federal effort to reverse the “destructive forces that were unleashed upon Black farmers over the past century—one of the dark corners of shame in American history,” lead sponsor Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) told Mother Jones.

Co-sponsored with senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), the bill would, among other things, create an Equitable Land Access Service within the USDA, including a fund that devotes $8 billion annually to buying farmland on the open market and granting it to new and existing Black farmers, with the goal of making 20,000 grants per year over nine years, with maximum allotments of 160 acres. It would also fund agriculture-focused historically Black colleges and universities as well and nonprofits like the Northeast Farmers of Color Land Trust to help identify land for the USDA to purchase, and “help new Black farmers get up and running, provide farmer training, and provide other assistance including support for development of farmer cooperatives,” the bill’s summary states.
[...]
The Justice for Black Farmers Act’s much more modest proposal would amount to an “equitable balancing of the scales after decades of systematic racism within the USDA that disadvantaged Black farmers, excluded them from loans and other programs, [and] prevented them from holding on to their land,” Booker said.

The 19th century’s great land transfers, which generated trillions of dollars in wealth for beneficiaries and their heirs, “effectively precluded African Americans from participating,” said Thomas Mitchell, a law professor at Texas A&M and 2020 MacArthur fellow, who participated in the bill’s drafting. Meanwhile, the near-complete wipeout of Black farmland ownership since the early 20th century—driven largely by racist federal and state policies—represents a transfer of wealth from Black to primarily white Americans “conservatively” worth $300 billion, Thomas added. That handover contributes to a persistent racial wealth gap—today, the median white family is 12 times wealthier than its Black counterpart.

Matt Yglesias has decided to go independent from Vox and started his own blog. In this post, a contributor lays out some ideas for how Democrats can optimize their electoral tactics.

Here’s the executive summary:

Run on popular ideas. We already do this, and it’s a big reason we consistently win more votes! Our issues — like social security, increased wages, and most healthcare expansion — are very popular. But we need more than just a bare majority to govern effectively.

Keep innovating. In the past twenty years, we have greatly improved our ability to mobilize our voters to cast ballots. This is because we have learned from data and experience, and now have a better understanding of the best ways to get our voters to our polls (eg, plan-making, social pressure) and the best ways to use our volunteers’ valuable time (eg, talking to their friends).

Relational persuasion. Just as we’ve learned to leverage existing relationships between friends and family for turnout, so must we for persuasion. There’s a deep history of relational organizing through the Democratic and progressive infrastructure [unions and party machines], but we’ve lost that thread in the Facebook era. Now, Republicans have out-organized us — especially in pockets of Latino communities — and we need to catch up.

The Biden campaign’s most-run ad* promised affordable healthcare. Their most-run attack ad didn’t highlight Trump’s character flaws, but rather his threats to Social Security and Medicare. The campaign translated their policy plans into concrete benefits for Americans struggling in this pandemic-depressed economy. While the right-wing media takes pleasure in distorting issue positions, Biden’s platform worked. His popular stances, combined with Trump’s horrific handling of COVID (not to mention his character flaws), led to Biden unseating an incumbent by winning more than 80 million votes. The problem isn't that the message didn't appeal to the majority of voters; the problem is that a majority isn't enough.

West Virginia's Democratic Party continues its march to extinction in what has become the first or second-most Republican state in the country (again, before Obama it was a swing state).

Wow. By my count, it looks like Republicans picked up a whopping 19 seats in the West Virginia House of Delegates.

This brings Democrats down to 23 out of the 100 seats in the chamber. The chamber is partly MMD [multi-member district] and SMD [single-member district], but is going to be entirely SMD in 2022.

But... there is another.

[Montmorency]

Again playing the ball, as you believe? You are so arrogant, dismissive, and raving that I even won't bother to remind you that peaceful coexistence isn't my idea but the basic principle of democracy.

Your accusation is the confession, but as I repeat I am not the one opposed to peaceful coexistence here. I'm not the one you should be accosting if you care about the things you profess to.

How do you not perceive any tension between on one hand implicitly treating Republicans as rabid animals who cannot possibly be expected to change their behavior (not that such a framing would suffer on the merits) and on the other demanding that liberals unilaterally navigate the resulting worldscape with an (inevitably deferential) eye toward supplicating said Republicans? It would be easier to interpret your comments as naivete alone if you didn't have the shameful record you do.

A nice weaseling out attempt. Instead of admitting it when your ignorance became patent you just say that your purpose of giving analogies didn't presuppose awareness of the subject.

It's what you did. I showed you what it looks like from another angle. You're being doubly foolish.

If I'm so unserious and my opinion is just a drivel why are you getting so nervous trying to prove your point? And if it outs me, why do you keep answering at all?

You're right, thanks. In the depths of your smarmy condescension bother to absorb what people other than yourself write; it is certain they will understand something you don't. If I refer to you a fatal error, oversight, or misapprehension in your offering but you double down without due regard and compound absurdities and untruths one with another, you terminate the possibility of meaningful communication.

So you don't wish to live next door to Republicans or traveling to Florida for a vacation to meet them in a roadside cafe. And? What are you gonna do about it? This is the question that you fail to answer. And this is the crucial question for those who believe that after Biden's victory Republican voters could be just disregarded, segregated, discriminated, and pushed into the background.

As Osita Nwanevu said, "In the end, our hopes should lie not in the dream of transcending our political battles but in the possibility that we might win them."

It's like a bully grabs an arm of his victim and hits him with the hand repeating "Why are you hitting yourself?" I thought that you were an adult person.

That would appear to be your own posture and preference, or like that of a teacher who rewards the bully and rebukes the victim for "fighting." But I reposted a long Twitter thread all about that, which you naturally didn't engage with. Let me know when Ukraine stops provoking Putin with its territorial aggression and becomes a good neighbor in the international community.

Называешься груздём, полезай в кузов

With this attitude to your opponents you will only deepen the existing divides and war shall you have and hatred undying, as Feanor used to say.

I can't resist reposting this one when you're almost literally asserting a duty on our part - the 'Men of the West' - to engineer coexistence with the ringwraiths, orcs, and goblins of the land.

I may be just an ordinary orc, but I wasn’t at all surprised when the Dark Lord Sauron became the leader of Mordor. A lot of my smart, liberal friends, though, reacted as if Middle-earth was coming to an end. Dwarves in the barroom of the Prancing Pony said it was the pride of the High Elves. Ravens twittering under the eaves of Mirkwood blamed the cunning of dragons. The Steward of Gondor, posting on FacePalantir, said it was because of Sauron’s hatred for the heirs of Isildur.

I’m here to tell you: it’s the economy, stupid.

It’s all very well for those of you who dwell in the Shire, the haven of Rivendell, or the quiet forests of Lothlórien. You live in a bubble. You don’t know what life is like for the average orc, in depressed areas like the Trollshaws, the Misty Mountains, or the Dead Marshes. Let me tell you, it’s hard out here for an orc. We experience tremendous insecurity, not knowing whether we’ll have a job, or be able to raid peaceful villages, or if our friends will eat us. Sauron appeals to us economically challenged goblins because he offers us the chance of a decent wage, respect for our values, and renewed pride in being the corrupted spawn of Morgoth.

If the Free People are going to defeat Sauron, you need to let go of your elitist attitudes and choose someone who can appeal to the moderate orc vote. That’s why I support Saruman the White to lead the Council of the Wise.

Now, I know there are a lot of orcs who won’t vote for any wizard. I get that. They’re blindly loyal to the Dark Lord, and nothing anyone does or says can change that. But those orcs represent no more than 10% of the Middle-earth electorate.

Gandalf has gotten a lot of attention by making the One Ring the center of his campaign. We all can agree that the Ring is important, but shouldn’t we also address the kitchen-table issues that moderate orcs — swing orcs — care about?

Destroying the Ring sounds appealing, but it’s naïve and simplistic. Much of Mordor’s infrastructure was built with the Ring. The building of the Dark Tower of Barad-Dûr and the Black Gate of Udûn employed thousands of trolls, goblins, and Haradrim. What are they supposed to do if it’s suddenly dissolved in the fires of Orodruin? Gandalf’s plan makes no provision for relocating and retraining thousands of Sauron’s minions.

Besides, Gandalf’s plan for dealing with the Ring just won’t work. It’s too far to the left to gain support from mainstream dwarves, and would vastly increase Hobbit immigration. If the Ring has to be dropped into Mount Doom, why can’t we have our own, native-born Great Eagles do the job?

Saruman the White supports a more gradual approach to destroying the One Ring. Under Saruman, Mordor will be transitioned away from a Ring-based economy, without the loss of thousands of orc jobs that Gandalf’s plan would entail. Saruman will work with the Ring, not against it, to gradually phase out the Shadow, the Eye of Fire, and the Nazgûl, and replace them with more sustainable alternatives.

Of course, Saruman’s record isn’t perfect. He said at one time that Rings of Power were good for Elves. We know that’s an outdated attitude. But that was more than a thousand years ago, before the Witch-King of Angmar destroyed the Northern Realm. Things were different then.

Saruman has repudiated his previous support for building engines of fire and doom beneath the tower of Isengard and breeding the Uruk-hai in its pits. But what’s done is done. We can’t go back and fix the past. Many radical Ents still oppose him for his one-time policy of “cutting down all the trees.” Saruman has acknowledged that he was wrong and says his position on Ents has evolved. But let’s be realistic. Sometimes you have to build hellish devices and generate foul orc-spawn to get things done. That’s just how politics works.

Saruman has received endorsements from the savage tribes of Dunland, the Great Goblin, and the King of Rohan (according to Theoden’s loyal advisor and spokesman, Gríma Wormtongue). He’s the wizard who can lead us into a bright new age.

And to those who say it’s time we choose someone like Lady Galadriel, forget it. There are still a lot of people who will never vote for an elf.

The direct election of a President/Veep team would beget a profound change. I am not sure where the consequences thereof would take us. It would certainly be a step towards pure democracy.

I mean... the Electoral College has in practice almost always served to ratify the popular vote winner in presidential elections, with all the nation-injuring conflicts emerging when the Electoral College comes out of step with that popular vote.

So leaving aside the inevitable, but unpredictable, shifts in political tactics and voter behavior attendant to a new system, in principle it seems like removing the Electoral College would change little other than to negate our current system's catastrophic fail-states. When phrased as 'keep everything but the very worst elements', abolishing the EC sounds downright conservative.

I know you will, have, and will likely continue to do so unless and until the Electoral College is abolished.

Of course it wasn't generated as a result of clear and consistent political philosophy. It was a compromise put together -- in analogous fashion to the "Great Compromise" of Senate/HofR representation levels in the legislature -- as a means of power balancing. They'd already approved a representation basis that accounted for 60% of the enslaved population to count towards the total for each state, making the largest of the Southern states, Virginia, virtually equal to the next two combined. How the heck would they manage a national popular vote when Virginia had 169k or so worth of population that couldn't vote but were being "counted?" [Please note the bitter sarcasm with which I refer to counting people as .6 humans] The goal was to make each states slate of electors important enough so that you couldn't ignore very many of them and still secure election (more or less). It NEVER did this perfectly and certainly does not today.

My confusion is merely on the point of how one could come to invent an Electoral College as a worthwhile avenue of reform or constitutional design given the weight of two centuries' evidence. Let it not be enough that basically every society on the planet other than our own has rejected it, that it was unpopular from its inception in this country, that it is unpopular to this day (the latest manifestation being the referendum result I mentioned above), that its only contemporary function is to entrench the White Wing minority that constitutes the fascist-Republican base (and while I doubt the white Evangelicals who constitute up to a full half of Republican voters would seriously persecute Catholics if given the opportunity, your life wouldn't be easier under their thumb). Let it not be enough that the Electoral College produced a George W. Bush and a Donald Trump within a generation (reminder: up to the 2000 election it was a widespread concern that Al Gore would win the EC but lose the popular vote, which is OK if it's a Republican apparently).

But this fact alone should forever consign electoral colleges to the concrete sarcophagus of history: Both the 2016 and 2020 elections produced (ignoring faithless electors) the same 306-232 margins. In 2016, the EC winner lost by 3 million votes. In 2020, the EC winner won by up to 7 million votes. Exact same Electoral College result, popular vote difference of over 9 million.

How could such outcomes ever be justified in theory?

All in all a worse idea on paper than Indonesia's current controversial legislative push to introduce alcohol prohibition.

Direct election of the President and Vice President would make only a modest difference now. The States are already something of a moribund concept in the eyes of many (most?). Taking away this element of State power -- however little exercised -- is only another step in the seemingly inevitable process of dismantling the republic we have in favor of a full democracy (for good and for ill).

Perhaps you will be pleased to consider that the Trump era has dealt our unitary union a lasting blow. Radically-decentralized electoral administration was proven to be resistant to despotism (unlike that in so many unitary states with publics no more degraded than our own). The absence of the central state during the pandemic left a vacuum that was filled by cities and states variously coordinating with each other or levying regulations and restrictions against one another's residents, albeit low-grade and unenforceable for the most part. Besides such accomplished events, one doesn't need to be a savvy political analyst to realize that the extension of polarization into the loyalties of common citizens as well as the basic administrative functions of the civil service presages a new period of nullification starting this decade. As in the first such period, nullification will not be grounded in legalisms or residual sovereignties but in will to power, popular appetites, and the tolerance levels of partisan elites for the edicts of hostile/inimical authorities.

Three misconceptions here:

1. Generally every American thinks the Constitution can be improved, the difference is obviously in what people consider 'improved'. We have had 27 amendments after all.

2. For what it's worth, given the brevity and historical context, the document is a pretty big deal in the history of ideas. So there is a certain justification for why it should be revered.

3. Rule of law does not emerge from the strength of a text, but from the strength of people's belief in the text. Every country operating under a liberal democratic constitution would do well in the long run to treat their foundational laws as sacred. The difference between the collapse of other countries utilizing a similar Presidential systems and US is the fundamentalist attitude that underlines a civic spirit. Given the major flaws of the system, getting 250 years of democratic government before a credible threat of dictatorship is...not bad?

Seems like every other country goes through constitutions generation-by-generation. A Constitution is just a document. If a nation should have some sacred civic values and virtues, they should be external to a constitution, which would merely embody them.

In America there are indeed many people who, contrary to the original intent, honestly believe that "you can't change the Constitution." As with the flag, they have been miseducated into glorifying the paper/fabric over the ideals. A Pledge of Allegiance is only a sinister simulacrum of a civic spirit.

Our record for stability is explained by the near-limitless Lebensraum we have enjoyed, our freedom from external enemies, and our willingness to internalize and sublimate instability against marginalized populations. These exorbitant luxuries are no longer a valued inheritance...

Don't conflate the liberal and democratic parts of liberal democracy. The liberal part has been brief, but as far as the structure is concerned voters have voted in elections between opposing parties which have transferred power peacefully with only two notable exceptions (1860, 2020).

Idaho's right, holding elections with a peaceful transfer of power is not sufficient toward democracy as, indeed, there is every possibility of those things being present in an oligarchy where only dozens can vote. There is a sliding scale, of course, from more autocratic/oligarchic to more democratic, but the early republic was not in a meaningful sense more of a democracy than the Roman republic or contemporary China. Calling that a democracy makes about as much sense as calling FDR's government a dictatorship (for its tinge of centralized power).

I learned that there wasn't a specific cut off point between democracy and not democracy.

But there is, inevitably, a cut-off point. Without a decision to categorize, we can't have a concept of non-democracy, and then we're really in the semantic wilderness.

So you deny the existence of any 'illiberal democracies'? It's all or nothing? FYI, you live under a Constitutional Monarchy, not a democracy ya dum dum (your logic, not mine).

Another way to look at it is, where would the early US (or Georgian UK) fall along contemporary rankings of states? 2/8 points maybe? 3 points?

Surely there's more to it than that - when the consultation is choosing one pre-selected person from a list where generally 3 or less have a hope and run on a "manifesto" which neither the individual nor the party they represent have to follow in the slightest, and there are even people called "Whips" to coerce party members to vote the "right" way; independents can of course stand, but the system is basically designed that party backing is required and to get a winnable seat requires doing what the party wants, not the populace. Parties never have more than one option in a given area, and rarely replace the current candidate, rendering this a weird permanent job with a 5 year farce.

Only in the last few years was there any way to recall any politician by the people - and even now this is extremely difficult to do, and viewed with horror by politicians.

And this is apparently the populace being "consulted"...? Well, yes, if only to exclude them from any meaningful choice as far as humanly possible.

What you're describing sounds more like a deficit in the political behavior of citizens than in the character of the "establishment" itself.

You talked about a democracy without universal suffrage as not a worthwhile democracy, whereas I was taught that our democracy was progressively added to. In recent years I have learned more about democracy as a principle. If the winner of an election gets authority by virtue of winning, but is under no obligation to keep promises, is it still a worthwhile democracy? If the electorate supports the winner of an election by virtue of their winning the election, but do not hold them to their promises, is it still a worthwhile democracy? If the aim of the winner is to beat the loser, without any specific platform, is it still a worthwhile democracy? NB. all of this is with what even you would call universal suffrage.

Your grievances with particular emanations of policy have to be distinguished from the desirability or applicability of democracy as a system (and Brexit would hardly be less damaging or insistent under a Tory oligarchy), let alone the semantics of democracy as a concept. We always have to be clear about what it is we're talking about.

[Pannonian]

Your grievances with particular emanations of policy have to be distinguished from the desirability or applicability of democracy as a system (and Brexit would hardly be less damaging or insistent under a Tory oligarchy), let alone the semantics of democracy as a concept. We always have to be clear about what it is we're talking about.

I'm not talking about specific policy. I'm talking about the practice of gaming the electoral system. To show how not about specific policy it is, I'll point you to Gaius Sempronius Gracchus versus Marcus Livius Drusus, 121 BC. Back then, you have one faction winning an election by making promises that they never intended to keep, and the voters voting for them because their promises were greater. Do you see the point? Except that now, with the simultaneous fetishisation and trivialisation of democracy via reality TV, we have people voting to make their side win, and winning is justification in and of itself.

[Gilrandir]

Your accusation is the confession, but as I repeat I am not the one opposed to peaceful coexistence here.

You are. In word you are not, but the conceptual metaphors you use (political controversies are a life-or-death fight with a predator) betray you and clearly show your attitude to your political opponents.

How do you not perceive any tension between on one hand implicitly treating Republicans as rabid animals who cannot possibly be expected to change their behavior (not that such a framing would suffer on the merits) and on the other demanding that liberals unilaterally navigate the resulting worldscape with an (inevitably deferential) eye toward supplicating said Republicans?

MY treating or YOURS? I don't treat them that way, so it spells yours? That means you aren't against peaceful co-existence?

Let me know when Ukraine stops provoking Putin with its territorial aggression and becomes a good neighbor in the international community.

Is there a single post of yours addressed to me in a POTUS thread where Ukraine isn't mentioned? Your record seems to be no less shameful than mine in trying to rub in things that you think hurt others (which they don't, in this case).

Называешься груздём, полезай в кузов

Назвался. Why do you keep addressing me in Russian and making mistakes as often as not?

I can't resist reposting this one when you're almost literally asserting a duty on our part - the 'Men of the West' - to engineer coexistence with the ringwraiths, orcs, and goblins of the land.

The repost is баян.

As for coexistence of men with other creatures of Arda:

1) Inadvertently or deliberately, you brought forth another conceptual metaphor likening your political opponents to inveterately evil beings created by the Dark Lord. Good luck to you living with them side by side as neighbors!

2) In fact, people of the west (Americans and Europeans) went far along the way of peaceful coexistence with those who once (say, in the Middle Ages) were perceived as ultimate evil - people of other religion, race, sexual preferences, etc. So by medieval standards, you live side by side with orcs and trolls. I don't see how peaceful coexistence with republicans is worse. But you evidently do.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Seems like every other country goes through constitutions generation-by-generation. A Constitution is just a document. If a nation should have some sacred civic values and virtues, they should be external to a constitution, which would merely embody them.

In America there are indeed many people who, contrary to the original intent, honestly believe that "you can't change the Constitution." As with the flag, they have been miseducated into glorifying the paper/fabric over the ideals. A Pledge of Allegiance is only a sinister simulacrum of a civic spirit.

Our record for stability is explained by the near-limitless Lebensraum we have enjoyed, our freedom from external enemies, and our willingness to internalize and sublimate instability against marginalized populations. These exorbitant luxuries are no longer a valued inheritance...

Hard disagree. Thinking of guiding documents as just text on paper just feeds into an attitude of might makes right. What strength does any text have if not in the impression it imparts on someone? I know no one who follows any rules simply because 'it's the law', they must either believe in it or be in fear of it. Politics without belief devolves into a game of changing the text as much as you can to make yourself the winner or just ignoring it. Monty, our main issue with the Republican party is precisely the lack of conviction towards Constitutional norms and practice. Party over country is just a polite way of calling them traitors. Traitors to the Constitution.

Second statement is non-sequitur, it's not that many, and it's mostly a narrative fed to liberals who want to think of themselves as 'thinkers' vs 'feelers'.

There are many reasons that contribute to the stability, although it doesn't seem like the limitless lebenstraum of North America, or the lack of external enemies prevented a Civil War from potentially dissolving the project. Both factors were at their peak in the 1860s, 15 years off conquering half of Mexico and two entire oceans separating the US from a world still using sails.

We also can't just leave it up to our culture to be a continuous thread of noble values and virtues. Cultures become decadent, indulgent, hateful, ignorant and if the Constitution is to be re-written every twenty years like Jefferson imagined, then we lose the reminder of what we used to be, of what the original idea was and where we are in that attempt. This isn't to say that the current method of reforming the Constitution is perfect, it is clearly set at too high a bar to facilitate needed change.

Idaho's right, holding elections with a peaceful transfer of power is not sufficient toward democracy as, indeed, there is every possibility of those things being present in an oligarchy where only dozens can vote. There is a sliding scale, of course, from more autocratic/oligarchic to more democratic, but the early republic was not in a meaningful sense more of a democracy than the Roman republic or contemporary China. Calling that a democracy makes about as much sense as calling FDR's government a dictatorship (for its tinge of centralized power).

Look you either go by whether the government in question allowed elections to those they considered citizens or you just dismiss the idea of democracy as a Plutonian Ideal. The US is not a democracy because we still have artificial barriers that prohibit some from voting, so by definition suffrage is still cannot be said to be universal and therefore US has never been a Democracy, only an Oligarchy with an ever increasing size. Hell, many non-citizens contribute to health and body politic of the country to a degree equal or more than many citizens, the US will never be a democracy truly until all who live within its borders has their opinion expressed in the vote. The material richness of our country comes from a globalized economy that makes us interdependent on those across the world for our own financial health and likewise we have the same power on their lives. How can we call ourselves a democracy when we still ignore the billions worldwide who suffer and prosper from decisions the US government makes. Should they have no say in such an authority over their lives?

The self-flagellation is part of what makes this country great and receptive to social upheaval and change...but there is only so much to dispense before it becomes like an intellectual exercise of how can we contextualize our world in the worst of all possible lights.

Another way to look at it is, where would the early US (or Georgian UK) fall along contemporary rankings of states? 2/8 points maybe? 3 points?

A variant of Illliberal Democracy which comes in multiple permutations as the combinations of what makes a liberal democracy are 1 (satisfies all criteria) but illiberal can come in varying failures of specific or multiple criteria.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have a couple of questions.

1. Do you think that democracy is a good thing in and of itself?
2. Do you think that more democracy is always better?

These are basic questions to this sub-argument.