Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Because neither party actually solves national problems, and so each cycle one party comes into power promising to fix problems, doesn't fix them, and the public turns against the party in power. ((This is both people changing their vote and members of either party being more energized to turn out or demoralized and staying home))
Every winning presidential candidate this century has run promising a more restrained foreign policy and every one of them has started wars or foreign entanglement abroad. With the exception of Dubya's reelection in 2004 during the Iraq war, which sort of goes to the point.
2008 Obama runs on getting us out of Iraq, and wrapping up Afghanistan by the end of his term we're still in both and add Libya and Syria, Trump runs on no more forever wars but doesn't pull back anywhere, Biden finally gets us out of Afghanistan but drags us into entanglements in Ukraine and Gaza, Trump II we are back in a fresh middle eastern war.
High cost of healthcare, big corporate malfeasance, immigration etc. Every president comes in promising to fix the issue and doesn't fix it.
We might see a dominant party if one party could deliver actual results.
The biggest frustration I had with Biden was his inability to put out a policy that didn't have just enough lefty bullshit in it to be controversial. The infrastructure bill was a prime example, with the initial draft taking such and expansive view of infrastructure that it was easy for Republicans to oppose. If it were limited to normal things they'd just end up bitching about passenger rail subsidies or something like that and it wouldn't have had as much bite. The argument at the time was that the Republicans are going to find something wrong with it anyway so let's give them some obvious bait so we can keep the stuff we want, but I hate that way of negotiating. I'd rather they submit an uncontroversial bill and dare the opposition to vote against it.
More options
Context Copy link
These problems won’t be fixed because fixing them would require stepping on the toes of powerful industries or interest groups who have skilled lobbyists. The current situation pleases enough of the middle class+ that even appeals to the power of the voters won’t work to create change. And any movement on them will be easily weaponized into a deadly political attack: “government death panels,” “big government interference,” “socialism,” “ICE hates brown people.”
Trump actually ran appealing to his personal wealth as a form of independence from lobbyists and party machines, but governed in his first term as a fairly standard Republican allied with industries like steel and coal.
We’re in the situation because it’s a stable equilibrium since the 80s. Some kind of massive shock would be required to change anything, something bigger than dot-com, bigger than the recession, bigger than Obama, bigger than Trump. In other words, if things changed to the point that major political reform were possible, we’d have bigger problems than healthcare costs.
Yes one explanation is that we have an 80% party and it's the corporate uniparty.
Alternatively, there's the corporate/deep state capture explanation, that as soon as a president seeking to change foreign policy gets into office, he's subject to deep state efforts to undermine him. Obama spoke of clashing with "the generals" when he tried to change course in the Middle East, while generals directly lied to Trump when he tried to pull out of Syria.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link