USA Politics (redux)

[BasilValentine]

 

Because they were BLM protests. BLM is leftist.

Most BLM protesters are not affiliated with any organized group. In and of itself, protesting systemic institutional racism and the police violence fueled by it says nothing about ones political views. It only indicates that one has a grasp of reality and statistics. Given that most of the white supremacists, replacement theory morons, overt racists, and undereducated deplorables who currently support Trump possess neither of these attributes inevitably skews the protester population. 

[71 dB]

Who decides what the EPA is "supposed to do"?

Experts on environmental issues should "decide" what EPA "is supposed to do."

Answer: it's Congress. And that's the point. It's basic separation of powers stuff. Governments don't write laws, legislatures do. Government agencies only get regulation-making powers to the extent that legislatures provide them.

The Congress should listen to the experts. That's were the problems start. A large portion of the Congress is bribed to not listen to the experts.

If Congress isn't giving the EPA the right kind of powers, the solution is to elect a different Congress. And yes, the rigging of the American electoral system is a whole other issue. But getting away from basic constitutional theory about who actually gets to make laws versus who is supposed to administer them is not a good solution to that.

The Congress is reluctant to give a lot of power to the EPA, because those who bribed them want a handcuffed EPA or no EPA at all. Yes, a different non-bribe-taking Congress should be elected, but this is much easier to say than do and the same bribed hacks get re-elected again and again... ...the real solution is to make a new amendment to take money out of politics, but this is also near impossible. The rigged electoral system is just one layer of this. The whole country is rigged for the richest 1 %.

I mean, I've no idea whether I agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Clean Air Act or not. But if the current Clean Air Act is inadequate, it's the job of Congress to change it, not the job of the EPA.

The Congress is not doing the job it's supposed to do for reasons mentioned above. So, nobody is doing the job and that's REALLY BAD. The Supreme Court is supposed to monitor the constitutionality of laws, but this EPA thing is not about that. It is about doing politics by handcuffing EPA to serve those who own the current Supreme Court: The richest 1 % and evangelical supporters of theocracy. Americans are f**cked big time, because the Dems are letting all of this happen despite of being in power.

[JBS]

I wonder how detail laws have to be in the USA?  In Canada most laws passed by Parliament are purposely vague in detail, and implicitly or explicitly allow Cabinet to provide details and regulations that flesh out the law;  these formal Cabinet decisions are referred to as "Orders-in-Council".

Thus, for example, in 2020 Cabinet, by an Order-in-Council, declared over 1500 assault-style rifle models retroactively banned.  This ban is consistent with existing legislation but not detailed in it.

I wonder if there is a parallel in US practice?  It seems to me that Presidential "Executive Orders" are roughly the same idea as Orders-in-Council".  On that basis I wonder if, or to what extent, the powers of the EPA might be reinforced by Executive Orders consistent with the Clean Air Act?

That's the crux of the problem right there. For decades, USA practice was similar: Congress passed very general laws and left the agencies and White House to work out the details. The American Right has been working to roll that back as much as possible. This new SCOTUS decision is in line with that, although it seems to have not gone all the way.
The legal/constitutional argument is whether the agencies are legislating instead of Congress, and not just acting as deputies/authorized agents of Congress.

[JBS]

Experts on environmental issues should "decide" what EPA "is supposed to do."

The Congress should listen to the experts. That's were the problems start. A large portion of the Congress is bribed to not listen to the experts.

The Congress is reluctant to give a lot of power to the EPA, because those who bribed them want a handcuffed EPA or no EPA at all. Yes, a different non-bribe-taking Congress should be elected, but this is much easier to say than do and the same bribed hacks get re-elected again and again... ...the real solution is to make a new amendment to take money out of politics, but this is also near impossible. The rigged electoral system is just one layer of this. The whole country is rigged for the richest 1 %.

The Congress is not doing the job it's supposed to do for reasons mentioned above. So, nobody is doing the job and that's REALLY BAD. The Supreme Court is supposed to monitor the constitutionality of laws, but this EPA thing is not about that. It is about doing politics by handcuffing EPA to serve those who own the current Supreme Court: The richest 1 % and evangelical supporters of theocracy. Americans are f**cked big time, because the Dems are letting all of this happen despite of being in power.

It's impossible to take money out of politics. Banning it merely means the money would be there but hidden from public view.

[71 dB]

It's impossible to take money out of politics. Banning it merely means the money would be there but hidden from public view.

That's not the reason why it is impossible. Would you end a system you benefit from yourself?

Bribery is a crime in real democratic countries. You go to prison for it. Real democracy is impossible if there is money in politics. Anyone with two brain cells should understand that.

[JBS]

That's not the reason why it is impossible. Would you end a system you benefit from yourself?

Bribery is a crime in real democratic countries. You go to prison for it. Real democracy is impossible if there is money in politics. Anyone with two brain cells should understand that.

So you're saying real democracy is impossible.

People donating money to AOC's re-election campaign is money in politics.

Look, if I have a business or a large investment, and the government is making a decision or issuing a policy, I'm going to do whatever I can to influence the result in my favor.

That's universal human nature, regardless of political system.

You can keep it under wraps and pretend it's not there, or you can make sure it happens openly so people can see what you're doing. To the degree the US has a consistent approach to this, the US goes for the second option.

[71 dB]

So you're saying real democracy is impossible.

People donating money to AOC's re-election campaign is money in politics.

Look, if I have a business or a large investment, and the government is making a decision or issuing a policy, I'm going to do whatever I can to influence the result in my favor.

That's universal human nature, regardless of political system.

You can keep it under wraps and pretend it's not there, or you can make sure it happens openly so people can see what you're doing. To the degree the US has a consistent approach to this, the US goes for the second option.

There shouldn't be a need to donate money to AOC who needs the money only to compete against corporations backed candidates.

If the rich buy the elections and politics it is not democracy. It is oligarchy.

One solution it that the government grands everyone say $20 to donate to whoever they want. That way everyone can donate the exact same amount and the outcome can be considered democratic.

AOC at least gets the donations from her constituents unlike many other politicians

Anyway, I spent enough time in this thread. I am out.

[Jo498]

Experts on environmental issues should "decide" what EPA "is supposed to do."

The Congress should listen to the experts. That's were the problems start. A large portion of the Congress is bribed to not listen to the experts.

If the last 2.5 years with "experts" helping with both the greatest haul in history that made Harry Lime's watered peniciline coup look like a choirboy's prank and restrictions of liberties until now unknown in "democracies" have not cured your belief and trust in "experts" you are probably not curable.

[Fëanor]

So you're saying real democracy is impossible.

People donating money to AOC's re-election campaign is money in politics.

Look, if I have a business or a large investment, and the government is making a decision or issuing a policy, I'm going to do whatever I can to influence the result in my favor.

That's universal human nature, regardless of political system.

You can keep it under wraps and pretend it's not there, or you can make sure it happens openly so people can see what you're doing. To the degree the US has a consistent approach to this, the US goes for the second option.

I agree that there will and must be money in politics.  The question is whether there will be so much and -- here I agree with you in the concept -- the sources of the money must be as transparent as can be made to be.

The issue for the USA is that it has no real limits on spending, (on candidates, parties, or "single issues" that relate to candidates or parties), nor does it have sufficient traceability of donations.

It false dichotomy to imply that it's unlimited spending versus convert spending -- especially when much of the unlimited spending is already convert. 

[Madiel]

That's the crux of the problem right there. For decades, USA practice was similar: Congress passed very general laws and left the agencies and White House to work out the details. The American Right has been working to roll that back as much as possible. This new SCOTUS decision is in line with that, although it seems to have not gone all the way.
The legal/constitutional argument is whether the agencies are legislating instead of Congress, and not just acting as deputies/authorized agents of Congress.

Don't get me wrong, from my tradition I see significant problems with American law making (you don't tend to have professional legislative drafters for one thing, although that's been slowly changing). But the basic legal/constitutional question is sound. Agencies should only be making rules in the areas that Congress has allowed.

Those areas can in theory be quite broad. But views might differ about how clear Congress has to be about what it's allowing. And I fear your Congress often mumbles.

[milk]

If anyone is guilty of rigging the outcomes it is the rich white men and in the US this may indeed sink the left and the country becomes a theoratic dictatorship (Ron DeSantis, who is just as bad as Trump, but smarter, might be the first dictator - Joe Rogan seems to works hard for this result). Good luck for Americans the little freedoms they had, but I am very pessimistic after all these years. Roe v. Wade gone. EPA gone. Next gay marriage and sodomy laws... I doesn't look good for the 99 %. 

The patriarchy huh. Im not seeing. Not in 2022. The problem is equality of opportunity for everyone. Yes. The 99%. That's all kinds of people.

And this:
'Condemning everyone alive': outrage at US supreme court climate ruling
Limiting the Environmental Protection Agency at a time when fossil fuel emissions need to be curbed is 'devastating'
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/30/supreme-court-ruling-epa-west-virginia-climate-experts-activists-lawyers

[greg]

Yeah, because a lot of people on the right have morally questionable ideas such as all people shouldn't be equal.

In the US white people in general have been in power, especially white men. Equal opportunities and rights for everyone, what the left advocates, mean these people will lose some of that power when it gets spread over the whole population. All of this is about class war between the 99 % and the 1 %, but since the 1 % has actually lost this war ideologically long ago, they need to change the game: They need the 99 % divided so that it leaves the 1 % alone free to keep robbing them blind. MAGA, Proud Boys, Antifa, BLM,... all of this is about divided 99 %.

The whole overfocus on white men being so bad is the distraction itself. Millions and millions of white men that are not in the 1%, that are working poor. Focusing on the demographic of 1% of the population is entirely pointless when power is so lopsided. 

Yeah, because a lot of people on the right have morally questionable ideas such as all people shouldn't be equal.

You could be referring to something I'm not aware of.
But I'm aware of equal opportunity vs. equity.
Equity is a leftist-only position. Equal opportunity is a left-wing, centrist, and right-wing position. But I'm sure far-right has some weird and retarded beliefs.
Equity is not a position I support. You want someone to save you from a burning building, but isn't strong enough to move the equipment needed? (female diversity hire) Oh well, guess you'll just die.
Equal opportunity = a woman who has a passion for firefighting builds up strength to do the job correctly, and saves you. Was never rejected for the job due to gender. Excellent.

You seem unaware of how, if this claim is true, it utterly damns the right.

What do you mean? Are you implying that non-BLM is racist?
The ones who stand separate from, or opposed to, BLM, are the All Lives Matter people... which "all lives" includes black people.
If there is some group that is in support of black people unjustly treated by cops, then I've never heard of them. Thankfully, too. That would be upsetting.

[JBS]

1) It's easier for a poor white person to get out of poverty than a poor non-white.
There's so much data on how whites have cultural and social advantages not available to non-whites, that it's not debatable.
2) All Lives Matter is merely a slogan meant to evade the truth that underlies BLM: police brutality affects Blacks more than anyone else

There's no reason for you not to know this already, Greg.

[Madiel]

All Lives Matter is best illustrated by a cartoon I saw where someone holding a hose is declaring that all houses matter when only one of the houses is on fire.

Black Lives Matter is not claiming, and has never claimed, that non-black lives don't matter. We say that black lives matter because the value of white lives was never in question in the first place.

[milk]

1) It's easier for a poor white person to get out of poverty than a poor non-white.
There's so much data on how whites have cultural and social advantages not available to non-whites, that it's not debatable.
2) All Lives Matter is merely a slogan meant to evade the truth that underlies BLM: police brutality affects Blacks more than anyone else

There's no reason for you not to know this already, Greg.

This is clearly not true. Perhaps you meant to say that black people born in the U.S. have a more difficult time. That sounds right.

In that case, the question is: what to do about it? I guess I used to believe in the left-wing answers all down the line. Now I'm not so sure. There are so many ways to debate this question based on a lot of nuanced research and nobody agrees, certainly not all people even within whichever ethnic group or academic field you ask.

Sure, Ibrahim Kendi and Al Sharpton are going to give you a pretty clear answer going in one direction. Cornell West as well has been in dialogue with Critical Post-Marxists (and, tangentially, PoMo gender theorists like Judith Butler) for years and now it's filtered down to the youngins at WaPo and the Grey Lady and everywhere else. I don't mean West alone, I mean the generation of theorists who kept at it, the Angela Davis-es and people like Bell Hooks, who preached intersectionality, critical theories, revolutionary ideologies and post-Marxist feminism. There's your whiteness theories and identitarianisms. There's today's cooked-up woke-ism in the syringe of social media. But ask Glenn Loury and John McWhorter and Roland Fryer, those types, and you get a different answer.

There is research, for example, that says that giving people the sense that they are in control of their futures produces better results than giving people the sense that they are oppressed victims. I'm not saying it's necessarily true. I don't know. I do know that American cities have failed and I think it can't possibly be blamed only on the right or on systematic racism. I do think the horrible history of racism IS part of the problem. It may be the key ingredient exactly because of what your post gets wrong: other non-white groups have done just fine and even Nigerian immigrants do pretty well from what I understand. I think this woke stuff is going to tank the Dems. It's going to make things worse. For national politics, you simply can't hope to bring people together on any level, you can't hope to govern, based on grievance. Not unless you want another Trump which is what we might get anyway. DeSantis looks to be another trump.

[Herman]

You want someone to save you from a burning building, but isn't strong enough to move the equipment needed? (female diversity hire) Oh well, guess you'll just die.

I don't live in burning buildings, and neither do most people.
It's a complete imbecile example, skewed towards: in life you need muscles.
Check out jobless factory workers > opioid crisis.
We're in the 21st century. Much of the economy requires social and brain skills rather than physical power.

[milk]

I don't live in burning buildings, and neither do most people.
It's a complete imbecile example, skewed towards: in life you need muscles.
Check out jobless factory workers > opioid crisis.
We're in the 21st century. Much of the economy requires social and brain skills rather than physical power.

This is really totally missing the point. Maybe one should ask you what you think his point was exactly? I'm not pointing a finger at you. It's a good idea to just discuss these things in a friendly way. I'm just saying that you're not really steel-manning his argument. There are differences across groups. It's a very touchy subject for everyone. Me too. I really do not enjoy wading into such an area. I might suggest you watch some of Glenn Loury and John McWhorter's discussions on these issues. They're on YouTube. I'm not saying this because I think they'll change your mind but because they're calm and reasonable and can talk to all kinds of people, even those who don't like what they're saying.
Anyway, I am not making the point that there are any indelible differences in these groups of people but I also no longer believe equity and quotas is always the right solution. It may be OK in some circumstances based on what an particular organization is doing. But I think it's counterproductive as a broad idea. And it probably produces lots of unintended consequences. It's tough to discuss such things. I found it much easier walking around as a person who just believed these things "as gospel." What do I want out of an orchestra? I don't care what it looks like. I want it to sound good. I'm for auditions behind a curtain. There are many reasons, not least of which is the dignity of all the people, all kinds of people, who dedicate themselves to it. I'm open to reasons why I should change my mind. I wish I were able to believe and accept what the woke people are saying because it probably makes life easier. You can really feel safe in numbers and sleep well knowing you're 100% right.
Whatever solutions we find to injustice it should start with love. Love for all humanity and this world. When I look at PoMo and post-Marxist critical theories, I wonder why I found them exciting. I think it's because it's cool when you're young to feel like you've got these keys for unlocking why the world is so sinister. It gives one a kind of authority over everything (and you don't even have to know math or science much to do it).

[71 dB]

This is clearly not true. Perhaps you meant to say that black people born in the U.S. have a more difficult time. That sounds right.

What do you mean by this? Of course a poor black person can be successful in the USA, say by becoming a very popular hip hopper, but whites can succeed in this way too and statistically even more. However, if you were born without a mega-talent to something, whites have an cultural advantage (this varies state to state I guess). Born in the US? Huh? Were else?

In that case, the question is: what to do about it? I guess I used to believe in the left-wing answers all down the line. Now I'm not so sure.

Why are you not sure anymore? What happened? I saw somewhere an estimate, that there are 50.000 people living in the US advocating communism. Those people will never have any power in the country. The furthest left people in power in the US are people like Bernie Sanders and AOC. They are far from communist. They are not even socialists, even if Bernie mistakenly calls himself a democratic socialist, maybe because in the US these labels are so poorly known. Bernie and AOC are social democrats, left end capitalists who advocate regulated capitalism to hinder the crony aspects of capitalism that has ruined the lives of millions of Americans. They advocate these ideas not to turn the country into Venezuela or Cuba, but because they see the evidence of how well social democracy works in other countries while recognising the problems of US style crony capitalism for the poor & socialism for the rich oligarchy.

This is about economic ideas however. Maybe you are talking about social ideas instead? Maybe you are against the woke-culture on the left? Just know that many on the left are NOT into wokeness. It can get really silly when you demand that the next actor of Superman should be a trans amputee. I don't like wokeness at all and I am a lefty as everyone knows

That is enough...

[Fëanor]

Why are you not sure anymore? What happened? I saw somewhere an estimate, that there are 50.000 people living in the US advocating communism. Those people will never have any power in the country. The furthest left people in power in the US are people like Bernie Sanders and AOC. They are far from communist. They are not even socialists, even if Bernie mistakenly calls himself a democratic socialist, maybe because in the US these labels are so poorly known. Bernie and AOC are social democrats, left end capitalists who advocate regulated capitalism to hinder the crony aspects of capitalism that has ruined the lives of millions of Americans. They advocate these ideas not to turn the country into Venezuela or Cuba, but because they see the evidence of how well social democracy works in other countries while recognising the problems of US style crony capitalism for the poor & socialism for the rich oligarchy.

This is about economic ideas however. Maybe you are talking about social ideas instead? Maybe you are against the woke-culture on the left? Just know that many on the left are NOT into wokeness. It can get really silly when you demand that the next actor of Superman should be a trans amputee. I don't like wokeness at all and I am a lefty as everyone knows

It can't be stated too strongly that there IS NO "far-Left" political party or constituency in the USA, at least none with slightest general influence.  As you point out, Sanders and AOC, mild social democrats, are about as far Left as have any sort of voice in the USA.

There is economic conservatism of both the self-interested and ideological varieties.  Then there is social conservatism that runs a broad spectrum from rank, violent racism, to mild nostalgia for a past where White Anglo Protestants ruled the roost.

There is no necessary affiliation between economic and social conservatism but the two converge in the Republican Party which is thus bifurcated.  It's economic conservatives, mostly of the self-interested variety, who provide the stupendous volumes of cash that drive Republican campaigns but it is the social conservatives who supply the actual voters.  It is a marriage of convenience.

A big part of what facilitates this "marriage" is the almost unique to America myth of  "liberty" and "rugged individualism", (hence anti-progressivism), that is a pillar of Americans' particular variety of social conservatism.  This myth is artfully exploited by the self-interested Rich.

[milk]

What do you mean by this?

The original idea was about meritocracy vs. guaranteeing equality of outcomes. That was Greg's point that was being dismissed. If you need a brain surgeon, then you want one that is in the job because of merit only. Of course everyone has the potential to do it, no matter their sex or ethnicity. But fixing disparities by quotas (equity) is mostly a bad idea in many ways and for many reasons. This kind of social engineering of the left is part of a whole program that seems anti-liberal. I think that it's not only bound to fail, it will damage the left's future prospects. Trump was a warning and one that's been unheeded.

It can't be stated too strongly that there IS NO "far-Left" political party or constituency in the USA, at least none with slightest general influence.  As you point out, Sanders and AOC, mild social democrats, are about as far Left as have any sort of voice in the USA.

There is economic conservatism of both the self-interested and ideological varieties.  Then there is social conservatism that runs a broad spectrum from rank, violent racism, to mild nostalgia for a past where White Anglo Protestants ruled the roost.

There is no necessary affiliation between economic and social conservatism but the two converge in the Republican Party which is thus bifurcated.  It's economic conservatives, mostly of the self-interested variety, who provide the stupendous volumes of cash that drive Republican campaigns but it is the social conservatives who supply the actual voters.  It is a marriage of convenience.

A big part of what facilitates this "marriage" is the almost unique to America myth of  "liberty" and "rugged individualism", (hence anti-progressivism), that is a pillar of Americans' particular variety of social conservatism.  This myth is artfully exploited by the self-interested Rich.

yeah, the left just gives the working class away. If it's dumb to be that kind of bumpkin you're talking about then isn't it just as dumb to let the right grab working class values? Liberty and democracy are both foundations. It's interesting that you kind of spit on liberty and call it conservative and anti-progressive. This is telling.