the dynamite politics thread

[Rayna]

~covers eyes~

 

[Magrathean]

So why aren't all the aussies naked?

 

[Makaan]

and then I guess I'll have to flee to the fells and start a 1337 commie guerilla movement.

Heres one establishing the Stockholm cell. The army has been so cut back on, they wont stand a chance when we begin our winter offensive! Expect us to raise the red banner over the parliament in march!

on topic: Seems like Göran Hägglund (leader of the rightist christian party) might become our foreign affairs minister. Sort of seems like a tradedown from Jan Eliasson, former diplomat and chairman in the UN´s general council.

 

[Lina]

From what I understand, that's because the Democrats currently don't have that much support, right? I remember reading somewhere that she's leading the polls party-wise, but the party is behind. Do you think that it will stay that way in two years?

No, that's not quite right. What you probably read is that she's leading within the Democratic Party for the primary, but that she wouldn't be able to win in the general election. And that's not because the party is unpopular; it's because she's unpopular with independents and moderate conservatives (and obviously strong conservatives) and any other potential swing voters -- the people who will ultimately decide the election.

While Clinton was president, Republicans villified her as being far too...smart and opinionated and involved for a woman. First ladies are supposed to lead reading initiatives, like Laura, not write proposals for overhauling the health-care system, like Hillary. A large portion of this country is very traditional and conservative (obviously) and, for whatever reason, feels threatened by her.

I'm sure most of them would deny it's because she's a woman, but there is this definite knee-jerk reaction against her that isn't based on her voting record. That reaction is tied to more than her being a woman; it's also tied to more nebulous feelings: She, like her husband, represents a strata of our culture that conservatives despise. They are well-educated, they were drawn to politics during the civil rights era, she's from the north. They represent the social consciousness of the '60s, which to liberals means protesting the Vietnam War and racial segregation, and to conservatives means pot-smoking, good-for-nothing, free-loving, idealistic hippies. That's why Clinton's sex scandal took on such a huge proportion -- it represented what conservatives wanted to hate about baby-boomer-era liberals. It was far more culturally significant than if a 75-year-old Democrat had been caught having an affair.

So I won't say that it's impossible for a woman to become president -- although I can't think of any who could; I was going to say Condoleezza Rice, but she's black -- but her gender would have to be tempered by her being a conservative.

As for current support for the Democratic Party, it's quite high right now, and it's possible that the Democrats will take back control of the House of Representatives. It's high for two reasons: The tide always shifts in the midterm congressional elections for the party who hasn't been in power for a long time; and also in actual opposition to Bush's policies/leadership. A higher-than-ever percentage of Americans are upset about the war on terrorism and Iraq and the economy and the response to Hurricane Katrina, etc. Their support for or against Bush has never been based on the facts or his stances or the differences between the two parties, because those remain unchanged. It's just a measure of the uninformed independents' "feelings" about the country at this point in time. It's an easily manipulated bunch of people who ultimately decide the winners in this country, so it's very difficult to predict election outcomes at the moment.

 

[Kovenant84]

Lina, alot of what you said about Hillary is true. Yes, she's strong, opinionated and smart.

I think the main problem that people (at least in NY - it's my main fault that unfortunately I can't speak from other points of view - I do tend to be rather narrow-minded) I talk to have with her isn't her lack of involvement. I don't think anyone would contend that she's not involved. It's the fact that she doesn't do what she was elected to do, which is represent the wants and needs of the populace who elected her. I think the general reaction I normally run into in NY isn't 'Oh, she's a woman' - in fact most people I know would vote for a woman as easily for a man - or that she doesn't do anything, but rather that she doesn't do what NY'ers view as the right thing. I'll have to do some research tonight into her voting record and such, but I remember there were quite a few articles a year or so back about her being ineffective for the reasons I mentioned.

(And just as an aside, of course she voted for and supported initiatives to do things like get NY more funding after our Homeland Security budget was cut so harshly, but to ignore that would have been political suicide. I don't give her much credit for other things, but she is rather shrewd about her political positioning.)

~kov.

 

[Lina]

Lina, alot of what you said about Hillary is true. Yes, she's strong, opinionated and smart.

I think the main problem that people (at least in NY - it's my main fault that unfortunately I can't speak from other points of view - I do tend to be rather narrow-minded) I talk to have with her isn't her lack of involvement. I don't think anyone would contend that she's not involved. It's the fact that she doesn't do what she was elected to do, which is represent the wants and needs of the populace who elected her. I think the general reaction I normally run into in NY isn't 'Oh, she's a woman' - in fact most people I know would vote for a woman as easily for a man - or that she doesn't do anything, but rather that she doesn't do what NY'ers view as the right thing. I'll have to do some research tonight into her voting record and such, but I remember there were quite a few articles a year or so back about her being ineffective for the reasons I mentioned.

(And just as an aside, of course she voted for and supported initiatives to do things like get NY more funding after our Homeland Security budget was cut so harshly, but to ignore that would have been political suicide. I don't give her much credit for other things, but she is rather shrewd about her political positioning.)

~kov.

You're raising an important point, which is that ultimately she's angling to be president, and her voting record therefore reflects that. New York is far more liberal than the rest of the country, but she has cast some quite conservative votes (on issues like flag-burning or the Iraq war, for instance) for solely political reasons, which I don't like necessarily, but I understand the need for her to do it if she's ever going to appeal to people outside of liberal states.

edit: And I didn't mean that people in NY would have a problem with her being female; I meant people in the conservative red states.

 

[Kovenant84]

I understood that you were talking about more red states than blue. My only point about people not liking her is that she's walking an increasingly thin line where she votes on both sides of the spectrum to avoid angering anyone for her bid for presidency, but at the same time, it's really pissing off people from NY, who elected her to advocate their (as you said) more liberal position.

It's just kind of strange to see someone so undermining their 'safe' position to try and reach out in what could very well be a futile effort to appease conservatives.

~kov.

 

[hyena]

hey, thanks for the interesting input.

of course i don't have any information so i'm basically just ranting, but what lina said about the reasons why conservatives are averse to hillary make an air-raid siren go off in my head. are you sure of what you are saying? i will phrase it differently: while i am not an american, i am most definitely conservative, and i have been faced several times with stereotypes that attribute to me a tendency to despise left-wing people because they are good-for-nothing, pot-smoking etc jerks. of course someone who buys into such a generalization concerning everyone who votes for a liberal party must be an idiot, and it's very easy to deconstruct conservative opinions when starting from the assumption that they are mainly professed by idiots. again, i don't know if this is the case in the US, but from where i stand the true argument is that liberal policies, not liberal politicians, might be conductive to a generally irresponsible life-style, both economically and socially. this is not as stupid as saying 'hillary clinton is evil and dangerous because she's a liberated woman and she approves of her husband smoking pot'; of course one can agree or disagree, and we can argue the point until the end of time, but at least doesn't make conservatives look like neanderthals who are afraid of basic freedoms. and speaking of liberation, i honestly think that the equation conservative=chauvinist, although sometimes true, is another basically incorrect stereotype (you mentioned condoleezza rice: is she discriminated on account of being a woman?)

 

[rahvin]

If the two of you [edit: pre-hyena's post. I meant Lina and Kov] combined are saying that a Democrat who tries to cover all angles by giving a little to the conservatives and a little (more) to the liberals is not going to get enough support by either, while a Republican who looks solely to his/her "natural" pool of voters would hit the jackpot, then it seems to me hyena was right: the Democrats just don't have enough support.

I think it's more functional to measure support as the actual chances of a person voting for a certain party regardless of personal doubts or pet peeves, otherwise we might as well come to the conclusion that - probably due to certain blatant shortcomings of the current President - everyone is a would-be Democrat, who's simply not willing to vote for a liberal candidate of said party. But doesn't that mean he's actually a Republican?

@hyena: Your sig is a red cross, host it elsewhere.

 

[hyena]

@rahv: i'm quite tired, so i read "Democrat who tries to cover all angels". i was wondering however the bu one does that. but yes, what you said makes sense. anyway, there was an article in salon.com today mentioning barak obama as a possible alternative to clinton, but i failed to read it because my connection at work is awful. will try again tonight.

is the sig visible now? (i was going to ask 'is the sig any better now?', but seeing how the thread is about politics if you'd said 'yes' then everyone would have accused us of conspiring and preferring republicans to, of all things, the red cross. )

 

[Kovenant84]

I really can't speak to the strata of opinions within more conservative groups, but I know that 'liberals' or whatever they'll be called tend to have a hugely varying set of opinions on just about everything, and, at least the way I see it, from that angle, yes, the democrats don't have as much support.

It's not so much that the Democrats have gained support recently because of public opinion towards Bush's actions, but rather that the Republicans have lost support. The problem is that it seems in this country that conservatives have figured out what liberals (I'm using both terms very, very loosely) haven't - that the US has a two-party system, and to think otherwise is deluding yourself. Everywhere I see, conservatives all vote Republican, and liberals vote Democrat... or Independent... or Green... etc... or simply abstain because no one completely encapsulates all of their ideals.

I'm not sure if that entirely makes sense, as I'm nearly unconcious and way too warm besides (goddamn girl keeps turning off the AC).

~kov.

 

[Arch]

From what I understand, that's because the Democrats currently don't have that much support, right? I remember reading somewhere that she's leading the polls party-wise, but the party is behind. Do you think that it will stay that way in two years?

I think that's half true. The Democrats are losing their support from voters, but the Republicans are also losing a lot more of their own supporters at the same time.

 

[hyena]

interestingly enough, this is partly a feature of italian politics as well. while we don't have a true two-party system, no matter how berlusconi tried to push the idea, it is certainly true that there are far more divisions and hair-splitting ideological barriers on the left. for example, when the former communist party decided to renounce its orthodox marxist ideas, it ended up splitting in three different parties: the bigger one, which is now basically a social-democratic party, gets about 22-25% of the vote, and the smaller ones, tinted in different degrees of red, get respectively 6-8% and 2-4%. on the other hand, when the former 'social movement' party decided to renounce its ties with the undertones of fascism that had animated parts of it in the previous 40 years, there was no serious split, if you exclude minuscule groups of extremists who don't amount to anything. also, even liberal circles have a running joke about putting a bunch of left-wing people in a room and getting heated fights between trotzkists, leninists, anarchists, greens and moderates after 15 minutes, while you would never hear that on the right. of course the liberals maintain that it is because conservatives are not used to 'critical thinking', which actually might be the case sometimes, but there is also a higher sense of purpose and/or practicality that overshadows the need to get the party to propose exactly what a single individual wants to propose.

 

[Lina]

of course i don't have any information so i'm basically just ranting, but what lina said about the reasons why conservatives are averse to hillary make an air-raid siren go off in my head. are you sure of what you are saying? i will phrase it differently: while i am not an american, i am most definitely conservative, and i have been faced several times with stereotypes that attribute to me a tendency to despise left-wing people because they are good-for-nothing, pot-smoking etc jerks. of course someone who buys into such a generalization concerning everyone who votes for a liberal party must be an idiot, and it's very easy to deconstruct conservative opinions when starting from the assumption that they are mainly professed by idiots. again, i don't know if this is the case in the US, but from where i stand the true argument is that liberal policies, not liberal politicians, might be conductive to a generally irresponsible life-style, both economically and socially. this is not as stupid as saying 'hillary clinton is evil and dangerous because she's a liberated woman and she approves of her husband smoking pot'; of course one can agree or disagree, and we can argue the point until the end of time, but at least doesn't make conservatives look like neanderthals who are afraid of basic freedoms.

Keep in mind that the liberal policies in the U.S. are not all that liberal -- not by European standards anyway. I'm speaking here of the policies that a majority of self-described Democrats support. Of course there are left-wing groups which support further left-wing policies, but they're irrelevant, for all intents and purposes. So -- brace yourself -- the Democratic policies are so common-sensical and uncontroversial that only "neanderthals" wouldn't support them.

I know, I know, that sounds painfully simplistic and biased, but here's an example. Last week I sat in on a House Judiciary Committee debate about a Republican-sponsored bill that would only punish/fine firearms dealers for not filling out the appropriate paperwork and doing the appropriate background checks (all of which is required by law but not enforced) if they neglected to do so intentionally. Of course, this intent can't be proven. Any dealer can say he forgot and thereby avoid punishment. To give you an idea of the scope of the legislation, only the top 20-some dealers with the most offenses in the country would be held accountable. Out of hundreds of thousands of offenders? Millions? Who knows. The man who improperly sold the D.C. sniper (remember him?) his guns -- who has an egregious record of improperly selling guns -- would not even be scolded.

In this example, the "liberal position" is to enforce current laws to not sell guns to convicted criminals. (You might have thought that the liberal position would be to outlaw guns, but no such position exists, not by a long shot.) Which party is being socially irresponsible here? True, that's just one example, but holy crap, every hearing I sit in on is exactly the same way, where the Republican position is just mind-boggling.

From economic to social to foreign policy, the only issues I can think of which could legitimately be debated are those rooted in religion (abortion, capital punishment). And even then, the only reason those aren't cut-and-dry is because statistics and facts don't matter when matched up against religious beliefs. I'm not an expert on every subject, but if you'd like to suggest an issue, I'm all ears.

and speaking of liberation, i honestly think that the equation conservative=chauvinist, although sometimes true, is another basically incorrect stereotype (you mentioned condoleezza rice: is she discriminated on account of being a woman?)

I would say it's the combination of too many "liberal" things at once that scares moderates/conservatives. I'm not positive but I think it's possible that Colin Powell (a black moderate-conservative male) or Condoleezza Rice (a black conservative woman) could -- or could have at one point, in Powell's case -- been elected president. But that's largely because many liberals would've voted for them too, with excitement to see the first minority president.

Like I said before, swing voters who live in the middle of the country and don't pay attention to politics are the ones who decide elections here, and they tend to lean more conservative than liberal -- due to a variety of factors: They're religious. They feel defensive due to the Fox News-propagated stereotype of liberal Northeastern elites looking down their noses at "plain-talkin' folk" (even though the liberal policies would benefit them more than the conservative ones). They're fiercely patriotic and distrustful of foreigners, having never met any since they live in the middle of the country or having only met Mexican border-hoppers. And Republicans have simply done a better job of manipulating them, because it's easier to get people to rally around fear and self-interest than hope and altruism. (And, again, I contend their self-interests are more in line with Democratic policies, but that involves nuanced explanations which are difficult to squeeze onto a bumpersticker.)

Anyway, I'm rambling. Among these groups of swing voters, conservatism has won out in the last few elections, but if the tide turned toward supporting a more liberal or moderate conservative, whatever liberal qualities they have must be tempered by more conservative qualities. So that means a conservative woman or a conservative minority or a liberal white male would garner the most support. These are moderate voters, so, naturally, they vote for whomever seems the most moderate. (They'd love Giuliani or McCain, for example.)

Barack Obama is an interesting case. From what I know about him, I adore him. Absolutely admire, respect, and adore him. (He doesn't yet have enough experience to be elected president though, which he has stated himself.) However, if someone like him ran for president now, I wouldn't necessarily say that swing voters would be opposed to him on the principle of "too many liberal qualities about him," being black and liberal. He has charisma and the media loves him, and those go a long way toward swaying an uninformed independent.

If the two of you [edit: pre-hyena's post. I meant Lina and Kov] combined are saying that a Democrat who tries to cover all angles by giving a little to the conservatives and a little (more) to the liberals is not going to get enough support by either, while a Republican who looks solely to his/her "natural" pool of voters would hit the jackpot, then it seems to me hyena was right: the Democrats just don't have enough support.

I suppose. But roughly about 1/3 are Republicans, 1/3 Democrats, and 1/3 independents, who, as I just described, tend to lean right. But the key word is "tend." And currently, they're tending to lean left. We'll find out on November 2.

 

[Taliesin]

How much do you think charisma counts in american politics? To what extent is it a question of popularity?
Does the media give you a fair chance, or is it in favour of the republicans, as is mostly said?

 

[Kovenant84]

Last week I sat in on...

Just out of curiousity - is that work related? If so, what do you do?

From economic to social to foreign policy, the only issues I can think of which could legitimately be debated are those rooted in religion (abortion, capital punishment). And even then, the only reason those aren't cut-and-dry is because statistics and facts don't matter when matched up against religious beliefs. I'm not an expert on every subject, but if you'd like to suggest an issue, I'm all ears.

Just cause you brought it up

I understand that those two can be hotly debated from a moral perspective. I myself am not too positive on the whole abortion issue as to the 'when' of any cutoff (like third-trimester abortions, which frankly scare the crap out of me). I'm in agreement with you that they can be debated (even though I hate the fact that people bring religion into it, destroying the state/religion independence that's been being whitled away anyway - I know it's something that can't be avoided in this case), but I was wondering what your opinion was on two things:

One, the recent law in ... Colorado or Utah was it? The one that made most kinds of abortion illegal, even in cases where it jeopardized the mother's life?

Two, the other recent (about a year and a half old, I think) law in the other of those two states that kinda flew under the radar - it stated that anyone who killed a pregnant woman could be chaged with double homicide. Basically it was touted as doing justice for one case where a pregnant woman was run down by a driver so that the driver would serve double the time, but it left a large legal hole that could be used in an 'is abortion murder' sense - if you count the fetus as a life under one circumstance, you have to in another.

~kov.

 

[Kovenant84]

How much do you think charisma counts in american politics? To what extent is it a question of popularity?
Does the media give you a fair chance, or is it in favour of the republicans, as is mostly said?

The media is totally untrustworthy. Either it's skewed one way or the other, but all they do is bash each other for their skews.

And charisma is EVERYTHING. That and money. Seriously, it just takes convincing people in a mob-mentality kind of way to accept things that individually they might question. It all boils down to the charisma of the person saying it to you - the more they have, the easier it is (and the more you'll want to) swallow the line.

~kov.

 

[hyena]

@lina: thanks a lot for the detailed reply. i am exhausted and thinking about going to sleep now, so i cannot return the favor, but i want to clarify a single point - i think you're right when you mention that liberal policies in America are not the same as liberal policies in Europe, but only if we're discussing themes connected to economics. on the other hand, i think that on social issues now the debate is sort of similar in the two continents, even if over here we may use a higher number of polysillabic words (and no, i don't necessarily think that's a plus. i cannot by any stretch of imagination be accused or not knowing or liking them, but often they just serve as smoke-screens). both Europeans and Americans nowadays divide over themes such as gay marriage, and i think that where heterosexual civil unions are concerned the legislation in most US States is 'liberal' if compared with the legislation in most European countries. we don't have hate-crime laws in italy, nor in any country in the EU as far as i know (i might be wrong tho, maybe they do have them in the Netherlands and/or UK). immigration is as much of a hot topic here as it is across the pond, and i am positive that luxembourg - this is not a joke - enforces national-preference laws that are systematically sanctioned by the European Commission and would never even be thinkable in the US. now, luxembourg is very small and might not count, but there are other examples of national preference: for example, most government jobs in most EU countries depend crucially on the knowledge of the national language of the country, even if all you need to do is stand guard over a door; note that this is against the European law, which requires all state-funded jobs to be equally open to applicants from every EU country, but in practice it does not work. I am under the impression that under many respects America does a better job of allowing people to do exactly what they do wherever they happen to want to do it than Europe, and the practical realization of these freedoms is often associated with being 'liberal'. right, you had a national outcry over a nipple on prime-time while we're far more jaded and would not give a rat's ass about it, but then again I've seen more sex-related businesses in plain daylight in the US then I've ever seen in my own country or any other European one. all in all, i don't think that Europe can be defined more liberal, socially speaking, than America (is my country socially liberal, seeing how female participation in the workforce is the lowest in the Western world and many women quit their jobs after giving birth?). maybe in the US there is simply higher polarization, in no small part due to the availability of home schooling: if a parent wants their children to believe the Bible is literally true, they can insulate them from all other messages until they're grown-up, and of course if you look at these people only Europe is going to look like a land of unrestricted freedoms. on the other hand, national statistics and legislation say different things. and i still believe that "if it feels good, do it" is not equivalent to freedom, but i'll have to get back on this point another time.

[by the way - your point about guns. right, you have problems applying the law. but we have problems with about one in five people in some regions just living under a different administration, ie the mafia, getting guns whenever they want, from whoever they want, and with no tracing whatsoever. i appreciate that the problems are not on the same level, but at least you can identify the fact that selling guns to the washington sniper is debatable, whereas i would be hard-pressed to explain to some people that selling guns to a mafia killer is not ok.]

 

[Kovenant84]

To busy clearing out of work to respond to all of your post, hyena, but one thing about language made me laugh.

Our country just got into a huge debate about whether or not we should make it mandatory to speak English (American), as opposed to lets say letting people speak spanish on the job.

Ain't so different after all.

~kov.

 

[Lina]

Just out of curiousity - is that work related? If so, what do you do?

Yup, for work. I manage a contract to make transcripts of House and Senate hearings. When I attend hearings, it's as the court reporter (the person who sits at the witness table and records audio and takes notes). Usually I send other court reporters to the hearings though, because I hate being on C-SPAN.

Just cause you brought it up

I understand that those two can be hotly debated from a moral perspective. I myself am not too positive on the whole abortion issue as to the 'when' of any cutoff (like third-trimester abortions, which frankly scare the crap out of me). I'm in agreement with you that they can be debated (even though I hate the fact that people bring religion into it, destroying the state/religion independence that's been being whitled away anyway - I know it's something that can't be avoided in this case), but I was wondering what your opinion was on two things:

One, the recent law in ... Colorado or Utah was it? The one that made most kinds of abortion illegal, even in cases where it jeopardized the mother's life?

Two, the other recent (about a year and a half old, I think) law in the other of those two states that kinda flew under the radar - it stated that anyone who killed a pregnant woman could be chaged with double homicide. Basically it was touted as doing justice for one case where a pregnant woman was run down by a driver so that the driver would serve double the time, but it left a large legal hole that could be used in an 'is abortion murder' sense - if you count the fetus as a life under one circumstance, you have to in another.

Oops, my wording wasn't clear when I said religion can't be argued with. I'm an atheist and don't attach any sacred meaning to life or souls. I have no problem with abortion and think it's often for the greater good. What I meant earlier is that, because I come at this issue from such a different perspective than a religious person, it's nearly impossible to convince one another we're "correct."

Hyena, whew, I'm tired too and wasn't particularly looking forward to defending the entire Democratic platform. You brought up some interesting issues though, ones that don't spring to mind for me when considering the platform -- hate crime legislation, for example, on which I'm divided -- so we can pick that up later.