Re: Politics

281
I've taken much of this magazine with a grain of salt in the past, but is pretty on point here. (quibbles: would have liked for it to acknowledge Manchin & Sinema's specific role in this and not just "The Democrats", how tech plays into the amplification & divisions, the likelihood of Republicans seizing permanent power, etc.)

https://jacobin.com/2022/11/the-democra ... ling-apart
The Democrats Will Probably Lose the Midterms, Because Our Society Is Falling Apart
BY LIZA FEATHERSTONE
The Democrats are too beholden to the rich, and they face structural obstacles that are too daunting, to address the profound sense of social collapse that afflicts the US today. It’s going to get worse before it gets better.

It’s time to get real about how bad the upcoming US election could be. We are facing a political disaster with implications possibly even worse than the 2016 election. The Democrats have a good chance of losing the midterm elections, badly. The Senate and House races look dire, and even in Democratic-leaning New York State, where I live, we could get a far-right governor.

There are a few reasons we could cite for this looming horror. US politics is so polarized that power flip-flops back and forth between parties in an almost-predictable cycle of anger and rejection. As well, many Americans, including myself, haven’t done enough to help defeat the Right. There hasn’t been enough organizing in some places. (I haven’t received a single call or text urging me to phone bank — or even vote! — for the Democratic incumbent governor, nor have I seen any canvassers.)

The Democrats have also lacked a strong economic message, either about their accomplishments or about their plans. Democrats and progressives have been spectacularly dismissive on issues that matter to people and the messaging has been awful, not to mention the optics of drinking champagne with fancy donors while Americans line up for food banks. I’ve written about those problems here and in Jacobin.

And in a stunning piece of idiocy, the Democratic Party funded extremist Republicans thinking they would be losers in the general, and now, not surprisingly, it looks like some of those loons will win.

Unfortunately, though, the problem is worse, and harder to fix, than any of that. The Republicans are poised for victory because our whole society is falling apart in ways that mainstream Democrats are structurally ill equipped to address.

Crime is a real problem in some cities, and to dismiss it by claiming it’s exaggerated by right-wing media is not an adequate response. In New York City, all crime has increased dramatically since 2019, the last prepandemic year (in the case of murder, the most consistently reported and frightening crime, by 35 percent). Over the past year, murder hasn’t increased – small mercies – but all other major felonies are up 24 percent. The Democratic governor, Kathy Hochul, is leading Trumper Lee Zeldin by an astonishingly thin margin mainly for this reason, and she could lose.

All that mainstream Democrats seem able to do, in response to Republicans’ blaming humane reforms (in the case of New York State, ending the cash bail system), is to backslide and agree that the reforms are the problem. It’s a stupid reaction, because if Democratic policies were to blame, why shouldn’t voters concerned about public safety try the Republican law-and-order approach?

The Democrats’ problem is that the way to make our society less vulnerable to this sort of crisis would be to provide more public care on many levels. Communities need more sports and other after-school programs for young people. Our schools need more resources for mental health care.

More important, everyone needs less of the terrifying precarity that is driving us mad. Families need more security: good jobs, income supports, higher wages. Everyone needs a home, whether that means comfortable and safe public housing or secure, rent-stabilized private housing. But we don’t provide any of that, and as a result one in ten New York City public schoolchildren — one in ten — are homeless. The Democrats’ response? Cut the school budget.

Mental illness and economic precarity are two of the leading correlates of crime, and neither can be addressed cheaply. That means problems like this can’t be solved by leadership still wedded to the 1 percent. With their big donors in the real estate industry and the boss class, the Democrats can’t address human needs at a scale that might make inroads in problems like crime.

What’s more, the general societal breakdown of which crime is the most widely reported symptom is playing out in many other ways. Antisocial behavior of all kinds has increased — including kinds that Republicans don’t really care about one way or the other, like domestic violence and dangerously reckless driving. The difficulty that service sector employers are having finding labor is partly due to customers being so rude to workers. (Exploitation by bosses is a bigger problem, but widespread assholery is a sign of breakdown of the social contract.)

And people are not only being cruel to others: self-destructiveness, too, is heartbreakingly widespread. Last year suicide rates increased after two years on the decline. Death by drug overdoses spiked dramatically in 2020 and then again in 2021.

Our society is unwell, and mainstream Democrats, committed to business as usual, can’t provide the care that it badly requires. Americans were already alienated, anxious, and distressed. But the pandemic, combining horrific mass death with social isolation, as well as rendering many public institutions, most egregiously schools, unusable for way too long, destroyed some terribly precious remnants of a social fabric.

None of this is Democrats’ fault more than Republicans’. And it’s true that at the national level, the Democrats at least made serious gestures at funding public goods through the infrastructure bill and the Inflation Reduction Act, as well as lowering some prescription drug prices — more than they get credit for. But it hasn’t been enough, and many voters don’t want to reelect the party presiding over what feels like a comprehensive social meltdown.

Then there’s the issue people mention most to pollsters, by a wide margin, even more than crime: inflation. With critical basics like food, gas, and rent increasing alarmingly and often unpredictably, people worry about how to provide for their families. When I walk around my neighborhood, I see lines around the corner for church food pantries.

Far from being Joe Biden’s fault, inflation is a global phenomenon. In fact, a recent Ipsos survey found that it had been the number one concern all over the world for six months. Biden is not president of Turkey, where inflation reached 79.6 percent in July. But all the other signs of social breakdown here amplify the distress and anger people feel about rising prices.

Crime, social breakdown, and economic anxiety can be solved in only one way: through sustained, long-term investment in public goods and human flourishing, and the sense of connectedness and social responsibility that comes from living in a society that cares about you. Our public goods and sense of social connection were frayed before the pandemic, but over the past few years, they’ve been worn away even more, and it is a crisis.

Parents with children in public school — an institution that all but ceased to function throughout 2020 and 2021 — have been especially likely to turn on the incumbent Democrats. The Republicans have punitive and semifascist appeals to fall back on, but the Democrats are in a bind: they’re supposed to be the party of regular people, but they’re also wholly beholden to the rich.

So, when they can’t get everyone to care enough about the Republicans’ unpopular positions on issues like abortion, they’re screwed. And they may not be able do that this year.

There’s no quick fix here. I’d love to credibly argue that the Democrats could address this problem by running more Berniecrats and democratic socialists against Republicans in red and purple districts, and perhaps, again, for president. We have every reason to believe that more democratic socialist policies would produce a healthier, safer society, with a less-anxious public, thus making far-right politics less appealing.

But unfortunately, we don’t have the deep electoral experience and massive local presence that might allow us to say that in the United States as it is currently constituted, the democratic socialist message would win over conservative or swing voters any better than the centrist one. The wistful slogan, “Bernie Would Have Won!” will take some years of effort to turn into a consistent and reliable truth.

That means that, whatever the outcome on Election Day, there is no magic bullet: the solution is to fight the Right, build working-class institutions, and continue to strive for a mass base for socialism. These are dark times, but we do know what to do.
Music

Re: Politics

282
penningtron wrote:
the Democratic Party funded extremist Republicans thinking they would be losers in the general
What is this about?

The difficulty that service sector employers are having finding labor is partly due to customers being so rude to workers. (Exploitation by bosses is a bigger problem, but widespread assholery is a sign of breakdown of the social contract.)
This is an interesting point, and a correct one. I assume that people are rude to service workers because they view them as beneath them - why would you have a job like that unless you suck? It's probably true that this says something about the societal climate and economic situation, but I also feel like people generally don't take their manners seriously enough, or like, at all. As in, they don't act as if what they say and how they behave toward others has any effect.

We're all aware of people being a particular kind of insufferable online. And as long as I've been around, this has been excused with "it's just the internet". In other words, what you say and do in that environment does not affect the other people, or your own character, or the surrounding world.

Could internet users have been a cultural avant garde? In the sense that it is their mores that have been expanded as the internet has expanded. This technology has shaped social life in the meantime, and will likely continue to do so.

Several pronounced strains of earlier counterculture run through the hacker community, one of which is a fanatical commitment to free speech. But it seems you would be for free speech because you recognize that words have power, which means you would need to think about how you use them. If you adopt a wild west attitude to the matter you treat words as if they don't have power.
born to give

Re: Politics

283
kokorodoko wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 1:16 pm
penningtron wrote:(from Jacobin article) the Democratic Party funded extremist Republicans thinking they would be losers in the general
What is this about?
In Republican primaries where there was a traditional conservative vs. a Trump-ish whacko, the whackos were funded (and even voted for across party lines) by some Democrats thinking the whackos had no chance winning overall. And now some of those whackos are within 2-3 points of winning. Trump was considered the outsider/whacko with no chance winning in 2016 and we all know how that worked out..

Add to the chaos that any Republican whacko that doesn't lose by a wide, obvious margin will not accept these election results, drum up 'voter fraud' nonsense and potentially violence. All of this just makes me feel sick all of the time..
Last edited by penningtron on Thu Nov 03, 2022 1:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Music

Re: Politics

285
kokorodoko wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 1:29 pm How unbelievably stupid.
You are correct.

The incumbent governor in Illinois (Pritzker) did exactly this in the primaries so he could run against someone who he felt was easier to beat in the general election.

Pritzker is probably (and hopefully) going to win by a wide margin, but this kind of strategy just has bad news written all over it.
jason (he/him/his) from volo (illinois)

Re: Politics

287
I wonder what American voters whose primary concern is inflation think Congress or the president should do about it?

The only thing I see that anyone knows could move the needle is what the Fed has been doing, which also isn't great for regular people.

Maybe there's someone on here who took more Econ classes than I did who can explain why Japan seems to be the only G8 country with inflation under control.

At least with other issues uninformed voters can rattle off a sound bite but all I'm seeing is "Inflation is bad", a diagnosis which we all agree with.

Re: Politics

288
losthighway wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 6:51 pm I wonder what American voters whose primary concern is inflation think Congress or the president should do about it?

The only thing I see that anyone knows could move the needle is what the Fed has been doing, which also isn't great for regular people.

Maybe there's someone on here who took more Econ classes than I did who can explain why Japan seems to be the only G8 country with inflation under control.

At least with other issues uninformed voters can rattle off a sound bite but all I'm seeing is "Inflation is bad", a diagnosis which we all agree with.
At least 15-25% of humans are nitwits, and an equal number or more don't have a view of any long-game more than a quarter out, let alone a week or two.

All of this shit was a predictable outcome of the complete mis-management of and inability to contain the pandemic, and the resulting free-for-all government spending to try to keep a complete meltdown from happening.

Nitwits stuck at home spending on material goods like sailors on shore leave in Hookerville; without enough nitwits on the job making the shit and shipping and delivering the shit. Nitwits buying their life sized hotwheels-car trucks and jeeps without a care in the world about volatile commodities markets.

Humans, and Americans in particular are lousy at long-term planning and risk mitigation, living in the moment like dogs and getting bent out of shape when otherwise predictable and obvious winds of change start to blow and life gets more expensive or complicated.

When "looking out for number one" is an exercise in myopia. Don't blame Wall Street or the past decade of monetary policy: blame the guy in the Oval Office who doesn't have any real ability to do anything about this shit in the short term. Whatever corrective policy is put into place now, won't be felt for another 2-4 years, and by then the fucktwat in office then will be getting the credit, because again - nitwits can't remember anything that took place more than a week in the past, just like their inability to plan far out.

The free-market is blameless until it fucks the short sighted with higher gas prices, or higher food prices due to climate disruption and high demand for transport. Then somehow it's the government's fault for not having a hand in something that only minutes ago the same nitwit was complaining they should keep their hands out of. People would lose sight of their toes if they weren't attached to their goddamn feet. [/rant]

Re: Politics

289
losthighway wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 6:51 pm I wonder what American voters whose primary concern is inflation think Congress or the president should do about it?
I don't deal in emotions, I deal in facts. And my gut feeling is that the economy does better under Republicans. To be strong, we need strong leaders, and my gut feeling tells me that's a fact.

Re: Politics

290
Brains lie. Guts tell the truth. Your brain might disagree but your guts know that's the way it is. Aren't you tired of over-brainy people telling you not to listen to your own gut? We need leaders who aren't afraid to lead from the gut. Right from their bowels.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests