Will The Oligarchy that owns the US eeeevvvvveerrrrrr be slightly reined in?

[masterpeastheater]

this is ridiculous. How much longer can the gulf grow between public opinion and actual governance. Will things EVER change in the US?
Will we ever joined civilized countries with UHC? I could go on and on. Their doesnt seem to be any end to the slide to a corporate controlled sci-fi
dystopia. What the fuck? Will we just be done in by climate change?

 

[fast]

I’m getting vibes you don’t think everything is sufficiently satisfactory. Granted, things aren’t perfect, but I get the distinct impression that you don’t find our current state of political affairs to be adequately acceptable. Yes, there’s always work to be done, barriers to overcome, goals to meet, hurdles to cross, objectives to aim for and achieve. It’s a process. You seem curiously unhappy about things—almost as if you think something is intolerable. I should hope you’d be more optimistic. After all, we now have a president that has vowed to make America great again. He seems sincere. Don’t you think we’re headed in the right direction with him as our president?

[/ ]

 

[prideandfall]

there is no option for the actual solution to the issue, which is "when republicans stop being elected in a majority" - and given that will only happen if we collectively decide that the betterment of our country and of our species as a whole means telling those people actively trying to destroy it "you no longer get to be part of the governing process" and that's never going to happen, it'll never be fixed.

but yeah basically everything you mentioned would be corrected (eventually) by consistent not-republican government. whether that be democrats or some other nebulous form of generally secular liberal political structure, it just needs to not be the people who actively work to dismantle and destroy the very concept of government.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Because you can now hunker down into a customized media world, because there's only a skeleton audience for the 6:30 network news, and newspapers are either dead or shedding tons of reporting/editing positions...it seems to me that the two sides of our national schism no longer share common assumptions or even reality claims. Hence an opening for a demagogue like DJT. He may not be the lowest we'll sink. So, the oligarchy, with a cheerleader and hater-in-chief at the top, working the faithful into a lather.

 

[Harry Bosch]

this is ridiculous. How much longer can the gulf grow between public opinion and actual governance. Will things EVER change in the US?
Will we ever joined civilized countries with UHC? I could go on and on. Their doesnt seem to be any end to the slide to a corporate controlled sci-fi
dystopia. What the fuck? Will we just be done in by climate change?

I don't believe that there will substantial change until people increase their voting turnout and the country more accepts science and reason.

 

[DBT]

Who is there to vote for? Is there someone, some candidate or party that can actually make a differance? If so, what would that difference look like?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Who is there to vote for? Is there someone, some candidate or party that can actually make a differance? If so, what would that difference look like?

I would settle for a fucking ham sandwich over the current party in control.

 

[James Brown]

this is ridiculous. How much longer can the gulf grow between public opinion and actual governance. Will things EVER change in the US?
Will we ever joined civilized countries with UHC? I could go on and on. Their doesnt seem to be any end to the slide to a corporate controlled sci-fi
dystopia. What the fuck? Will we just be done in by climate change?

I don't believe that there will substantial change until people increase their voting turnout and the country more accepts science and reason.

Feels like a chicken-and-egg problem. Lawmakers cater to their wealthy donors. The non-wealthy don't bother to vote because they feel ignored.

 

[Treedbear]

this is ridiculous. How much longer can the gulf grow between public opinion and actual governance. Will things EVER change in the US?
Will we ever joined civilized countries with UHC? I could go on and on. Their doesnt seem to be any end to the slide to a corporate controlled sci-fi
dystopia. What the fuck? Will we just be done in by climate change?

I don't believe that there will substantial change until people increase their voting turnout and the country more accepts science and reason.

Feels like a chicken-and-egg problem. Lawmakers cater to their wealthy donors. The non-wealthy don't bother to vote because they feel ignored.

More like a green-eggs-and-ham problem. The best way to get ignored is to not vote.

 

[RVonse]

Who is there to vote for? Is there someone, some candidate or party that can actually make a differance? If so, what would that difference look like?

The difference looked like Trump to the deplorables. And the difference looked like Bernie to the millennials.

Yes, the liberals still think Trump is crappy but that does not change the fact that voting DID matter for the last POTUS election.

 

[RVonse]

there is no option for the actual solution to the issue, which is "when republicans stop being elected in a majority" - and given that will only happen if we collectively decide that the betterment of our country and of our species as a whole means telling those people actively trying to destroy it "you no longer get to be part of the governing process" and that's never going to happen, it'll never be fixed.

but yeah basically everything you mentioned would be corrected (eventually) by consistent not-republican government. whether that be democrats or some other nebulous form of generally secular liberal political structure, it just needs to not be the people who actively work to dismantle and destroy the very concept of government.

I dissagree. The liberals being in charge of congress during the Obama presidency did not stop the oligarchy at all. So we know for certain just electing all three branches with Democrats did NOT help.

Not even a little bit.

 

[RVonse]

this is ridiculous. How much longer can the gulf grow between public opinion and actual governance. Will things EVER change in the US?
Will we ever joined civilized countries with UHC? I could go on and on. Their doesnt seem to be any end to the slide to a corporate controlled sci-fi
dystopia. What the fuck? Will we just be done in by climate change?

Some say we are now at the same place in oligarchy vs tyranney we were at in the mid 1930's.

So I would say things will change. We may not have another world war but something will cause the political pendulum to start swinging in the other direction again. Electing Trump was only the beginning of a huge populous movement in the making.

Make no mistake it is coming.

 

[prideandfall]

there is no option for the actual solution to the issue, which is "when republicans stop being elected in a majority" - and given that will only happen if we collectively decide that the betterment of our country and of our species as a whole means telling those people actively trying to destroy it "you no longer get to be part of the governing process" and that's never going to happen, it'll never be fixed.

but yeah basically everything you mentioned would be corrected (eventually) by consistent not-republican government. whether that be democrats or some other nebulous form of generally secular liberal political structure, it just needs to not be the people who actively work to dismantle and destroy the very concept of government.

I dissagree. The liberals being in charge of congress during the Obama presidency did not stop the oligarchy at all. So we know for certain just electing all three branches with Democrats did NOT help.

Not even a little bit.

so two things:
1. having a very slim (and, notably, not filibuster proof) "majority" in one of two major governing bodies for a grand total of 2 years hardly counts as "being in charge during the presidency" - when your opposition party stonewalls absolutely everything you do and you don't have enough of a majority to force any issues, that's not "being in charge", that's just the opposition party not being in charge.

2. if the democrats fully controlled the house and senate and presidency in a filibuster proof majority and had basically unopposed rule over the governance of the US, it wouldn't be some liberal utopia and all our problems wouldn't be fixed... but, there WOULD be a government that actually had aspirations to govern, and to find solutions to problems, and to seek to fulfill the duties of their office to further the well being and development of the US as a country.
democrats are not a very good political party, but they're at least a poor-to-mediocre political party trying to engage in the act of governance, compared to the republicans who are literally just trying to ass-fuck the country into either some kind of serf based slave culture, or religious oligarchy, or both.

 

[prideandfall]

Electing Trump was only the beginning of a huge populous movement in the making.

i can't tell if this is poorly worded, sarcasm, or if that word doesn't mean what you think it means - because taken at face value that sentence is literally the opposite of reality, so i'm not sure what to think of it.

 

[DBT]

The issue with leadership in the US and where the country and the World is headed is just part of a World wide Malaise with leadership and Governance.

 

[lpetrich]

I voted "never" because there was no option for "unsure if it will ever happen".

But I like to take the long view, like in Arthur Schlesinger's cycles of US history:
[TABLE="class: grid"]
[TR]
[TH]From[/TH]
[TH]To[/TH]
[TH]Dur[/TH]
[TH]Type[/TH]
[TH]Name[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1776[/TD]
[TD]1788[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]Lib[/TD]
[TD]Liberal Movement to Create Constitution[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1788[/TD]
[TD]1800[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]Con[/TD]
[TD]Hamiltonian Federalism[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1800[/TD]
[TD]1812[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]Lib[/TD]
[TD]Liberal Period of Jeffersonianism[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1812[/TD]
[TD]1829[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]Con[/TD]
[TD]Conservative Retreat After War of 1812[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1829[/TD]
[TD]1841[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]Lib[/TD]
[TD]Jacksonian Democracy[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1841[/TD]
[TD]1861[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]Con[/TD]
[TD]Domination of National Government by Slaveowners[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1861[/TD]
[TD]1869[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]Lib[/TD]
[TD]Abolition of Slavery and Reconstruction[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1869[/TD]
[TD]1901[/TD]
[TD]32[/TD]
[TD]Con[/TD]
[TD]The Gilded Age[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1901[/TD]
[TD]1919[/TD]
[TD]18[/TD]
[TD]Lib[/TD]
[TD]Progressive Era[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1919[/TD]
[TD]1931[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]Con[/TD]
[TD]Republican Restoration[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1931[/TD]
[TD]1947[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]Lib[/TD]
[TD]The New Deal[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1947[/TD]
[TD]1962[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]Con[/TD]
[TD]Eisenhower Era
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1962
[/TD]
[TD]1978
[/TD]
[TD]16
[/TD]
[TD]Lib
[/TD]
[TD]Sixties Era
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1978
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Con
[/TD]
[TD]Gilded Age II
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The last three identifications are all mine, and the current Gilded Age has now lasted for 41 years.

I hated Ronald Reagan, but at least he wasn't a paranoid crook like Richard Nixon. George Bush I was likely the best Republican president of this era.

When Bill Clinton was elected, I thought that he would end this conservative period. But he screwed up in the gays-in-the-military thing, and he then spent several months developing some monstrously complicated health-care plan, only to whimper and meekly walk away. No releasing of preliminary drafts, no big PR campaign, nothing of the sort. Though he was almost a moderate Republican, the right wing hated him and was willing to deny its most cherished beliefs in doing so. Like being anti-employer and pro-government-waste about the White House travel agents. And being pacifists about his wars.

George Bush II was a hopeless simp, though he wasn't fundamentally nasty. Dick Cheney was a devious schemer, however.

Barack Obama was a decent person, but he was unwilling to confront Republican obstructionists until late in his presidency. He was desperate to make deals with the Republicans, even though the Republicans did not return his efforts and instead tried to obstruct everything that he tried to do.

Donald Trump was a horrible person, willing to do crude xenophobic and bigoted demagoguery. Then there were rumors of Russian connections to his campaign. His presidency has been one horror after another.

As to the Left, I was very disappointed in the failure of the Wisconsin Revolt. President Obama let it hang out to dry -- he never bothered to try to support it. I was also very disappointed by the failure of the Occupy movement. The Occupiers did not even try to find alternatives to their city-park campsites.

With the victories in the House last year, I have a little bit of hope. But I've suffered dashed hopes too many times. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a very promising political figure, but she might falter or get burned out or get co-opted or corrupted or suffer some other horrible fate. Fortunately, she has plenty of like-minded friends, friends including several fellow Congresspeople. She also has the support of some political activist organizations, and they seem intent on supporting additional candidates. Meaning that she does not seem to have the isolation that Bill Clinton or Barack Obama did.

But the moral ugliness in the Trump Administration does not seem to have provoked enough desertions from it or any serious backlash from Congressional Republicans. Mitch McConnell seems very content with enabling this administration, and many former Never Trumpers now seem hard to distinguish from Donald Trump's longtime supporters.

 

[lpetrich]

Here is a table of what the liberal and the conservative phases are like.
[table="class:grid"]
[tr][td]Liberal[/td][td]Conservative[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wrongs of the Many[/td][td]Rights of the Few[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Increase Democracy[/td][td]Contain Democracy[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Public Purpose[/td][td]Private Interest[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Human Rights[/td][td]Property Rights[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Each kind of phase is generated from the other kind of phase.

Conservative phases end because of problems that pile up, problems that society's elites are unwilling or unable to address, if they accept that those problems are problems at all.

Liberal phases end because activist efforts can be difficult to sustain, and also because such efforts often succeed or seem to succeed, or else are perceived as going too far. The body politic may also need a rest, a chance to digest the big changes.

 

[lpetrich]

Let's look at previous conservative and liberal phases.

I'll start with the domination of the national government by slaveowners, back in the early to mid 19th cy. Slavery was long a festering sore in the American body politic, but it got worse in this time. The efforts of Southern slave catchers in the North provoked personal-liberty laws for restricting their activities, and Southern politicians responded with a strengthened Fugitive Slave Act. This pissed off Northerners even more about the South. Many of them came to believe that a Southern "slaveocracy" or "slave power" dominated the national government.

This led to the Civil War, a war that killed more Americans than any other war, with only World War II coming close in absolute numbers, and the Revolutionary War in relative numbers. Unlike the Confederate secessionists, who made it very clear that the war was about slavery, Abraham Lincoln was reluctant to do so at first, because he did not want to alienate the pro-Union states with slavery in them. But as the war continued, AL decided to give the war more moral force by decreeing his Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves in the states that were in the Confederacy.

After the war was Reconstruction, where Southern blacks were headed to full social status, but it was followed by a big backlash, Redemption, where they were beaten down and terrorized into submission. The Gilded Age had begun.

It became the longest conservative period to date. It had the Second Industrial Revolution, but it also had the growth of monopolies and oligopolies.

This provoked the Progressive Era, with lots of reforms, like antitrust laws and food-safety regulation and women getting the vote, and, it must be conceded, Prohibition.

The Roaring Twenties were the Republican Restoration, a conservative period. Feminists were not successful in getting much followup to women getting the vote, and the feminist movement pretty much fizzled out, because that happened at the end of the Progressive Era.

 

[lpetrich]

The New Deal was, of course, a liberal era. It was a response to the Great Depression, the result of a major financial collapse. A earlier collapse had helped start the Progressive Era some decades before.

The New Deal had some enduring legacies, like Social Security and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and it had some less-successful features, like would-be central planning. It also did not push as far as was necessary, not as far as the mobilization for World War II toward the end of it. Even so, it made a lot of enemies, people who considered it a government takeover of the economy, and there was even a "Business Plot" by some business leaders to overthrow FDR.

It was followed by the Eisenhower Era, a conservative period, and then by the Sixties Era, a liberal period. The black civil-rights movement had started during the Eisenhower Era, and the Eisenhower Administration was at least not hostile to it. But it had its fruition during the Sixties era, and it was followed by the antiwar movement, the revival of feminism and environmentalism, and even a gay-rights movement.

Feminist activism first appeared in the early 19th cy. and by late in that century, it became focused on getting votes for women as an important step forward. It succeeded there, but it was unable to do much followup. Environmentalism appeared during the Progressive Era with the creation of the national-park system. But there was no previous gay-rights movement.

The Sixties Era did have problems. Race riots did not make many white people sympathize with black people. The Sixties radicals were often scruffy and disrespectful and seemingly anti-patriotic. There was even once a hard-hat riot against Sixties radicals. Even so, it had a lot of successes, and those successes helped ended it, as did the successes of previous liberal eras.

What succeeded it was not another Eisenhower Era, but another Gilded Age, even longer than the previous one.

 

[lpetrich]

Is the US going to have another liberal era? Yes, and by previous standards, it is long overdue.

A Message From the Future With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by Naomi Klein
That message: A Message From the Future With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - YouTube

Today, The Intercept launches “A Message From the Future With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,” a seven-minute film narrated by the congresswoman and illustrated by Molly Crabapple. Set a couple of decades from now, it’s a flat-out rejection of the idea that a dystopian future is a forgone conclusion. Instead, it offers a thought experiment: What if we decided not to drive off the climate cliff? What if we chose to radically change course and save both our habitat and ourselves?

What if we actually pulled off a Green New Deal? What would the future look like then?

It was inspired by the art that was produced to promote the original New Deal, as a way of visualizing what could be. But instead of waiting for the Green New Deal to be worked out, they decided to go ahead right away.

Science fiction hasn’t been much help either. Almost every vision of the future that we get from best-selling novels and big-budget Hollywood films takes some kind of ecological and social apocalypse for granted. It’s almost as if we have collectively stopped believing that the future is going to happen, let alone that it could be better, in many ways, than the present.

There is a very honorable exception: Star Trek. Most of its iterations have portrayed a future that is very worth looking forward to -- humanity at peace with itself and expanding outward across interstellar space.