341–350 of 382 posts
I don't think I can take seriously an essay that so flatly and flippantly claims this as fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know that I’d call myself a moderate, but my honest opinion is that many strongly held views disturb me precisely because they tend to be so strongly held by those who seem to hold them, rather than being wrong in themselves, or because they require their adherents to brook no opposition. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, and I believe that people who say they have all the answers can safely be assumed…
> I’d be perfectly happy to experiment with policies that are way outside the Overton window I am curious, what are some examples?
Larger government. State ownership does not guarantee incompetent or inefficient. The right used to believe in many of the things that have become unthinkable. The Tories also wanted to improve services, built social housing, added libraries and social care. Pre war UK used to permit the various cities around the UK to form municipal corporations. They were used for power generation, water, rail and tramways among other things, and mostly worked very well indeed -- with the city getting service and income, but being quite hands off from the modern perception of centralised control. See also the various towns and cities that have put in their own broadband, far better than the private sector offer, in more recent years...
Clean Air Act UK was brought in by the Conservatives in 1956. The right used to be much more amenable to environmental and health regulation. Well regulation in general. Now they avoid, neuter and talk down regulation, and slim down the bodies who once oversaw said regulation.
Specific, I think, to the UK, the astonishing degree of centralisation brought in since 1974. Nearly all of it under the Tories. Yet Labour is perceived as the party of state control. Neither party talks of giving real power back to the regions and cities, they both mostly talk against it.
There's other examples on the left, and probably similar examples the other side of the Atlantic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US politics has devolved into a series of ideological purity tests. Neither the bigoted, dated ideas of the GOP or the magical, fairy dust ideas of the progressive Dems have anything to do with actually solving problems. Most US voters are forced to hold their noses and vote for the lesser of two evils.
I have to say... the only political candidate trying to solve problems pragmatically is Andrew Yang - and that's why he's my guy. Even if you think his solutions are horrible, you have to admit he's bringing new ideas to the table and focused on measuring the right metrics and solving problems. UBI might seem like a pipe-dream but when you break it down it's way more realistic than "amazing government jobs for everyo…
I’d probably go for Yang too, but it would be a near impossibility for him to win the nomination. I’d love to see him as a VP pick but he doesn’t really bring the “votes” that a typical VP candidate would. At the very least, I hope he’s offered some type of cabinet position (ideally heading up a new Department of Technology).
Right and left are arbitrary constructs necessitated by a first past the post voting system. Change the electoral system and you will see much more diverse and meaningful party affiliation. >The effect of a system based on plurality voting is that the larger parties, and parties with more geographically concentrated support, gain a disproportionately large share of seats, while smaller parties with more evenly distri…
Very true. In the absence of first past the post voting (and its tendency to force people into parties to avoid losing to people who do [1], and for those parties to coalesce into two dominant, equally balance parties), there is still a polarity of, say, liberal and conservative. At least in the original meanings of the terms, which has to do with whether you go toward new things or prefer traditions. But under FPTP,…
California has FPTP voting and is completely dominated by Democrats who have a super majority in the legislature and the Governorship, and can pass any legislation they want without a single Republican vote or amendment. That's been the case (with a brief stint by Arnold) for multiple decades.
Tell me again how FPTP voting necessarily results in two equally balanced parties? I'm not seeing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very true. In the absence of first past the post voting (and its tendency to force people into parties to avoid losing to people who do [1], and for those parties to coalesce into two dominant, equally balance parties), there is still a polarity of, say, liberal and conservative. At least in the original meanings of the terms, which has to do with whether you go toward new things or prefer traditions. But under FPTP,…
> [FPTP voting causes] those parties to coalesce into two dominant, equally balance parties California has FPTP voting and is completely dominated by Democrats who have a super majority in the legislature and the Governorship, and can pass any legislation they want without a single Republican vote or amendment. That's been the case (with a brief stint by Arnold) for multiple decades. Tell me again how FPTP voting nec…
Universal healthcare can't work on a state level because of the free rider problem: people from red states could go to California for free healthcare anytime, while never paying taxes into the system. Californians would end up paying for healthcare for the entire US, which is unsustainable.
It works in Canada because Canada doesn't let sick Americans immigrate. But as a US state, California has no power to keep out sick red staters.
Right and left are arbitrary constructs necessitated by a first past the post voting system. Change the electoral system and you will see much more diverse and meaningful party affiliation. >The effect of a system based on plurality voting is that the larger parties, and parties with more geographically concentrated support, gain a disproportionately large share of seats, while smaller parties with more evenly distri…
Very true. In the absence of first past the post voting (and its tendency to force people into parties to avoid losing to people who do [1], and for those parties to coalesce into two dominant, equally balance parties), there is still a polarity of, say, liberal and conservative. At least in the original meanings of the terms, which has to do with whether you go toward new things or prefer traditions. But under FPTP,…
Median voter theorem claims a mathematical proof of the opposite, that FPTP has both camps having a dominant strategy of appeal to the median voter. Both your assertion and median voter theorem fail in practice; the latter because it ignores issues of salience, distribution of views (unimodal vs. multimodal), turnout and mobilization effects, etc., and yours because, well, it ignores much of the same things, but assumes different generalities about them consistently hold.
> If we had a electoral system that tended to elect the first choice of the median voter, things would be dramatically different.
Actually, the vast majority of US voters, even those that self-identity as independents, are highly partisan — the median voter is probably a reasonably strong partisan of whatever party has the current turnout advantage, which is essentially what FPTP elects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [FPTP voting causes] those parties to coalesce into two dominant, equally balance parties California has FPTP voting and is completely dominated by Democrats who have a super majority in the legislature and the Governorship, and can pass any legislation they want without a single Republican vote or amendment. That's been the case (with a brief stint by Arnold) for multiple decades. Tell me again how FPTP voting nec…
> Interestingly, this is strong evidence that Califorinia Democrats have no desire to implement universal health care Universal healthcare can't work on a state level because of the free rider problem: people from red states could go to California for free healthcare anytime, while never paying taxes into the system. Californians would end up paying for healthcare for the entire US, which is unsustainable. It works i…
How does Massachusetts manage it then? They don't have the power to keep out those "sick red staters", and yet the entire state has healthcare (by law).
Sounds like special-pleading to me. If a wealthy Blue state like Massachusetts can do it, then California can do it. I expect more from my representatives, not "sick Republicans in other states are stopping us!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very true. In the absence of first past the post voting (and its tendency to force people into parties to avoid losing to people who do [1], and for those parties to coalesce into two dominant, equally balance parties), there is still a polarity of, say, liberal and conservative. At least in the original meanings of the terms, which has to do with whether you go toward new things or prefer traditions. But under FPTP,…
> [FPTP voting causes] those parties to coalesce into two dominant, equally balance parties California has FPTP voting and is completely dominated by Democrats who have a super majority in the legislature and the Governorship, and can pass any legislation they want without a single Republican vote or amendment. That's been the case (with a brief stint by Arnold) for multiple decades. Tell me again how FPTP voting nec…
That's a fairly recent phenomenon (California was a Republican stronghold in Presodential elections until 1992, and longer for state executive elections.) And the tendency toward balance that is asserted for FPTP is national; subordinate jurisdictions aren't expected to follow it even by people who adhere to the theory.
> who have a super majority in the legislature and the Governorship, and can pass any legislation they want without a single Republican vote or amendment. That's been the case (with a brief stint by Arnold) for multiple decades.
No, it hasn't; Democrats have only had supermajorities since 2012, and Gray Davis (1999-2003) was the only Democratic governor between Jerry Brown (term ended in 1983) and Jerry Brown (term starting in 2011.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All politics is meta. Eking out a decision from the great power jumble requires self-awareness about the forces that gyre and gimble therein. Not all politics is tribal. PG explicitly establishes two different cohorts, each with its own way of thinking, from the outset. His argument reifies tribalism.
"all politics is meta" That doesn't make sense, or you just don't understand my usage
Talking about issues is inherently a conversation about politics itself, insofar as the power dynamics involved in making decisions don't magically disappear when we don our academic or self-referential hats. And talking about politics inherently touches the base issues that underpin the discussion, otherwise there is no objective way to judge right and wrong, strong and weak.
All politics satisfies both conditions. All politics is about issues, and all politics is meta.
In other words, your "usage" is not really meaningful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Interestingly, this is strong evidence that Califorinia Democrats have no desire to implement universal health care Universal healthcare can't work on a state level because of the free rider problem: people from red states could go to California for free healthcare anytime, while never paying taxes into the system. Californians would end up paying for healthcare for the entire US, which is unsustainable. It works i…
> California has no power to keep out sick red staters How does Massachusetts manage it then? They don't have the power to keep out those "sick red staters", and yet the entire state has healthcare (by law). Sounds like special-pleading to me. If a wealthy Blue state like Massachusetts can do it, then California can do it. I expect more from my representatives, not "sick Republicans in other states are stopping us!"