User Tag List

First 6789 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 84

  1. #71
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    To clarify, it's one of two progressive era reforms I support without reservation (the other being women's suffrage). I support it for the reasons I outlined in my previous post, and the criticism from modern progressives is along the same lines as your criticism regarding the weakness of the American party system in general, and the inability to force dissenting party members to go along with the rest of the party in particular. My entire point is that support for the primary system (even closed primaries) is diametrically opposed to the formation of "strong party" systems. I support open primaries, personally-the closer representatives come to actually representing the constituents (whose preferences will likely differ from constituents in other districts), the better. On that subject, "gridlock" is the inevitable result when large numbers of people agree that "something should be done!" but are empowered (or threatened) by their constituents to vote in accordance with their professed conscience -its much easier to agree on the mends than it is to agree on the ends. This is a huge potential advantage for political coalitions that agree upon federalism (in the modern sense of that term) as a means to their various ends.
    Only if you assume that a Strong Party means a Top Down Party. I've been self-identifying as a populist throughout this entire thread, so clearly I believe the people - and not unelected elites - should select their leaders. Being against "the machine" is not the same as being against "the party."

    There's nothing contradictory between supporting nominees chosen by the people and supporting a strong 2-party system.
    a) The people register with the party that is the closest fit with their beliefs;
    b) the registered party members (and I do support same-day registration along with all kinds of election reforms) choose the best candidate to represent them;
    c) the two sides battle it out;
    d) one side wins;
    e) that side gets to govern with strong leadership that has the power to *encourage* loyalty from the legislators nominated by their party's members, and elected by the people of the district/state.

    In the past, that loyalty was encouraged because loyal members would be rewarded with benefits to their districts (the evil pork barrel spending!), and endorsements from (and fundraisers with) party leaders.

    Now, the opposite is true. National headlines matter more than delivering the goods to the state or district and the headlines and dollars come in when one gets to run "against the establishment."

    Being the outsider is no more pure than being the insider. It's just better strategy these days, and often for worse results.

  2. #72
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #73
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruthie View Post
    There's nothing contradictory between supporting nominees chosen by the people and supporting a strong 2-party system.
    There might be nothing contradictory about desiring that the nominees chosen by the people would choose to be subservient to the party leadership regardless of political costs or individual principles, but for all practical purposes, those are mutually opposed goals. In any event, how does denying political minorities in strongly aligned districts or Independents in every district a chance to influence the nominee selection process (so that candidates more closely match the aggregate will of their constituents) correspond with Populism? Isn't that political preference supposed to prefer "delegates" over "trustees"? I have my own set of contradictory desires (I would prefer that representatives choose to legislate as "trustees" while at the same time operating within electoral frameworks that prioritize accountability to constituents), but I recognize that reality forces me to effectively choose between the two, and I choose accountability as the higher priority.

  4. #74
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    I have a question regarding the bailouts:

    During the Great Depression 9 million people lost their personal savings when the banks went under. Half of American home owners were default on their mortgages within a year. The unemployment rate reached 25%.

    The New Deal turned the economy around and created jobs. Huge swaths of rural areas joined the 20th century because of public projects under the new deal creating dams, providing electricity, etc.

    The Depression ended in 1942 because of the war effort.

    In short, government intervention is the only thing that got this country back on track.

    Would you guys prefer that millions of people lost their personal savings and wandered the streets homeless and starving with a 25% unemployment rate (vs. the current 8%) as in pre New Deal times?

    What is your justification for the government NOT getting involved? Do you sincerely believe that the banks were the only entities "bailed out"? Do you not see the far-reaching effects?
    No one can prove anything, since we can't exactly apply the scientific method. Opinions on this subject are divided based on political ideology, nothing more. That's how it is with soft sciences like economics.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #75
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin was a guest on Morning Joe this morning, and said something I thought was particularly relevant to yesterday's debate about political parties:

    What happened to parties in this country? I mean, I think it's a deadly thing parties used to be part of peoples' identity. There used to be parades, they used to go running around feeling like 'I'm a Catholic, I'm a Democrat, I'm a Protestant, I'm a Republican.' People don't feel that way anymore. No wonder we can't govern, there's no loyalty left. Those independents have every control, they can float any way they want to.
    This could also fit in with the thread I posted the other day on the premise of social conservatism - the decline of basic institutions (major religions, political parties, civic groups). It's part of an ethic of absolute freedom, in which "freedom" is expressed by defining yourself ONLY as yourself and not as a part of anything greater. Some people are comfortable with that. I'm not - I think it's extremely destructive to society.

    Later in the show...


    Joe Scarborough: Doris, are we entering the age of the independent?

    Doris Kearns Goodwin: I think it's a worrisome age, if so. You know it really was true in the old days that parties would choose the nominee, maybe it wasn't as open as you would hope it would be today primaries are a good thing. But in the old days, once you got in, you owed your loyalty to a group, a collective group and you tried to get things done together. And that's gone right now. And I think with the internet, with money, which is what Morty was saying...

    Mort Zuckerman: ... education too, by the way. There's a much higher level of education, college education, and those people tend to be more independent, and less tied to an individual party. That's an inevitable flow in American society.
    What Zuckerman sees as progress, DKG sees as "worrisome." I'm with DKG.
    Last edited by Ruthie; 11-06-2009 at 04:03 PM. Reason: wanted to add quote from a later segment

  6. #76
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    You can't have democracy without a strong sense of community. That's the basis of self-government, which is what democracy is supposed to be about.

  7. #77
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Even if the New Deal didn't solve the Depression, why deny its palliative effect on millions of people who didn't starve because of the programs, and the lasting benefits of the massive infrastructure improvements that were implemented due to New Deal programs? It still wouldn't be profitable today to electrify rural areas.

  8. #78
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Even if the New Deal didn't solve the Depression, why deny its palliative effect on millions of people who didn't starve because of the programs, and the lasting benefits of the massive infrastructure improvements that were implemented due to New Deal programs? It still wouldn't be profitable today to electrify rural areas.
    Claiming that "millions of people didn't starve" because of the New Deal is quite hyperbolic. However, giving money and prevailing wage jobs to people who were extremely down on their luck did help people out in the short term. The problem is that the handouts and size of government really never went back down, and FDR used the Depression as a pretext for some awful things, like trying to pack the Supreme Court.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #79
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Claiming that "millions of people didn't starve" because of the New Deal is quite hyperbolic. However, giving money and prevailing wage jobs to people who were extremely down on their luck did help people out in the short term. The problem is that the handouts and size of government really never went back down, and FDR used the Depression as a pretext for some awful things, like trying to pack the Supreme Court.
    Sure about that? There's a reason my grandparents who grew up in the South during the Depression wouldn't let me leave the table without finishing my plate - they grew up in a time where you didn't know from where or when your next meal was coming.

    I'm glad we agree that the palliative effects were beneficial. However, why are the persisting programs from the New Deal (since most of them were temporary) per se a bad thing?

    I won't deny that the court-packing scheme was power politics at its most brutal, but considering what FDR was going up against (that is, the combined will of many of the same forces that are screwing up recovery efforts today), I don't think it was entirely unjustified. The New Deal was for one purpose alone, and that was to prevent either a fascist or communist revolution in the United States (see Coughlin, Charles and Long, Huey respectively). Capital in America was increasingly convinced of the benefits of the former, while labor and farmers were growing increasingly fond of the latter. The New Deal restored confidence in the idea that the American system of government could still work - expressed through the fervent home front efforts during the war.

  10. #80
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Sure about that? There's a reason my grandparents who grew up in the South during the Depression wouldn't let me leave the table without finishing my plate - they grew up in a time where you didn't know from where or when your next meal was coming.
    You learn hard lessons in a depression, but the vast majority of Americans weren't starving, or even in danger of starving.


    I'm glad we agree that the palliative effects were beneficial. However, why are the persisting programs from the New Deal (since most of them were temporary) per se a bad thing?
    We spend far more on transfer payments now than we did then. How would that make sense given that we have not had a crisis nearly as bad since?


    won't deny that the court-packing scheme was power politics at its most brutal, but considering what FDR was going up against (that is, the combined will of many of the same forces that are screwing up recovery efforts today), I don't think it was entirely unjustified. The New Deal was for one purpose alone, and that was to prevent either a fascist or communist revolution in the United States (see Coughlin, Charles and Long, Huey respectively). Capital in America was increasingly convinced of the benefits of the former, while labor and farmers were growing increasingly fond of the latter. The New Deal restored confidence in the idea that the American system of government could still work - expressed through the fervent home front efforts during the war.
    The threats of a fascist revolution/coup in the 1930s were and remain greatly overrated. The Business Plot in particular.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. [INTJ] Ask an INTJ
    By logan235711 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 870
    Last Post: 05-22-2015, 05:04 AM
  2. [ISTJ] Ask the ISTJ
    By RansomedbyFire in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 02:01 AM
  3. Engaging Economica on Libertarian Ideology
    By reason in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-25-2007, 08:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO