Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Madiel]

It's not one party, it's both. The dems have gotten extreme too.

Given that the USA sits to the right, politically, of most other Western countries, your idea of being an extremist on the Democrat side may be rather different to mine.

Besides, that Rauch article doesn't agree with you. It agrees with me that the Democrats don't have a disruptive force as strong as the Tea Party. This is demonstrated in part by the fact that the Democrats can still get an establishment candidate into position.

[Florestan]

Given that the USA sits to the right, politically, of most other Western countries

THis goes both ways, actually: given that all other Western countries sit to the left of the USA...

For the record, I am neither right nor left. I fully and wholheartedly subscribe to Jose Ortega y Gasset´s dictum:


"To be of the Left is, as is to be of the Right, to pick one of the infinite numbers of ways available to people for choosing how to become an idiot; both are, actually, forms of moral hemiplegia"

In case anyone doubts my translation, here is the Spanish original:

Ser de la izquierda es, como ser de la derecha, una de las infinitas maneras que el hombre puede elegir para ser un imbécil: ambas, en efecto, son formas de la hemiplejía moral..

[Madiel]

THis goes both ways, actually: given that all other Western countries sit to the left of the USA...

You are literally correct. However, it seems slightly odd to define the relationship by taking the outlying example as the reference point. Next you'll be telling me that all of the other people in the Israelite and Philistine armies were shorter than Goliath. Or that the rest of the world's population is slower than Usain Bolt.

[Florestan]

You are literally correct. However, it seems slightly odd to define the relationship by taking the outlying example as the reference point. Next you'll be telling me that all of the other people in the Israelite and Philistine armies were shorter than Goliath. Or that the rest of the world's population is slower than Usain Bolt.

Had you read the rest of my post, you´d have been spared of such dilemmas. 

[Ken B]

Given that the USA sits to the right, politically, of most other Western countries, your idea of being an extremist on the Democrat side may be rather different to mine.

Besides, that Rauch article doesn't agree with you. It agrees with me that the Democrats don't have a disruptive force as strong as the Tea Party. This is demonstrated in part by the fact that the Democrats can still get an establishment candidate into position.

I linked Rauch as interesting, not as gospel.
The democrat base is certainly extreme by American standards. That is the standard that is relevant to a discussion of finding compromise in American politics.

[Madiel]

Had you read the rest of my post, you´d have been spared of such dilemmas. 

Had I believed the rest of your post, you mean.

[drogulus]

The democrat base is certainly extreme by American standards. That is the standard that is relevant to a discussion of finding compromise in American politics.

    Repubs weren't interested in compromise when it might have helped them survive. They Gohmertized and Brownbacked themselves into their own demise. Trump isn't what made them sick, he's just the comeuppance they've richly earned. He's the ultimate bad leader for as bad a group of followers as I've seen in my life. It's only fair that there should be a reset on who or what is considered extreme. After all, the left "extremists" didn't get you into this mess.

    Which extreme measures do you object to, large infrastructure projects, tougher financial regulation and the breakup of TBTF banks, a higher federal minimum wage, protection of LBGT rights a few years in advance of Podunk, Red State, U.S. A.? Is this extreme by the standards of TR, FDR, LBJ? Those are American standards popular enough to win national campaigns that have set the course for America in ways that no Repub has managed to reverse.

[André]

All in a week's vacation (that was last week): PM Trudeau attends Vancouver's Gay Pride parade with wife;  PM and family visit caves shirtless and PM takes selfies with young fan; goes whale-watching with family in Tofino, BC.

In that same week of vacation, announces new Supreme Court nomination guidelines, which will take effect this Fall; appoints a Royal commission on the disappearance and murder of First Nations (aboriginal) women (5 times the rate of white women). These were 2 longstanding issues that the previous conservative government had dodged for the past 10 years.

Trudeau also let it be known to his provincial PM colleagues that a national carbon tax was in the offing. More to come...

The First Nations issue has simmered for many years and has angered its population. Its roots take place in poverty, isolation, lack of resources, rampant drug and alcohol addiction and violence toward women (including young girls). All the Commission's members (five women and one man) are issued from First Nations.

The Supreme Court issue has provoked inter provincial and provincial-federal squabbles for decades. At stake is the process of nominating the judges. Before: the federal PM names the judges. Longstanding tradition has attributed regional representation among the nominees. After: a multi-level Committee will choose multiple candidates and submit its list. Trudeau's agenda: gender quasi-equality (there are 9 Supreme Court Justices), mandatory bilingualism and a 33% regional representation for Quebec. Oh! And lest we forget, Trudeau has chosen former female Progressive-Conservative PM Kim Campbell to chair the committe. Campbell was the last Progressive-Conservative Party leader before it was swallowed up by Harper's Conservative Party.

Obviously, being in charge of a majority government allows lots of elbow room (litterally: check 'elbowgate' on Google). The PM approval rate is higher than ever, almost one year after the election of his Liberal government. For some obscure reason, the Conservatives managed to hold sway over the country's politics for almost 10 years, making it enter into a new Ice Age.

The Liberals are just that: neither from the right nor the left. They have always (for well over a century) been a party of the centre. But they have almost always given their politics a human face. Trudeau has added a wink and a smile.

Compared to the frowns, scowls, raised fists and various postures of indignation, outrage and intolerance at display in the US election, there's no question as to why many Canadians fail to understand the frustrations and barricade mentality of their American neighbours.

EDIT:

The Supreme Court issue is outlined here by the Huffington Post:  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/08/02/pm-trudeau-announces-new-scoc-justices-selection-process_n_11302188.html

The First Nations Women Commission is well summarized by The Guardian:  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/03/canada-indigenous-women-missing-murdered-inquiry

And about the carbon tax, another issue former conservative PM Stephen Harper considered worse that an AIDS-Zika combination, here we have The Guardian again: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jul/28/canada-emissions-climate-change-justin-trudeau-corporate-business

[Ken B]

    Which extreme measures do you object to

I have noticed you play this trick before. "Which extreme measures do you object to" . Extreme is a relative term, and obviously a pertinent one for discussing whether can compromise. By describing a faction as extreme I am neither expressing support or opposition to their agenda. I know people of both extremes who describe themselves as extremist; it is not a term implying dissent.  I am pointing out that the drift of the base of the parties from a common middle where compromise is possible has happened in both parties.

Added. I meant trick as in standard rhetorical thing. Error is I think a better word. I don't mean to imply bad faith, just misunderstanding.

[Herman]

I linked Rauch as interesting, not as gospel.
The democrat base is certainly extreme by American standards. That is the standard that is relevant to a discussion of finding compromise in American politics.

The entirety of American politics has moved inexorably to the right since the nineties. Nixon would sit on Hillary Clinton's left side now. Most Republicans are extreme right by now, and since you seem to be sitting there, too, you think anything in the center is far left. But that's not a realistic perspective. Clinton is by and large proposing moderate republican views; the problem is there are hardly any moderate republicans left by virtue of Faux and gerrymandering.

and your other extreme right wing issue: who is more mendacious, Hillary or Trump, here's a comparison:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/clintons-fibs-vs-trumps-huge-lies.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

[snyprrr]

I HATE THIS THREAD, AAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

[Pat B]

I linked Rauch as interesting, not as gospel.
The democrat base is certainly extreme by American standards. That is the standard that is relevant to a discussion of finding compromise in American politics.

If "American standards" means the halfway point between the left and the right, then both bases are extreme by definition, regardless of what their proposals are.

The anti-experience and anti-compromise rhetoric, the primarying of moderate incumbents, the marginalization of leadership -- all of that has come from the right in recent years.

[Ken B]

If "American standards" means the halfway point between the left and the right, then both bases are extreme by definition, regardless of what their proposals are.

But they can be more so or less so, and have more or less say in picking more or less intransigent candidates who are committed more or less truculently to their positions. If we are talking about the ability and willingness to compromise, then why isn't that the relevant factor, rather than opinion in Belgium?

Both parties are incontestably more partisan and tribal. Look for instance at the polls on whether you'd want your child to marry someone of the other party.both sides are far more polarized than a few decades ago (and the change is even greater on the democrat side actually).

[Jo498]

"Partisan and tribal" is a much better description than "right" and "left". There is hardly any traditional Left left anywhere. (What is called "left" today in the US is mostly symbolic "identity" politics with hardly any understanding and fairly weak positions wrt to the tradtional economic positons of the left.) Sanders may look like an extremist but he is a left-leaning social democrat most of whose positions would have been centrist in 1980s Western European parties. And what ist "right"? Is it more rightist to keep on meddling in the middle East, Eastern Europe etc. (and Clinton is apparently more hawkish here than Trump) or to withdraw from such meddling?

[Madiel]

But they can be more so or less so, and have more or less say in picking more or less intransigent candidates who are committed more or less truculently to their positions. If we are talking about the ability and willingness to compromise, then why isn't that the relevant factor, rather than opinion in Belgium?

Both parties are incontestably more partisan and tribal. Look for instance at the polls on whether you'd want your child to marry someone of the other party.both sides are far more polarized than a few decades ago (and the change is even greater on the democrat side actually).

Agree. I just don't think that's a synonym for "extreme".

[Ken B]

Agree. I just don't think that's a synonym for "extreme".

For years I have argued that the Canadian system works better, largely because of first past the post. In fptp a party has to appeal broadly across a large section of the country. You can't survive as a single issue party. And you have to compromise, internally, on a lot of issues if you want to be able to form a government. The downside is a bit more party discipline than I'd like, but can't have everything.

And divisive social issues tend to get settled. The conservatives tried to block gay marriage twice, but allowed a free vote in parliament They lost twice and ... accepted it. Dropped the issue, moved on.

[Madiel]

In fptp a party has to appeal broadly across a large section of the country.

Eh? That's the exact opposite of what it means. First past the post means you can get elected in an electoratewhile 60% of the electorate hates you, so long as that 60% don't agree on who else to elect in your place.

It's a preferential system that requires you to be reasonably well liked by a majority of the population. If 60% of the population in an electorate hate you in a preferential system, they will band together to elect someone other than you. Some of them will get their first choice, some of them will get their second choice, but if they're all clear that you are last choice then you will lose.

And "across the country" is nothing to do with it either way. In a system of electorates, you win each electorate. Having broad support across the country will win you a national election irrespective of which voting system is used if it means you can win a lot of electorates.

The Canadian system works fairly well because there aren't just 2 parties hammering at each other. But to think that's got something to do with using first past the post is... well, frankly it's weird. Especially as the USA tends to use fptp as well.

[Jo498]

first past the post can have such bizarre results that I wonder why it is still common in many countries. I guess it is the idea of electing a *person* as representative, not a party. But it obviously tends to lead to (more or less) two party systems as well. I think even Germany's mix of personal representative votes and proportional party votes is worse than a purely proportional system would be. A purely proportional system is the most democratic in many respects.

[Karl Henning]

Hillary Clinton is now dead-even or even leading rock-red Republican states such as Arizona and Georgia. What's [El Tupé's] next move?

[drogulus]

I have noticed you play this trick before. "Which extreme measures do you object to" . Extreme is a relative term, and obviously a pertinent one for discussing whether can compromise. By describing a faction as extreme I am neither expressing support or opposition to their agenda. I know people of both extremes who describe themselves as extremist; it is not a term implying dissent.  I am pointing out that the drift of the base of the parties from a common middle where compromise is possible has happened in both parties.

     I see what you mean by "trick". I also see what you mean by "democrat base". Bad Zoot!

     Very few Dems think of themselves as extreme. I voted for Sanders in the Massachusetts primary and will vote for Hildebeast in November. Why I do that? Because I want Sen. Warren in President Beast's face every time she is tempted to triangulate away economic growth and the kind of regulation we need to prevent the next Great Deregulation/Recession. For me, the shortest distance between here and a desirable there is a strong Sanders challenge and a Clinton victory. No extremism is involved. It's pretty much pre/post Clintonian liberalism.

     DNC staffers: FBI didn't tell us for months about possible Russian hack

Unnamed DNC staffers told Reuters' Mark Hosenball and John Walcott that the FBI had been investigating a potential intrusion into the DNC's network since the fall of 2015. After the initial warning to look for anything suspicious, DNC IT staff checked network logs and scanned files, finding nothing suspicious. When asked to provide more information to help identify a problem, the FBI "declined to provide it," according to the Reuters report.

     I still don't get whether the FBI told HRC "get your own security experts in now" or gave her the whole story and she did the same as with Benghazi, support the cover story all the way through the inevitable "lyin' Hillary" consequences. When the CIA guy endorsed HRC, one gets the idea that she impressed at least one person in a position to know how qualified she is to be commander in chief. If you take a hit for your people they'll take hits for you.

     Why didn't they tell that shitbird Gowdy? No, no...the Repubs may not know the details but they know HRC can't talk and that's all they need to know.