Antipolitics

[Michael Hardner]

This article seemed pretty interesting to me.  Democracy has had to reassert itself in the past.  I'm thinking of Tammany Hall, Watergate...

 

It feels like something will have to change with this election, either way.

 

Quote

Over the past generation we have seen the rise of a group of people who are against politics. These groups — best exemplified by the Tea Party but not exclusive to the right — want to elect people who have no political experience. They want “outsiders.” They delegitimize compromise and deal-making. They’re willing to trample the customs and rules that give legitimacy to legislative decision-making if it helps them gain power.

Ultimately, they don’t recognize other people. They suffer from a form of political narcissism, in which they don’t accept the legitimacy of other interests and opinions. They don’t recognize restraints. They want total victories for themselves and their doctrine.

This antipolitics tendency has had a wretched effect on our democracy. It has led to a series of overlapping downward spirals:

The antipolitics people elect legislators who have no political skills or experience. That incompetence leads to dysfunctional government, which leads to more disgust with government, which leads to a demand for even more outsiders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/the-governing-cancer-of-our-time.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[Wilber]

A depressing observation, but all too accurate I fear.

[bush_cheney2004]

Americas' original assertion of democracy was also quite violent.   All is well....anti-government is a strong American tradition.

Edited November 7, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[TimG]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Americas' original assertion of democracy was also quite violent.   All is well....anti-government is a strong American tradition.

The US would still be 13 bickering colonies if the founders did not understand the virtues of compromise. 

The problem today are large voting blocks who see negotiation and compromise as inherently wrong.
When a group rejects compromise they are rejecting a basic tenet of democracy and are really
seeking an authoritarian state where their will can be imposed on others.

Both the left and right in politics have elements of this authoritarianism and it is not good.

Edited November 7, 2016 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

14 minutes ago, TimG said:

The US would still be 13 bickering colonies if the founders did not understand the virtues of compromise.

 

The founders never understood certain segments/areas of the American population, and were happy to sacrifice many varied interests for the "common good".   American history has many examples of compromise being rejected in favour of conflict, the most significant being a civil war.  Today's conflicts are no different than those of the past save for scale with a nation that is now 350 million, which even includes the bizarre scenario wherein illegals want their interests represented.

 

Quote

The problem today are large voting blocks who see negotiation and compromise as inherently wrong.
When a group rejects compromise they are rejecting a basic tenet of democracy and are really
seeking an authoritarian state where their will can be imposed on others.

 

It's more complex than that, beginning with the purpose of federalism.   State's rights has been an issue from the very beginning.   Such history cannot be dismissed just because it is messy and disruptive today.   Fighting tyranny of the majority is one of the basic aspects of America's constitutional republic.

 

Quote

Both the left and right in politics have elements of this authoritarianism and it is not good.

 

It is perfectly normal and consistent with American history.   The U.S. is not Canada ("peace, order, and good government")

Edited November 7, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

11 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Americas' original assertion of democracy was also quite violent.   All is well....anti-government is a strong American tradition.

Anti-compromise is not. In fact, the US political system was deliberately designed with competing power bases to REQUIRE compromise. The founding fathers didn't want any group dictating to others. The reason the system isn't working is because you've got the Tea Party running congress. Even if they're not the majority of the Republican party they have most of the others running scared. Make any sign of compromise or working with the other side and the Tea party will fund a challenge to you in the next primary.

More to the point, democracy requires compromise. One of the reasons democracy has failed to flourish in so much of the world is that those cultures lack the spirit of compromise.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Argus

[Wilber]

Right now I'm really liking "peace order and good government".

[Argus]

18 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Right now I'm really liking "peace order and good government".

Still working on the 'good government' part, of course.

[Wilber]

That's always a work in progress, as it should be.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

More to the point, democracy requires compromise. One of the reasons democracy has failed to flourish in so much of the world is that those cultures lack the spirit of compromise.

 

Conflict and entrenched, partisan positions instead of compromise are perfectly normal in many democracies around the world, including Canada.   One government can/has easily overridden the legislation of the previously opposing government, which was elected "democratically".   I for one am glad that President Lincoln and the new Republican party did not "compromise" on slavery, unlike the "founders" and British imperialists.

Edited November 7, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Ah, those British Imperialists abolished slavery in 1833 and it didn't take a war to do it.

[bush_cheney2004]

45 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Ah, those British Imperialists abolished slavery in 1833 and it didn't take a war to do it.

 

Even that was a compromise...slavery was continued in Ceylon and other possessions.  The Baptist War (revolt in Jamaica) was most certainly violent.

Anti-government behaviours were/are born from the very nature of America's founding and individual rights.   U.S. federal, state, and local governments exist with the consent of the governed. 

 

Edited November 7, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

The compromise only lasted ten years when it was also abolished in East India Company possessions and holdouts like Ceylon . By 1858 the Company possessions reverted to the Raj anyway.

 

While the Baptist war probably accelerated the process, a slave rebellion in Jamaica is hardly a civil war in Britain.

[bush_cheney2004]

30 minutes ago, Wilber said:

While the Baptist war probably accelerated the process, a slave rebellion in Jamaica is hardly a civil war in Britain.

 

The point is moot....compromise does not always equate with better political outcomes, with slavery being only one example.   Anti-politics in the United States can be found from the Revolution through today for land/water rights, labour strife, wars, immigration backlash, abortion rights, gun rights, prohibition, suffrage, etc.

Just because it is happening today with greater news coverage and social media does not change its fundamental and necessary existence.

Edited November 7, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

There was a better political outcome. Parliament passed the legislation without bloodshed. Over 600,000 dead is not a satisfactory outcome, political or otherwise.

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Wilber said:

There was a better political outcome. Parliament passed the legislation without bloodshed. Over 600,000 dead is not a satisfactory outcome, political or otherwise.

 

The U.S. Civil War was not just about slavery.  Such an outcome was perfectly acceptable when fighting in two world wars for the imperialist empire that Parliament created and controlled with "compromise".  Many millions dead....

Edited November 7, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

There were other issues but it was about slavery.

I guess the World Wars were European civil wars to  some degree but the British Empire didn't start or was prepared for either of them. Seems to me, you took part as well.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

38 minutes ago, Wilber said:

There were other issues but it was about slavery.

I guess the World Wars were European civil wars to  some degree but the British Empire didn't start or was prepared for either of them. Seems to me, you took part as well.

 

The British Empire was most certainly complicit in starting and continuing both world wars, including a now much derided political "compromise" from Neville Chamberlain (Munich Agreement in 1938).   The U.S. most certainly did not start Britain's/Europe's wars and was very "anti-politic" about it.  The point of all this is to demonstrate that compromise in politics is not always a good or preferred outcome.  It depends on the issue....some things are worth fighting for.

Rancorous discourse in U.S. politics is to be expected, and thin veneers of civility do not change the underlying political and economic conflict(s).   Competition is good.

[Wilber]

At the beginning of both World Wars, Britain was only able to put about 10% of allied troops in the field. Hardly a conquering hoard compared to the French and Germans.

 

WWI was about German hegemony in Western Europe. Austro Prussian War. Franco Prussian War and between the Austro Hungarian Empire and Russia in the East. Britain had nothing to gain by either and a lot to lose. If anything, for Britain it was a failure of its long standing policy of allying itself with weaker European powers to prevent Europe's domination by a single power. No more Napoleons please. Unfortunately the Kaiser was replaced with Hitler.

England wasn't ready for war in 1939. It was even less ready in 1938. If there was an opportunity to stop Hitler it was 1936 when he marched into the Rhineland. Munich was futile given Hitler's aspirations.  20-20 hindsight.

Britain entered WWI in support of Belgium when it was invaded. It entered WW2 in support of Poland. You guys had to be attacked personally.

 

Anyway, nice deflection.

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Wilber said:

 

Britain entered WWI in support of Belgium when it was invaded. It entered WW2 in support of Poland. You guys had to be attacked personally.

Anyway, nice deflection.

 

The deflection is ignoring how politics and compromise led to a British empire on which "the sun never sets", and the resulting conflict, wars, and collapse.   The "British way" didn't/doesn't make the political outcomes any more acceptable just because it may seem to be more "civilized".   On balance, American politics has served the U.S. quite well.  Canadians watch the U.S. and U.S. elections intently...not so much the other way around. 

[Argus]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Conflict and entrenched, partisan positions instead of compromise are perfectly normal in many democracies around the world, including Canada.

And compromise is required except where a party has an absolute majority, such as in Canada. Your country does not operate that way, however, so it requires compromise.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

And compromise is required except where a party has an absolute majority, such as in Canada. Your country does not operate that way, however, so it requires compromise.

 

The U.S. was purposely set up as a constitutional republic with a federal role limited to enumerated powers.   States and individuals retain specific rights and jurisdiction.   Lack of compromise can result from crossing these boundaries, with resulting anti-politic behaviours.   The same battles can be found in Canada for language, regionalism, separatism, religion, etc.    The October Crisis was not about compromise.

[Wilber]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The deflection is ignoring how politics and compromise led to a British empire on which "the sun never sets", and the resulting conflict, wars, and collapse.   The "British way" didn't/doesn't make the political outcomes any more acceptable just because it may seem to be more "civilized".   On balance, American politics has served the U.S. quite well.  Canadians watch the U.S. and U.S. elections intently...not so much the other way around. 

The pursuit of wealth lead to the British Empire and freedom of trade was what sustained it. It made no sense geographically.  Like your navy now, the Royal Navy's mission was to guarantee that for all nations. The dissolution of the British Empire was largely peaceful and voluntary. It's legacy is some of the most successful democracies on the planet, including the world's largest and yours.

We don't watch your elections because we admire your political system.

[bush_cheney2004]

26 minutes ago, Wilber said:

The pursuit of wealth lead to the British Empire and freedom of trade was what sustained it. It made no sense geographically.  Like your navy now, the Royal Navy's mission was to guarantee that for all nations. The dissolution of the British Empire was largely peaceful and voluntary. It's legacy is some of the most successful democracies on the planet, including the world's largest and yours.

 

This topic is not intended to glorify the rise and fall of the British Empire, for which the world should be ever grateful in your estimation.  Its legacy is some of the world's worst conditions imaginable as well.   All accomplished with "civilized" domination, white wigs, and firearms.

 

Quote

We don't watch your elections because we admire your political system.

 

Would they not be watched so intently by Canadians if they were as boring as Canadian federal elections ?   Would the outcomes be respected more and watched less if Americans behaved more like Canadian politicians, except for the PM cursing and assaulting people on the Commons floor ?

Dominating U.S. politics is not a substitute or replacement for Canada's long lost association with British governance...at least you still have the queen.

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

16 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The U.S. was purposely set up as a constitutional republic with a federal role limited to enumerated powers.   States and individuals retain specific rights and jurisdiction.   Lack of compromise can result from crossing these boundaries, with resulting anti-politic behaviours.   The same battles can be found in Canada for language, regionalism, separatism, religion, etc.    The October Crisis was not about compromise.

No, it was about a terrorist group. Are you saying the Tea Party are a terrorist group? Or that they have the same rigid, uncompromising mentality as terrorist groups?