Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thad]

Is disdain for Washington politics really a good thing though?

Yes.

Ultimately, the "Everything about Washington is bad!" meme-spouting crowd are vastly exaggerating how bad things are as a selling point to put themselves into power.

Which is, itself, part of what's wrong with Washington.

I said, a few years back, that it was sorely tempting to just vote straight anti-incumbent.  I stand by the Tea Party's disdain for the previous Congress, if not its (initial) support of the current one.

The problem isn't in the idea, it's in the execution.  "The government is being controlled through lobbyist manipulation and backroom deals" is a perfectly valid complaint.  "Refuse any compromise" is, however, not the solution.

[Mongrel]

Is disdain for Washington politics really a good thing though?

Yes.

I'm not saying anyone should accept it as business-as-usual (that would be even worse). But at the end of the day, if people mentally divorce themselves from their government they're externalizing the problem and promoting the collapse of their system of government.

Now okay, maybe there's actually a fair debate to be had over blowing up the entire US system of government, but I don't think that's where your arguments are going. Even if they were, I think we'd both agree that getting there by having the voting public completely abdicate themselves from their responsibilities as citizens and leaving the mess to whoever rolls into town with the biggest stick (metaphorically OR literally) would be a terrible idea.

"The government is being controlled through lobbyist manipulation and backroom deals" is a perfectly valid complaint.

No argument there.

"Refuse any compromise" is, however, not the solution.

Good thing that's not a solution I would propose.

[Thad]

"Refuse any compromise" is, however, not the solution.

Good thing that's not a solution I would propose.

Not you.  The shits the Tea Party put in office last year.

I'm not saying anyone should accept it as business-as-usual (that would be even worse). But at the end of the day, if people mentally divorce themselves from their government they're externalizing the problem and promoting the collapse of their system of government.

Not necessarily.  It's entirely possible to blame the politicians currently in office and vote to replace them.  Again, the Tea Party has the right idea in terms of replacing representatives who have failed to represent; the problem is that their replacements aren't any better.  (And, as I've said before, I believe the Tea Party victories last year were more about anti-incumbent sentiment than an actual endorsement of the crazy shit the Tea Party candiates actually represent.)

I heard a piece on OWS on NPR a day or two ago where some protesters were talking about endorsing candidates but one of them rejected the idea entirely, on the premise that both parties are the enemy and both are owned by the 1%.

Which is absolutely true, but, okay, what's your alternative?  Maybe he had an idea and they just didn't play it, but from what they DID play it sounded like Underpants Gnome planning.  Step one is take to the streets and protest; step 3 is change the way things are done in Washington.

I think the solution for OWS is the same as it was for the Tea Party: find politicians you don't like, find politicians you DO like, and have the latter mount primary challenges against the former.  While you're at it, keep your message clear and keep it in the public eye.  And aside from pushing change politically, push it economically; keep giving the big banks a financial incentive to reform.

[Brentai]

Problem is you have to match the Treasury's incentives for them not to reform.

Step 2 is apparently "raid Ft. Knox".

[Mongrel]

"Refuse any compromise" is, however, not the solution.

Good thing that's not a solution I would propose.

Not you.  The shits the Tea Party put in office last year.

I'm not saying anyone should accept it as business-as-usual (that would be even worse). But at the end of the day, if people mentally divorce themselves from their government they're externalizing the problem and promoting the collapse of their system of government.

Not necessarily.  It's entirely possible to blame the politicians currently in office and vote to replace them.  Again, the Tea Party has the right idea in terms of replacing representatives who have failed to represent; the problem is that their replacements aren't any better.  (And, as I've said before, I believe the Tea Party victories last year were more about anti-incumbent sentiment than an actual endorsement of the crazy shit the Tea Party candiates actually represent.)

I heard a piece on OWS on NPR a day or two ago where some protesters were talking about endorsing candidates but one of them rejected the idea entirely, on the premise that both parties are the enemy and both are owned by the 1%.

Which is absolutely true, but, okay, what's your alternative?  Maybe he had an idea and they just didn't play it, but from what they DID play it sounded like Underpants Gnome planning.  Step one is take to the streets and protest; step 3 is change the way things are done in Washington.

I think the solution for OWS is the same as it was for the Tea Party: find politicians you don't like, find politicians you DO like, and have the latter mount primary challenges against the former.  While you're at it, keep your message clear and keep it in the public eye.  And aside from pushing change politically, push it economically; keep giving the big banks a financial incentive to reform.

I think you and I are on the same page, really.

That idiot protester is exactly what I'm talking about. That sort of "I'M NOT VOTING FOR ANYBODY!" stuff plays right into the worst possible hands.

When the rhetoric is to blame the system as a whole, rather than it's participant members (i.e. individual Congressmen/Senators/Representatives, etc.) then people stop bothering with individual assessments ("I like this rep over that rep") and just take the lazy way out ("ROW ROW, FIGHT etc.").

"The system is evil!" is not targeted for the right or the left, it's targeted at those people who are too lazy or stupid to properly participate a full members of a functioning democracy. They're people who are trading their liberty not even for security, just for the chance to stop all this hard work of thinking.

Maybe you want to be generous and say that such people are not lazy or stupid, that they're just demoralized and beaten down, but I think that's when you need to think and work the hardest, to get back up out of that hole. Apathetic withdrawal is not neutral; it actively makes things worse.

[Thad]

I just think it's an unreasonable generalization.

The system IS broken, and we ARE pretty well screwed by both major parties.  I think that's a realistic assessment.

And yeah, it's one that can lead to apathy.  Personally I'm griping about it on a messageboard rather than going to any rallies.  But it CAN also lead to looking for ways to fix it.

Whatever the fuck THOSE are.

[Brentai]

Step 1: Go and watch Fritz Lang's Metropolis.  Seriously, each and every one of you, go and do it right now, and then we can can continue this conversation.  I'll be waiting.

[Mongrel]

Oh shoot, you said Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Ahahaha, whoops!



Actually I watched his M the other day. I'm sure that doesn't count though.

[Caithness]

Okay, I watched it. So who's going to be our Mediator?

[Thad]

So yeah, even though he hasn't really made any moves against the press (that I know of), Paul is too much of a wildcard for them to endorse.  Problem is this is turning out to his advantage - when the man gets on the podium and points out that the headlines from the straw poll read "Bachmann First, Pawlenty Third" he gets to present himself as the race's best-kept secret.

WSJ: Gingrich Leads, Romney Takes Third, in Closely Watched Iowa Poll

Here we go agaaaaain~
(everybody laughs like idiots; fade to black & roll credits)

[Brentai]

He's got about a month to present himself as the surprising alternative to Newt Gingrich, just as Newt is the surprising alternative to Mitt Romney.  Could do it too.  I mean, it's Newt fucking Gingrich.

They're all kind of slightly different shade of asshole brown, so it's mostly just entertainment at this point.  Which is pretty much what the newscorps want.

(Caith, I'll get back to you when I've organized my thoughts on the topic.)

[Mongrel]

All he really has to do is hammer away at Newt's record in a way that's different from Romney.

And Romney is very deliberately taking what he thinks is the "high road" against Newt, so that leaves plenty of room for Paul to unload both barrels on Gingrich.

It's not like there's any shortage of ammunition to use either. Thirty years of "Fun With Newt!" is more than enough.

[Brentai]

Meanwhile, I think it's really positive that nobody here has even bothered to mention the current tax-cut extension clusterfuck - in which the GOP can't reach even a proposal agreement because, no shitting, the majority of them are arguing that tax cut extensions shouldn't apply to the 99%.  Boehner's going kind of ballistic because he's finally the guy in the last panel of that comic thinking "Shit!" while a clown takes the soapbox, but I don't think it even really matters.  The disassociation between what Congress does and anything that actually affects people in a way that isn't a downhill river of shit is complete.  The conversation has moved from "How do we stop this thing from breaking?" to "How do we fix this thing now that it's broken?", and that I think is a question that has an answer.

Not that I know what it is or expect I will in the next few months or even years, but hey, asking the right questions is the first step.

[Thad]

Paul burns Trump and Gingrich pretty good.

[Mongrel]

Oh but wait! It gets better! (Trump reportedly still considering presidential bid, only now as an Independent).

You know, it's a sobering thought to think that I can recall that not only did Mad Magazine used to constantly making fun of that man, but that their jokes about him were well-worn reprints even when I first saw them twenty-plus years ago.

[Brentai]

I have to admit that I've been a little naive about Gingrich up to this point, and he's a lot more dangerous than I care to think about.  The reason was pointed out to me while chatting with my stepfather, who's mostly apolitical though slightly left-leaning but a great fan of the political "game".

The conversation went like this:

SEXIEST MAN IN THE UNIVERSE: "The Democrats must love it though.  They're just waiting for him to get the nomination, at which point they all say 'So let's talk about what happened in the 90s.'"
HIM: "You mean when he balanced the budget."
SEXIEST MAN IN THE UNIVERSE: "I... what?  No, I mean when he did the exact same thing that Cain just lost his campaign for."
HIM: "He was Speaker of the House when Clinton was President, and that's the only thing that's going to matter."

And he's damn right.  Pretty much what everyone wants right now is the Clinton era back - just with a lot less Clinton, for the GOP.  All it takes is a slight shift in attributing that time "to" Newt rather than "in spite of" (or "ended with") and the man gets complete carte blanche to fuck, say, and do whatever the hell he wants.  And he will.

[Thad]

If you think the best way to go back to the way things were in the Clinton era is to back the guy who blocked Clinton at every turn, presided over his impeachment proceedings, shut down the government, and ultimately got kicked out of office on corruption charges, then you're already going to vote for whichever nominee has an "R" next to his name.

People who aren't partisan Republicans already don't like Newt.  And that's before he even starts in with the "fire the janitors and put the kids to work" insanity.

[Brentai]

People are desperate for ANY relic of that time.  I think you're putting too much faith in the mass's ability to think beyond the widest generalizations.

Or to put it another way, I just had a fairly intelligent, liberal-leaning person who I mostly respect tell me with a straight face that Newt Gingrich balanced the federal budget in the 90s.

[Thad]

People are desperate for ANY relic of that time.  I think you're putting too much faith in the mass's ability to think beyond the widest generalizations.

"Clinton's enemy" is about as general as it gets.

People may not have long memories, but Newt has a habit of forcibly reminding people that he's a petulant bully whose ideas are legitimately insane.

I'll grant that I don't think his multiple affairs and divorces are going to make a huge difference in his chances.  But his personality sure as hell is.

[Brentai]

"Clinton's Enemy" works out fine if you've got a dominating spin machine.  Convince people that Clinton was doing everything in his power to destroy the economic bounceback, and it was only Newt's "bold" (expect to hear the word "bold" a lot) leadership that kept it on track.  As soon as Newt was ousted by a conspiracy of dirty liberals, everything collapsed - the dot-coms, real estate, even our BIGGEST PALS IN THE WORLD Japan - leaving it George to slowly repair it all and then watch it crumble again the moment the Dems took Congressional power.

See?  Easy as pie narrative, and it's not exactly hard to get the American public to eat it up.  Most people already will give you the wrong name if you ask them who signed TARP.

(As a test, I just asked my stepfather, and he said he doesn't even know.)